Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socrates)
    How is it going to be decided? None of the cameras picked it up, and no one else saw it but the two umpires. It is their word against Inzamam's. I agree with Nasser Hussain here; either the umpires are right and present the evidence or Pakistan didn't tamper with the ball; either way get on with it rather than holding meetings here and there.
    In the same way Surrey and Barbados were done for tampering, the evidence of the ball.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socrates)
    How is it going to be decided?
    Probably by looking at the ball. Hopefully those who adjudicate will have enough experience to be able to distinguish a worn ball from a tampered ball.

    By the way, you really didn't answer my question about Doctrove. I mean, Hair would accuse Pakistan of tampering with the ball because he hates all Asian teams, obviously.. but what about Doctrove? He MUST have said 'I agree with you, that ball doesn't look right'. Why?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    A ball that is 56 overs old can look ragged just be general wear and tear, especially as England were scoring at four an over at the time. The ball in itself cannot prove that it was tampered with by someone.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Probably by looking at the ball. Hopefully those who adjudicate will have enough experience to be able to distinguish a worn ball from a tampered ball.

    By the way, you really didn't answer my question about Doctrove. I mean, Hair would accuse Pakistan of tampering with the ball because he hates all Asian teams, obviously.. but what about Doctrove? He MUST have said 'I agree with you, that ball doesn't look right'. Why?
    Because Hair is the senior umpire and Doctrove went along, just as Steve Dunne went along (and admitted to going along in his bio even though he wasn't sure) in Melbourne when Murali was being noballed by Hair every over.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socrates)
    A ball that is 56 overs old can look ragged just be general wear and tear, especially as England were scoring at four an over at the time. The ball in itself cannot prove that it was tampered with by someone.
    Be honest - how many times have you seen a 56 over-old ball? Close up, in the flesh?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Not many - but whats your point?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socrates)
    Not many - but whats your point?
    How many is 'not many'? In fact, when would you have ever seen a 56 over-old ball? I'll get to my point in a second.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    woolmer saw the ball. said there was general wear but no lifted seam that made tampering obvious
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I haven't got time for games. Get to the point.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socrates)
    The ball in itself cannot prove that it was tampered with by someone.
    Surrey would disagree with you there.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    umpires officiating at the game warned Surrey about the condition of the ball, further ball-tampering occurred.
    No such warning occured at the Oval, and further being the operative word.

    Surrey accepted that there had been ball-tampering,
    ...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socrates)
    I haven't got time for games. Get to the point.
    OK, my point is:

    Doctrove and Hair have 85 Tests between them - if you say each Test is about 300 overs long, then between them, they've umpired 25500 overs, just in Test cricket. So, they've seen a 56 over old ball about 455 times between them in Test cricket alone - God knows how many more times they've seen one in their first class careers as well.

    So, I think they've seen a 56 over old ball looking ragged just through 'general wear and tear' a few times. Does it not make you think that there's a reasonable chance that they might know what constitutes 'general wear and tear', and what constitutes something beyond this?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Interesting words from Mikey Holding:
    Holding on the current controversy
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
    Surrey would disagree with you there.
    Interestingly:

    Surrey accepted that there had been ball-tampering, and launched an internal investigation, but where unable to establish the guilty party.
    So, apparently it's possible for there to have been ball tampering, even if no one admits to it, and even if the umpire is unable to identify a specific guilty party.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    OK, my point is:

    Doctrove and Hair have 85 Tests between them - if you say each Test is about 300 overs long, then between them, they've umpired 25500 overs, just in Test cricket. So, they've seen a 56 over old ball about 455 times between them in Test cricket alone - God knows how many more times they've seen one in their first class careers as well.

    So, I think they've seen a 56 over old ball looking ragged just through 'general wear and tear' a few times. Does it not make you think that there's a reasonable chance that they might know what constitutes 'general wear and tear', and what constitutes something beyond this?
    Well given Hair's not so great record against Asian teams, I have my doubts.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socrates)
    Interesting words from Mikey Holding:
    Holding on the current controversy
    i was gonna quote that. good stuff from Holding-speaking up.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socrates)
    Well given Hair's not so great record against Asian teams, I have my doubts.
    OK, so what about Doctrove? If we use my calculations above, he'd have seen a 56 over-old ball 48 times in Test cricket alone, not even mentioning his first class umpiring experience. He's certaintly no stranger to a ball that's just got a bit scuffed up through general wear and tear. So.. why did he agree that there had been ball tampering? Strange.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biggie-n)
    woolmer saw the ball. said there was general wear but no lifted seam that made tampering obvious
    ^^ what he said. yeah.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    ^^ what he said. yeah.
    So when Woolmer (the coach of the team being accused) says there was no ball tampering, it's a fact.. but when Woolmer says that Pakistan only intended to do a short protest, he 'doesn't know what he's talking about' (or words to that effect)?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    OK, so what about Doctrove? If we use my calculations above, he'd have seen a 56 over-old ball 48 times in Test cricket alone, not even mentioning his first class umpiring experience. He's certaintly no stranger to a ball that's just got a bit scuffed up through general wear and tear. So.. why did he agree that there had been ball tampering? Strange.
    Doctrove is a weak character - he gave into Brian Lara earlier this year, so I'm not surprised if he just went along with Hair.
 
 
 
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.