Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    That would work if Shahid Nazir had been bowling between the 51st and 56th overs - which he wasn't.

    CHECK MATE.
    Oh right, so only the person bowling ever touches the ball? Do you actually play cricket?!

    'CHECK MATE'? You gimp, lol.

    Anyway, I have somewhere to be. I will check back in here later tonight, hopefully.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    They probably haven't put his name under that photo because it's zoomed in, therefore you can't see his face. However, there is a wider shot version of the same photo, I've put these two together so you can compare:



    Look at the hand positions in both photos. They are identical.

    Are you now going to continue to claim that the zoomed in photo is not Shahid Nazir?
    Yes i am as it has not been shown anywhere on the TV or in any other major news paper. It could have been after the tampering incident?

    Your convinced i see but why? I think the two photos are the same but still i question why they did not name the player? and your excuse is pretty bad about that.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Oh right, so only the person bowling ever touches the ball? Do you actually play cricket?!

    'CHECK MATE'? You gimp, lol.

    Anyway, I have somewhere to be. I will check back in here later tonight, hopefully.
    Well, that picture is from here:

    http://mingom45.easydservers.com/fotoweb/Grid.fwx and type in "ball tampering".

    You'll see two pictures on the end, one of which is the one posted here.

    If you see the caption on it, it says Shahid Nazir bowls AFTER the ball tampering controversy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Another point which is bound to come up is that last year when England made the ball reverse swing many said well done jones and said it was due to Troy Cooley the former bowling coach. But now when the Paki's do it they are deemed as cheaters.

    Also i would like to say Pakistan are more likely to cheat in a match which actaully means something! not a test match which will have no major bearing on anything!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socrates)
    Well, that picture is from here:

    http://mingom45.easydservers.com/fotoweb/Grid.fwx and type in "ball tampering".

    You'll see two pictures on the end, one of which is the one posted here.

    If you see the caption on it, it says Shahid Nazir bowls AFTER the ball tampering controversy.
    I must admit I hadn't seen that. If that caption is correct, I guess we are back to where we were a couple of hours ago, no closer to knowing what really went on. However, even if that is after the ball tampering controversy, you have to wonder what exactly he's up to there. Although if Shahid Nazir is entirely innocent, I absolutely apologise for my allegations.

    Anyway, I should be back later. Biya.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Weird and Wonderful)
    Another point which is bound to come up is that last year when England made the ball reverse swing many said well done jones and said it was due to Troy Cooley the former bowling coach. But now when the Paki's do it they are deemed as cheaters.

    Also i would like to say Pakistan are more likely to cheat in a match which actaully means something! not a test match which will have no major bearing on anything!
    If there WAS any tampering in this instance (which I don't believe), I'd imagine it was out of frustration rather than any particular plan to cheat or swing the test in their favour. Pietersen had his eye in, the ball wasn't doing very much, etc, so I can see why it might have been frustrating.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    I must admit I hadn't seen that. If that caption is correct, I guess we are back to where we were a couple of hours ago, no closer to knowing what really went on. However, even if that is after the ball tampering controversy, you have to wonder what exactly he's up to there. Although if Shahid Nazir is entirely innocent, I absolutely apologise for my allegations.

    Anyway, I should be back later. Biya.

    Well we are none the wiser. fun to argue though for once without getting -ve rep on D&D!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alasdair_R)
    If there WAS any tampering in this instance (which I don't believe), I'd imagine it was out of frustration rather than any particular plan to cheat or swing the test in their favour. Pietersen had his eye in, the ball wasn't doing very much, etc, so I can see why it might have been frustrating.

    Well i dont think it was frustration if it did indeed happen. The ball was reversing and Collingwood was in he did not look in great touch and after him there was Bell who dont do well at the Oval that then would leave the tail. Also england had to bat an awful long time bat out.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    i think you'll find the picture is taken after the ball had been replaced.
    also, he's not actually picking at the seam, he could be removing some dirt, it could be anything, you dont' know anything for sure! i'm gonna hold out till some more conclusive evidence comes to the fore before I make my final decision. and to corrent the dude before who said inzi wasn't charged with ball tampering: he was.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    if the umpires think that the ball has been tampered, they have to say who they think has done it, THIS IS THE LAW PEOPLE.

    When Inzimam asked why the ball had been changed, Hare replies "I am not here to answer that question." WTF? f**k off then u *unt
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alkaeda)
    if the umpires think that the ball has been tampered, they have to say who they think has done it, THIS IS THE LAW PEOPLE.
    err...that's open to interpretation. you've just taken us back to square one. we (and the ICC) determined that the umpire's conduct was lawful but I said they should have had the sense to explain themselves rather than act all high and mighty.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Reports are coming in that the ball had bite marks in it, perhaps Inzi confused it for an apple?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    more evidence in support of Pakistan's case:

    SKY NEWS Cameras
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    mate that's not even remotely funny.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    So whats this Laique person been up to? Anything warnable?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cindy)
    So whats this Laique person been up to? Anything warnable?
    Not really. He just gets a little emotional about cricket sometimes! :p:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weird and Wonderful)
    Not really. He just gets a little emotional about cricket sometimes! :p:
    i would too if it was my team!
    but yeah...ban him!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biggie-n)
    i would too if it was my team!
    but yeah...ban him!
    I second that motion! :p:

    Reports are coming in that the ball had bite marks in it, perhaps Inzi confused it for an apple?
    :too funny:

    Can i just state i support the Paki's before i am vindicated!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    i think the purpose of the delay was for the pakistani management to establish that none of their players had tampered. with 100% honesty from every player, I don't see what case Hair could have. however, I suspect some individuals in the camp may have (sadly) been less than truthful. if one player later confesses, i fear for his life.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biggie-n)
    i think the purpose of the delay was for the pakistani management to establish that none of their players had tampered. with 100% honesty from every player, I don't see what case Hair could have. however, I suspect some individuals in the camp may have (sadly) been less than truthful. if one player later confesses, i fear for his life.
    yh tis quite sad if someone later is found out to have lied they will die and rightly so.
 
 
 
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.