***Official*** Pakistan in England

[marc71178]

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.

The Pakistani team must have known it, since they were told "get out there now or forfeit".

So it doesn't matter if they were ready to play after that.

And again I see Doctrove is let off.

 

[marc71178]

Also, why did Hair not wait more to award the game?

How long should he have waited?

1 hour, 1 session, 1 day?!

They waited longer than needed to, gave the Pakistani's another chance to get out there, and that chance wasn't taken.

 

[marc71178]

What manner would that be? Do we have a picture of before and after?

Nobody does.

The only 2 people who know it, are the ones who made the decision.

Hence all this talk of no evidence won't ever go away.

 

[adharcric]

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.

First off, everyone here needs to stop making assumptions and translating them into ridiculous generalizations (like the one bolded above). The most pathetic of them all so far has been the notion (primarily JustTool's typical BS) that all of Australia is biased and racist. This is just turning into a vicious cycle of insults and while some of you (Faaip that includes you, who I respect immensely as a poster) tell others to stop making generalizations, you are getting reactive and making sweeping statements in response yourself.

Here are my thoughts on this situation. I personally don't like Hair and if there is a nation I associate ball-tampering with, it would be Pakistan because of their history. Still, that is not very relevant here and it shouldn't be. Hair was wrong in accusing Pakistan (Inzamam) of cheating without having any substantial evidence (it's been several days and he still hasn't shown it). Does he have the right to take action if he feels the ball is abnormal? Yes. He could have changed the ball with Doctrove without awarding five runs and creating a big fuss. Anyone who claims that he didn't play a part in creating a fuss and that being accused of cheating/ball-tampering isn't a big deal really doesn't have a clue. Now, Inzamam perhaps did the right thing by playing out the pre-tea session to make sure his team members are innocent. After that, though, he didn't take the best action by choosing to not come out and play. It was natural, one may say, but it wasn't very mature and it's probably the main reason people aren't unanimously supporting Pakistan right now. Hair could've come back out but he went by the rules rather than any sort of good will .. can't do much about that. Inzy made a mistake by not leading his team out to play when asked or at least protesting to the umpires on the field once again as to why he had been accused, but Hair made a larger mistake by making such a charge by assumption.

If only Hair would come up with some evidence or just come out and say that he assumed it was the Pakistanis cheating, things would clear up a little bit and the person deserving punishment would get it, whether it's the umpire or a player of the Pakistani side.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Hair definitely had a hand in creating the fuss (the main hand, in fact), and I'm not suggesting that he didn't. Really though, if it hasn't been Hair involved, would people have been so quick to assume it was done without justification? Indeed, if Hair hadn't been involved, would Pakistan have refused to come out to field? Both are fair questions imo.

I don't think it matters much what evidence does or doesn't come out now. The ICC are obviously going to back Hair based on their statements so far, and are satisfied that he and Doctrove acted within the bounds of the law. Pakistan's request that Hair be excused from future matches involving them has already been rejected, and I'd expect Inzamam to cop a ban of some kind on Friday. Probably not 8 matches, but at least a couple.

The only people who know what evidence was available are Hair, Doctrove and Proctor, simple as that. Obviously nothing was caught on tape, so I doubt we'll see anything further.

 

[SJS]

SJS, earlier you pointed out that Imran is a politician and as such will make comments that suit him.
[/I]

I have just put excerpts from what different people are saying without comments.

Yes he is a politician and does say things at times which are aimed at his constituency but that doesnt mean one has to , therefore, disagree with every word that he utters.

I dont know whether he would have done what he says. How am I to know? I dont sit 'inside' him. I just quoted him and added that these could very well have been my words. Where is the contradiction in that?

 

[Dasa]

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.

1) What is that supposed to mean?
2) I said some people, not all people. You cannot honestly deny many people would have a different reaction were it a team like England in the same situation as Pakistan.

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.

It's not about disliking an umpire. The umpire in question has a history of troubled relations with the team in question. Add that to the complete lack of evidence from the umpires so far, and you have your reason why so many people are defending Pakistan - but in your mind, it's only because a bunch of Hair-haters have another reason to rip into him. To quote you, "what crap".

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

1) What is that supposed to mean?
2) I said some people, not all people. You cannot honestly deny many people would have a different reaction were it a team like England.

I very much doubt "many" people would, no. I'm sure there'd be some, but I think on this board for instance the majority of people would have condemned England if they'd done the same thing under the same circumstances. I know I would have.

It's not about disliking an umpire. The umpire in question has a history of troubled relations with the team in question. Add that to the complete lack of evidence from the umpires so far, and you have your reason why so many people are defending Pakistan - but in your mind, it's only because a bunch of Hair-haters have another reason to rip into him. To quote you, "what crap".

That's not what I said, is it? I said people were defending Pakistan because they dislike Hair, not that they were only criticising Hair because they had pre-concieved notions about him. It's fair to be critical of Hair - he deserves it. It's another instance where he's put his own role in the game and his desire to "clean it up" ahead of common sense. However, if he genuinely believed the ball had been tampered with and Doctrove genuinely believed the same, they did the right thing.

The point I was making is that if it hadn't been Hair who had made the ball tampering call, I doubt so many people would be looking to defend Pakistan's actions, because they wouldn't have had a reason to assume that the charge must have been invented.

 

[adharcric]

Hair definitely had a hand in creating the fuss (the main hand, in fact), and I'm not suggesting that he didn't. Really though, if it hasn't been Hair involved, would people have been so quick to assume it was done without justification? Indeed, if Hair hadn't been involved, would Pakistan have refused to come out to field? Both are fair questions imo.

I see where you're coming from, as most people (not just those supporting pakistan but most cricket fans) probably have a certain degree of anti-Hair bias and perhaps think of him as a racist. Yet, that is not the primary reason why Pakistan is getting support. The real reason is the absurd manner in which Hair accused Pakistan (perhaps not by the rules, but us cricket fans have brains so that we can decide whether a rule is sensisble or a load of bull rather than blindly following it) without evidence. Perhaps the anti-Hair sentiment just adds a little fuel to the fire and intensifies the controversy. Well to be honest, I can only speak for myself and not for everyone else who is supporting Pakistan. My thoughts.

 

[PY]

2) I said some people, not all people. You cannot honestly deny many people would have a different reaction were it a team like England in the same situation as Pakistan.

If you get to use conjecture then I don't see why Sean can't use it to say that if it wasn't Hair then the reaction would be a great deal different?

 

[Dasa]

If you get to use conjecture then I don't see why Sean can't use it to say that if it wasn't Hair then the reaction would be a great deal different?

That's quite an assumption accusing me of double standards considering I never denied Sean's assertion.

 

[honestbharani]

What they would say to that (I fink) is that the ball is sent over the ropes and into the stands fairly regularly, and is bowled into the rough, it receives scuff marks/natural wear-and-tear etc. It is checked irregularly ie at drinks, when a wicket falls, sometimes every over if the ump wishes. A change might then occur to the quarter-seam (in this case) which might be exacerbated during a fairly quiet passage of play (in this case - they judged that it had been exacerbated by means other than the rough/the one boundry scored ie ball tampering) which may cause suspicion of foul play (in this case) whereupon the umpire has to make a decision on the evidence of all the above and what is in front of him namely a changed ball with seam interference.

I still don't believe 26 cameras out there couldn't follow the ball. I have a friend who was a cameraman for one of the magazines here and he says how much the ball is followed in any cricket match these days. It is really a long shot that Hair was able to infer something from the condition of the ball alone. After all, has all possible damages that can be caused to a ball through natural causes been identified? I still maintain that I am ready to take back most of my words about Hair if it is PROVEN that Pakistan did tamper with the ball. The Friday hearing should be a very interesting one. Even if Hair was right and Pak did tamper with the ball, isn't there no better way of going about it? AFAIC, Hair needs a real talking to either way and so does Inzy and the PCB because their handling of the affair wasn't good at all. Either they should have walked away straight away in protest, not caring about the match or they should have stayed on and played under protest.

 

[Dasa]

That's not what I said, is it? I said people were defending Pakistan because they dislike Hair, not that they were only criticising Hair because they had pre-concieved notions about him. It's fair to be critical of Hair - he deserves it. It's another instance where he's put his own role in the game and his desire to "clean it up" ahead of common sense. However, if he genuinely believed the ball had been tampered with and Doctrove genuinely believed the same, they did the right thing.

The point I was making is that if it hadn't been Hair who had made the ball tampering call, I doubt so many people would be looking to defend Pakistan's actions, because they wouldn't have had a reason to assume that the charge must have been invented.

You may be right. However, I think if it was any umpire accusing them of cheating without evidence (so far), there would be quite a reaction although perhaps not as strong as we have seen with Hair's involvement. It's also likely that any other umpire (perhaps with the exception of Bucknor) would've handled the situation differently.

 

[SJS]

It'll be interesting to see what happens on friday..

I can tell you what will happen.

NO ONE WILL CHANGE THEIR OPINION ON ANYTHING !

If Inzy is exonerated, his supporters will say we told you Hair was wrong and Inzy was right and the 'other side' will say ICC has yielded to blackmail or worse.

If Inzy is indicted, they will say exactly the opposite.

People tend to paint themselves in what they see as 'their' corners in such indelible colours that everything anyone says makes no sense except as gospel or blasphemy.

 

[honestbharani]

I see where you're coming from, as most people (not just those supporting pakistan but most cricket fans) probably have a certain degree of anti-Hair bias and perhaps think of him as a racist. Yet, that is not the primary reason why Pakistan is getting support. The real reason is the absurd manner in which Hair accused Pakistan (perhaps not by the rules, but us cricket fans have brains so that we can decide whether a rule is sensisble or a load of bull rather than blindly following it) without evidence. Perhaps the anti-Hair sentiment just adds a little fuel to the fire and intensifies the controversy. Well to be honest, I can only speak for myself and not for everyone else who is supporting Pakistan. My thoughts.

Mine too. If it had been, say Simon Taufel, I would still maintain what he did was wrong. But the point is, he doesn't have a track record that is as uncomfortable as Hair's is with regard to Pakistan. Sean, of course, everyone is getting a little more agitated because it was HAIR. Your question is like saying "The Americans are so agitated only because it was Al Qaeda who bombed into the WTC." It is partly Hair's fault too that his track record w.r.t Pakistan is so bad.

 

[PY]

That's quite an assumption accusing me of double standards considering I never denied Sean's assertion.

Man, something's really got your goat this morning hasn't it?

Never seen you so cranky, there was no maliciousness at all in my post at all. I was just pointing out that parts of your post seemed to use opposing arguments.

Jeepers.

 

[adharcric]

I can tell you what will happen.

NO ONE WILL CHANGE THEIR OPINION ON ANYTHING !

If Inzy is exonerated, his supporters will say we told you Hair was wrong and Inzy was right and the 'other side' will say ICC has yielded to blackmail or worse.

If Inzy is indicted, they will say exactly the opposite.

People tend to paint themselves in what they see as 'their' corners in such indelible colours that everything anyone says makes no sense except as gospel or blasphemy.

I could've told you all that too, SJS. The real question - which one is it: exonerated or indicted?

 

[honestbharani]

Nobody does.

The only 2 people who know it, are the ones who made the decision.

Hence all this talk of no evidence won't ever go away.

Doesn't the burden of proof fall upon the accusers, which in this case, are Hair and Doctrove? If it is some evidence that only they will "know" then people have every right to smell something fishy in this issue.

 

[Dasa]

Man, something's really got your goat this morning hasn't it?

Never seen you so cranky, there was no maliciousness at all in my post at all. I was just pointing out that parts of your post seemed to use opposing arguments.

Jeepers.

Evening here actually. Sorry, I overreacted.
A day spent in front of the PC doing mind-numblingly boring Uni work can make one a little cranky, but I shouldn't take it out on fellow forummers.

 

[honestbharani]

Yes, magical pixies did it. Who do you suggest did it ?

Natural causes. Why is it so difficult for you to believe? U have any kind of evidence that Pakistan DID tamper with the ball? So easy to accuse others.