***Official*** Pakistan in England

[deeps]

Lets look at it differently HB.

Why do you think Inzy finally came on the field with his team?

For the good of the game. For the spectators and fans.

 

[IndianByHeart]

There are repeated assumptions that there is no proof.

Not sure if the evidence of ball tampering by Pakistan team would be found earlier than the evidence of precence of WMD in Iraq.In any case its probably a wiser approach to consider Inzi and co a cheat than to question the lack of evidence of tampering.

One is now suppose to be guilty untill proven innocenct, unfortunately for Inzi the ball in question is also not being produced and as such he has no way of proving his innocence.

 

[deeps]

And Afridi's dance, how was this perceived? He is still a hero is he not. Doesn't seem to smell right, people are up-in-arms about the umpires but still support Afridi who has surely "soured an honourable nation" with his actions?

Dravid and the cough lolly, Tendulkar 'cleaning' the seam, etc. There's been countless examples of ball/pitch tampering, and these players are still considered heroes. As Michael Atherton said at the time of Afridi's incident, every single player does it from grade cricket onwards. They try to affect the pitch. However, what they do not do, is make it as obvious, as shahid afridi did.

Ie. they run on the pitch a few times etc. Afridi just walked up to it and did it.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Not sure if the evidence of ball tampering by Pakistan team would be found earlier than the evidence of precence of WMD in Iraq.In any case its probably a wiser approach to consider Inzi and co a cheat than to question the lack of evidence of tampering.

One is now suppose to be guilty untill proven innocenct, unfortunately for Inzi the ball in question is also not being produced and as such he has no way of proving his innocence.

It'll probably go the way of the '92 ball, locked away forever or burned to ashes, whichever one believes.

 

[SJS]

What Others Think​

(continued)

4. Richard Willams (Guardian)

Excerpts

- In Karachi and Islamabad, however, a different interpretation may be put on the actions and allegiances of Darrell Hair and his sidekick; the decision to charge Pakistan's captain with changing the condition of the ball and bringing the game into disrepute is likely to provoke the sort of anger that could be used as a lever with which to heighten tensions already existing in the wider world.

- Having spotted something he did not like, he (Hair) could have called over the Pakistan captain and quietly expressed his view, listening to any possible explanation while making it clear what would happen if he were given further grounds for suspicion that tampering was going on.

- A quarter of an hour is a long time to wait in the middle for the fielding side to show up, certainly longer than was necessary for the mere expression of a sense of grievance.

- The much-discussed consequences for the paying public are completely beside the point....sport is about the contest between its participants, and no decision affecting that contest should be taken with the motive of pleasing, placating or otherwise satisfying the people who have bought tickets to watch. Entertainment is a by-product of the contest, and not an end in itself

- Hair may have been right, as I believe he was when he no-balled Muttiah Muralitharan in 1995, or he may have shown himself to be a stiff-necked fool........Until the outcome of that investigation is known, the game of cricket will not rest easy. And perhaps not even then.

5. Mike Marqusee (Guardian)

Excerpts :

- Sometimes the umpire's decision is not and should not be final. Sometimes, it is vital for the credibility and dignity of a sport that the umpire's decision is rejected and challenged, publicly - as it was by Inzamam-ul-Haq and the Pakistan cricket team

- Umpire Darrell Hair did not accuse the Pakistanis of cheating; he declared, publicly, without warning, without consultation, and apparently without evidence, that they were cheating, and unilaterally implemented the statutory punishment for the offence

- There were 26 state-of-the-art television cameras recording events at the Oval. Not a scrap of footage shows any tampering or even furtive behaviour on the part of the Pakistanis. All the indications are that Hair made his ruling not because he saw any suspect actions, but because he inferred from the condition of the ball that it had been tampered with

- Hair has a record of controversial decisions, particularly (if not exclusively) in relation to south Asian teams. At various times, Pakistani, Sri Lankan and Indian officials have objected to him. The International Cricket Council (ICC) refuses - at least in public - to take heed of such objections.

- One of the distinctive attractions of cricket (rooted in its pre-industrial past) is that the ball ages and changes in the course of play. Other sports use only a pristine ball. As a result of the ball's evolving condition, there's a greater variety of bowling styles, and tactical and dramatic situations. In effect, the laws prohibit players from doing anything to hasten or enhance the natural deterioration of the ball (such as scratching the surface), but permit them to ****** that deterioration (by polishing, cleaning, repairing).

- In 1992, the Pakistani team were slandered as ball-tampering cheats by much of the British media; ....... This time English commentators and fans have for the most part backed Inzamam and criticised Hair

- The performance of the ICC has been lamentable. It should not have appointed Hair, and its representative at the match should have overruled both the ball-tampering penalty and the decision to abandon the game in response to the Pakistani protest. The breathtaking failure to communicate with spectators at the ground or the media as the crisis unfolded (for which blame must also lie with the England and Wales Cricket Board) was in keeping with the game's worst traditions: conflict must always be dealt with behind closed doors, and capped with empty, emollient statements - leaving underlying issues to fester unaddressed.

 

[amirshahzad]

hi all freinds i am new i see all freinds view about this issue pak team & between umpire
and i think this fault by umpire he does not like asian teams specialy bowlers lolz i think he's afraid fast bowing think freinds if hair play as a batsman what he will do hahaahaha if any ball hit of his body he will hit with bat opposite bowler lolz anyways
result he hates asian players@

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Dravid and the cough lolly, Tendulkar 'cleaning' the seam, etc. There's been countless examples of ball/pitch tampering, and these players are still considered heroes. As Michael Atherton said at the time of Afridi's incident, every single player does it from grade cricket onwards. They try to affect the pitch. However, what they do not do, is make it as obvious, as shahid afridi did.

Ie. they run on the pitch a few times etc. Afridi just walked up to it and did it.

Sure, and I'm not saying he is the only offender in world cricket. It's just a bit rich Pakistani's (including the president and other men of high office) moaning about honour and slighting of a nation, when one of their biggest heroes is such a terrible cheat, and who is seemingly openly admitting ball tampering is rife in his country.

I'd suggest forget about honour (which some people seem to do when it suits anyway) completely and concentrate on the game in future, they are cricketers after all, and cricket fans.

 

[SJS]

For the good of the game. For the spectators and fans.

How did the good of the game (or his interpretation of it) change in the 15 minutes or so that had passed between Hair coming to his dressing room and asking him if he was coming and the time he actually came out?

What changed other than the realisation that Pakistan were in the danger of forfeiting the match?

 

[deeps]

Pakistan have had a long history with Ball tampering, players like Wasim,Waqar and Asif Mujemba have all been involved in it.

Wether or not A Pakistani player tampered with the ball in the fouth test remains to be seen but i do think that Inzy should be banned for the next 3 test matches for taking drastic action, I heard rumours that KP was not happy with the ball

If there was no ball tampering, why is there no penalty for Hair then? Surely the action he took was drastic, and caused Inzamam to take the action he did.

So what if KP wasn't happy with the ball? If only I could say 'nah, i don't like that ball', for every ball that was swinging.

So England are allowed to reverse swing the ball in 15 overs, and nobdoy bats an eyelid, and then when Pakistan do it in a more traditional 55 overs, there's a big problem?

 

[IndianByHeart]

can not believe how precious u pakistanis seem to be .. in this thread and in the media

Imran Khan calling hair "Mini hitler"

In Lanka he's remembered as someone far worse than Hitler!

Both Hitler and Hair something in common, both happen to be first class racist

 

[deeps]

How did the good of the game (or his interpretation of it) change in the 15 minutes or so that had passed between Hair coming to his dressing room and asking him if he was coming and the time he actually came out?

What changed other than the realisation that Pakistan were in the danger of forfeiting the match?

Mike Proctor, the match referee, convinced the Pakistani's to go back on to the field, even after Hair removed the bails. Yes, by the strict word of the law, this means the match had been awarded to England, HOWEVER, cricket is first and foremost a gentleman's game.

The match referee, and BOTH teams were ready to continue the game. However, it was the umpire, who refused to continue the game from that point.

What pakistan did was wrong. If they were going to protest, it should have been then and there. I do firmly believe the reason they did not, was so that Inzamam could make absolutely sure, that nobdoy had infact tampered with the ball. During the tea break, they had a talk, and when everyone said no, they hadn't tampered, the protest began.

Hair, could have made SOME sort of redemption by coming back on, but in my eyes, he's arrogant (not consulting inzamam, and just ordering a ball change, stinks of arrogance), stubbron, and it seems attention seeking too.

He even wrote an autobiography i believe. Sure, he's allowed to, but not many umpires write autobiography's unless they are great umpires, and generally after their career.
Not a huge point, i don't want to make it one, but just adds to the attention seeking point.

 

[IndianByHeart]

There's not meant I don't think much of Hair and I won't shed a tear if he's dumped, and chances are no real ball tampering went on, but it's just like any other umpiring decision - you move on and you play the game, and complain afterwards if you think it was unfair.

Complaints for what purpose? everyone knows that complaints against Umpires have never resulted in umpire being penalised.

Since the beginning of the year PCB had been complaining about Hair to ICC, that didn't bear any fruit, don't need an einstein to figure out any usefullness of further complainst.

 

[honestbharani]

Lets look at it differently HB.

Why do you think Inzy finally came on the field with his team?

Because he didn't wanna lose the match. It is obvious that was why he came out (or was persuaded to come out). I completely agree about most of the things you say, and I think whatever action can be taken against Inzy for that can be taken (even though my gut feeling is that Shahriyar Khan is to blame more than Inzy in this issue). But we should not lose focus on what is to be done with Darrell Hair. I still maintain he is the cause of all this.

 

[Slow Love™]

A few comments I'll add in response to some of the issues raised in the thread lately (so I don't do a Marc and post five or more times in a row):


1. How new is the playing condition agreed to between the sides before the test that says the ball will be changed and five runs awarded if ball tampering is suspected? Surely this regulation itself has to shoulder part of the blame for the incident. Had it not been in place, surely we would have seen this matter dealt with as it has been in the past, and the game would have at least been completed.

2. I think the "respect cultural differences" argument in this context is a bit of a furphy. If Hair genuinely believed that the ball was tampered with, he has the right to act upon it. You could argue that he should have reported his suspicions to the referee after the game, but the bottom line is that he'd still be accusing the Pakistanis of cheating. In any case, are some of us really arguing that different teams should be treated different ways if the same violation of the rules is suspected? This would be very wrong, IMO. You would hope that all teams are treated equally - can you imagine if certain teams got the instant five-run penalty, and others "more sensitive" got a hearing a week later? I suppose a valid question could be asked as to whether the rule would be applied the same for everybody, and whether events on the field would have been identical had another team been accused, though.

3. I don't think we know that Pakistan "decided to forfeit". It appears evident by now that both the Pakistan team and management, ECB officials and the match referee didn't know for some time that the game had been awarded to England. Hence the confusion when Pakistan came back out to play and it was reported that Hair wouldn't come out to continue the game.

4. Personally, I don't see a junior umpire such as Doctrove making a scene and putting himself in opposition to Hair. That would have created a bigger sh*tstorm than we already have.

5. In Afridi's interview, reproduced by SJS above, it is mentioned that Bucknor smells balls between overs (heehee). Could this plausibly present a criteria for which a charge of tampering could be made without it being witnessed or a suspect being named?

 

[honestbharani]

And for the last time, the ball is the evidence. Umpires are not required to have actually caught a player in the act of tampering with the ball, nor do they require to provide video footage of such an incident.

The only thing that the ball CAN PROVE is that it went out of shape. How was Darrell Hair convinced that it was only due to the actions of certain Pakistan player(s)? How is THE BALL gonna prove that?

 

[Pedro Delgado]

In Lanka he's remembered as someone far worse than Hitler!

Both Hitler and Hair something in common, both happen to be first class racist

People seem to have forgotten Doctrove's involvment in this affair, clearly he saw something had changed with the ball too and backed the decision, or is he a racist too?

Regardless of what one might think of Hair, Pakistan bared their **** at the umpires, the paying public and most importantly the game of cricket itself on Sunday, and for that there is no excuse.

 

[Slow Love™]

What pakistan did was wrong. If they were going to protest, it should have been then and there. I do firmly believe the reason they did not, was so that Inzamam could make absolutely sure, that nobdoy had infact tampered with the ball. During the tea break, they had a talk, and when everyone said no, they hadn't tampered, the protest began.

That's actually an excellent bit of deduction, and may well be what happened. I'm surprised nobody's suggested this so far.

 

[honestbharani]

I'm offended by the sight of a raised finger. Must the umpire never give me out ?

OR they can change the sign to show that you are out?


Do simple solutions NOT enter ur head?

 

[IndianByHeart]

It'll probably go the way of the '92 ball, locked away forever or burned to ashes, whichever one believes.

A great example, considering that '92 ball didn't proove a single thing.Hair will probably gonna have the current ball locked too.

 

[SJS]

6. John Woodcock (The Times)

- A CONSENSUS must exist among those best placed to form an opinion that the umpires — especially Darrell Hair — lost the plot at the Brit Oval on Sunday

- Sunday’s ball, as it was seen in close-up, looks to have been subjected to no more than the normal wear and tear of a hard-fought match.

- I remember asking Ken Barrington about picking the seam; ....... I was surprised to be told that one of the finest, most respected, popular, natural fast bowlers of the time — indeed, of all time — grew one thumbnail longer than the other solely for the purpose.

- I have never thought an awful lot of Hair, but nor have I of Steve Bucknor, the omnipresent West Indian.

- Even if he was reasonably certain on Sunday that the Pakistanis were up to no good, Hair should have warned them first of his suspicions. It does not seem right that he did not

7. Bob Woolmer as quoted by Ivo Tannant in Times

- BOB WOOLMER was feeling so distraught on Sunday night that he considered resigning as the coach of Pakistan.

“If I had done, it might have been wrongly interpreted as an admission of guilt, but I was not happy about being involved in what occurred at the Oval. I love cricket, its ethics and its traditions, and this has rocked my sensibilities,”

"I did not have the chance to talk to him on Sunday. However, if I do this week, naturally I shall ask him what proof he had that there was tampering to the ball.”

“Mike Procter (the match referee) allowed me to see the ball and in the code of conduct breach report to Inzamam, he cited no individual bowler or fielder over the condition of the ball. Therefore, the captain had to take responsibility.”

“All the Muslim players are sensitive individuals who are very opposed to terrorist activities,” (relevance ??)

“To accuse Pakistan of cheating brings these tensions to the fore. I wonder whether Darrell realised the consequences of his actions. Indeed, when he spoke to Inzamam in the dressing-room when he came in for less than 30 seconds to try to persuade us to take the field, he was abrasive and short."

“It was not true that Zaheer Abbas, as manager, was locked out. I had asked every player to swear on oath that he had not tampered with the ball. They all did and as they are a very religious bunch, I tended to believe them. I always feel the game should continue, but bearing in mind the accusations of ball-tampering and cheating, I was torn between my principles and a desire to help the side.”

One suggestion he put to the players was that, while he agreed that there should be some form of protest, it would be better if the players went and sat down in the middle for five or ten minutes and hence the match would not be forfeited.

“But they were all highly sensitive about being charged with cheating, as was Waqar Younis, our bowling coach, who I am sure still harbours a grievance after being accused of ball-tampering 14 years ago.

“Maybe we could have handled the situation better and I must apologise to the spectators, but the players were eventually prepared to go out and play. While my initial reaction was to resign, I have now reconsidered this. I enjoy this talented bunch of cricketers and a trip to West Indies for the World Cup (next year) would be hard to miss.”