Turn on thread page Beta

The Cricket Society watch

Announcements
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I hope, assuming Akhtar is the culprit, that he is fined/reprimanded and that is the end of it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    He got a two game ban the last time he did it (I believe) - should a persistant cheat receive the same punishment as a first time offender?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I believe it is at the discretion of the match referee, who in this case happens to be the useless Mike Procter - same man who was referring at the Oval.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    I dunno, that looked a bit dodgy, but innocent until proven guilty and you can't know 100% from what they showed. Though with Afridi last year I don't think Pakistan can claim to be squeaky clean.

    Anyway, better game today, ok we still lost but it was competative. Pakistan proved why they're not the best ODI side, like I said earlier somewhere, Aussies are just more professional and the fielding was terrible!

    But not as terrible as Clark and Mahmood, jesus Christ! Ok give Clark a try, but he's clearly one of the many who do well day in and day out at county level, but can't do the same in internationals. As for Mahmood, I don't think he can bat at all, and Pietersen outbowled him today... seriously. Amongst his many faults is the amount of extras he gives away which is doubly bad in ODI's, I say drop both of these in place of Monty and question mark. We can decide who exactly later, but at least this match established it can't be these two.

    Lewis is looking good, Strauss should have used him earlier. I was saying at a much earlier stage to use Lewis or he wont get to use his full 10 overs. Admittedly I was against using Mahmood when he got Afridi out (although he wasn't actually out) so maybe Strauss has that on me. But our best bowler not getting in 10 overs is crazy. I knew when Clark bowled over 49 with 7 needed it was all over before Lewis would get a chance!

    But at least the batting was good, though Tesco and Pietersen still need to get into some proper form. They're our two most important one day players and neither are getting runs which is a big reason for our failings.

    I'm pretty pleased, as long as we now drop Mahmood and Clark, and give Monty a chance (his batting is clearly better than Mahmoods, whose technique is awful, if he ever gets runs it's lucky.)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Inzy does it again!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socrates)
    Inzy does it again!
    and will continue to do so!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mike89)
    and will continue to do so!
    inshallah, atleast until the end of the world cup. amen.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Pakistan proved why they're not the best ODI side
    mate, you cant say that after watching a couple of ODI games! Their fielding before the series was vastly improved, they didnt know how to drop a catch! But since then Akmal and co have let things slip a little, but theyll be top notch once the world cup comes round
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socrates)
    Inzy does it again!
    No, it was Shoaib this time, the cameras clearly picked it up.

    ":five:"
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:


    ^o)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)


    ^o)
    maybe we should change his name to muttiah...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mshar)
    inshallah, atleast until the end of the world cup. amen.
    yup dude definitely jus gotta clean up in the fielding...then bring on aussies and india!!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Take this all you haters. :cool:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I really don't get how that decision has been reached. Even if he wasn't ball tampering (which it really, really looks like he was), he was cleaning the ball without the umpire watching, which is also breaking the laws of the game. Or do bowlers shine the ball by making sharp digging motions with their thumbs these days? Utterly ridiculous, he is a very, very lucky boy.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Who was it that was telling me that the officials decision is final?

    It is the match referee who has made the decision, and shall be accepted as so, in fact, it has to be accepted because the umpires claim they did not see anything.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socrates)
    Who was it that was telling me that the officials decision is final?

    It is the match referee who has made the decision, and shall be accepted as so, in fact, it has to be accepted because the umpires claim they did not see anything.
    You're right, the official's decision is final, but that doesn't mean it's always correct. Furthermore, if you are claiming that Shoaib has done nothing wrong because "the official's decision is final", then you are agreeing that Pakistan ball tampered at the Oval, after all - "the official's decision is final". So I take it that you now agree with Darrell Hair, ok.

    I have never said "Pakistan ball tampered at the Oval, without doubt", and consequently I have never used the line "the official's decision is final" to justify such a comment. Obviously, the case of Shoaib yesterday shows that officials can get it wrong. I simply said that I wouldn't be massively surprised if Pakistan had been tampering at the Ovalv(given that cricketing nations past), and Mr. Hair and Doctrove were in a far better position than any of us to judge (they've seen old cricket balls far often than us, they actually saw the ball close up, we didn't). I have also said that Inzamam was completely wrong with his behaviour after tea, and Hair was completely right (in that instance).

    Look, Shoaib was ball tampering yesterday, or at the very best, still breaking a rule. The officials have got it completely wrong in this case - AND YES, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THEY HAD IT WRONG ACCUSING PAKISTAN OF BALL TAMPERING AT THE OVAL. I have never ruled out this possibility.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Who do you all support?
    I support Essex, 'cos I've got a sense of humour (which is required if following Essex).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Looking back on that match actually, I think Shoaib has got away with it because the ICC just don't want any more drama involving these two teams. He's not the only one who's been lucky as well. Rana could have easily got in trouble for his gesture to Dalrymple when he bowled him, Collingwood could have easily got in trouble for his aggression after Strauss ran out Hafeez, and Younis could have easily got in trouble for his aggression at various points of his innings (walking towards Collingwood with his bat outstretched, etc).

    I think Shoaib has benefited from the current climate, as there can be no doubt that he was breaking a rule - be it ball tampering, or removing mud without supervision.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    You're right, the official's decision is final, but that doesn't mean it's always correct. Furthermore, if you are claiming that Shoaib has done nothing wrong because "the official's decision is final", then you are agreeing that Pakistan ball tampered at the Oval, after all - "the official's decision is final". So I take it that you now agree with Darrell Hair, ok.

    I have never said "Pakistan ball tampered at the Oval, without doubt", and consequently I have never used the line "the official's decision is final" to justify such a comment. Obviously, the case of Shoaib yesterday shows that officials can get it wrong. I simply said that I wouldn't be massively surprised if Pakistan had been tampering at the Ovalv(given that cricketing nations past), and Mr. Hair and Doctrove were in a far better position than any of us to judge (they've seen old cricket balls far often than us, they actually saw the ball close up, we didn't). I have also said that Inzamam was completely wrong with his behaviour after tea, and Hair was completely right (in that instance).

    Look, Shoaib was ball tampering yesterday, or at the very best, still breaking a rule. The officials have got it completely wrong in this case - AND YES, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THEY HAD IT WRONG ACCUSING PAKISTAN OF BALL TAMPERING AT THE OVAL. I have never ruled out this possibility.
    You say that, and then you claim that Mike Proctor, who has had the benefit of watching the replays from all angles and consulting the umpires etc, has got it wrong. You can't have it both ways - either the officials are in a better position to judge, and then their judgement is final, or they aren't - incidently I was playing devil's advocate there, just to see your response, and surprise, surprise, it is just as I expected.

    When other people were saying that the umpire can get it wrong, and still needs to prove it before any punishment is handed out for ball tampering, some people disagreed.

    I never named you personally, since you weren't the only one reciting to us the sanctity of the match officials.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Looking back on that match actually, I think Shoaib has got away with it because the ICC just don't want any more drama involving these two teams. He's not the only one who's been lucky as well. Rana could have easily got in trouble for his gesture to Dalrymple when he bowled him, Collingwood could have easily got in trouble for his aggression after Strauss ran out Hafeez, and Younis could have easily got in trouble for his aggression at various points of his innings (walking towards Collingwood with his bat outstretched, etc).

    I think Shoaib has benefited from the current climate, as there can be no doubt that he was breaking a rule - be it ball tampering, or removing mud without supervision.
    Oh and Stuart Broad got away big time in the previous ODI where he didn't even bother to wait for the umpires signal before celebrating. It isn't only Pakistani who have benefited from the poor umpiring, quite the opposite in fact, where at Headingley, England cashed in on plenty of poor decisions (that isn't to take anything away from a splendid English performance and a deserved win, but the point needs to be made).
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
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.