***Official*** Pakistan in England

[Yahto]

I don't trust Hair to be that good. And even if he was sure the ball was tampered with by a human being, he still CANNOT have been sure it was one of the Pakistanis unless he saw it. I mean, even if Pakistan did tamper with the ball, the least he could have done (since there was no solid evidence) was to first warn Inzy about his suspicions and then taken such actions if he was still worried that something wrong was going on. I am sorry, but no matter what u say, Hair is still in the wrong and he should be sent out. I do think Inzy and maybe the PCB deserve some fines and bans over this, because they handled this affair not very well at all, but Hair still needs to learn how to conduct the game in the proper manner and if not, he should not be on the panel at all.

I suggest you have a look at the laws of the game. And regarding you not trusting Hair to be that good, you are entitled to your biases, real or imagined.

 

[Yahto]

'supposedly' proves everything, doesn't it?

And Hair being a confirmed racist and a lousy judge of the condition of the ball is a 'fact', isn't it ?

 

[TT Boy]

Mohammad Asif supposedly has a history at Leicestershire.

Already...

Also if you look at Asif's record in the county game he usually only use to bowl with the new ball for a prolonged spell, say ten to twelve’s overs and would not be seen into the new ball is available. Same applies to Stuart Broad who when I saw him play never went near the old ball, so I kind doubt such a claim. Though if he did, again he was not particularly good at it because ¾ quarters of his wickets taken were with the new ball.

 

[Yahto]

Already...

Also if you look at Asif's record in the county game he usually only use to bowl with the new ball for a prolonged spell, say ten to twelve’s overs and would not be seen into the new ball is available. Same applies to Stuart Broad who when I saw him play never went near the old ball, so I kind doubt such a claim. Though if he did, again he was not particularly good at it because ¾ quarters of his wickets taken were with the new ball.

Asif was just an example. It could have been anybody. It doesn't even need to be a bowler. A batsman fielding could do the job too.

 

[TT Boy]

Asif was just an example. It could have been anybody. It doesn't even need to be a bowler. A batsman fielding could do the job too.

So why did you say, "Mohammad Asif supposedly has a history at Leicestershire"?

 

[Langeveldt]

So, you think that Hair could have handled it better AND Pakistan could have handled it better and yet you think Hair was right?

No, Hair could have handled it better, Pakistan could have handled it much better, therefore Hair was less wrong

Sad state of affairs tbh..

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Inzy and Woolmer have all made statements saying that it was Hair who wanted the ball changed and it was Hair who refused to come out to play when Pakistan were ready and it was Hair who refused to show them any evidence or reasons why he suspected them of tampering?

Do you have any links for this bit? Every quote I've read on the subject has said that it was "the umpires" who refused to come out, which makes sense, as it was "the umpires" who awarded the game to England when Pakistan chose to forfeit instead of playing after tea.

 

[Yahto]

So why did you say, "Mohammad Asif supposedly has a history at Leicestershire".

My mistake there. I skimmed over an article in The Telegraph, and apparently I've misread it.

The point still stands though.

 

[Tom Halsey]

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.

If you'd rather trust the players than the umpires, the umpires might as well not exist.

 

[Dasa]

If you'd rather trust the players than the umpires, the umpires might as well not exist.

I didn't say I'd rather trust players over umpires in all cases. In this specific case involving Darrell Hair and the Pakistani team, I trust the Pakistanis. If it was Taufel or even Bucknor involved, I'd be inclined to trust the umpires.

 

[Tom Halsey]

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".

If they've got evidence after the hearing, you have a point. You can't judge whether they have evidence yet.

If it turns out that Pakistan were tampering with the ball, they were wrong in every single way.

If it turns out that they didn't then the umnpires are wrong, but Pakistan have sacrificed any moral high-ground anyway by refusing to take to the pitch. There are ways and means of going about things, and that is not one of them. For a start, you've deprived people who have payed for tickets of cricket.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I didn't say I'd rather trust players over umpires in all cases. In this specific case involving Darrell Hair and the Pakistani team, I trust the Pakistanis. If it was Taufel or even Bucknor involved, I'd be inclined to trust the umpires.

Fair enough.

 

[Tom Halsey]

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.

Hair warned the Pakistanis that if they didn't come out, they'd forfit the match. They still chose not to come out. They were fully aware they were forfitting the match. End of. So the argument that Pakistan still wanted to come out doesn't stand, because they chose not to come out when it mattered, fully aware of the consequences.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Just because its within the laws of the game, doesn't mean its appropriate.

Yes it does. I'm all for common sense, but the laws are there for a reason, particularly with a matter as big as this.

 

[Dasa]

If they've got evidence after the hearing, you have a point. You can't judge whether they have evidence yet.

If it turns out that Pakistan were tampering with the ball, they were wrong in every single way.

If it turns out that they didn't then the umnpires are wrong, but Pakistan have sacrificed any moral high-ground anyway by refusing to take to the pitch. There are ways and means of going about things, and that is not one of them. For a start, you've deprived people who have payed for tickets of cricket.

Absolutely true. I've been qualifying what I've said with 'so far', because there is a chance that Hair and Doctrove might actually have something which'll come out at the hearing. I don't know about sacrificing moral high ground though - I agree that they didn't act very intelligently in choosing not to come out, but if they didn't tamper with the ball, they still hold the moral high ground IMO. That said, they should be punished for not coming out to play regardless what happens regarding the ball-tampering allegation.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I think it's fair to assume that no team would make such a protest if they weren't convinced they were innocent. Furthermore, Hair has been known to act incorrectly and hastily in the past and has shown an inability to be diplomatic about his decisions. Based on all this, the logical assumption is that the Pakistanis are rightly aggrieved at what could be a wrong decision.

Inzamam may think they're all innocent, but considering if they owned up to him, they'd suffer the wrath of Inzy, the management etc, I'd bet there was a fair amount of "it wasn't me, boss" going on in their dressing room.

No-one who wasn't involved can say whether Pakistan are rightly or wrongly aggrieved as yet, because they don't know if they were guilty or not.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Absolutely true. I've been qualifying what I've said with 'so far', because there is a chance that Hair and Doctrove might actually have something which'll come out at the hearing. I don't know about sacrificing moral high ground though - I agree that they didn't act very intelligently in choosing not to come out, but if they didn't tamper with the ball, they still hold the moral high ground IMO. That said, they should be punished for not coming out to play regardless what happens regarding the ball-tampering allegation.

I'm not particularly bothered about punishing them - the fact they lost a match they were going to win is enough for me personally, although in all probability they will be punished.

As far as moral high-ground is concerned, it's a matter of opinion really - as far as I'm concerned, unfairly depriving the public who have payed to watch cricket of their money is just as bad as being wrongly accused of ball tampering - especially when there were other ways and means of going about it.

IMO, the fact that Pakistan still wanted to play cricket after already being informed they were forfitting the match (and given plenty of opportunity to play) is laughable.

 

[chris.hinton]

Hair is sticking to his guns and saying that he is right fair play to the bloke i do hope that he has enough evidence though

 

[Armadillo]

Thing is though, what possible additional evidence could the umpires have? If either had seen something surely they would have come out with it before now instead of taking all of this stick? Sky have assured us that they haven't picked up anything.

 

[Tomm NCCC]

The England squad has been announced for the one-dayers, and as far as I can remeber, Micheal Yardy, Rikki Clarke, and young Stuart Broad have all recieved a call up.