Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    the Simon Barnes article i'm thinking off is even more against Hair, some excerpts:

    "So now we know it. Officials are more important thatn players, laws are more important than people, one man's vanity is more important than the pleasure of millions, principles are more important than common sense...These are all conclusions we can draw from umpire Darrell Hair's disruption and destruction of the fourth Test between England and Pakistan at the Brit Oval."

    "The point at issue is how a single man's pigheadedness was allowed to disrupt the fun of millions, to give cricket a terrible, gaping wound and to add to the tensions between Muslims and white Westerners at this, of all moments in history."

    ""Hair will argue that he was just standing up for the laws of cricket, that he was not foolish but brave, a voice crying in the wilderness against the too often ignored crime of ball tampering, just as he insisted on making a public fuss about Muralitharan's bowling action when there were ways of fruthering thew hole matter without melodrama. But melodrama is what Hair attracts"

    "...If you read the laws you will find that he is right. If you park on a double yellow line for two minutes outside the chemist to get some urgent medication for your dying wife, the policeman who fines you is also acting according to the law. He is also acting without humanity and common sense"

    "...he forfeited all claim to any favourable review of his day at the office on Sunday when he refused to allow the game to carry on. His belief that umpiring decisions are more important thatn cricketing action, is a heresy. It was, in truth, idiotic to appoint him as umpire in this series. England and Pakistan have a history of trouble, Hair has a history of trouble. And trouble between Muslim countries and Britain is precisely what is to be avoided right now."

    "This series has showed us that white Westerners and Muslims can get on in sporting opposition, or, for that matter, on the same team. The shame of it all was that one man's overweening vanity had to spoil it".

    If you think that other article was showing a 'sensible' POV, then i can argue the same for this one. neither is a balanced appraisal of the situation, but it shows the extremes of the argument.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by englishstudent)
    TV evidence might not be needed, but seeing as there are doubts from various corners as to whether or not the ball even looked to be tampered with, it seems extraordinary that not a single TV camera caught anything even vaguely surprising.

    As to the article: he makes some decent points (the mixing of cricket and international politics is silly), but to suggest that Hair saved cricket with his actions is just stupid. He didn't save anything, his overly hasty actions actually dragged the game into unnecessary controversy.

    I thought Simon Barnes's article was much better.

    Best bit:

    "Sky, not short of cameras or curiosity, was unable to find any footage of a guilty player doing some sneaky thing to the ball. All we have, then, is Hair’s judgment: Hair’s punishment: Hair’s abdication: Hair’s creation of one the great periodic scandals in cricket history. All I can say is that he’d bloody well better be bloody well sure that he was bloody well right."

    So no, Hair didn't "save" cricket - his actions were the cause of one of the worst scandals to hit the game.
    I think you're being a bit hasty there (in the same way perhaps Martin Samuels is) on two counts.

    Firstly, we don't know if Hair's actions were actually incorrect, yet. Let's not forget Billy Doctrove. My suspicions that Pakistan did tamper the ball are heightened by the fact that he must have agreed with Hair that something was up.

    Secondly, the whole 'scandal' element is borne out of the fact that the match got abandoned. A team being accused of ball tampering is not THAT big a deal - a Test match getting called off is. And the Test match got called off, like it or not, because of the actions of the Pakistani team after the tea break, not Darrell Hair. Getting accused of ball tampering is not a free pass to refusing to take the field of play and then expecting the opposition, officials and crowd to wait for you until you've made your protest.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by englishstudent)
    TV evidence might not be needed, but seeing as there are doubts from various corners as to whether or not the ball even looked to be tampered with,
    Which is silly, as only Doctrove and Hair saw the difference in the ball between Cook's dismissal and the moment they ecided it was time to change the ball.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
    Which is silly, as only Doctrove and Hair saw the difference in the ball between Cook's dismissal and the moment they ecided it was time to change the ball.
    (y).

    Undeniably true.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    I think you're being a bit hasty there (in the same way perhaps Martin Samuels is) on two counts.

    Firstly, we don't know if Hair's actions were actually incorrect, yet. Let's not forget Billy Doctrove. My suspicions that Pakistan did tamper the ball are heightened by the fact that he must have agreed with Hair that something was up.
    Time will tell.

    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Secondly, the whole 'scandal' element is borne out of the fact that the match got abandoned. A team being accused of ball tampering is not THAT big a deal - a Test match getting called off is. And the Test match got called off, like it or not, because of the actions of the Pakistani team after the tea break, not Darrell Hair.
    For Pakistan it is a big deal coz they've been accused of it in the past and if they were convinced that no one had done anything (and if they verified this with each team member), I can see why they would take offense. just because pakistanis in the past have done so, doesnt mean this team should be under any more suspicion, since none of the individuals previously involved are playing.
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Getting accused of ball tampering is not a free pass to refusing to take the field of play and then expecting the opposition, officials and crowd to wait for you until you've made your protest.
    As for this, it was their choice to protest by not coming out, and if they knew the consequences of it (as i'm sure Woolmer knew - not inzi, he doesn't have a clue about cricket laws tbh), then i don't see why they can't do it. if they were willing to lose the test match to protest the ball tampering accusation then thats their choice. you can accuse them of level 3 breach of ICC code and all that but you can't force them to play. i suspect inzi will be found guilty of this - easily infact - but the second accusation under law 43.2 (is it?) won't be easy to prove.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
    Which is silly, as only Doctrove and Hair saw the difference in the ball between Cook's dismissal and the moment they ecided it was time to change the ball.
    cook was dismissed by a reverse swinging yorker, so it must already have been scuffed by then, since this delivery appeared to arouse the umpires suspicions. what can they determine after that? that it got even more scuffed? well isn't that expected?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biggie-n)
    For Pakistan it is a big deal coz they've been accused of it in the past and if they were convinced that no one had done anything (and if they verified this with each team member), I can see why they would take offense. just because pakistanis in the past have done so, doesnt mean this team should be under any more suspicion, since none of the individuals previously involved are playing.
    I'm not saying they were wrong to take offence if in fact they hadn't done anything. Their reaction was entirely incorrect though, because..

    (Original post by biggie-n)
    As for this, it was their choice to protest by not coming out, and if they knew the consequences of it (as i'm sure Woolmer knew - not inzi, he doesn't have a clue about cricket laws tbh), then i don't see why they can't do it. if they were willing to lose the test match to protest the ball tampering accusation then thats their choice. you can accuse them of level 3 breach of ICC code and all that but you can't force them to play. i suspect inzi will be found guilty of this - easily infact - but the second accusation under law 43.2 (is it?) won't be easy to prove.
    .. they weren't actually specifically willing to lose the Test for their protest. They lost the Test because of Inzy's intransigence in refusing to simply say 'yes' when Hair came to ask them if they were going to take the field or not. Had they actually specifically been willing to forfeit the Test as a protest, why did they then make moves to continue the match (going back on to the pitch)?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    cook was dismissed by a reverse swinging yorker, so it must already have been scuffed by then, since this delivery appeared to arouse the umpires suspicions. what can they determine after that? that it got even more scuffed? well isn't that expected?
    If the ball became markedly more scuffed, then no, it's not to be expected particularly, considering it would have happened in 5 overs, with the ball only being hit hard once in all that time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biggie-n)
    cook was dismissed by a reverse swinging yorker, so it must already have been scuffed by then, since this delivery appeared to arouse the umpires suspicions. what can they determine after that? that it got even more scuffed? well isn't that expected?
    If it was that delivery which aroused their suspisions why didn't they change the ball then? Why wait for a few (quiet) overs?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    I'm not saying they were wrong to take offence if in fact they hadn't done anything. Their reaction was entirely incorrect though, because they weren't actually specifically willing to lose the Test for their protest. They lost the Test because of Inzy's intransigence in refusing to simply say 'yes' when Hair came to ask them if they were going to take the field or not. Had they actually specifically been willing to forfeit the Test as a protest, why did they then make moves to continue the match (going back on to the pitch)?
    well yeah it appeared they were indeed willing to forfeit the match, before the PCB and ECB chairmen (and possible the match referee) came and convinced them to continue. at which point they (sensibly imo) said, alright, we'll play but we need this issue dealt with at the end of the day. but by then mr hair had already made his mind up according to a strict interpretation of the rule book and refused to engage in dialogue with the captain to explain his concerns about ball tampering.

    you have to see that no umpire behaves like a robot, just enforcing the laws to the letter, without at least explaining to players what they're being penalised for and why. hair's attitude is ****ed up, no denying that. if he had said, fine, i'll carry on till the end of the day's play and then we'll discipline pakistan for staging an illegal protest - that would have been more sensible considering what was done was done by then. they could have made a match of it and penalised inzi under whatever misconduct law they want.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
    If it was that delivery which aroused their suspisions why didn't they change the ball then? Why wait for a few (quiet) overs?
    i'm struggling to see which side you're arguing for. but anyhoo: they clearly wanted to observe asif and co. shining the ball or whatever, as you can see from the sky clips. Hair is constantly watching them. but i fail to see anything dodgy done during that period, and suddenly Hair inspects the ball and decides its damaged by a player. and doctrove is too new to the elite panel to have any kind of authority to override Hair.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
    Which is silly, as only Doctrove and Hair saw the difference in the ball between Cook's dismissal and the moment they ecided it was time to change the ball.
    And nobody has seen it since? A ball can't become untampered with surely?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biggie-n)
    well yeah it appeared they were indeed willing to forfeit the match, before the PCB and ECB chairmen (and possible the match referee) came and convinced them to continue. at which point they (sensibly imo) said, alright, we'll play but we need this issue dealt with at the end of the day. but by then mr hair had already made his mind up according to a strict interpretation of the rule book and refused to engage in dialogue with the captain to explain his concerns about ball tampering.
    So they weren't really prepared to forfeit, they were prepared to use the threat of forfeiting as a ransoming tool. How unfortunate that they felt the need to hold everyone up for so long just to get the deal dealt with at the end of the day.. cos that would have happened anyway!

    (Original post by biggie-n)
    you have to see that no umpire behaves like a robot, just enforcing the laws to the letter, without at least explaining to players what they're being penalised for and why. hair's attitude is ****ed up, no denying that. if he had said, fine, i'll carry on till the end of the day's play and then we'll discipline pakistan for staging an illegal protest - that would have been more sensible considering what was done was done by then. they could have made a match of it and penalised inzi under whatever misconduct law they want.
    Hair did explain though, on the pitch. There are pictures of him and Inzy talking! He also then walked into the Pakistan changing room and explicitly asked - are you playing or not? They didn't say 'yes', so he had no other option. What else could he have done? They'd already held everyone up for long enough, a line has to be drawn.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by englishstudent)
    And nobody has seen it since? A ball can't become untampered with surely?
    But the point is, suspicions would be raised by the difference between 'condition A' of the ball (just after Cook's dismisall) and 'condition B' of the ball (when it all kicked off), not specifically 'condition B' on its own. And as no one except the umpires (Doctrove as well, remember) are able to say what 'condition A' was, no one except the umpires can really make an informed judgement.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    So they weren't really prepared to forfeit, they were prepared to use the threat of forfeiting as a ransoming tool. How unfortunate that they felt the need to hold everyone up for so long just to get the deal dealt with at the end of the day.. cos that would have happened anyway!
    lol you misunderstood me completely. it appeared they were willing to sit out the whole match until persuaded otherwise. they showed flexibility which is more than can be said for Hair.

    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Hair did explain though, on the pitch. There are pictures of him and Inzy talking! He also then walked into the Pakistan changing room and explicitly asked - are you playing or not? They didn't say 'yes', so he had no other option. What else could he have done? They'd already held everyone up for long enough, a line has to be drawn.
    no one knows what Hair said to inzi, so you can't say he explained himself. inzi must have had reason to still ask him in the dressing room 'why did you change the ball' or 'who dunnit?'
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biggie-n)
    lol you misunderstood me completely. it appeared they were willing to sit out the whole match until persuaded otherwise.
    Well this completely flies in the face of what the Pakistani team themselves said, that they just wanted to stage a couple of minutes protest after tea, then come out and play. So which one is it?

    (Original post by biggie-n)
    no one knows what Hair said to inzi, so you can't say he explained himself. inzi must have had reason to still ask him in the dressing room 'why did you change the ball' or 'who dunnit?'
    I very much doubt that Hair was saying "hmmm, I wonder what's on TV tonight, do you know?" to Inzy whilst standing next to him, pointing at the ball, when the whole thing kicked off.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biggie-n)
    you have to see that no umpire behaves like a robot, just enforcing the laws to the letter, without at least explaining to players what they're being penalised for and why.


    What's goin on here then? A polite discussion of the weather?
    hair's attitude is ****ed up, no denying that. if he had said, fine, i'll carry on till the end of the day's play and then we'll discipline pakistan for staging an illegal protest - that would have been more sensible considering what was done was done by then. they could have made a match of it and penalised inzi under whatever misconduct law they want.
    Nope. That would have been absolutley disgraceful - and i say that as someone who paid money to attend. Had the game been allowed to continue, Pakistan's tantrum would allow tohem to have changed the game in their favour. It allowed their bowlers extra time to rest, the light to fade, and the batsman's concentration to be broken by all of the commotion. Would it have been fair to ask the batsmen to come out in such circumstances? At tea, all the pressure was back on Pakistan. England were in a position to bat out the day, scramble together a small lead, then put pakistan in for a distinctly unpleasant final session on monday (light holding, etc). Because Pakistan's protest basically took the evening session out of the game, it would have been almost impossible for England to win, which is clearly unfair.

    The laws state that if a team is unwilling to play, the game is forfeited to the opposition. Would it have been alright for england to hide in their dressing rooms during the unpleasant sessions when Inzi and co have been carting them all over the ground? Of course not. Given the circumstances, the umpires reached the only decision available to them by the rules of the law and the rules of fairness.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    get him a box
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    had any1 seen kaneria do the chicken dance when he gets peiterson out? what a looser - he looks pathetic!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I feel sorry for Kaneria - he always seems to have a worried expression on his face. It's like he's going to be ripped apart by a pack of rabid wolves if he doesn't get a wicket, or something.
 
 
 
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.