Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by aSian_cUtY)
    lol what a joka u r biker23:rolleyes: call me whateva u want, everyone who was calling our team cheaters in that test match deserved that reaction, i dont care if u didnt like it. Our team had been called cheats for over a month now, and this proves everyone who thort this wrong.
    And as for Afridi, so its in the past...michael atherton cheated in the past too. England aint exactly saints either:rolleyes:
    Athers doesn't still play for us. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tis_me_lord)
    Athers doesn't still play for us. :rolleyes:
    He wasn't banned for what he did; Afridi was. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Oooh, looks like i've missed most of the debate here!

    Well, I think it's good for the game that Inzamam and Pakistan were cleared of cheating in the oval test match. It proves they didnt cheat in that game.

    I agree Hair's career is probably as good as over. Although In his defence though, he stood up to what he thought was ball tampering. There have probably been many situations where teams have been tampering with the ball (or what would have looked like tampering in the umpires opinion) , but in which case the umpire may have been to scared, intimidated or not gutsy enough to say anything. At least Hair showed that the umpire does have some authority in a cricket match. Although the brash manner with which he tried to stamp his authority was a bit OTT.

    But still, I'm glad there was no wrongdoing here.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socrates)
    He wasn't banned for what he did; Afridi was. :rolleyes:
    that doesn't help the "pakistan aren't cheats" campaign though...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Call it what you will its a moral victory for Pak.
    And even in the press conference today Hair showed his arrogance yet again with wonderful quotes such as "i'm a damn good umpire" and "you're obviously unable to understand what i'm saying" etc. not to mention trying to make a joke out of everything.
    and what a crap excuse from the ICC about 'personal security'!

    and tis me lord, like Socrates said, Athers was completely unpunished and he ended his career out of choice.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bikerx23)
    that doesn't help the "pakistan aren't cheats" campaign though...
    Pakistan aren't cheats; a member of the Pakistani team acted outside the laws of the game and was duly punished. End of story.

    EDIT: ICC acting like the complete idiots they are. A country that can provide security to George Bush and Pervez Musharraf can't give security to Darrell Hair? Come off it. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    on the news it said Ranjan Madugalle in the hearing wasn't pleased that Hair didn't follow the protocol about informing the fielding captain about the ball change, instead Inzi had to approach him etc. and led to the confrontation that was pictured in Cricinfo.
    since the ICC makes a huge issue about bowlers celebrating a wicket before consulting the umpire, this seemed to be a perfect point for the Pak defense.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tis_me_lord)
    Athers doesn't still play for us. :rolleyes:
    It's not a once a cheater always a cheater policy here as he hasnt done anything like that since
    Can't believe our team had to go through hell for a month just because Hair 'guessed' we were tampering:rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    'Go through hell'? LOL. Someone get the violins out. Anyway, I'd say the hearing seemed just about right. Pakistan let off the ball tampering charge (and before any 'asian cuties' (LOL) start telling me 'U'zzz sedd dattt pak wozz cheatterzzz maaannn!!' in whatever language they speak, with the exception of incorrectly identifying a photo which I apologised for, I've always said that I didn't know if Pakistan HAD cheated, just that I wouldn't be in the slightest bit surprised). It's good that Inzy hasn't gone unpunished, as his team's behaviour after tea was flagrantly incorrect.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socrates)
    EDIT: ICC acting like the complete idiots they are. A country that can provide security to George Bush and Pervez Musharraf can't give security to Darrell Hair? Come off it. :rolleyes:
    When they visit India, do George Bush and Pervez Musharraf spend a day standing perfectly still in the middle of a big field, surrounded by thousands upon thousands of people?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    When they visit India, do George Bush and Pervez Musharraf spend a day standing perfectly still in the middle of a big field, surrounded by thousands upon thousands of people?
    What and Hair doesn't stand perfectly still at Lords test matches with thousands upon thousands of ppl watching? oh well i presume the Asian thousands at the Champions Trophy won't really care about the cricket and only want to exact revenge upon the umpire who took on Pakistan, India's fondest neighbour! Also, I presume that all Asian spectators are armed to the teeth at the same time. Moreover, the ICC MUST be right that India can't provide adequate security despite the BCCI (which knows a whole lot about providing security) assuring the world that this was a reason entirely of the ICC's making!

    yeah, they all sound plausible.:rolleyes: get off your high horse.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biggie-n)
    What and Hair doesn't stand perfectly still at Lords test matches with thousands upon thousands of ppl watching? oh well i presume the Asian thousands at the Champions Trophy won't really care about the cricket and only want to exact revenge upon the umpire who took on Pakistan, India's fondest neighbour! Also, I presume that all Asian spectators are armed to the teeth at the same time. Moreover, the ICC MUST be right that India can't provide adequate security despite the BCCI (which knows a whole lot about providing security) assuring the world that this was a reason entirely of the ICC's making!

    yeah, they all sound plausible.:rolleyes: get off your high horse.
    I'm not on a high horse. Would you deny that Darrell Hair is more at risk on the sub continent then? Has this occured in England? Are the people who do that sort of thing and harbour such feelings for Mr. Hair more or less likely to be present at an ODI in India than they are at Lord's? We both know that the answer is the former.

    I'm not saying he'd necessarily get attacked or what have you, I was merely pointing out why I feel Socrate's analogy was a poor one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Nope I disagree, anywhere where Hair will umpire from now on is going to be full of fans who do not care for him, no matter if its England or India. He will attract so much media attention wherever/whatever he does now.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    I'm not on a high horse. Would you deny that Darrell Hair is more at risk on the sub continent then? Has this occured in England? Are the people who do that sort of thing and harbour such feelings for Mr. Hair more or less likely to be present at an ODI in India than they are at Lord's? We both know that the answer is the former.

    I'm not saying he'd necessarily get attacked or what have you, I was merely pointing out why I feel Socrate's analogy was a poor one.
    ok i think you're the only one who believes the ICC's excuse about security. the ppl in that image are not in India, and I doubt many Indians truly care what happens to Hair, so no, he's not in any danger with the level of security that surrounds major cricketing events (similar to airport security). So if its not the fans then is it a terrorist threat? Who's to say England is any safer in that respect? Terrorism is just as likely anywhere in the world.

    A poor cop out from the ICC and similar to SAF's decision to pull out of the Sri Lankan tour. pretty pathetic.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    with the exception of incorrectly identifying a photo which I apologised for, I've always said that I didn't know if Pakistan HAD cheated, just that I wouldn't be in the slightest bit surprised. It's good that Inzy hasn't gone unpunished, as his team's behaviour after tea was flagrantly incorrect.
    oh but Ranjan Madugalle proved you wrong on so many counts, most importantly the necessity of concrete evidence for such allegations. Not to mention the fact that Hair thought a 56 over old ball showing normal wear and tear had somehow been tampered with without any basis. Add to that the conclusion that it was impossible for the ball to deteriorate between the 52nd and 56th over from very good to 'conclusively tampered', I'd say pretty much all of your previous arguments were wrong.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aSian_cUtY)
    Nope I disagree, anywhere where Hair will umpire from now on is going to be full of fans who do not care for him, no matter if its England or India. He will attract so much media attention wherever/whatever he does now.
    Right, let me get this straight - you think that Hair will now be just as unpopular in England as he was, is, and will be in the future, in India?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biggie-n)
    ok i think you're the only one who believes the ICC's excuse about security. the ppl in that image are not in India, and I doubt many Indians truly care what happens to Hair, so no, he's not in any danger with the level of security that surrounds major cricketing events (similar to airport security). So if its not the fans then is it a terrorist threat? Who's to say England is any safer in that respect? Terrorism is just as likely anywhere in the world.

    A poor cop out from the ICC and similar to SAF's decision to pull out of the Sri Lankan tour. pretty pathetic.
    I haven't actually said I believe what the ICC are saying, so stop arguing as if I have. I was merely explaining why Socrates' analogy wasn't a very good one. Stop arguing against points that I haven't made. Also, if you genuinely believe that "Terrorism is just as likely anywhere in the world", well, what can I say.. that's just patently untrue, anyone with the slightest bit of sense would agree.

    (Original post by biggie-n)
    oh but Ranjan Madugalle proved you wrong on so many counts, most importantly the necessity of concrete evidence for such allegations. Not to mention the fact that Hair thought a 56 over old ball showing normal wear and tear had somehow been tampered with without any basis. Add to that the conclusion that it was impossible for the ball to deteriorate between the 52nd and 56th over from very good to 'conclusively tampered', I'd say pretty much all of your previous arguments were wrong.
    Yet again, you're arguing against points I simply didn't make. Madugalle still hasn't actually said that ball most certainly wasn't tampered with, he has said that the ball's state looks as likely to be due to normal wear and tear as it does deliberate human intervention, not that it was certainly a result of normal wear and tear. All I said that was I wouldn't be surprised if Pakistan were found guilty of ball tampering. I basically said "there are a number of unanswered questions, let's wait and see what the investigation has to say" - and I have done! So, fair enough, apparently they weren't guilty on this instance at the Oval.

    My main argument was that their behaviour after tea was categorically wrong, and I completely stand by this view.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    errr, following last year's kaboom in London i'd say Britain is arguably more dangerous than the subcontinent, but that's a whole different matter.

    some great quotes from your good self throughout this Hair trauma:

    "And don't say "but they were prepared to lose in order to make a stand!" - no they weren't, Woolmer himself said that they had planned to make a brief stand and then continue to play - they just botched their own plans (haha)"
    It would seem they were prepared to do whatever was necessary to get a shred of evidence for Hair's allegations. You earlier implied that video evidence was not required. fair enough, but SOME sort of evidence helps a case nay? apparently Hair forgot this (despite Doctrove's suggestions)

    "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." Let's see now, if Hair had an ounce of common sense and realised that the ball was far from conclusive in showing tampering (G. Boycott called it a 'good ball', not just a 'playable ball') then he could have waited a few overs (as Doctrove suggested) and waited for more conclusive evidence. now if he'd done these things before, we wouldn't be here today talking about ball tampering at all. and of course he'd still be umpiring *chuckle*.

    "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." The ICC Chief Match Referee (more important than umpires shall we say) says there wasn't enough time for a substantial change to take place. and lets face it, for a ball that showed no tampering signs anyway, what could have changed?

    "If the umpires believe that the ball has changed condition due to the actions of the fielding team, they must enforce Law 42.3, they don't need to know, or say, who specifically did it." its now been proven that suspicion is insufficient to accuse a team of cheating. the law must be changed to clearly state this, else in future umpires like Hair who can't deduce this fact might create another riot.

    "http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/2268/ballhy2.jpg

    Disgraceful. "
    How quick were you to jump to conclusions? disgraceful.

    I bring all this up since we agreed to wait for the hearing to end. It seems just as i'd predicted, backing Hair all the way was pretty foolish. I think you excelled yourself with this one though:

    "Pakistan were certainly ahead in the game, but to claim that they 'would have very easily won' is utter *******s quite frankly." lol
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Right, let me get this straight - you think that Hair will now be just as unpopular in England as he was, is, and will be in the future, in India?
    dude, no one in India gives a crap about Hair. trust me, the world does not revolve around the Hair crisis. If anything Asad Rauf is in more danger after the recent tri series :eek: .
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You think because of one terrorist attack Britain isn't as safe as the sub continent? What are you smoking?
 
 
 
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.