Anyone Watching The Cricket Fiasco

[G_Man]

Anyway, justice has prevailed in the end and England have been awarded the Test match.
A very satisfying 3-0 Series Triumph for England

[Charlie_B]

Anyway, justice has prevailed in the end and England have been awarded the Test match.
A very satisfying 3-0 Series Triumph for England

takes the edge off tho dontcha thinkl?

[rubyred]

What? The ball is the proof mate, that's why both umpires (not just D. Hare) reviewed it before the decision was made. 2 independant umpires came to an agreement. If that is not proof enough for you then I guess you will never be satisfied.

The reason for the long meetings wasn't the fact that the Pakistan team were caught tampering with the ball, the reason for the long meeting was that they refused to accept an umpires decision. It's the ultimate in bad sportsmanship. The umpire's decision is final. Would 5 runs really have changed the course of the game? The answer is most probably not, the reason the Pakistan team could accept the decision is that they were forced to change the ball for one which hadn't been tampered with.

2 independant umpires reaching an agreement over the state of a ball is enough proof for me and I'm sure it will be enough for the ICC too.

Umpires are not supposed to "punish" a team for ball tampering unless they are 100% certain (ie they have definaely seen a player do something to the ball) that it has happened. That does not appear to be the case there.

Which player was doing the tampering, one of them, all of them, how were they doing it, between overs, during bowling? No one can say because no one, including apparently the umpires apparently, saw anything.

The umpires examine the ball at the end of every over, and when a player is "out" and a new player is making his way to the crease. This had been done during this match and nothing found to be wrong. We can assume this because he did not mention the prolem to any of the players on the pitch. If he thought a Pakistan player was doing that he should have approached the Pakistan captain and identified the player responsible. This was not done.

Then all of a sudden, with the umpires having just handed the ball back to the bowlers Hare declares that it has been damaged, awards 5 run penalty to England and effectively declares Pakistan have cheated.

When Michael Atherton was accused of ball tampering a few years back, it was the cameras at the ground which spotted it. That is not the case here.
There does not appear to be any evidence at all except that the ball was damaged. After 55 overs all balls show signs of damage caused by hitting into advertising hoardings etc. Whether that damage could have been caused by the advertising hoardings, stands, ground etc is not proved.

This is why there is such a controversy over this incident.

[G_Man]

No 3-0 and it could have been 4 because we ought to have won the first game. I'm quite happy at that because we were 3rd in the world rankings and they were 2nd before this series.

[saveferris]

Its not about having it in for Pakistan...it could have been any country, I dont doubt their impartiality.

You are right in that the ball is the evidence, but for the evidence to have some context there has to be a sound reason for the mark, scratch, scuff mark what ever it is. That is currently not being told. The 2 umpiresagree there was a change in condition in the ball but wont say how it was changed. What kind of decision is that?

The BBC are speculating that the ball isnt that different from one that is 56 overs old, others are speculating that a good beating with a bat could have resulted in the change in condition of the ball ( and we know Pietersen can give it a good thrashing), another reason is that it could be a stud mark from a boot. These are all reasons but only speculation because again there is no proof.

Also what do Pakistan gain from tampering with the ball to gain reverse swing, its not as if they were going to win the series, the game was a dead rubber in which they were in control, with a spinner at one end. A win would change nothing.

Conversely to your opinion I find it amazing you are accusing a team of cheating when there is nothing to support your claim...a ball sure but you couldnt tell me how it got into that condition. You may say its bad sportsmanship, but others have been accused of cheating and have taken a similar stand, whether it be right or not. I am sure if England were in the same boat they would have done something very similar.

[saveferris]

Anyway, justice has prevailed in the end and England have been awarded the Test match.
A very satisfying 3-0 Series Triumph for England

When is the bus tour round London

[G_Man]

Umpires are not supposed to "punish" a team for ball tampering unless they are 100% certain (ie they have definaely seen a player do something to the ball) that it has happened. That does not appear to be the case there.

And how do you know this? You're making an assumption, but I have no idea what you are basing it on.

Which player was doing the tampering, one of them, all of them, how were they doing it, between overs, during bowling? No one can say because no one, including apparently the umpires apparently, saw anything.

Well you are not privvy to the umpires report so you don't know if they have identified a player, as I do not. Again, you're making an assumption.

The umpires examine the ball at the end of every over, and when a player is "out" and a new player is making his way to the crease. This had been done during this match and nothing found to be wrong. We can assume this because he did not mention the prolem to any of the players on the pitch. If he thought a Pakistan player was doing that he should have approached the Pakistan captain and identified the player responsible. This was not done.

Again, you're making assumptions, how do you know the umpires had not been suspicious for 20 overs and had been keeping a close eye on the condition of the ball? How do you know that they had not just noticed additional unexplainable damage. As I said, it's both umpires, not just one. Both umpires inspected the ball. Had they disagreed they would not have made such a big decision. They are both very experienced umpires and are very used to the condition of the ball.

Then all of a sudden, with the umpires having just handed the ball back to the bowlers Hare declares that it has been damaged, awards 5 run penalty to England and effectively declares Pakistan have cheated.

Actually both umpires inspected the ball just before they made the decision.

When Michael Atherton was accused of ball tampering a few years back, it was the cameras at the ground which spotted it. That is not the case here.
There does not appear to be any evidence at all except that the ball was damaged. After 55 overs all balls show signs of damage caused by hitting into advertising hoardings etc. Whether that damage could have been caused by the advertising hoardings, stands, ground etc is not proved.

Like I said, these are very experienced umpires, they are used to seeing what a ball looks like after it's been damaged by the advertising boards. Your argument does not stand up here.

This is why there is such a controversy over this incident

For me, the only controvery is that the Pakistani team decided to forfeit the game. I see no ontroversy over the decision on the ball tampering.

[G_Man]

Its not about having it in for Pakistan...it could have been any country, I dont doubt their impartiality.

You are right in that the ball is the evidence, but for the evidence to have some context there has to be a sound reason for the mark, scratch, scuff mark what ever it is. That is currently not being told. The 2 umpiresagree there was a change in condition in the ball but wont say how it was changed. What kind of decision is that?

The BBC are speculating that the ball isnt that different from one that is 56 overs old, others are speculating that a good beating with a bat could have resulted in the change in condition of the ball ( and we know Pietersen can give it a good thrashing), another reason is that it could be a stud mark from a boot. These are all reasons but only speculation because again there is no proof.

Also what do Pakistan gain from tampering with the ball to gain reverse swing, its not as if they were going to win the series, the game was a dead rubber in which they were in control, with a spinner at one end. A win would change nothing.

Conversely to your opinion I find it amazing you are accusing a team of cheating when there is nothing to support your claim...a ball sure but you couldnt tell me how it got into that condition. You may say its bad sportsmanship, but others have been accused of cheating and have taken a similar stand, whether it be right or not. I am sure if England were in the same boat they would have done something very similar.

The reason I am accusing Pakistan of cheating is because I have respect for 2 experienced umpires who have probably seen more 56 over old balls and more balls whacked by batsmen harder than Pieterson, than we've had hot dinners. The details will never come out because cricket is a very closed game which does not give a lot away.
The umpires said they were cheating, both umpires said it, that's good enough for me.

[saveferris]

The umpires said they were cheating, both umpires said it, that's good enough for me.

They havent said anything though, it has only been implied.

It seems G-man at this time, your view point is different to others including the media

[G_Man]

Well I think the punishing of the team for ball tampering is as near as it gets to saying they cheated without actually saying it.
At the end of the day, England won, which is all that matters to me.

[enema of the state]

It wasnt a court of law guys it was on a cricket pitch.

the umpire doesnt have to have to see anyone tamper with the ball, he just has to be satisfied - in his own opinion as the sole arbiter - that the state ball has become altered in a way that is explicable only by alteration by the fielding side. then he applies the rules...change the ball and 5 run penalty..thats just the rules.

i agree that it might have been better had the playing conditions stipulated that you just change the ball and then have an inquest to see if theres any evidence, inforcing further penalties if there is but thats NOT the rules the game was played under. the time for quibbling over that was before play started.

I accept that the umpires could have foreseen the fallout and handled mtters more delicately but thats up to them. as i see it they applied the law correctly if insensitively.

NOTHING had happened to that ball since the peterson wicket at which time the ball would have been checked. Whatever changes were evident at the time of the penalty must have been new and werent affected by any collision with concreter or advertising hoardings etc.

what interested me was the footage of hair watching mohamed asif shine the all. watch how asif does it - large exaggerated swing of the arm against his thigh/pockt region. THATS NOT how you shine cricket ball. i suspect he has something abrasive within or under his whites that hes scuffing the ball. even if he was SCUFFING the ball by that action against his whites, thats illegal. its not scratching the ball with a bottle top but its illegal and a 5 run penalty plus change of ball doent seem unresonable to me.

you HAVE to enforce the ball change there and then in case the fielding side profits by taking a load of wickets. its unreasonble to expect the umpires to act differently on that point

being called a cheat is a terrible insult and it is probably an unfair label for this pakistan team - at worst they are guilty of pushing the fringes of the law. people will have little sympathy however and this is based on an un derstandable prejudice that pakistani cricketers (and indeed umpires) cheat
This occured for many years in many ways.

this time i saw a pakistan side refuse to play when they were winning. the last time i saw that mr miandad - perhaps the biggest cheat ive ever seen play - declined to take the field in support of shakoor rana - in reality england were well on top and that was a dishonest and cynical ploy to avoid defeat.

if there is a prejudice against pakistan cricketers then its sad but it has origins in real past misdeeds

[Neil Young]

I know this adds nothing to the debate but I couldn't help noticing this morning that ECB Chief Executive David Collier:



is just a fatter version of this knob:

[Anfield Mole]

If anyone has a Pakistani girlfriend, you ought to ask them to tamper with your balls like a Pakistani.

[Red_Polo]

Haha

[G_Man]

It wasnt a court of law guys it was on a cricket pitch.

the umpire doesnt have to have to see anyone tamper with the ball, he just has to be satisfied - in his own opinion as the sole arbiter - that the state ball has become altered in a way that is explicable only by alteration by the fielding side. then he applies the rules...change the ball and 5 run penalty..thats just the rules.

i agree that it might have been better had the playing conditions stipulated that you just change the ball and then have an inquest to see if theres any evidence, inforcing further penalties if there is but thats NOT the rules the game was played under. the time for quibbling over that was before play started.

I accept that the umpires could have foreseen the fallout and handled mtters more delicately but thats up to them. as i see it they applied the law correctly if insensitively.

NOTHING had happened to that ball since the peterson wicket at which time the ball would have been checked. Whatever changes were evident at the time of the penalty must have been new and werent affected by any collision with concreter or advertising hoardings etc.

what interested me was the footage of hair watching mohamed asif shine the all. watch how asif does it - large exaggerated swing of the arm against his thigh/pockt region. THATS NOT how you shine cricket ball. i suspect he has something abrasive within or under his whites that hes scuffing the ball. even if he was SCUFFING the ball by that action against his whites, thats illegal. its not scratching the ball with a bottle top but its illegal and a 5 run penalty plus change of ball doent seem unresonable to me.

you HAVE to enforce the ball change there and then in case the fielding side profits by taking a load of wickets. its unreasonble to expect the umpires to act differently on that point

being called a cheat is a terrible insult and it is probably an unfair label for this pakistan team - at worst they are guilty of pushing the fringes of the law. people will have little sympathy however and this is based on an un derstandable prejudice that pakistani cricketers (and indeed umpires) cheat
This occured for many years in many ways.

this time i saw a pakistan side refuse to play when they were winning. the last time i saw that mr miandad - perhaps the biggest cheat ive ever seen play - declined to take the field in support of shakoor rana - in reality england were well on top and that was a dishonest and cynical ploy to avoid defeat.

if there is a prejudice against pakistan cricketers then its sad but it has origins in real past misdeeds

Precisely