est1892

est1892 (https://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/index.php)
-   General Sports (https://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=40)
-   -   Anyone Watching The Cricket Fiasco (https://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=2515)

lfc4ever 20-08-06 04:52 PM

Anyone Watching The Cricket Fiasco
 
or following it?

Oh dear, what a can of worms is about open, and explode!

:D

kopdan 20-08-06 05:00 PM

and how!

Iceman 20-08-06 05:05 PM

interesting stuff indeed

Bob 20-08-06 05:08 PM

mmmmm Everything is getting hurled out the pram - bizarre.

kopdan 20-08-06 05:09 PM

thats the asians for ya!

















i'm kidding, i'm kidding:D

kopdan 20-08-06 05:11 PM

I'm glad its Daryl Hare involved. He's such a fucker

Bob 20-08-06 05:13 PM

Lol

Rocket 20-08-06 05:20 PM

that asian commentator on sky sitting next to bumble was in a stinking mood :crackoff:

kopdan 20-08-06 05:26 PM

lol Daryl Hare wont come out now

HARE YOU WASTER :D

lfc4ever 20-08-06 05:27 PM

The Pakistani team has eventually surfaced to a hail of boos etc.

Now the umpires are not coming out, and the players have gone back off!!

Oooops, hahahahahahaha, class.

Sort that lot out :)

kopdan 20-08-06 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red-Del

Sort that lot out :)

easy! shoot Hare

lfc4ever 20-08-06 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kopdan
lol Daryl Hare wont come out now

HARE YOU WASTER :D

There's history between him and Pakistan iirc.

kopdan 20-08-06 05:30 PM

oh yes

Quite a character

lfc4ever 20-08-06 05:32 PM

He doesn't like Muri either. I get the feeling it's mutual though ;)

Iceman 20-08-06 05:35 PM

the statement will be interesting

Cantankerous 20-08-06 05:43 PM

I love how stubborn both the Pakistan team was and how stubborn the umpires were afterwards.

This is not sport, it is farce.

Kaip 20-08-06 05:44 PM

:d :d

Cantankerous 20-08-06 05:49 PM

Heh - would've loved them all to go out onto the pitch and then the light be offered to the England batsmen and they all went off anyway. That would have been beautiful.

:haha:

Bet that all the people who'd bought tickets for the Oval today are dead happy about all this too. :sigh: :o

saveferris 20-08-06 06:50 PM

If Hair has no proof he should resign

Bob 20-08-06 09:05 PM

They should resign the sport - it's fookin pish :p

G_Man 20-08-06 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saveferris
If Hair has no proof he should resign

What a stupid comment that is.

I'm sorry but he is an umpire not a politician. If he thinks the ball has been illegally tampered with, and if you saw the incident you will have seen he inspected the ball with his fellow umpire, then he is perfectly in his rights to award England 5 runs and change the ball.

THAT IS IN THE RULES OF THE GAME. If he didn't have proof, he wouldn't fucking do it would he? What difference does 5 runs make? It's like saying, unless the ref has proof that Steven Gerrard was fouled yesterday then he should resign.

Bottom line is, the Pakistani team was caught tampering with the ball. They're cheats and the ICC should punish them.

lfc4ever 20-08-06 10:11 PM

Match is now forfeited, awarded to England

Decision on ball tampering stands.

There is going to be some major fall out over this.

G_Man 20-08-06 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red-Del
Match is now forfeited, awarded to England

Decision on ball tampering stands.

There is going to be some major fall out over this.

Why is there? It's no different to diving for a penalty and getting booked.
The Pakistani's couldn't tolerate an umpire's decision, they failed to take the field, they forfeited the match.

They're behaving like little kids who take their bat and ball home because a decision went against them.

Charlie_B 20-08-06 11:15 PM

can somebosy e[lain to me how id pakistan are accused of tampering they get a 5run penalty?

what kind of penalty is tat ffs? jesus chirsit. hardly encouraging the pakistanis to be mor sportsmanlike if indeed they scheated

G_Man 20-08-06 11:43 PM

Well that's the rules Charlie, a 5 run penalty and change of ball. Obviously the match referee would review the incident later and possibly impose a harsher penalty.

saveferris 20-08-06 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G_Man
What a stupid comment that is.

I'm sorry but he is an umpire not a politician. If he thinks the ball has been illegally tampered with, and if you saw the incident you will have seen he inspected the ball with his fellow umpire, then he is perfectly in his rights to award England 5 runs and change the ball.

THAT IS IN THE RULES OF THE GAME. If he didn't have proof, he wouldn't fucking do it would he? What difference does 5 runs make? It's like saying, unless the ref has proof that Steven Gerrard was fouled yesterday then he should resign.

Bottom line is, the Pakistani team was caught tampering with the ball. They're cheats and the ICC should punish them.

and your last line messes up your whole argument, give me the exact example where the Pakistani's were caught cheating i dont mean the implication made by the umpires decision, i mean the player, the over, the score at the time??

He should resign on the basis of making a decision with no proof...his decision implies that Pakistan were cheating, which contrary to your claim, they have not been caught doing.

If he did have proof then where is it?? This could have been sorted out hours ago, but no 4 sets of groups spend hours in a room having a discussion

Its nothing like Gerrard's incident, the ref yesterday had a split second to make a decision. Darrel Hair had plenty of time not only to change the ball, if he felt it had been tampered with, but also to call a warning to the fiielding team if he feels they were tampering with the condition of the ball. He had the best part of 15 mins, considering there was nothing wrong with it 15 mins earlier when he had it.

Please dont use capitals, its condescending, i know what the rules of cricket are and I understand the reasoning behind why runs were given to England.

Are you saying that if you were a captain of a team and someone accuses you of cheatng when it isnt the case you would accept it and do nothing?? I reckon if it was England staging their protest then England fans would have said the same thing.

Dont get me wrong, if the Pakistani's are found guilty throw the book at them, but dont get on your high horse and talk about proof when there currently isnt any.

rubyred 20-08-06 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G_Man
Why is there? It's no different to diving for a penalty and getting booked.
The Pakistani's couldn't tolerate an umpire's decision, they failed to take the field, they forfeited the match.

They're behaving like little kids who take their bat and ball home because a decision went against them.

I think it's different for several reasons. When a footballer is booked for diving, they have been seen commiting the offence, not only by the referee and/or the linesman, but also by any tv cameras which were there.

This is not the case here.

Firstly, no one saw any of the Pakistan team trying to or actually causing any damage to the ball.
With all the cameras around the ground, which follow the players with the ball all the time, not one shot has been found which indicates the players tried to tamper with the ball.

None of the commentators at the ground saw anything which suggested the ball was being tampered with.

After the dismissal of an English player (can't remember his name) the umpire had the ball in his hands for several minutes waiting for the next player to take the field and gave no indication that he was concened about its condition. He did not call the Pakistan captain over to discuss his concerns, he did not call the second umpire over to examine the ball. In fact he did nothing at all to suggest there was any problem, he let play continue.

At no time did he mention to the Pakistan captain there was a problem, nor did he identify any player as being responsible for causing the damage.

After a while he then examined the ball, decided it had been tampered with, awarded England 5 runs, and effectively labelled the Pakistan side cheats, without any evidence to back it up.

It must be remembered that these balls get hot all over the ground, landing on rooves, into the stands etc, and get damages normally.

There is a history between Pakistan and Hare, as they have complained about his performances in the past.

It all just sounds a bit suss to me.

G_Man 20-08-06 11:51 PM

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.

G_Man 20-08-06 11:54 PM

Why would 2 independant umpires have it in for Pakistan? Please tell me because I can't work that out.
These are international umpires, they've seen quite a few balls whacked around quite a few different grounds, they know when something is not right purely on experience.

Evidence? The ball itself is the evidence, what more evidence do you need?

Charlie_B 21-08-06 12:01 AM

i havent seen it, but have heard the whole thing is quite confusing

saying that most things are confusing right now.....

G_Man 21-08-06 12:04 AM

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

Charlie_B 21-08-06 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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 :rock:

takes the edge off tho dontcha thinkl?

rubyred 21-08-06 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G_Man
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 21-08-06 12:10 AM

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 21-08-06 12:13 AM

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 21-08-06 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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 :rock:

When is the bus tour round London ;) :handshake:

G_Man 21-08-06 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubyred
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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 21-08-06 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 21-08-06 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G_Man
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 :handshake:

G_Man 21-08-06 12:34 AM

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.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.