The Biggest Disgrace?

[Jamee999]

Did Atherton have to resign after the dirt in the pocket incident?

 

[GIMH]

Nope. But it was a huge deal, because even my dad knew about it and he hates cricket

 

[four_or_six]

Did Atherton have to resign after the dirt in the pocket incident?

Nope, but he did go into hiding to escape the media, iirc. I think that was the whole point of that humiliating press conference he got forced into... to mean that he didn't have to resign because he'd grovelled a bit.

 

[kiwi_chick]

If my memory serves me right, in a ODI during the CUB 97/98 series , between overs, Hansie Cronje was caught on camera dropping the ball and then using his foot to step on the ball and rolling the ball with his foot on it. He was never charged with ball tampering though.

 

[Cruxdude]

Where's the evidence for saying that Doctrove - who let's not forget is a Test Match umpire on the ICC Elite Panel - was nothing more than a yes man?

This had nothing to do with England. England just happened to be the opposition. They didn't make a complaint about ball-tampering, Doctrove and Hair did it of their own accord. And remember, Doctrove and Hair aren't English either. One's West Indian, the other is Australian.

I just don't buy that. If he's oversensitive because he and his team are religious, well to me that means nothing more than that he's oversensitive. And if he really was that oversensitive it's a wonder that he didn't disappear in a puff of holy smoke when Shahid Afridi cheated by dancing on the pitch, when Asif and Shoaib took banned drugs, when Asif got caught again with illegal drugs, when Shoaib attacked Asif, when Afridi threatened a spectator etc etc. No team in international cricket (my team included; Pakistan included) are angels.

But you have missed my point of Hair not being intelligent enough to avoid a confrontation. He is the only umpire who tried to enforce the 5 run penalty rule without having seen anyone do anything to the ball. He may be in the right accoding to the rules but this was not how he should have dealt with it. BTW are you saying Hair was right or wrong?

The last part of my last post was just me thinking aloud.

 

[zaremba]

He is the only umpire who tried to enforce the 5 run penalty rule without having seen anyone do anything to the ball.

No he isn't.

And yet Hair is the villain. Why?

BTW are you saying Hair was right or wrong?

I haven't seen the condition the ball was in, so I don't know. Maybe it looked like a normal 56-overs-old ball. Maybe it had highly suspicious marks on it, or the seam or quarter-seam was suspiciously raised. I don't know. None of us really knows. If the ball was in a really bad condition it might well have been reasonable to conclude that there had been ball-tampering.

The TV evidence (which the umpires were not entitled to see and which in any case took a very long time to analyse) showed that they were probably mistaken in their judgment as to whether there had been ball-tampering. But so what? Umpires make errors of judgment all the time. LBWs are given out when the batsman has hit it; no-balls are missed; catches are wrongly given out; overs are bowled that have 5 instead of 6 balls; and so on. Having made that error of judgment, the umpires did the right thing in imposing a 5 run penalty and changing the ball. In fact under the Laws they simply had no choice.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

No he isn't.

And yet Hair is the villain. Why?

Probably because if the umpires had been Doctrove and anyone else in the entire universe that decision wouldn't have been made.

 

[Burgey]

Personally, I thought Symonds wasn't out in the first innings in Sydney v India last time they toured. Discuss.

 

[Pratters]

 

[BoyBrumby]

If they genuinely believed tampering had taken place, though, then I don't believe that pakistan's potential reaction should be a consideration, personally. "They might overreacy so we'll let them off." That being said, it doesn't seem they could have been completely sure that something untoward had happened, so you're probably right that they should have just changed the ball and got on with it.

In other news, some absolute nonsense spouted in your direction in this thread, can't beat a bit of subtle trolling hey

In a sense I do agree, there's an argument that once they suspected tampering had taken place Doctrove and Hair were duty-bound to impose the penalty and change the ball. However, as you suggest, without actually having seen any tampering they were always going to be on a sticky wicket once they had.

There is a precedent too. On Pakistan's 1992 tour up here the ball was changed during the afternoon session of day 3 at Lords, indicating the standing umps (Barry Dudleston & John Hampshire, so cricinfo informs me) believed something untoward had happened. For memory Pakistan were a bit non-plussed but because no penalty runs were imposed, the umpires had made no definitive statement that they thought any tampering had occurred and the match continued without any major diplomatic crisis. The very fact that I had to look up who the umpires were shows that sometimes a more sensitive handling of an incident is politic in avoiding "Ovalgates"; I bet any cricket fan can tell you who was standing then. As the cliche goes the mark of a good official is that you hardly notice them.

 

[Burgey]

Christ, what are you doing still up?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Christ, what are you doing still up?

Woke up on sofa about three so thought I'd have quick squint at CW before I hit the hay properly and, well, you know how it goes...

 

[Migara]

But so what? Umpires make errors of judgment all the time. LBWs are given out when the batsman has hit it; no-balls are missed; catches are wrongly given out; overs are bowled that have 5 instead of 6 balls; and so on. Having made that error of judgment, the umpires did the right thing in imposing a 5 run penalty and changing the ball. In fact under the Laws they simply had no choice.

Judge may give a "wrong" verdict and the person can appeal for a correct verdict. Although there will be no use of correct verdict when you have sent him for the gallows and hung. The situation is the same here. Wrong LBW is like a wrong imprisonment. Wrongly judged ball tampering is like hanging.

Then if there was no TV evidence to support the claim why the decision was not overturned and and the Pakistani team clean? It did not happen, and it means the umpires kept their judgement even though they cannot prove it.

 

[Migara]

Haha, it wasn't a big deal when Atherton got caught?! It was a huge deal, the English media certainly didn't give him an easy ride!

Sorry it was no where near what they gave for Pakistanis

 

[fredfertang]

Wrongly judged ball tampering is like hanging.

but noone's career ended - Hair was the closest wasn't he?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Judge may give a "wrong" verdict and the person can appeal for a correct verdict. Although there will be no use of correct verdict when you have sent him for the gallows and hung. The situation is the same here. Wrong LBW is like a wrong imprisonment. Wrongly judged ball tampering is like hanging.

Then if there was no TV evidence to support the claim why the decision was not overturned and and the Pakistani team clean? It did not happen, and it means the umpires kept their judgement even though they cannot prove it.

Leaving aside the obviously flawed analogy (the little death of dismissal by LBW has more in common with hanging than a piddling five run penalty) and the hysterical overreaction to ball-tampering (seriously, who gives a ****? & If Pakistan were so determined to be seen as whiter than white why do they continue to select players who have been caught cheating?) what you say isn't true. Inzi (representing Pakistan as their captain) was cleared of ball-tamerping in the hearing after the match. So the decision was overturned and the vile stain of ball-tampering discolours no reputations.

 

[Migara]

Leaving aside the obviously flawed analogy (the little death of dismissal by LBW has more in common with hanging than a piddling five run penalty) and the hysterical overreaction to ball-tampering (seriously, who gives a ****? & If Pakistan were so determined to be seen as whiter than white why do they continue to select players who have been caught cheating?) what you say isn't true. Inzi (representing Pakistan as their captain) was cleared of ball-tamerping in the hearing after the match. So the decision was overturned and the vile stain of ball-tampering discolours no reputations.

Was that five run penalty overturned?

 

[Cruxdude]

Leaving aside the obviously flawed analogy (the little death of dismissal by LBW has more in common with hanging than a piddling five run penalty) and the hysterical overreaction to ball-tampering (seriously, who gives a ****? & If Pakistan were so determined to be seen as whiter than white why do they continue to select players who have been caught cheating?) what you say isn't true. Inzi (representing Pakistan as their captain) was cleared of ball-tamerping in the hearing after the match. So the decision was overturned and the vile stain of ball-tampering discolours no reputations.

I don't know where you get the idea that ball tampering is not a big deal. Imagine a series in which the opposition tampers with the ball and demolishes their opponents, ball tampering would be a big deal and everybody would give a ****. Mid 90s everybody gave a **** about wether Waqar and Wasim tampered with balls (cricket ones ofcourse). You may pretend ball tampering is no big deal, but just look back into the early 90s to know how much is made out of it.

Well if you care to think about it, Inzi didn't keep his team in the pavilion because of the 5 run penalty, it was because of being unreasonably punished for ball tampering.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Was that five run penalty overturned?

Don't be pathetic.

I don't know where you get the idea that ball tampering is not a big deal. Imagine a series in which the opposition tampers with the ball and demolishes their opponents, ball tampering would be a big deal and everybody would give a ****. Mid 90s everybody gave a **** about wether Waqar and Wasim tampered with balls (cricket ones ofcourse). You may pretend ball tampering is no big deal, but just look back into the early 90s to know how much is made out of it.

Well if you care to think about it, Inzi didn't keep his team in the pavilion because of the 5 run penalty, it was because of being unreasonably punished for ball tampering.

Ok, have it your way: ball-tampering is a terrible thing; a stain on a chap's character.

Why then do Pakistan continue to select proven cheats like Asif (drugs), Shoaib (ball tampering and drugs) & Afridi (doing a two-step on a good length)? Surely if cheating is a stain on the national charcter the PCB would want to distance itself from such blackguards?

 

[Cruxdude]

Ok, have it your way: ball-tampering is a terrible thing; a stain on a chap's character.

Why then do Pakistan continue to select proven cheats like Asif (drugs), Shoaib (ball tampering and drugs) & Afridi (doing a two-step on a good length)? Surely if cheating is a stain on the national charcter the PCB would want to distance itself from such blackguards?

Leave the thing about stain on a guys character. I am not talking about that. I just wanted to say that BAll tampering is a big issue and teams would make a lot of it if it was used against them.

This incident was more about being accused of something they are convinced they did not do and are convicted without any proof or reason. That would be enough to rile anyone up. Obviously he would be riled that the words of his team did not count for anything and that they were penalised and made to change the ball. It does seem like the decision was taken more because of the reputation of the team than anything else.