Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Hair is a notorious 'not outer', he doesn't give much to anyone.
    ...and gives out when it is clearly contrary to the letter and spirit of the game. :p:

    Even Botham said Inzamam's out in Faisalabad was incorrect, and you don't get a more diehard England fan than him...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    It was a bad decision, but you cannot confidently say that it was just given not out because Hair doesn't like Pakistanis. Hair is a notorious 'not outer', he doesn't give much to anyone.
    mate, asian fans have watched for years as supposedly innocent 'mistakes' have gone against their teams time after time. there's a trend and its not comforting. i'm guessing you haven't watched many of these incidencts and as you don't support any asian teams, your passion is possibly diluted. either way, there are cricket experts who agree there's something dodgy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socrates)
    It certainly seems the case with Mr Hair, though. Whenever he has umpired in a match that involves England, most of his decisions favour England. You could call it a coincidence if it happens once or twice, not when it happens all the time.
    Well I disagree that this is the case. I don't necessarily think he's a particularly good umpire, but I don't see him as being particular bias towards England.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    1. Hair didn't keep no balling him after he'd been cleared. He called him seven times in one match, then didn't umpire another match involving Sri Lanka until 2003, in which he didn't no ball Murali.
    fine, i was describing a trend with other umpires as well. my bad.
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    2. Yes, almost all international bowlers extend to some degree - hence why you were given 5 degrees leeway. However, Murali goes far past this, but they changed the laws for him.
    err...there was no rule for 5 degrees or anything like that before murali's incident caused the stir. it was judged by eye. so the rules were created for everyone.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biggie-n)
    err...there was no rule for 5 degrees or anything like that before murali's incident caused the stir. it was judged by eye. so the rules were created for everyone.
    Untrue. The rule was 5 degrees for spinners, 7.5 degrees for medium pacers, and 10 for fast bowlers. It was changed apparently for no one's benefit but Murali's.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    thats coz 15 degrees was established as the minimum extention clearly visible to the eye. all sorts of tests done mate.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Well, before the rules were changed to allow 15 degrees, the rules allowed 5 degrees. Murali was bowling during this period, so he was continually no balling for a certain length of time.

    With here and TMS, I've spent too much of this day arguing about cricket.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    IIRC McGrath bends his arm 11 degrees (as seen in the tests in ICCCT 2004)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Well, before the rules were changed to allow 15 degrees, the rules allowed 5 degrees. Murali was bowling during this period, so he was continually no balling for a certain length of time.
    ...as were other bowlers. dont single him out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well quite strange scenes at the Brit Oval today. i have not seen anything like it before. Hair again at the centre of controversy. I don't think play should go ahead as the umpires have called it off and awarded the game to England. However i understand the Pakistan teams protest too. Its sad as a few minutes of dialogue would have resolved the issue but Hair is often a controversial and unmoved character. The game will only go ahead if the boards force it to due to revenue etc.

    However if it does then that would portray that the umpirse were incorrect and wrong in there decision.

    In the words of Mark Nicholas: "today cricket is in tatters"

    Sadly True.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    What's the latest news though?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    nothing yet!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    the test match has been abadoned. not sure but i think this means england win? There is going to be an ECB statement in a few mins on sky sports.. better watch this. Its sad that the football still grabs the headlines after all this contraversy, who cares that man u won 5-1 when this stuff is going on?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    shame really. Well i gonna check this out too!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    England have been given victory to a match which seemed like Pak’s taking.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    An unusually good piece by Agnew here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cric...nd/5269492.stm

    I agree with it all, fully. Who doesn't, and why?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    An unusually good piece by Agnew here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cric...nd/5269492.stm

    I agree with it all, fully. Who doesn't, and why?
    I don't agree fully, no. The article ultimately puts the blame on Pakistan whereas I think that the umpires are more culpable. Had they approached Inzamam about the alleged ball-tampering at a quiet moment between overs, the risk of a false accusation would have been removed. Or rather the false accusation, had it not been made so obviously public, would not have mattered (it certainly wouldn't have resulted in the Pakistani protest). Perhaps they should not have protested in that way, but things were taken totally out of their hands; they were accused of cheating and given no platform to defend themselves. If they are innocent (and I actually believe they are) then their minor sit-in was just a way of defending themselves quickly. It's true to say that as soon as an accusation is made it tends to stick unless there is a pretty immediate reversal. If they hadn't protested then there may have been some enquiry in a few days which may then have found them not guilty etc, but by that time the issue would have passed and most people would just remember the accusation and assume that it was true (it might not be bright, but that's how most people think).

    Things which I think should have been done differently:

    1. The initial accusation should have instead been a quiet word with Inzy. This would have avoided the fiasco.

    2. Assuming there had been a public accusation, the sit-in was merely the first in a chain of events - there were moments at which both teams were willing to play but were being prevented from doing so by the umpires. Better would have been if a slightly more "spirit of the law" approach had been taken about "forfeiting" and so on.

    It's very difficult to judge, but I would put more of the blame on the umpires than on the Pakistani team. I think Simon Hughes made a valid point when he said this would not have happened with an umpire like Billy Bowden or Simon Taufel who spend time talking to both teams and who have some degree of interaction (other than the bare minimum).

    I agree with Dickie Bird's analysis really (it's in an audio interview on the BBC site). He basically says that if you're going to accuse someone you need to be 100% sure, and seeing as Hair made the judgement solely by looking at the ball, he cannot have been 100% sure. When Athers got done back in 1994 it was spotted by the cameras and then Dickie Bird was told to watch out for it and he busted him. It should be that way round.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Well here's what going on! The match has been awarded to England- meaning they bag the series 3-0 :eek:

    A joint statement from the ICC, England and Wales Cricket Board and Pakistan Cricket Board read: 'After lengthy negotiations which resulted in agreement between the teams, the match referee and both the ECB and PCB to resume the fourth Test tomorrow, it was concluded that with regret there will be no play on the fifth day.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by englishstudent)
    I don't agree fully, no. The article ultimately puts the blame on Pakistan whereas I think that the umpires are more culpable. Had they approached Inzamam about the alleged ball-tampering at a quiet moment between overs, the risk of a false accusation would have been removed. Or rather the false accusation, had it not been made so obviously public, would not have mattered (it certainly wouldn't have resulted in the Pakistani protest). Perhaps they should not have protested in that way, but things were taken totally out of their hands; they were accused of cheating and given no platform to defend themselves. If they are innocent (and I actually believe they are) then their minor sit-in was just a way of defending themselves quickly. It's true to say that as soon as an accusation is made it tends to stick unless there is a pretty immediate reversal. If they hadn't protested then there may have been some enquiry in a few days which may then have found them not guilty etc, but by that time the issue would have passed and most people would just remember the accusation and assume that it was true (it might not be bright, but that's how most people think).

    Things which I think should have been done differently:

    1. The initial accusation should have instead been a quiet word with Inzy. This would have avoided the fiasco.

    2. Assuming there had been a public accusation, the sit-in was merely the first in a chain of events - there were moments at which both teams were willing to play but were being prevented from doing so by the umpires. Better would have been if a slightly more "spirit of the law" approach had been taken about "forfeiting" and so on.

    It's very difficult to judge, but I would put more of the blame on the umpires than on the Pakistani team. I think Simon Hughes made a valid point when he said this would not have happened with an umpire like Billy Bowden or Simon Taufel who spend time talking to both teams and who have some degree of interaction (other than the bare minimum).

    I agree with Dickie Bird's analysis really (it's in an audio interview on the BBC site). He basically says that if you're going to accuse someone you need to be 100% sure, and seeing as Hair made the judgement solely by looking at the ball, he cannot have been 100% sure. When Athers got done back in 1994 it was spotted by the cameras and then Dickie Bird was told to watch out for it and he busted him. It should be that way round.

    Yeah I was only really referring to what Aggers actually talked about in the article - namely Pakistan's behaviour after tea.

    One still has to wonder just how the ball got into the state it did, though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Googly)
    Well here's what going on! The match has been awarded to England- meaning they bag the series 3-0 :eek:
    cor blimey! I should go to every English match...seems like everytime i'm there something unexpected goes in England's favour!

    Slightly annoyed at how the crowd were kept informed of what was going on. Had i not had a radio with me i would have been almost completley in the dark. Had they not been selling those little SKY/TMS radios around the ground there may have been a full-scale riot.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

Quick link:

Unanswered sport threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.