Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    forget all this arguing about whether pakistan should have come out or not, the source of this was whether the ball had been tampered with or not. Its 1 mans word (Hair) against the Pakistani team, and ~26 video cameras.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alkaeda)
    forget all this arguing about whether pakistan should have come out or not, the source of this was whether the ball had been tampered with or not. Its 1 mans word (Hair) against the Pakistani team, and ~26 video cameras.
    Well that's just a ridiculous comment. You are right to identify what the source of the drama was - the alleged ball tampering incident. However,

    a. it's the word of two men, Doctrove agreed with Hair.

    b. irrespective of whether Pakistan were falsely accused, their refusal to come out and play was a pathetic attempt to hold the opposition, officials and spectators to ransom.

    I'm just glad that the majority of the people supporting Pakistan in this whole case aren't quite so stupid as to suggest that we forget the entire episode that made this into such a big thing. That's the match being abandoned, not the ball tampering. Had Pakistan reacted in a more mature way, i.e., continued to play, then gone down the right avenues at the end of the day, this would not be anywhere near such a massive event.

    Dolt.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    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.
    Yep, if there is evidence produced to suggest ball tampering did take place I will accept that Hair acted fairly (if somewhat hastily) although he did seem all too keen to implement the rules as harshly as possible. And although nobody knows the exact details of the allegations, it seems his dramatic response was perhaps out of line with the seeming absence of concrete evidence.

    As to the second issue, it's not that clear cut I don't think. There was a period of time when both teams wanted to play but Hair forced the forfeit. Again his actions were inkeeping with the letter of the law, but he did little to attempt a diplomatic solution. For example, had he gone to the Pakistani dressing room and asked them if there were intending to play, the Pakistani claims that theirs was a short stand would have been proven or disproven. Ok, so it might not fall into his job description, but a younger upmire like Taufel would certainly have taken the time and made the effort. In my mind that makes him a better umpire, because neither the umpire nor the law are there for sh*ts and giggles, they are there so that cricket can be played. Cricket was not played.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    a. it's the word of two men, Doctrove agreed with Hair.
    Exactly. And, as senior as Hair might have been, it is notably Doctrove who has more (or just as much) experiance in matters of Ball tampering. If i didn't know better, i would say that people seem to be ommiting his actions in order to try and artificially create a case for discrimination.

    Also, the 26 cameras prove nothing. While they fail to prove that there was ball tampering, they cannot prove that no such tampering took place. As can be witnessed from the case in the Caribbean and through the punishment given to Surrey, ball tampering allegations do not require TV evidence or someone to be caught in the act.

    As to the second issue, it's not that clear cut I don't think. There was a period of time when both teams wanted to play but Hair forced the forfeit.
    Hair forced the forfeit because the match had already been forfeited. He can hardly been in the wrong. Pakistan had two chances to get out on the field. They chose to remain in the dressing room or to sit on the balcony reading the paper. Hair did what the laws of the game forced him to do. To go back on the forfeit would have been a crime and utterly unfair on the england team.

    Quite frankly, so far i have yet to see one decent argument in defence of Pakistan's behaviour. The attempts to blame it on the umpires is shocking - especially since many of the people in question know that, if they were to speak of the details, they would be in breach of the umpire's code of conduct.

    they are there so that cricket can be played. Cricket was not played.
    NO cricket being played is much better than cricket being played but ultimatley controlled by the temper tantrums of the players (please see football).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    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.
    I understand that, but it doesn't address the fact that people have seen the ball in condition B and deemed it not to have been tampered with...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)


    What's goin on here then? A polite discussion of the weather?


    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.
    i'm sorry, but you are seriously deluded if you believe England had any chance of winning. the odds for an england victory at teat were something like 24-1 and they were still 30 odd runs behind i think.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by englishstudent)
    For example, had he gone to the Pakistani dressing room and asked them if there were intending to play, the Pakistani claims that theirs was a short stand would have been proven or disproven. Ok, so it might not fall into his job description, but a younger upmire like Taufel would certainly have taken the time and made the effort. In my mind that makes him a better umpire, because neither the umpire nor the law are there for sh*ts and giggles, they are there so that cricket can be played. Cricket was not played.
    He did though. And the Pakistanis failed to say 'yes', and failed to give any indication that they intended to play. Bob Woolmer admits that himself.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by englishstudent)
    I understand that, but it doesn't address the fact that people have seen the ball in condition B and deemed it not to have been tampered with...
    I don't get how they could tell though. The ball won't always wear a great deal. Clearly SOMETHING changed in between Cook's wicket and the incident kicking off.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
    Exactly. And, as senior as Hair might have been, it is notably Doctrove who has more (or just as much) experiance in matters of Ball tampering. If i didn't know better, i would say that people seem to be ommiting his actions in order to try and artificially create a case for discrimination.
    Doctrove is not more experienced than Hair as an elite umpire.
    (Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
    Also, the 26 cameras prove nothing. While they fail to prove that there was ball tampering, they cannot prove that no such tampering took place. As can be witnessed from the case in the Caribbean and through the punishment given to Surrey, ball tampering allegations do not require TV evidence or someone to be caught in the act.
    You've repeated this many time but you can't accept that Pakistan want someone to be accused, rather than saying the whole team did it, and also why Hair chose the harshest way to deal with this - the first time 5 runs were awarded in a Test match.

    (Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
    Hair forced the forfeit because the match had already been forfeited. He can hardly been in the wrong. Pakistan had two chances to get out on the field. They chose to remain in the dressing room or to sit on the balcony reading the paper. Hair did what the laws of the game forced him to do. To go back on the forfeit would have been a crime and utterly unfair on the england team.
    Funny, coz England were ready to play when Pakistan took to the field. or at least resume the match tomorrow if light was bad.

    (Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
    NO cricket being played is much better than cricket being played but ultimatley controlled by the temper tantrums of the players (please see football).
    For you maybe, but when both teams are in agreement to play, then neither is holding the umpires ransom. if england believed it was wrong then why did the ECB dude agree to continue?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biggie-n)
    i'm sorry, but you are seriously deluded if you believe England had any chance of winning. the odds for an england victory at teat were something like 24-1 and they were still 30 odd runs behind i think.
    Taking weather out of the equation for a second, England could have put on between 100-150 runs in the long evening session and ended the day around 100 ahead. They could have then played out the morning and most of the afternoon with an inspired stand by the tail adding another 150 runs. They could have then put Pakistan in at about 3pm on Monday and, with some inspired bowling, skittled them by the close of play. Perhaps asking for the extra half hour, if needed.

    Ok, so it isn't very likely that this would have happened, but thats the wonderful thing about cricekt. Unlikely things happen. On the 20th of August 1994, how many people would have thought that Devon Malcom would have finished with figures of 9-57?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    you're assuming a lot, as you say so yourself. so its not remotely unfair on england - pak lost a chance to win. if anything the whole saga was a boon to england, who can now rest with a 3-0 scoreline in the historybooks.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biggie-n)
    Doctrove is not more experienced than Hair as an elite umpire.
    No, but he's no spring chicken. He's also involved these kind of cases before, so there's little evidence that he's a simple 'yes' man.

    You've repeated this many time but you can't accept that Pakistan want someone to be accused,
    I'm sure convicted murderers would like to see photographic proof of their crime too. At the end of the day, however, it isn't always needed. If the forensic evidence is strong enough, he'll be put away even if there are no witnesses to the crime.

    Funny, coz England were ready to play when Pakistan took to the field. or at least resume the match tomorrow if light was bad.
    Yes, but that has more to do with money than cricket - it was the board politicians who were trying to get the match started.
    For you maybe, but when both teams are in agreement to play, then neither is holding the umpires ransom.
    if england believed it was wrong then why did the ECB dude agree to continue?
    Pakistan had already attempted to hold the umpires to ransom with their childish protest! The umpires can't be blamed for enforcing the laws of the game. The fact of the matter is that the umpires were upholding the laws. The ECB were desperately trying to prevent a situation emerging where they'd hacve to give people's money back (im getting a 40% refund. Woohoo).

    biggie-n, i take it from your defence of Pakistan's behaviour that you think cricket would be improved if any team could take it upon themselves to hide in the dressing room when the game was starting to turn against them?

    ou're assuming a lot, as you say so yourself. so its not remotely unfair on england -
    So they don't deserve a fair chance to try?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    look, we are going round in circles. the issue is whether the ball was or was not tampered with, the actions of the pakistani team/umpires can be debated and argued until eternity, with no conclusion. so far there has been no evidence to support the ball tampering issue, so you cannot really argue for Hair on this decision alone (to call them cheaters).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alkaeda)
    look, we are going round in circles. the issue is whether the ball was or was not tampered with, the actions of the pakistani team/umpires can be debated and argued until eternity, with no conclusion. so far there has been no evidence to support the ball tampering issue, so you cannot really argue for Hair on this decision alone (to call them cheaters).
    The irony is of course, you assertion that Hair has no evidence is based on no evidence.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
    No, but he's no spring chicken. He's also involved these kind of cases before, so there's little evidence that he's a simple 'yes' man.
    Hair did all the hoo haa that day. he awarded the five runs, took the bails off, refused to come out again, not Doctrove.


    (Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
    I'm sure convicted murderers would like to see photographic proof of their crime too. At the end of the day, however, it isn't always needed. If the forensic evidence is strong enough, he'll be put away even if there are no witnesses to the crime.
    Yeah, but you can't lock up all 11 men or only charge the leader because they have no proof who did it. We don't know the 'forensic evidence' yet, so you can't assume that what they did was right. Hair didn't explain in his interview his reasons for doing it; he just (rather amusingly) vowed to continue his career.


    (Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
    Yes, but that has more to do with money than cricket - it was the board politicians who were trying to get the match started.
    Again, you can't prove that, and since both teams were willing, the players must have been happy for the reasons they were playing, so its irrelevant who convinced them to and why. besides, i don't care if the politicians want the match restarted, since at least cricket is being played and BOTH TEAMS WANT TO.

    (Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
    Pakistan had already attempted to hold the umpires to ransom with their childish protest! The umpires can't be blamed for enforcing the laws of the game. The fact of the matter is that the umpires were upholding the laws. The ECB were desperately trying to prevent a situation emerging where they'd hacve to give people's money back (im getting a 40% refund. Woohoo).
    I've repeated my POV on this many times - Hair showed no common sense in the interpretation of the law, he sought to implement them as harshly as possible, and i sincerely do not believe this would have been the case had England been the (unlikely) culprits. Hair can be blamed for taking themselves too importantly and not letting the teams get on with it. Pakistan would probably have gained some consolation with a 2-1 scoreline to the series.

    (Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
    biggie-n, i take it from your defence of Pakistan's behaviour that you think cricket would be improved if any team could take it upon themselves to hide in the dressing room when the game was starting to turn against them?
    No, but they're free to protest if they feel the umpire is being biased against them and his attitude is not to their liking. its funny how no other international umpire has been singled out by any asian team, only Hair. that's coz the others have some common sense and aren't up themselves. I want to see the back of Hair, that's all. He hides behind the screen of "oh all umpires make some bad decisions occasionally" but its funny how many times these decisions go against Asian teams. its a trend you would notice if you supported one of our teams.
    I'm not even Pakistani ffs! I hate their cricket team! :rolleyes: You can tell why the BCCI chose to side with the ICC...

    (Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
    So they don't deserve a fair chance to try?
    They absolutely do! and considering they were ready to play, I think they deemed they had a fair chance, so i don't see who you are to say it wasn't fair - if the team themselves are willing to go out and give it a shot!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
    The irony is of course, you assertion that Hair has no evidence is based on no evidence.
    lol. i assume its based on his unwillingness to declare it, which is suppose he doesn't want to do to the media. but at least private word with the coach is courteous...
    you also have no evidence yourself to support Hair's behaviour apart from the rule book - where the law itself is a bit vague. they need to clarify that you don't need to accuse a single player.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
    The irony is of course, you assertion that Hair has no evidence is based on no evidence.
    Assertions can be based on a lack of evidence.

    "I don't believe in the Toothfairy because I don't have any evidence for her existence" for example.

    Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by englishstudent)
    Assertions can be based on a lack of evidence.

    "I don't believe in the Toothfairy because I don't have any evidence for her existence" for example.

    Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
    yeah...:cool:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well i think we should talk cricket and not speculate about the ball tampering allegations as that is all we CAN do. None of us can prove them innocent or guilty.

    On a lighter note Stuart Broad has made the England squad for the ODI's against Pakistan. he is a great prospect for England, i just hope they nurture him correctly into a fine international bowler.

    He is incidently the son of Chris Broad who is an ICC match refereee, who could take over from Ranjan Madugalle for Inzi's hearing! :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alkaeda)
    look, we are going round in circles. the issue is whether the ball was or was not tampered with, the actions of the pakistani team/umpires can be debated and argued until eternity, with no conclusion. so far there has been no evidence to support the ball tampering issue, so you cannot really argue for Hair on this decision alone (to call them cheaters).
    Well this is the thing, the issue isn't so much whether the ball was tampered with anymore. Pakistan, with their actions after tea, have successfully managed to turn a situation in which they could well have been found to have done nothing wrong whatsoever in into one whereby their reputation has been tarnished.
 
 
 
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.