***Official*** Pakistan in England

[silentstriker]

Tell that to Surrey...

If thats what happened, then it was wrong then, and it is wrong now.

 

[Fusion]

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?

I'm sure they were told that if they didn't come out, they will forfiet. But once the game was awarded to Eng, was the crowd advised of that decision? Was the television audience? Was the Pakistani team? And let's say it was "obvious" that the game had been awarded. So what? I will repeat, who would've minded if they had played on? Cetainly not the crowd. The England team didn't have any objections. The Pakistani team was ready. The only person who wouldn't budge due to his ego was Hair.

 

[Tony Blade]

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.

So it is your opinion that the umpires would have behaved exactly the same (i.e deciding simply by looking at the ball) if another country was invloved?

 

[vic_orthdox]

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

But you can tell the difference between natural wear and tear, and artificial. Let alone professional umpires who would be trained in such matters.

 

[open365]

So it is your opinion that the umpires would have behaved exactly the same (i.e deciding simply by looking at the ball) if another country was invloved?

Yes. Darrel Hair has officiated in many many tests and ODIs involving Pakistan and has never called ball tampering.

 

[Fusion]

But you can tell the difference between natural wear and tear, and artificial. Let alone professional umpires who would be trained in such matters.

That's bull. It's a subjective opinion. It can be challenged. The Pakistan team didn't agree with his assessment. But they don't count, because they're all a bunch of whiny cheaters right? So I have a solution. Produce the ball and have independent experts inspect it. Let's see if they agree with the umpire's assessment.

 

[Tony Blade]

I, personally, think he would have shown more restraint. But really, its all speculation - neither of us knows whether he took the decision based soley on what happened on the field.

 

[open365]

I'm sure they were told that if they didn't come out, they will forfiet. But once the game was awarded to Eng, was the crowd advised of that decision? Was the television audience? Was the Pakistani team? And let's say it was "obvious" that the game had been awarded. So what? I will repeat, who would've minded if they had played on? Cetainly not the crowd. The England team didn't have any objections. The Pakistani team was ready. The only person who wouldn't budge due to his ego was Hair.

You cannot allow a side can refuse to play only when they want to play.

In a football match, would a side 1-0 up at half time just wait untill the last ten minutes to play because they want to have less time to conceed a goal?

And in the very same game, couldn't England have just said 'no, we're not going out there, you wasted our time, we're going to waste yours'

If they don't play when they're supposed to play, then they forfeit the game,simple as.

 

[vic_orthdox]

It's a subjective opinion.

Therefore so is every other decision ever made by an umpire.

Produce the ball and have independent experts inspect it.

That's pretty much what an umpire is.

 

[open365]

That's bull. It's a subjective opinion. It can be challenged. The Pakistan team didn't agree with his assessment. But they don't count, because they're all a bunch of whiny cheaters right? So I have a solution. Produce the ball and have independent experts inspect it. Let's see if they agree with the umpire's assessment.

It doesn't matter what the independent umpires think, what matters is what decision the umpires who were in charge of the game gave.

That's all that matters.

 

[Fusion]

You cannot allow a side can refuse to play only when they want to play.

In a football match, would a side 1-0 up at half time just wait untill the last ten minutes to play because they want to have less time to conceed a goal?

And in the very same game, couldn't England have just said 'no, we're not going out there, you wasted our time, we're going to waste yours'

If they don't play when they're supposed to play, then they forfeit the game,simple as.

But England DIDN'T SAY they won't play. They wanted to play. The crowd wanted them to play. Pakistan were ready to play. The only person who didn't want play to continue was Hair. Also, why did Hair not wait more to award the game? There have been other sit-ins in cricket history. If every umpire acted as hard headed as Hair, there would've been more forfiets. The umpire's job is not to make himself the main issue. Hair could've compromised and let the game continue. Dickie Bird stated he would have.

 

[open365]

If thats what happened, then it was wrong then, and it is wrong now.

I thought i need to make this a bit clearer.

It is not wrong, no where in the laws of cricket does it say that for an umpire to call ball tampering does he need evidence of a certain player tampering with it, the condition of the ball is evidence enough.

 

[TT Boy]

If thats what happened, then it was wrong then, and it is wrong now.

Thing with Surrey though it is pretty much acknowledged that the ball was being tampered with. Just no one bothered to own up and say it was them.

 

[Fusion]

It doesn't matter what the independent umpires think, what matters is what decision the umpires who were in charge of the game gave.

That's all that matters.

That's ridiculous. If an umpire is "all that matters", why is there an appeals process in cricket? Why are decisions by umpires open to challenges? If what you said is true, no player would ever expect to face a hearing or challenge a charge levelled against him. In this case, the umpire has levelled a charge that is disputed by the players. The umpire is no longer independent. He is part of the dispute. So we need someone who is not involved directly to inspect the ball and make a determination.

 

[open365]

But England DIDN'T SAY they won't play. They wanted to play. The crowd wanted them to play. Pakistan were ready to play. The only person who didn't want play to continue was Hair. Also, why did Hair not wait more to award the game? There have been other sit-ins in cricket history. If every umpire acted as hard headed as Hair, there would've been more forfiets. The umpire's job is not to make himself the main issue. Hair could've compromised and let the game continue. Dickie Bird stated he would have.

Because Pakistan had been given enough time warning and notice already, they didn't show the faintest intention of going out to play at that point in time. From the time Hair asked them 'are you playing?' to the time he took the bails off was about 2 minutes, plenty of time if you ask me.

 

[Fusion]

Because Pakistan had been given enough time warning and notice already, they didn't show the faintest intention of going out to play at that point in time. From the time Hair asked them 'are you playing?' to the time he took the bails off was about 2 minutes, plenty of time if you ask me.

You mean 20 minutes (why am I helping you make your point? That's dumb). He could've waited another 20 minutes to avoid forfiet. If he was rational, and thinking about not his ego but the game, he would've done so.

 

[open365]

Thing with Surrey though it is pretty much acknowledged that the ball was being tampered with. Just no one bothered to own up and say it was them.

I'm pretty sure 2 or 3 players owned up, but Surrey understandably wouldn't tell the media.

 

[open365]

That's ridiculous. If an umpire is "all that matters", why is there an appeals process in cricket? Why are decisions by umpires open to challenges? If what you said is true, no player would ever expect to face a hearing or challenge a charge levelled against him. In this case, the umpire has levelled a charge that is disputed by the players. The umpire is no longer independent. He is part of the dispute. So we need someone who is not involved directly to inspect the ball and make a determination.

What decisions are open to challenges???? WHat appeals system? If an umpire makes a bad LBW decision, he makes a bad LBW decision, end of, no appeal system, no debate.

 

[Tony Blade]

Youre suggesting Pakistan shouldnt have protested even if they came back right after tea?

 

[open365]

You mean 20 minutes (why am I helping you make your point? That's dumb). He could've waited another 20 minutes to avoid forfiet. If he was rational, and thinking about not his ego but the game, he would've done so.

But he already did give you that 20 minutes, after the first time Pakistan never showed up, he went back to his room, and tried again 20 minutes later, but they still wouldn't come, what's he suppose to do? Carry on this farce? The rules of cricket are the rules of cricket, the umpires are the ones who uphold them,what they say goes, and what Darrel Hair/Billy Doctrove did that day was perfectly within the laws of cricket.