Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weird and Wonderful)
    It laws says loads fo things, but i believe that had Bucknor or Taufel been in charge they would have dealt with the situation differently.
    Bucknor's standards have slipped in recent years. i still remember the yawning gap between tendulkar's bat and the ball he was adjudged to have 'edged'. that was bordering on the ridiculous. which is why i mentioned taufel instead. much better.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I know this has been mentioned before, but does anyone have access to today's Metro?

    Apparently there are two photos - one ambiguous one of Mo Asif with the ball in his hand, and one close up of a Pakistani player holding the ball close to his body, digging his finger into the seam on the rough side of the ball. The latter sounds most interesting.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Socrates)
    He has to see, or someone has to see and tell him, in order to know that it happened. Otherwise any umpire could accuse any player and that is ridiculous.
    No, that's the Laws. The Umpire has the final decision. And if he makes bad decisions, then after the match, he'll be dealt with. But during the Match, the Umpire is god. Unless your WG Grace, or Inzamam Ul-Haq, apparently.

    PS: Just for the record, I don't think the ball was tampered with, and I think the Umpires made a bad decision.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by englishstudent)
    Athers hardly seems like the type to do it either though does he?
    Athers is one of the most fierce competitors I can think of, I personally wouldn't have ever put it past him.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by englishstudent)
    Athers hardly seems like the type to do it either though does he?
    Exactly.

    There are 26 cameras, and not a single one picked it up. No one saw it happening, and yet the whole team is accused of cheating and the buck falls with Inzy - all because of the incompetence of the umpires.

    HAIR OUT!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Yeah I thought Dravid might not be a great example - I did have doubts. Maybe it says a lot for the state of international cricket that no specific example of a good sportsman springs to mind. Anyway, you know what I mean.
    maybe its coz almost all the players are pretty good natured and sportsman-like? you can't fault Dravid's record in the international arena as a player, captain or individual outside matches. you can try hard, but you'll fail.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    I know this has been mentioned before, but does anyone have access to today's Metro?

    Apparently there are two photos - one ambiguous one of Mo Asif with the ball in his hand, and one close up of a Pakistani player holding the ball close to his body, digging his finger into the seam on the rough side of the ball. The latter sounds most interesting.
    The first one I've seen, and Asif is doing whatever he was doing in front of Hair, and Hair was doing nothing about it.

    The latter I haven't seen.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alasdair_R)
    Just to prove my point, and I know this didn't happen in this case, what if one player accuses another, who then owns up to it? Or if the Umpire is advised by the Match Referee after he saw it on TV? The Umpire doesn't have to see it happen, according to the Laws.
    Although I agree, he probably ought to, but it is not required under the Laws of the Game.
    When the TV crews caught Atherton doing it in 94 they alerted Dickie Bird to what was going on and he then implemented the punishment when he saw Atherton doing it.

    But to answer your hypothetical examples hypothetically: if someone sees a fielder ball-tampering and tells the umpire, and the ball is then found to be unduly damaged, then there can be reasonable suspicion cast upon the fielder. If however, the ball is found to be damaged (after 56 overs) and nobody has been seen tampering with the ball then it takes a huge leap of faith to level an accusation at the fielding team.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alasdair_R)
    No, that's the Laws. The Umpire has the final decision. And if he makes bad decisions, then after the match, he'll be dealt with. But during the Match, the Umpire is god. Unless your WG Grace, or Inzamam Ul-Haq, apparently.

    PS: Just for the record, I don't think the ball was tampered with, and I think the Umpires made a bad decision.
    I agree that the umpire has the final decision. But he isn't god. He is still answerable to the match referee etc. And if the captain asks what the hell is going on the umpire has to say because the captain has a right to know what is going on. For Hair to say "I'm not here to answer that question" is unacceptable even if he is the umpire.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If however, the ball is found to be damaged (after 56 overs) and nobody has been seen tampering with the ball then it takes a huge leap of faith to level an accusation at the fielding team.
    But the ball wasn't damaged to the extent that the umpires took action after 51 (ish) overs. It was only by the 56th over that the ball was damaged to such an extent, having been hit for four just once during the intervening period.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    I know this has been mentioned before, but does anyone have access to today's Metro?

    Apparently there are two photos - one ambiguous one of Mo Asif with the ball in his hand, and one close up of a Pakistani player holding the ball close to his body, digging his finger into the seam on the rough side of the ball. The latter sounds most interesting.
    i have seen the first and as someone has mentioned it was in front of the umpire! As for the 2nd photo i aint seen it and it has not been shown on tv either so maybe it nothing.

    guy and dolls check this out:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/5270038.stm

    what other commentators thought of the whole fiasco.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Athers is one of the most fierce competitors I can think of, I personally wouldn't have ever put it past him.
    In terms of his manner and character he is no Iqbal though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socrates)
    I agree that the umpire has the final decision. But he isn't god. He is still answerable to the match referee etc. And if the captain asks what the hell is going on the umpire has to say because the captain has a right to know what is going on. For Hair to say "I'm not here to answer that question" is unacceptable even if he is the umpire.
    :ditto:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biggie-n)
    so because its a cricket match, we can't have fair decisions like in court?
    So what are you suggesting? We have lawyers and a jury on standby for every LBW shout? There's a need to get on with the game, so no. We can't. On the pitch, the umpire's word is final. If the umpire is wrong and deliberatley biased, there is opportunity to sort it out later.

    but even if this umpire consistently shows bias, and the match referees fail to do anything about it after numberous complaints from different teams, nothing can be done? coz the law has been followed to the letter? also, why couldn't Hair wait till the session ended before reporting the player he thought was at fault straight to the match referee?!
    That's not the procedure. If the umpire believed the ball has been tampered with, it has to be changed. Why should have waited till the end of te session? As for Hair, something can be done if it is shown that he is a fault. As can be seen by his suspension by the ACB in 1998-9.
    I know he didn't umpire any matches with SRL, but don't know if he was banned.
    Yesp. 1998-9.

    As this is after the game, its about time some reasons started to surface. What I suspect will happen is that the ICC will sanction PAK for every single infringement of the law book and the Hair situation will be swept under the carpet.
    Well we'll see won't we? If there's no evidence im sure that Mr Hair will have lots of explaining to do. Inzi is facing charges of ball tampering and bringing the game into disrepute. The first will be difficult to prove, but the Pakistan team have handed over the second one on a silver platter.
    the proper channels haven't been working for Pakistan or any other teams since MANY complaints have been lodged about Hair. nothing's been done.
    There hasn't been much evidence against him so far. To be fair to him, the rules had to be changed after he called Murali originally. It can hardly be said that he was wrong on that account.

    erm, ok, you seem pretty sure about that. i don't know what you're basing that on.
    Umpires & batsmen appear. Umpires and batsmen dissappear. Umpires and Batsmen appear again, wait 2 minutes. Umpires remove bails. The stumps are then removed This suggests the match is over. Pakistan appear, umpires refuse to. Presumably because, when they removed the bails, they handed the match to England, as they should have done if they were following the laws.


    it appears Taufel's had less controversy than any other umpire and was most trusted by players, hence his award last year. i can agree that all umpires make mistakes, but Taufel has never interpreted the rule book wrongly, like Hair did with Inzamam in the winter. here comes another can of worms.
    Hair got into trouble because he didn't follow the rules. How can you get into trouble by following the law to the letter?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    another question....

    Why would Pakistan cheat? the series was lost and i don't think them winning ti would make a huge difference. Some of you will say it helps to carry momentum into the one dayers etc etc but Pakistan are a far more superior side to England in one dayers and i just dont think it makes sense for them to cheat!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    But the ball wasn't damaged to the extent that the umpires took action after 51 (ish) overs. It was only by the 56th over that the ball was damaged to such an extent, having been hit for four just once during the intervening period.
    I don't see how that means there is any less need for evidence of ball tampering by a Pakistani player.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
    On the pitch, the umpire's word is final. If the umpire is wrong and deliberatley biased, there is opportunity to sort it out later.
    Pakistan had written a letter to the ICC after the winter tour of England in which Hair showed his incompetence. No action was taken. What are you supposed to do when the correct channels do not work?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/5269906.stm

    One of the guys asks about hair's/hares controversy in asian games, which is so true.

    EDIT: Link edited
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socrates)
    Pakistan had written a letter to the ICC after the winter tour of England in which Hair showed his incompetence. No action was taken. What are you supposed to do when the correct channels do not work?
    you protest! :rolleyes:

    But when you do that cricket is in turmoil and no one knows what to do!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socrates)
    Pakistan had written a letter to the ICC after the winter tour of England in which Hair showed his incompetence. No action was taken. What are you supposed to do when the correct channels do not work?
    You get the match abandonned so its relatively easy for them to fine/ban you? Hair made a bit of a mistake last year. You can hardly expect him to be done after one dodgy dismissal (especially when they didn't help themselves...dancing on the wicket?). They would have had much better grounds to prove some kind of bias this time, but they purposefully pissed away the moral highground.

    Also, i really hope for all your sakes that it doesn't turn out that Hair had good reason to suspect the ball had been tampered with.

    edit:

 
 
 
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.