***Official*** Pakistan in England

[marc71178]

It seems a bit coincidental that England are now accusing Asif of tampering with the ball after he's taken wickets against them.

What about the reports in some papers about him being spoken to on field whilst playing for Leicestershire earlier this season?

 

[Sanz]

I think because its been repeated so much, people just take for granted that its a fact.

It has been reported by whom ? It is a lie that first came out of Pakistan dressing room and since then almost every anti-Hair article/group/post has used it, some deliberately and some ignorantly.

Besides, Isn't it Mr. Abbasi's duty to write an article based on the facts rather than on the basis of what he hears/reads in other media ?

 

[marc71178]

By getting it from the match referee or by taking him to the match referee? What's so wrong with doing that? When u make such a serious accusation against a team, it is only fair that you at least show them what made you suspect such a thing.

The thing is, what will be gained from it?

Unless the umpires can show them the ball from 4 overs previously (which is impossible) then they can't see what the umpires have acted on.

 

[Tony Blade]

I think some of the sky team were the first ones to mention it, so no I dont think it first came out of the Pakistani dressing room. As for Abbasi, I guess he erred.

 

[marc71178]

BTW, can anyone tell me that if Pakistan felt the ball tampering episode was an insult to the nation of Pakistan (Inzy has said in slightly different words) then why did the Pakistan team come back on the field after 50 minutes of 'protest' ?

And why did it take them the best part of an hour to realise it was an insult to their nation?

 

[marc71178]

BTW, I think Pakistan handled this affair horribly. But they did say they were ready to come out and play. Both sides were ready to come out and play but Hair and Doctrove didn't. So they basically quit the game when the teams were ready to resume. Who is in disgrace then?

What game?

The game was already over when Pakistan decided they wanted to play again.

 

[marc71178]

Doesn't the fact that no incident nor any player has been identified by Hair indicate that Hair has an anti-Pakistan (the cricket team, not the nation) bias because he just assumed by default that the only possible reason for the ball to be in such bad shape would be because of Pakistan cheating.

Can you explain how else the ball deteriorated in such a manner in the space of 4 overs to warrant the umpires making the decision?

 

[marc71178]

Thirty of his 76 Tests have involved sub-continental teams - 17 of them Pakistan. Sixty-eight of his 124 ODIs have involved teams from the sub-continent, and 35 of them have been Pakistan games.

And what is the problem there?

Seeing as 4 of the 10 sides are from the sub-continent and he can't umpire his own country, it stands to reason that he'll umpire a large number of sub-continent sides.

 

[marc71178]

Why can't you go back and play? The crowd had not been told that the game was forfeited. The television audience was not told anything. The Pakistan team didn't find out till later.

Funny how an interview with the PCB bloke said that they'd been told they come out immediately or forfeit and they then closed the door and didn't come out then isn't it?

 

[marc71178]

The Pakistan team has just been accused of cheating with no justification whatsoever.

So you examined the ball when Cook was dismissed and when the runs were added then did you?

 

[marc71178]

He's not the final word on that. He can accuse them, but only the ICC makes the final determination.

Yet so many people have deemed Hair to be guilty of various crimes (and at the same time have cleared Doctrove of the same crimes)

 

[Tony Blade]

Can you explain how else the ball deteriorated in such a manner in the space of 4 overs to warrant the umpires making the decision?

And do you not think that it was a huge assumption on the umpires' part?

 

[marc71178]

I've always seen Kamran Abbasi as as close to neutral as they come, he's not one to hold back on criticising the Pakistani team.

The same Abbasi who wrote an article in the Wisden Cricketer this month about racism in county cricket?

Interviewed 6 county players of asian origin, all of whom stated that they hadn't been victims of or aware of racism.

Abbasi concludes that all of them are ignorant...

 

[marc71178]

And do you not think that it was a huge assumption on the umpires' part?

If there were any other feasible explanations, do you not think that they'd have been considered?

 

[Tony Blade]

I believe that it wasnt enough evidence to accuse the team of ball tampering and they should have known better. I think that Darrell Hair truly believed that someone from the team did it and assumed that the evidence would come out later. What he said afterwards seems to suggest that he himself wasnt 100% sure and had very little proof, as he accepted the possibility of being wrong : "But if anything comes out at the inquiry that proves me incorrect I would accept that too."

 

[vic_orthdox]

I believe that it wasnt enough evidence to accuse the team of ball tampering and they should have known better.

Argh, we can't see the evidence! We don't know exactly what it was that the judgement was made upon.

And if I read someone else saying, "It didn't look that bad on TV", I'll cry! To be able to examine a cricket ball, you need to be able to feel the type of marks on it, not just see a ball when it has someone else's hands wrapped around it and the camera is 100m away.

 

[Tony Blade]

Let me rephrase. I think that there is no way any evidence on the ball will be able to prove whether or not anyone in the team tampered with the ball.

 

[marc71178]

There's no evidence on the ball though, since only 2 people know what deterioration took place.

 

[open365]

I believe that it wasnt enough evidence to accuse the team of ball tampering and they should have known better.[/i]

1) Your wrong, the state of the ball IS enough evidence off ball tampering, don't believe me? Check the rule book

2) Should have known better? You mean they should treat Pakistan differently because they will over react? If so, then your just wrong, every country should be treated the same.

 

[Fusion]

There's no evidence on the ball though, since only 2 people know what deterioration took place.

Those two people (one being the ring leader) made a determination that the ball deterioted due to tampering. The Pakistani team disagreed. Those two people have NO EVIDENCE to prove that the only reason the ball deterioted was due to tampering. You find it absolutely shocking that a ball that is 55 overs long can have wear and tear? It doesn't matter if KP hit it for sixes or not. 55 overs is a long period and there were plenty of boundaries in between. That's enough to cause wear and tear, specially with fast bowlers. And why the hell should an entire team accept those two people's judgment that they tempered based on an ASSUMPTION, not proof. If you're going to be called a cheat, let's see the proof. So get off your high horse and stop making it sound like the judgment of those umpire is without dispute. They are human. They can err. And they can handle things in an incorrect way. Just because they have a umpire's hat on doesn't mean they are beyond questioning.