Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

England vs. Pakistan Fourth test

ICB said:
Agree with agricola that Aggers is spot on with his comments, nevertheless a very sad day for cricket

Poor lack of spirit of the game from Pakistan, acting like sulky teenagers
Poor law that needs immediate review
Poor handling of the situation on the day by the Oval with no communication to the crowd

Generally poor. :(
Click to expand...

I also think that the umpires handled the original incident very badly.
 
I'm not sure what umpires are meant to do if they do suspect cheating. Teams struggle as it is to fit 90 overs in a day so they can't start having appeals and meetings in the middle of play. The priority has to be to keep the game moving.

On a related issue, the actual punishment for cheating - 5 runs - is woefully inadequate. It's worth having a bit of a go with your fingernail if that's the risk.
 
Alex B said:
I'm not sure what umpires are meant to do if they do suspect cheating.
Click to expand...

At the very least, they should have discussed it with the Pakistani captain, and probably should have given a warning that they were unhappy with the condition of the ball.
 
Seeing that Pakistan clearly had the game in the bag, why did they not just except the five penalty runs & go out there & win the test..??:confused:
 
Andy the Don said:
Seeing that Pakistan clearly had the game in the bag, why did they not just except the five penalty runs & go out there & win the test..??:confused:
Click to expand...

How would you react to being called a cheat when you totally refute the allegation?
 
Andy - history innit, the tour 14 years ago and all that.

L&L - not sure what else the umpires were supposed to do within the letter of the law, it's the law that's the problem and I don't think a change to it would bring much stop and start as Alex says since we already have that for most run outs/stumpings and accusations of ball tampering are a lot rarer. It needn't be a complete hunt through footage of the last 10 overs, could just be referral to thrid umpire and match referree, perhaps for later adjudication, meanwhile ball is exchanged without prejudicial implication.

Sure some people have said Hair lacks diplomacy and political nouse but to what extent should that come into it? The fact that he was chosen as an umpire for the series given the history is probably more the issue than his conduct on the day.

The main point is that whether the umpires' call was correct or not Pakistan could and should have walked off the field at the close of play yesterday with the game in the bag and standing firmly on the moral high ground, instead they've fucked themselves over and potentially called the game into disrepute. :(
 
ICB said:
L&L - not sure what else the umpires were supposed to do within the letter of the law ...................
Click to expand...

I'm sure that Harold "Dickie" Bird would have handled the situation very differently.
 
Alex B said:
On a related issue, the actual punishment for cheating - 5 runs - is woefully inadequate. It's worth having a bit of a go with your fingernail if that's the risk.
Click to expand...

The batting team get to choose the replacement ball, which is worth a stack of runs in itself
 
Lock&Light said:
I'm sure that Harold "Dickie" Bird would have handled the situation very differently.
Click to expand...

Probably, but the law (and players' attitudes) shouldn't necessitate politically motivated judgement calls.
 
Metro evidence.

Seems odd that the Metro is the only paper running this "damning" photo. First off we need to find out if in fact this was taken yesterday between 14:15 and 14:30 I suppose, this would back Hair's claim of interference. I haven't got the paper today so do not know if they name photographer, player, match, time etc.

What we might suppose is that there is a chap here above, from Asian descent, fucking about with the ball around the quarter seam area (which is where Hair said the problem was) in what might be termed an unusual manner.

For those that don't understand quarter seam:

This area here. This is a ball of similar age to the one used yesterday

tam1.jpg


And this is what can happen if one attacks the quarter seam with ones fingernails:

tam2.jpg


A flap like that can encourage air resistance and ergo reverse swing. It's early days of course, if someone has todays Metro I'd be interested in hearing what the article says viz the pic if anything.
 
are they going to be able to prove the ball tampering? does this news mean that they have found some footage?

the fact that past players and commentators are pretty much split 50-50 over whether the decision not to return to the field was right means that it's going to be a very tricky decision for someone....
 
jugularvein said:
the fact that past players and commentators are pretty much split 50-50 over whether the decision not to return to the field was right means that it's going to be a very tricky decision for someone....
Click to expand...

Players' decision or umpires'? Players' decision was clearly wrong whereas umpires were backed into a corner. Only Pakistan supporters have been saying it wasn't wrong but the likes of Imran Khan reckon it was a poor show.

Shit, with the ICC charging Inzy this one's going to have some serious legs :(
 
jugularvein said:
are they going to be able to prove the ball tampering? does this news mean that they have found some footage?

the fact that past players and commentators are pretty much split 50-50 over whether the decision not to return to the field was right means that it's going to be a very tricky decision for someone....
Click to expand...

Aside from the Metro pic I've seen nothing, Botham said this morning that they've (he and some Sky chaps) been trawling the overs in question from as many angles and cameras as they could muster and have found bugger all to indicate tampering. If it can be proved that the Metro picture was taken between 14:15 and 14:30 then that might be deemed as evidence enough, I dunno though, the infamous '92 ball hasn't been seen by anyone since...well...'92, and there's no chance of it being seen again by the looks of things.

This will be an ICC cover up job as per I suspect, which doesn't help anyone least of all the PCB, team et al.
 
Flashman said:
Inzi charged with the actual tampering too then??

:confused:

Totally out of character if I my say so. Asif, Gul, one of the other young bowlers maybe (and I stress maybe) but Inzi?

Bollocks IMO.
Click to expand...

My guess as to the outcome:

i) a ban for Inzamam for bringing the game into disrepute for bringing about the forfeiture of the game - lets face it, this is a unique (or almost unique, my history of the game isnt that good) situation and it has to be stomped on to ensure it never happens again;

ii) the "ball tampering" either dropped, or "the punishment handed out by the umpires stands" - in the absence of evidence - as seems to be the case - they will be hard pushed to cite a specific player for this;

iii) Hair "retires".
 
I agree viz (i) and (iii) but have to say point (ii) will be fought for quite vociferously by the PCB if the five run penalty stands - it's an admission of guilt, it will remain on the scorecard and they won't stand for it, and with the seemingly severe lack of evidence (so far and until the Metro picture is analysed) they're quite right to do so.
 
Flashman said:
I agree viz (i) and (iii) but have to say point (ii) will be fought for quite vociferously by the PCB if the five run penalty stands - it's an admission of guilt, it will remain on the scorecard and they won't stand for it, and with the seemingly severe lack of evidence (so far and until the Metro picture is analysed) they're quite right to do so.
Click to expand...

True, but I doubt the ICC will actually come out and not defend the umpires' right to be wrong - but as I said, when it comes to actually blaming Inzamam (unless they take the approach that the captain is responsible for the team) they will be in a spot of bother.

The PCB news conference was very enlightening though - if its true the ECB, PCB, the match referee and the two captains were all overruled by the umpires then perhaps a change in the rules is not too far behind, though perhaps saying "umpires" is wrong as everyone seems to be assuming Hair is behind this.
 
It doesn't mean it was he who tampered with the ball but as Inzi is the captain and as such taken the fall for any of his teams actions. Rules of game, innit.
 
Doctrove agreed with Hair's assumption by the looks of it and is equally culpable. This whole thing is such a rare occurance (so rare in fact that it hasn't happened before in 130 years of Test cricket) that I'm not sure a rule change will be needed. As to the umpires "overruling" well why not? Pakistan failed to turn up for the final session and the match was declared over according to the rules, whether or not I agree with Hair or Doctrove in the initial action, their stance ie the "game is forfeit" was the correct one at the time, the bails were off and nothing could change that.

We can't play games at the whim of teams feeling hard done by, the umpires decision is final.
 
The plot thickens....

Darrell Hair: was his action influenced by Duncan Fletcher?
A report in today's Daily Telegraph claims that Sunday's ball-tampering row was triggered by a visit by Duncan Fletcher, England's coach, to Mike Procter, the match referee, before the start of the fourth day's play.

An ECB spokesman confirmed that Fletcher had met with Procter on Sunday morning but denied he had made a "specific complaint about the state of the ball". However, the newspaper went on to say that sources close to the team have stated that Fletcher played a part in drawing the officials' attention to certain issues.

No officials were available for comment yesterday, and with Inzamam-ul-Haq's hearing scheduled for Friday, none would have said anything anyway. If true, however, it would explain Darrell Hair's sudden interest in the state of the ball on Sunday afternoon.

The report goes on to state that England's players were concerned on Saturday and notes that Marcus Trescothick was "spotted watching Pakistan's players through binoculars, presumably to ascertain what actions they were performing on the ball". It added that Fletcher had also made enquiries as to why Sky TV cameras were not following the ball more closely as it was passed around the Pakistan fielders during the Headingley Test.

If it turns out that Fletcher did make an approach to Procter about the ball then the good relations between the two sides, which have been maintained despite the row at The Oval, will almost certainly nosedive, adding to the possibility that the one-day series might become another casualty of the row.
Click to expand...
 
Why has no one mentioned the worst thing? Trescothick was seen blatantly USING BINOCULARS. The cunt. Next thing you'll know he'll be using a length of wood to prevent the ball from striking the wicket.
 
There's a press conference going on right now. It apears the Hair has offered to resign in return for a payment of 500000 dollars. Still developing......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tommers
England vs Denmark 5pm
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
218
Views
6K
Lotte
L
S
  • Poll Poll
Spain vs England predictions (Euro 2024 final)
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
planetgeli
P
Steel Icarus
England vs Slovenia, 8pm (ITV)
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
342
Views
10K
ghost boy
ghost boy
Voley
Serbia vs England K.O. 8pm
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
154
Views
5K
BristolEcho
BristolEcho
Bingoman
  • Poll Poll
Next England manager
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
165
Views
6K
Aaronf
Aaronf
Back
Top Bottom