***Official*** Pakistan in England

[Dasa]

A mostly rubbish article, but some good points I think.

 

[vic_orthdox]

But you are questioning what the pakistani players did, when you did not see yourself?

No, I'm arguing against the fallacy that we have as much information as to whether or not the ball has been tampered with.

 

[R_D]

It'll be interesting to see what happens on friday.. don't be suprised if there's no evidance but ICC backs their umpires and still suspends Inzi anyway and expect an appeal from him and his sentence will be cut down more than likely due to bit of pressure from Asian bloc.

Time after after time ICC and its officals have shown its biased nature against asian teams.
Did we ever see any of Ricky Ponting or Vaughan get a warning of reprimed for slow over rates during last Ashes series. When quite a few days the over-rate was quite slow. Than Inzi got a fine or something can't remember for being slow by a whole minute ?

Than they make us wonder why do we think ICC and its officals maybe biased.. maybe because there might be some element of truth to it but i doubt too many ppl not from the sub-continet will agree with that. Just like the issue on hand. Go read through the pages and its quite obvious. All the non-asians ( Eng, SA, Aus, NZ etc you know who you are ) are it pretty much total support of Hair beleving he's got the proof where's the Sub-cont people aren't so keen to beleive him. As usual Hair's been a big fat jerk and has caused this whole termoil to gain some attention. Look I'm big fat ****** in the middle and if you can't notice me i'll just cause bit of havoc so you can all look up and take a notice. Either way he should be out of the elite panel because he also should be charged for bringing the game in disrepute. He's not fit enough to be international umpire as he's shown in time after time by handling of sensitive issues like chucking and labeling a team a cheat.

Alot of people backing Hair in here obviously beleive in the crap that the man says is as it is. I doubt he would've caused such a controversy if the team involved was non-asian team.

 

[Fusion]

Go read through the pages and its quite obvious. All the non-asians ( Eng, SA, Aus, NZ etc you know who you are ) are it pretty much total support of Hair beleving he's got the proof where's the Sub-cont people aren't so keen to beleive him.

I have to say that England's media has been, for the most part, in favor of Pakistan. That's not to say they don't give Pakistan any blame, but at least they recognize Hair's faults in the whole incident.

 

[Anil]

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.

...and you are equating this to a bad lbw decision? there is a world of difference, the only similarity is that the umpire makes the mistake in both cases....

 

[R_D]

I have to say that England's media has been, for the most part, in favor of Pakistan. That's not to say they don't give Pakistan any blame, but at least they recognize Hair's faults in the whole incident.

I was talking more in terms of people on this board.
Typical AUs backing the aussies, dont' care whether he's right or wrong.

 

[Goughy]

So in general and judging by this thread, its not just a massive overreaction but an abusive one was well.

 

[pasag]

I was talking more in terms of people on this board.
Typical AUs backing the aussies, dont' care whether he's right or wrong.

I'm getting sick of comments like these.

 

[Fusion]

I'm getting sick of comments like these.

I agree. I would say people who label all Aus biased are making a mistake. You lose the moral high ground when you do that. Let's not make such generalizations. I have read many posts (here and other sites) from both English and Australian posters who have been fair and balanced.

 

[chipmonk]

Am I the only one who notices that some officials treat certain teams better than others ? some umpires will have a friendly chat or word with some players but not other's. Shane warne can grumble and mumble and go on & on when he does not get a decision and the umpire will still indulge him with an explanation while Warne caverliarly recovers his shades from the umpires hat. Vass or perhaps an asian player gets a batsman plumb and more often that not gets a stern cold NOT OUT .....

For example take the now infamous incident between Hair and Inzy.
Hair Checks the ball with Billy and when Inzy walks towards them totally dismissas him (or dismissively walks away) takes absolutely no notice or effort to explain the situation and walks towards the 4th umpire who brings the reserve balls. Inzy being the Captain of the team involved Has to again walk up to them to get a handle of whats going on. Hair's explanation seems short and sharp after which he asks peterson to select a ball. Does anyone believe even in their wildest dreams that if the tables were turned the attitude of the umpires will remain constant? If their is such a person/people they are living in la la land.

My guess was Inzy probably was shellshocked not sure for certain if one of his team mates has commited an offense. He probably waited for tea just to verify with all his team if they have done anything questionable before making a stand which I think is the right thing to do. There is no point huffing and puffing not knowing absolutely the situation.

 

[Fusion]

My guess was Inzy probably was shellshocked not sure for certain if one of his team mates has commited an offense. He probably waited for tea just to verify with all his team if they have done anything questionable before making a stand which I think is the right thing to do. There is no point huffing and puffing not knowing absolutely the situation.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Sanz]

Ofcourse Darrell Hair was wrong in accusing Pakistan and Inzi had all the rights to show his displeasure and protest, but the point is did Inzi take his protest too far ? Should he not have given Umpires an affirmative answer when they went to ask him if his team was going to take field after waiting for a while ?

 

[JustTool]

I'm getting sick of comments like these.

Well, what you see is a refelction of the sick Aussie behavior. Here is an article in the New Zealand press that calls it like it is....and, yes, it's not written by an Asian. And, yes, the Asians on this BB are too wimpy to take a stand...

Accusations leave Hair on a sticky wicket
23 August 2006
By JONATHAN MILLMOW
Australian cricket umpire Darrell Hair has lost the plot.

The headmasterly type with the traffic warden instincts has for years been on a crusade against the sub-continent countries and his undue haste and ego got the better of him in south London on Sunday afternoon (Monday NZ time).

Granted Pakistan are perpetual offenders when it comes to cricket by-play, but it appears Hair was influenced by the moral claims of England and also owed it to Inzaman-ul-Haq to warn him of his suspicions.

A dramatic chain of events leading up to the ball tampering furore in the fourth test is unfolding and it does not paint England coach Duncan Fletcher or Hair in a good light.

Fletcher visited match referee Mike Procter before the start of play on Sunday and that communication has undoubtedly influenced Hair's decision to ping Pakistan for ball tampering, because there was nothing to suggest in the three previous tests that foul play was an issue. The ball's appearance – seen close up on television – looks no more than normal wear and tear in a hard-fought test match.

There is also no television footage from Sky Sports' 26 cameras to back up Hair's claim of ball tampering and according to Pakistan coach Bob Woolmer his players are innocent.

"I asked every team member under oath whether they'd been scratching the ball. I looked at the ball and came to my own conclusions and I couldn't see any evidence of tampering," Woolmer said.

Inzaman has been cited because he is deemed responsible for his team in the absence of a specific culprit but Hair should be required to produce concrete evidence.

The International Cricket Council has a reputation for defending its own but it is now untenable for Hair to officiate in games involving Pakistan and world cricket needs Pakistan more than it needs Hair.

The Australian media hailed Hair a hero yesterday for taking a tough stand against the scourge of ball tampering.

Hair was said to be a man of the "strictest principles", "an umpire of the fairest most unswerving practices" and a man of the "strongest fibre".

Never mind his trail of destruction against sub-continent countries.
He branded Sri Lanka spin bowler Muttiah Muralitharan's bowling action "diabolical" in his autobiography The Decision Maker and he no balled the same man seven times for chucking in the 1995 Boxing Day test in Melbourne.

In 1999, Hair had a row with the then India coach Kapil Dev which began with Hair walking up to Ajit Agarkar during a game against New South Wales in Sydney when the medium pacer expressed disappointment at a decision.

Then, when a television replay showed Hair's colleague was wrong with another decision, the burly Australian reportedly warned the India captain, Sourav Ganguly: "You are not supposed to watch replays and make gestures. The Pakistanis did it and now if you do it you will get into trouble."
Hair became a first-class umpire in 1988. The test in England at the weekend was his 76th and he has stood in 122 one-day internationals.

He has made several visits to New Zealand and in my limited dealings with him came across as a man with an inflated view of his own importance.

For all that, no country and no player has rubbed cricket up the wrong way more than Pakistan and Inzaman.

Ball tampering stories in Pakistan are as endless as tails in New Zealand about skulduggery at the bottom of ruck.

My own conscience rekindles memories of tendering the seam and regularly applying sun cream to an aging leather to promote more swing .

Ball tampering will persist but television cameras and vigilant umpires have pulled it back into a respectable line.

What could be revealed at the hearing in London on Friday is whether Hair took vigilant too far and turned himself into judge, jury and executioner.

 

[Fusion]

Well, what you see is a refelction of the sick Aussie behavior. Here is an article in the New Zealand press that calls it like it is....and, yes, it's not written by an Asian. And, yes, the Asians on this BB are too wimpy to take a stand...

Yes let's bash ALL Australians and accuse them of being racist. That will show how "manly" we are.

 

[Sanz]

the Asians on this BB are too wimpy to take a stand....

And I am sure you are not an Asian.

 

[Yahto]

We're questioning what the umpires, particularly Hair, saw and felt based on their past actions and based on the magnitude of the Pakistani protest. I think it's fair to assume that no team would make such a protest if they weren't convinced they were innocent.

And it'd also be fair to assume that that no umpire would make such a decision if they weren't convinced they were right. You must also realise that being convinced of one's innocence does not necessarily equate to actually being innocent. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that Inzamam might feel strongly aggrieved because he himself might be innocent.However, there are ten other players in the team, any of whom might not be in the same boat.

Furthermore, Hair has been known to act incorrectly and hastily in the past and has shown an inability to be diplomatic about his decisions.

Let me get this straight. You think it fair to bring up an umpire's past and try to co-relate it with the current situation, yet somehow it's unfair to bring up Pakistan's ball tampering past and co-relate it to the current situation ? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. I'd urge you to rid yourself of those tinted glasses and consider like any sane person that Hair's past actions have as little to do with this decision as Pakistan's history of tampering with the ball does.

 

[Gloucefan]

I simply don't get the vicious attacks against Pakistan. For what? Taking offense to being called cheat with no evidence? For those attacking Pakistan, why is Hair's role being ignored? Is he a Saint that can do no wrong? Surely, you can at least agree that he could've handled things better. And let's suppose that Pakistan had come out and played after tea. Would you all then defend them as passionately as you're attacking them? From the comments that some (definately a minority) have posted, I doubt that Pakistan can do any right. This is very disheartening.

I said at the time I didn't think it was true, I really don't think they tampered with the ball. That's just my gut feeling though. The point is Pakistan acted nothing like a proffesional cricket team never mind an international one. I don't care if there have been sit-ins before there is no place for it, it's not like there aren't proper procedures to follow. If it were England I'd honestly be very p**sed off if they decided to to act the way Pakistan did. Surely you must see that now they have done this the ICC nor the umps can back down. It would effectively be handing a great deal of power to the players. It would set a dangerous precedent. It wasn't in the best interests of cricket or Pakistan for that matter. It was a bad decision and I think whoever made probably realises it now. The best thing they could have done would be to come out win the game and not give Hair the satisfaction he obviously took in ending that game. Then make a complaint and I think you will find 99% of people would back them to the hilt in this case.

 

[Dasa]

And it'd also be fair to assume that that no umpire would make such a decision if they weren't convinced they were right. You must also realise that being convinced of one's innocence does not necessarily equate to actually being innocent. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that Inzamam might feel strongly aggrieved because he himself might be innocent.However, there are ten other players in the team, any of whom might not be in the same boat.

That is true, although Bob Woolmer has been quoted as saying all the other players swore they had done nothing to the ball. It comes down to who you trust...and to me, I would rather trust Inzamam and the Pakistani team than Darrel Hair and Billy Doctrove.

Let me get this straight. You think it fair to bring up an umpire's past and try to co-relate it with the current situation, yet somehow it's unfair to bring up Pakistan's ball tampering past and co-relate it to the current situation ? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. I'd urge you to rid yourself of those tinted glasses and consider like any sane person that Hair's past actions have as little to do with this decision as Pakistan's history of tampering with the ball does.

Hair is one person who has been involved with controversy before. While the Pakistan team as a whole has been involved in controversial incidents in the past, the individuals in this Pakistan team have not. Just because the West Indian team of the 80s was the best in cricket at the time, we don't assume they still are the best team around.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Can you imagine how different the reactions would be from some people if it was a team such as England in Pakistan's position?

What crap. If a team like England did this, practically everyone in the world would criticise them for it. Hell, can you even imagine a team like England refusing to play because of an umpiring call? Personally, if Australia walked off the pitch after a similar situation I'd be absolutely disgusted.

The only reason anyone is defending Pakistan at all is because they don't like the umpire who made the decision. If it had been Doctrove along with some other umpire who was neither white nor generally disliked, people would have assumed there must have been some evidence, and that Pakistan should have kept playing.

 

[marc71178]

You find it absolutely shocking that a ball that is 55 overs long can have wear and tear?

Not the issue, since at the fall of Cook's wicket they weren't worried about the condition.