Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Fourth and final Test is likely to be called off after today's extraordinary sce  (Read 12205 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

keep-it-cool

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18,238
  • Thanda Thanda Kool Kool

4. The onus of proof lies with Pak's and not Hair-he spotted a scarred ball he called the team known for doing so (by their own ex-captains admission) so he had a preceedent there. If the Pak's were so convinced of their innocence then they should not have taken the field at all why the farce of the 15mins of waiting and then agreeing to play (was their pride so fragile that it could restored in 15 mins)

Extending your logic, if someone accuses you of murder, is the onus on you to prove that you are innocent  :D :D

.. only if he has been known to be a murderer in the past
Logged
Sachin Tendulkar gave the muhurat clap for 'Awwal Number' - that apart, he hasn't done much wrong in the last 20 yrs!

justforkix

  • Global Moderator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14,896

4. The onus of proof lies with Pak's and not Hair-he spotted a scarred ball he called the team known for doing so (by their own ex-captains admission) so he had a preceedent there. If the Pak's were so convinced of their innocence then they should not have taken the field at all why the farce of the 15mins of waiting and then agreeing to play (was their pride so fragile that it could restored in 15 mins)

Extending your logic, if someone accuses you of murder, is the onus on you to prove that you are innocent  :D :D

.. only if he has been known to be a murderer in the past

Hmmm.... Point Taken  ;D ;D
Logged

sudzz

  • Member
  • Team of the Century
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,061

I agree with KIC's point of view that preceedents dont need to be looked at because the team is different (in terms of people) but even so the bowling coach is still a member of the same establishment that stands accused (without proof albeit).

In response to Dex's point of view that Hair deprived paying public of cricket...well to be honest I dont think he did, all he did was to call it a game when one team did not take to the field and he was within his rights to do so...if anything he awared the match to the home team -should have cause them joy...It was ECB and the ground authority that were at fault for not informing the paying public of that what could Hair have done other than take off the bails and communicate his decision to the authorities.

Also whenever did Pak admit that they would like to take the field until much later, If anything I feel Hair called their bluff and they lost, admittedly in the process cricket lost too.

And to those that call Pietersen a liar what about the John Lever incident it was I think Kirmani who spotted and reported a tampered ball (covered with vaselin)...again I think he was right to point out that the ball was odd thats all was what he did....

And JFK, if Iam caught on the site of murder and am a known offender or known to keep company with known murderers then I will be arrested and the onus of proving my innocence will surely lie with my lawyers.
Logged

keep-it-cool

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18,238
  • Thanda Thanda Kool Kool

I agree with KIC's point of view that preceedents dont need to be looked at because the team is different (in terms of people) but even so the bowling coach is still a member of the same establishment that stands accused (without proof albeit).

In response to Dex's point of view that Hair deprived paying public of cricket...well to be honest I dont think he did, all he did was to call it a game when one team did not take to the field and he was within his rights to do so...if anything he awared the match to the home team -should have cause them joy...It was ECB and the ground authority that were at fault for not informing the paying public of that what could Hair have done other than take off the bails and communicate his decision to the authorities.

Also whenever did Pak admit that they would like to take the field until much later, If anything I feel Hair called their bluff and they lost, admittedly in the process cricket lost too.

And to those that call Pietersen a liar what about the John Lever incident it was I think Kirmani who spotted and reported a tampered ball (covered with vaselin)...again I think he was right to point out that the ball was odd thats all was what he did....

And JFK, if Iam caught on the site of murder and am a known offender or known to keep company with known murderers then I will be arrested and the onus of proving my innocence will surely lie with my lawyers.

sudzz .. waqar just being accused of ball tampering (simply coz no one could understand the concept of reverse swing then) without any proof is definitely not reason enough to come to a conclusion

also, even if you are caught on a murder site, are a known offender and known to keep company with known murderers AND you are arrested, it is still up to the prosecution to prove that you are guilty ... not for your lawyers to prove that you are innocent ... there would be suspicion for sure, but just suspicion and past track record can never be basis to come to a judgment

Hair saying that coz the match has been awarded to England, one cannot go back on it is bull* - sure there is no similar precedent. But, if I understand right, both teams were willing to continue. In that situation, I do not see a problem. If Hair tomorrow rules that a batsman is out caught behind, but the fielding captain calls the batsman back because the keeper is not sure of the catch, will Hair say that the decision has already been made and now overturning it is against the rules of cricket? It would have been a different matter had England refused to play on the basis that they have already been awarded the match. But that not being the case, I see no reason, other than Hair's (and possibly Doctrove's) ego, for the match to not go on
Logged
Sachin Tendulkar gave the muhurat clap for 'Awwal Number' - that apart, he hasn't done much wrong in the last 20 yrs!

MockTurtle

  • Guest

IAnd JFK, if Iam caught on the site of murder and am a known offender or known to keep company with known murderers then I will be arrested and the onus of proving my innocence will surely lie with my lawyers.

Only that in this case, it wasn't merely an arrest but a SENTENCE. By awarding the opposition 5 penalty runs, Hair has already given his verdict. Where was the fair trial?
Logged

MockTurtle

  • Guest

I agree with KIC's point of view that preceedents dont need to be looked at because the team is different (in terms of people) but even so the bowling coach is still a member of the same establishment that stands accused (without proof albeit).

so? how can that be used to accuse 11 other possibly innocent men of ball tampering? the burden of proof lays firmly on the accusor.

Quote
In response to Dex's point of view that Hair deprived paying public of cricket...well to be honest I dont think he did, all he did was to call it a game when one team did not take to the field and he was within his rights to do so...if anything he awared the match to the home team -should have cause them joy...It was ECB and the ground authority that were at fault for not informing the paying public of that what could Hair have done other than take off the bails and communicate his decision to the authorities.

Also whenever did Pak admit that they would like to take the field until much later, If anything I feel Hair called their bluff and they lost, admittedly in the process cricket lost too.

well, Inzy did not act smart here and gave Hair every opportunity to quote the rules. He was within his rights but whatever happened to the "spirit of the game" that we often get lectured about?

Logged

keep-it-cool

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18,238
  • Thanda Thanda Kool Kool

Mock,

I actually think what Pak did created the maximum effect - not sure whether Inzy meant it this way - but a protest after the match would probably have just got lost with nothing much coming out of it. We all know that the ICC generally does nothing, hoping that the issues die a natural death .. and with so much cricket being played, that's what happens. The last time I remember the ICC being put under this kind of pressure was when BCCI and the Indian cricket team decided to field VS in a test match despite the ban imposed by Denness - now, we can all argue about whether the ban was merited or not, but it definitely did force the ICC to do something about it, and Denness did not remain a match refree for long after that.

A match being forfeited is short term pain for Pakistan, but I think now the glare is well and truly on Hair and the ICC - just as it was immediately after Muralidharan was called and Ranatunga led his team off the field.
Logged
Sachin Tendulkar gave the muhurat clap for 'Awwal Number' - that apart, he hasn't done much wrong in the last 20 yrs!

sudzz

  • Member
  • Team of the Century
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,061

Mock,

I actually think what Pak did created the maximum effect - not sure whether Inzy meant it this way - but a protest after the match would probably have just got lost with nothing much coming out of it. We all know that the ICC generally does nothing, hoping that the issues die a natural death .. and with so much cricket being played, that's what happens. The last time I remember the ICC being put under this kind of pressure was when BCCI and the Indian cricket team decided to field VS in a test match despite the ban imposed by Denness - now, we can all argue about whether the ban was merited or not, but it definitely did force the ICC to do something about it, and Denness did not remain a match refree for long after that.

A match being forfeited is short term pain for Pakistan, but I think now the glare is well and truly on Hair and the ICC - just as it was immediately after Muralidharan was called and Ranatunga led his team off the field.

KIC I agree with what you are saying..Pak did create maximum effect intentionally or otherwise and ICC will be forced to move its backside to do something about it.

But if Hair is victimised (and most likely will be) it will be a loss to the game because he is one umpire who really upholds the laws of the game. He did not make then but enforce them he does.

The game is getting more and more out of hand in terms of player conducts and it is worse off because so really ineffective match refrees who dont even know the R of being a referee.

ICC will very well sell Hair down the river to save its arse because Hair is a easy scapegoat in a problem that has been created by the ICC by not defining the rules clearly and not stipulating who is to take what action in the event of a suspicion created by ball tampering.

Lastly does anyone belive that even if Pak is vindicated (even in a proper court of law) of this slur, that other nations will let go of this...Iam sure Aus/Eng/even Ind and SL will ensure that we use it to our advantage and will sledge the living daylights out of these them...
Logged

inoc

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,707

What happened here was that Pakistan was punished not accused of ball tampering. If you are going to do that you have to produce proof. As we know that there is no photographic or video evidence of that at present it only now rests on Hairís word of what he saw happen in the field or to the condition of the ball.

To say that his judgement is based on previous precedents is not only totally unfair to this current team but also not on any legal footing. Furthermore the precedents were allegations and not judgements as far as I can remember. Even Rahul Dravid has been charged with ball tampering and if an umpire now penalises the Indian team (RD being captain) without proof because of precedent then we should rightfully protest.
Whether Inzamam and the Pakistan did it in the right manner is open to debate but they certainly have a point.

Finally, talking of precedents, doesnít Hair have precedents of being unfair to the subcontinent teams and hasnít he been accused of being Ďracistí before? Why shouldnít Pakistan then pass judgement and accuse him of impartial behaviour towards them.

I donít think Hair upholds the laws of cricket any better than many others. What he seems to do is uphold his viewpoint in an adamant and uncompromising manner with no understanding of the ramifications of his decisions. Take just the Muralitharan chucking issue. It was in his opinion an illegal delivery and he decided to call it. It did not matter to him that he had played dozens of tests before. The suspicion was there but he could have sought a better solution than calling him in a high profile test match. It was later proven that according to the then laws of cricket most bowlers including the likes of glen mcgrath were chucking (which lead to new definitions and rules). 

Logged

keep-it-cool

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18,238
  • Thanda Thanda Kool Kool

Mock,

I actually think what Pak did created the maximum effect - not sure whether Inzy meant it this way - but a protest after the match would probably have just got lost with nothing much coming out of it. We all know that the ICC generally does nothing, hoping that the issues die a natural death .. and with so much cricket being played, that's what happens. The last time I remember the ICC being put under this kind of pressure was when BCCI and the Indian cricket team decided to field VS in a test match despite the ban imposed by Denness - now, we can all argue about whether the ban was merited or not, but it definitely did force the ICC to do something about it, and Denness did not remain a match refree for long after that.

A match being forfeited is short term pain for Pakistan, but I think now the glare is well and truly on Hair and the ICC - just as it was immediately after Muralidharan was called and Ranatunga led his team off the field.

KIC I agree with what you are saying..Pak did create maximum effect intentionally or otherwise and ICC will be forced to move its backside to do something about it.

But if Hair is victimised (and most likely will be) it will be a loss to the game because he is one umpire who really upholds the laws of the game. He did not make then but enforce them he does.

The game is getting more and more out of hand in terms of player conducts and it is worse off because so really ineffective match refrees who dont even know the R of being a referee.

ICC will very well sell Hair down the river to save its arse because Hair is a easy scapegoat in a problem that has been created by the ICC by not defining the rules clearly and not stipulating who is to take what action in the event of a suspicion created by ball tampering.

Lastly does anyone belive that even if Pak is vindicated (even in a proper court of law) of this slur, that other nations will let go of this...Iam sure Aus/Eng/even Ind and SL will ensure that we use it to our advantage and will sledge the living daylights out of these them...


sudzz .. i agree with what inoc said above .. Hair does not necessarily implement the rules best .. he is the most adamant of the lot

*if he has proof that Pak actually tampered the ball, his docking 5 penalty runs is valid .. else, it is foolhardy .. and no, suspicion or past precedents cannot be proof .. to me, he just seems to be saying, "I am the boss"
*on the muralidharan chucking incident .. this one i am not entirely sure about, so would welcome anyone throwing more light ... the right course of action would have been to bring the issue to the notice of the ICC rather than a high profile no-balling .. and talking of precedents, did Murali not have enough precedents of bowling without being called in international cricket
*and refusing to come out to officiate on grounds that the match has already been awarded to england was the silliest ... if england does not have an issue with continuing the match, what is Hair's problem???

Answer: A BIG EGO
Logged
Sachin Tendulkar gave the muhurat clap for 'Awwal Number' - that apart, he hasn't done much wrong in the last 20 yrs!

MockTurtle

  • Guest

What happened here was that Pakistan was punished not accused of ball tampering. If you are going to do that you have to produce proof. As we know that there is no photographic or video evidence of that at present it only now rests on Hairís word of what he saw happen in the field or to the condition of the ball.

To say that his judgement is based on previous precedents is not only totally unfair to this current team but also not on any legal footing. Furthermore the precedents were allegations and not judgements as far as I can remember. Even Rahul Dravid has been charged with ball tampering and if an umpire now penalises the Indian team (RD being captain) without proof because of precedent then we should rightfully protest.
Whether Inzamam and the Pakistan did it in the right manner is open to debate but they certainly have a point.

Finally, talking of precedents, doesnít Hair have precedents of being unfair to the subcontinent teams and hasnít he been accused of being Ďracistí before? Why shouldnít Pakistan then pass judgement and accuse him of impartial behaviour towards them.

I donít think Hair upholds the laws of cricket any better than many others. What he seems to do is uphold his viewpoint in an adamant and uncompromising manner with no understanding of the ramifications of his decisions. Take just the Muralitharan chucking issue. It was in his opinion an illegal delivery and he decided to call it. It did not matter to him that he had played dozens of tests before. The suspicion was there but he could have sought a better solution than calling him in a high profile test match. It was later proven that according to the then laws of cricket most bowlers including the likes of glen mcgrath were chucking (which lead to new definitions and rules). 



well said. i wanted to point out the same thing about "precedents". why shouldn't Hair be accorded the same treatment? Hair has sufficient history for one to question his "unbiasedness".
Logged

inoc

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,707

Updates on the controversy as per news channels in the uk Pakistani views

PCB (Sharyar Khan) Pakistan not to play any match where DH is officiating in the future.
      offficial PCB statement in an hour on the situation.

Zaheer Abbas - (On being asked whether there being no photographic or video evidence is an advantage) My players told me they they did not tamper with the ball and that is good enough for me.

Imran Khan - serious allegation. inzi not right in the manner of the protest. pak lost out. if it was me i would protest right there and then called the manager to lodge a complaint and carried on with the match which we could have won. now there is counter allegation of bringing the spirit  of the game into disrepute.
Darrel Hair needs to provide immediate evidence to the players also a statement explaining his actions with regard to this serious allegation.He does not realise that the job of the umpire is also to nip out controversies in the bud. if hair cannot prove ball tampering pakistan should take him to court for defamation.
Logged

inoc

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,707

news just in

ICC have upgraded the charges against inzi from ball tampering (level II violation) to bringing the game into disrepute (level III violation) as per reports of all four umpires.
hearing on friday to be chaired by madugalle
inzi faces fines of 100% of match fees and ban of 1 test or 2 ODIs (level II) or 4 tests or 8 ODIs (level III)
Logged

suraj

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,032
  • How about a tattoo with my name??

news just in

ICC have upgraded the charges against inzi from ball tampering (level II violation) to bringing the game into disrepute (level III violation) as per reports of all four umpires.
hearing on friday to be chaired by madugalle
inzi faces fines of 100% of match fees and ban of 1 test or 2 ODIs (level II) or 4 tests or 8 ODIs (level III)

I think this incident is going to be a major blow-up and become divisive in the cricket fraternity. Despite ppl like Boycott writing at this point that its not all Pak's fault, very soon Eng-Aus-NZ will be complaining abt Inzy and the walk-out and side with ICC. The asian nations prolly will all be against ICC and right now it is not them who need ICC but ICC who needs these nations.

India's role is the most crucial here because if BCCI ends up speaking in Pak's support- ICC is screwed.
Logged

MockTurtle

  • Guest

Mock,

I actually think what Pak did created the maximum effect - not sure whether Inzy meant it this way - but a protest after the match would probably have just got lost with nothing much coming out of it. We all know that the ICC generally does nothing, hoping that the issues die a natural death .. and with so much cricket being played, that's what happens. The last time I remember the ICC being put under this kind of pressure was when BCCI and the Indian cricket team decided to field VS in a test match despite the ban imposed by Denness - now, we can all argue about whether the ban was merited or not, but it definitely did force the ICC to do something about it, and Denness did not remain a match refree for long after that.

A match being forfeited is short term pain for Pakistan, but I think now the glare is well and truly on Hair and the ICC - just as it was immediately after Muralidharan was called and Ranatunga led his team off the field.

well, i think that by not strictly adhering to the rules, Inzy has given the umpires, referee and the ICC a convenient excuse to turn a large share of the blame against him which is what seems to be happening.
Logged

VMenon

  • One Day Star
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 357

Inzamam ul Haq in an exclusive interview to Geo TV yesterdays happenings
First of all I would like to state that we had complaimned to the ICC earlier that we do not want Hair to umpire any of our matches because some of his decisions are biased against Pakistan. The second thing I want to say is on the happenings of yesrerday It was surprising for me because as the captain on the field the ball was changed, after the ball was changed the umpires did not call me. I went up myself to the umpires and asked why is the ball being changed. Tell me the reason. Umpires I think have to tell the captain that your boys have tampered with the ball or done something. The spirit of the game and with good umpires it is that the Umpire will call the captain and tell him or give a warning to the bowler and the captain. Here nothing of the kind happened. And after that he gave five runs. I wasnít informed of that as well. He gave the batsmen the chance to choose the ball. This meant that they had just made the decision themselves that Pakistan have cheated. Thatís why the ball was changed ,, there are marks on the ball.. When the meeting took place later in the evening I told them you leave all these issues aside I said first of all you call the entire media and show us and them the ball. Show us where the scratch is. Where has the ball been tampered. I told him show me the ball. If we are guilty we have to be punished. And if we are not guilty, punish who ever else. You just cant place allegations of cheating.
On why he didnít call off the team from the field at that moment..
I said first it is important to talk to the coach. I told the coach to go to the referee. The referee told the coach that he had nothing with him at the time. No one has told me anything as yet. I felt this was not a small isssue. It was an allegation against the Pakistan team. Procter said we will decide later. So I told him if you decide later there was no point as the action had already been taken by the Umpires. That was when we decided that we would not go out.
On why it was necessary for him to lead the team out
Mike Procter came and told me please go and continue. I said ok. David Morgan and Sharyar Khan also told me to go out. They told me it was a csaee of relationships between two countries. They said we know what has happened but please donít let it spoil relations between the countries and cricket. So we went out.
On Hair standing in the ODI's
I hope from the part of ICC that they wont put Hair on any of the Pakistan matches

Logged

suraj

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,032
  • How about a tattoo with my name??

Inzamam ul Haq in an exclusive interview to Geo TV yesterdays happenings
First of all I would like to state that we had complaimned to the ICC earlier that we do not want Hair to umpire any of our matches because some of his decisions are biased against Pakistan. The second thing I want to say is on the happenings of yesrerday It was surprising for me because as the captain on the field the ball was changed, after the ball was changed the umpires did not call me. I went up myself to the umpires and asked why is the ball being changed. Tell me the reason. Umpires I think have to tell the captain that your boys have tampered with the ball or done something. The spirit of the game and with good umpires it is that the Umpire will call the captain and tell him or give a warning to the bowler and the captain. Here nothing of the kind happened. And after that he gave five runs. I wasnít informed of that as well. He gave the batsmen the chance to choose the ball. This meant that they had just made the decision themselves that Pakistan have cheated. Thatís why the ball was changed ,, there are marks on the ball.. When the meeting took place later in the evening I told them you leave all these issues aside I said first of all you call the entire media and show us and them the ball. Show us where the scratch is. Where has the ball been tampered. I told him show me the ball. If we are guilty we have to be punished. And if we are not guilty, punish who ever else. You just cant place allegations of cheating.
On why he didnít call off the team from the field at that moment..
I said first it is important to talk to the coach. I told the coach to go to the referee. The referee told the coach that he had nothing with him at the time. No one has told me anything as yet. I felt this was not a small isssue. It was an allegation against the Pakistan team. Procter said we will decide later. So I told him if you decide later there was no point as the action had already been taken by the Umpires. That was when we decided that we would not go out.
On why it was necessary for him to lead the team out
Mike Procter came and told me please go and continue. I said ok. David Morgan and Sharyar Khan also told me to go out. They told me it was a csaee of relationships between two countries. They said we know what has happened but please donít let it spoil relations between the countries and cricket. So we went out.
On Hair standing in the ODI's
I hope from the part of ICC that they wont put Hair on any of the Pakistan matches



This is one paki guy I really like- he is definitely not  a smart cookie but I do feel Inzy is a very straightforward guy. unfortunately he ran into this swine Hair- whtever the outcome Inzy may not have done the smartest thing but he did do the right thing.

I wish we support him against the ICC bastards and against Hair.
Logged

prfsr

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,755

I understand we all dislike Hair. However, are we sure that the Pakistanis were NOT ball-tampering?  If Hair has a few things in his past, so do the Pakistanis in this respect.
-P
Logged

LosingNow

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24,294

Inzamam ul Haq in an exclusive interview to Geo TV yesterdays happenings
First of all I would like to state that we had complaimned to the ICC earlier that we do not want Hair to umpire any of our matches because some of his decisions are biased against Pakistan. The second thing I want to say is on the happenings of yesrerday It was surprising for me because as the captain on the field the ball was changed, after the ball was changed the umpires did not call me. I went up myself to the umpires and asked why is the ball being changed. Tell me the reason. Umpires I think have to tell the captain that your boys have tampered with the ball or done something. The spirit of the game and with good umpires it is that the Umpire will call the captain and tell him or give a warning to the bowler and the captain. Here nothing of the kind happened. And after that he gave five runs. I wasnít informed of that as well. He gave the batsmen the chance to choose the ball. This meant that they had just made the decision themselves that Pakistan have cheated. Thatís why the ball was changed ,, there are marks on the ball.. When the meeting took place later in the evening I told them you leave all these issues aside I said first of all you call the entire media and show us and them the ball. Show us where the scratch is. Where has the ball been tampered. I told him show me the ball. If we are guilty we have to be punished. And if we are not guilty, punish who ever else. You just cant place allegations of cheating.
On why he didnít call off the team from the field at that moment..
I said first it is important to talk to the coach. I told the coach to go to the referee. The referee told the coach that he had nothing with him at the time. No one has told me anything as yet. I felt this was not a small isssue. It was an allegation against the Pakistan team. Procter said we will decide later. So I told him if you decide later there was no point as the action had already been taken by the Umpires. That was when we decided that we would not go out.
On why it was necessary for him to lead the team out
Mike Procter came and told me please go and continue. I said ok. David Morgan and Sharyar Khan also told me to go out. They told me it was a csaee of relationships between two countries. They said we know what has happened but please donít let it spoil relations between the countries and cricket. So we went out.
On Hair standing in the ODI's
I hope from the part of ICC that they wont put Hair on any of the Pakistan matches
From this interview, I think Inzy does not know the rules. Sad but true!

His ignorance cost his team the game and is being "exploited" by ICC. I still come back to one point - WTF were Woolmer, Abbas and Sharayar doing there ..they should have told him to "take the field"..under all circumstances he should have taken the field.

Poor chap.. whatever fun we make of him.. he is a nice guy.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2006, 02:11:55 PM by losingnow »
Logged
Play with heart. Win with class. Lose with dignity

MockTurtle

  • Guest

I understand we all dislike Hair. However, are we sure that the Pakistanis were NOT ball-tampering?  If Hair has a few things in his past, so do the Pakistanis in this respect.
-P

well, let Hair provide the proof. he has made a serious charge and one expects that he has enough evidence to back it. sorry, can't simply accept his word. and going by your analogy, how fair it would be to rationalize that since we had a few players who were involved in match-fixing, it is reasonable to assume that every indian team *may* be involved?



Logged

inoc

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,707

losing now

what part of the interview made you say that he does not know the laws.

Law 42 (Fair and unfair play)

3. The match ball - changing its condition
(a) Any fielder may
(i) polish the ball provided that no artificial substance is used and that such polishing wastes no time.
(ii) remove mud from the ball under the supervision of the umpire.
(iii) dry a wet ball on a towel.

(b) It is unfair for anyone to rub the ball on the ground for any reason, interfere with any of the seams or the surface of the ball, use any implement, or take any other action whatsoever which is likely to alter the condition of the ball, except as permitted in (a) above.

(c) The umpires shall make frequent and irregular inspections of the ball.

(d) In the event of any fielder changing the condition of the ball unfairly, as set out in (b) above, the umpires after consultation shall
(i) change the ball forthwith. It shall be for the umpires to decide on the replacement ball, which shall, in their opinion, have had wear comparable with that which the previous ball had received immediately prior to the contravention.
(ii) inform the batsmen that the ball has been changed.
(iii) award 5 penalty runs to the batting side. See 17 below.
(iv) inform the captain of the fielding side that the reason for the action was the unfair interference with the ball.
(v) inform the captain of the batting side as soon as practicable of what has occurred.
(vi) report the occurrence as soon as possible to the Executive of the fielding side and any Governing Body responsible for the match, who shall take such action as is considered appropriate against the captain and team concerned.


as far as i can see Hair did not follow procedure (highlighted in red). it is ofcourse inzys word.
Logged

MockTurtle

  • Guest

Oh, GREAT! They have made sure that Inzy gets slammed either way. how about stating what happens IF the proof could not be provided?


http://sport.guardian.co.uk/englandpakistan2006/story/0,,1855184,00.html

Inzamam charged by ICC

Pakistan captain's hearing set for Friday

Staff and agencies
Monday August 21, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

 
Shaharyar Khan and Inzamam-ul-Haq
 
Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq has been charged with bringing the game into disrepute by the International Cricket Council. He has also been charged with changing the condition of the ball and his hearing will be heard on Friday.
As captain, Inzamam is deemed responsible for the actions that led to his team forfeiting the fourth Test against England at The Oval yesterday.

Pakistan did not return to the field after the tea interval in protest at the umpires' decision to change the ball on suspicion it had been tampered with.

Inzamam will now face a hearing before the match referee Ranjan Madugalle on Friday in London, when he will answer the disrepute charge as well as one for changing the condition of the ball. He could be banned for up to four Test matches or eight one-day internationals if found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute. He could also be fined his entire match fee or handed an extra one-game ban if it is proved the ball was tampered with. The charges were brought by the on-field umpires Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove after consultation with third and fourth umpires Peter Hartley and Trevor Jesty.
Madugalle was not officiating in the match but has been asked to conduct the hearing as the game's referee, Mike Procter, is likely to be called upon to give evidence. Madugalle refereed the first three matches of the series.


Logged

prfsr

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,755

I understand we all dislike Hair. However, are we sure that the Pakistanis were NOT ball-tampering?  If Hair has a few things in his past, so do the Pakistanis in this respect.
-P

well, let Hair provide the proof. he has made a serious charge and one expects that he has enough evidence to back it. sorry, can't simply accept his word. and going by your analogy, how fair it would be to rationalize that since we had a few players who were involved in match-fixing, it is reasonable to assume that every indian team *may* be involved?

Mock,
I do not support or oppose Hair. My understanding is that he *has* to provide the evidence to a hearing committee, not the press. So perhaps we should wait for the proceedings before jumping on Hair?

I have reasons to believe that *either* party may be innocent/just doing their job.

-P
Logged

LosingNow

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24,294

losing now

what part of the interview made you say that he does not know the laws.

Law 42 (Fair and unfair play)

3. The match ball - changing its condition
(a) Any fielder may
(i) polish the ball provided that no artificial substance is used and that such polishing wastes no time.
(ii) remove mud from the ball under the supervision of the umpire.
(iii) dry a wet ball on a towel.

(b) It is unfair for anyone to rub the ball on the ground for any reason, interfere with any of the seams or the surface of the ball, use any implement, or take any other action whatsoever which is likely to alter the condition of the ball, except as permitted in (a) above.

(c) The umpires shall make frequent and irregular inspections of the ball.

(d) In the event of any fielder changing the condition of the ball unfairly, as set out in (b) above, the umpires after consultation shall
(i) change the ball forthwith. It shall be for the umpires to decide on the replacement ball, which shall, in their opinion, have had wear comparable with that which the previous ball had received immediately prior to the contravention.
(ii) inform the batsmen that the ball has been changed.
(iii) award 5 penalty runs to the batting side. See 17 below.
(iv) inform the captain of the fielding side that the reason for the action was the unfair interference with the ball.
(v) inform the captain of the batting side as soon as practicable of what has occurred.
(vi) report the occurrence as soon as possible to the Executive of the fielding side and any Governing Body responsible for the match, who shall take such action as is considered appropriate against the captain and team concerned.


as far as i can see Hair did not follow procedure (highlighted in red). it is ofcourse inzys word.
Inoc:
quick response.. as I am walking into a meeting...will type a detailed one later, if necessary.
He knows the rule ..
1. Hair has to give him a reason (not convince him) and just inform him.
2. I am not sure, if Inzy is not convinced what he can do .. a) he could have stopped play then and tried to get the matterr resolved (as Imran Khan has suggested) or b) filed a protest later.
3. The rule, I think, he did not know was - (short version..i have detailed this elsewhere in my posts..and before the game was forfeited, i had said that "he has technically forfieted the game" ) if you dont take the field and if the umpire asks you "are you taking the field or not" and if you say no ..  the umpire can consider the game forfieted. It is here I think he should have been told by woolmer, abbas, younis or shahrayar ..go take the field..everything else will be resolved later!
Hope this helps
Logged
Play with heart. Win with class. Lose with dignity

prfsr

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,755

Oh, GREAT! They have made sure that Inzy gets slammed either way. how about stating what happens IF the proof could not be provided?

Well Inzy did refuse to play which I believe is punishable under any circumstances.

There is a very fine line here. Going strictly by the rules, agreeing to play explicitly implies that you accept an umpire's decision and play on, or get punished for refusing to do so. Sometimes exceptional circumstances may lead to non-punishment for the same crimes.  I am not aware of what happened here beyond a few reports that I have read. However, Inzi apparently did not take the field on time and that is an offence, which is (by default) punishable.

-P
Logged

MockTurtle

  • Guest

I understand we all dislike Hair. However, are we sure that the Pakistanis were NOT ball-tampering?  If Hair has a few things in his past, so do the Pakistanis in this respect.
-P

well, let Hair provide the proof. he has made a serious charge and one expects that he has enough evidence to back it. sorry, can't simply accept his word. and going by your analogy, how fair it would be to rationalize that since we had a few players who were involved in match-fixing, it is reasonable to assume that every indian team *may* be involved?

Mock,
I do not support or oppose Hair. My understanding is that he *has* to provide the evidence to a hearing committee, not the press. So perhaps we should wait for the proceedings before jumping on Hair?

I have reasons to believe that *either* party may be innocent/just doing their job.

-P

well, the burden of proof is on him and if the TV cameras don't have any footage, what sort of "proof" can we expect? pakistan having been accused of ball-tampering in the past is IRRELEVANT. and how conveniently they have launched a "bringing the game to disrepute" charges agaisnt Inzy! this, after both the teams were willing to play and the opposition (England) did not object! yes, it is punishable by the "rules" but we are dealing with an extraordinary situation here and given the circumstances, it cannot be thought of as anything but a very convenient way for Hair to maybe, just maybe, crawl his way out of this hole.

i have no faith in Hair but fair enough, we will wait with bated breath for the "proof".

Logged

ramshorns

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13,029

Oh, GREAT! They have made sure that Inzy gets slammed either way. how about stating what happens IF the proof could not be provided?

Well Inzy did refuse to play which I believe is punishable under any circumstances.

There is a very fine line here. Going strictly by the rules, agreeing to play explicitly implies that you accept an umpire's decision and play on, or get punished for refusing to do so. Sometimes exceptional circumstances may lead to non-punishment for the same crimes.  I am not aware of what happened here beyond a few reports that I have read. However, Inzi apparently did not take the field on time and that is an offence, which is (by default) punishable.

-P
I agree, if the rules of the game were to be applied strictly then Pak. will have to be declared losers.  Now were they shortchanged by Hairless, ofcourse they were.  The only good thing in all this is Hairless is history.  So long.
Logged

MockTurtle

  • Guest

Oh, GREAT! They have made sure that Inzy gets slammed either way. how about stating what happens IF the proof could not be provided?

Well Inzy did refuse to play which I believe is punishable under any circumstances.

There is a very fine line here. Going strictly by the rules, agreeing to play explicitly implies that you accept an umpire's decision and play on, or get punished for refusing to do so. Sometimes exceptional circumstances may lead to non-punishment for the same crimes.  I am not aware of what happened here beyond a few reports that I have read. However, Inzi apparently did not take the field on time and that is an offence, which is (by default) punishable.

-P

prfsr, don't tell me you don't see the duplicity of this all!
Logged

prfsr

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,755

Oh, GREAT! They have made sure that Inzy gets slammed either way. how about stating what happens IF the proof could not be provided?

Well Inzy did refuse to play which I believe is punishable under any circumstances.

There is a very fine line here. Going strictly by the rules, agreeing to play explicitly implies that you accept an umpire's decision and play on, or get punished for refusing to do so. Sometimes exceptional circumstances may lead to non-punishment for the same crimes.  I am not aware of what happened here beyond a few reports that I have read. However, Inzi apparently did not take the field on time and that is an offence, which is (by default) punishable.

-P

prfsr, don't tell me you don't see the duplicity of this all!


Mock,
Maybe I am missing some facts, or maybe the fact that I feel ill after barbecuing for 3 hours in the rain (started after I fired up the grill) is clouding my judgment. Let's do a quick recap and please tell me what I am missing.

My understanding is that Hair pulled them up for ball-tampering and changed the ball, and the Pak team refused to play in protest. You are saying that they (Pak) should not be penalized if it turns out Hair was wrong.

Is that correct?

-P
Logged

ramshorns

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13,029

Oh, GREAT! They have made sure that Inzy gets slammed either way. how about stating what happens IF the proof could not be provided?

Well Inzy did refuse to play which I believe is punishable under any circumstances.

There is a very fine line here. Going strictly by the rules, agreeing to play explicitly implies that you accept an umpire's decision and play on, or get punished for refusing to do so. Sometimes exceptional circumstances may lead to non-punishment for the same crimes.  I am not aware of what happened here beyond a few reports that I have read. However, Inzi apparently did not take the field on time and that is an offence, which is (by default) punishable.

-P

prfsr, don't tell me you don't see the duplicity of this all!

Let us just say under the similar circumstances Hairless would not have passed the same judgement if it was SA/AUS/ENG. 
Logged

inoc

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,707

losingnow

i understand your position regarding point 3
it is correct that if he refuses to come out he forfeits the game i am sure he understands that.

today woolmer said that hair came upto inzi and asked him whether he is coming out or not. to which inzi apparently asked him the reason for the ball tampering accusation which hair did not answer.

hair may be right technically in awarding the match to england as pakistan were not on the field, at the same time inzi might be right in demanding the information from him first (which he is obliged to provide to him and did not).

it is a question which will be decided in the hearing on friday (may be not) but in circumstances like this it is more important to be malleable rather than rigid in applying the law. it is akin to a traffic warden fining you for parking outside a hospital when you went in to the ER with a seriously ill patient. the traffic warden is right but the situation is extraordinary.
Logged

prfsr

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,755

Inoc,
the point about being malleable is good but the analogy is not. Inzy was not in any mortal trouble. In fact there was no other mitigating circumstance IIRC. He decided to protest the umpires' decision by forfeiting the match. This is something SL had not done when MM was no-balled.

Mock,
Whether Eng agreed or not is irrelevant. Either you support the principle that an umpire can use his judgment to punish ball-tampering or you do not. The umpire can very well make a mistake. The mistake may be honest or he can be biased. Either way, is this the way to protest the umpires' decision?

-P
Logged

inoc

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,707

prfsr

the analogy was in the manner the law as applied not the circumstances.
as i said in my earlier post inzi can insist that hair fulfil his obligation before he returns to play (captain has to be informed the reason for the change of ball and penalty)
many times this rule of law has been extended and not applied e.g MM chucking, SRT runout when india would have forfeited the match.
there has been apparent disguard at trying to solve the issue but more at ego boistering behaviour on the part of Hair.
Logged

prfsr

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,755

prfsr

the analogy was in the manner the law as applied not the circumstances.
as i said in my earlier post inzi can insist that hair fulfil his obligation before he returns to play (captain has to be informed the reason for the change of ball and penalty)
many times this rule of law has been extended and not applied e.g MM chucking, SRT runout when india would have forfeited the match.
there has been apparent disguard at trying to solve the issue but more at ego boistering behaviour on the part of Hair.
inoc,
Isn't it true that Hair signaled ball tampering by giving 5 runs to Eng? What do you mean by
(Hair did not follow the rule) "captain has to be informed the reason for the change of ball"?

-P
Logged

MockTurtle

  • Guest

Inoc,
the point about being malleable is good but the analogy is not. Inzy was not in any mortal trouble. In fact there was no other mitigating circumstance IIRC. He decided to protest the umpires' decision by forfeiting the match. This is something SL had not done when MM was no-balled.

Mock,
Whether Eng agreed or not is irrelevant. Either you support the principle that an umpire can use his judgment to punish ball-tampering or you do not. The umpire can very well make a mistake. The mistake may be honest or he can be biased. Either way, is this the way to protest the umpires' decision?

-P

You are mixing up the two issues.

(1) Whether the umpire can use his SUBJECTIVE judgement to accuse a team of ball tampering.

I think not. This is a serious charge questioning the integrity of a team and he should have proper proof. "Mistakes were made" cannot be used so easily in this. There is a lot of shame associated with ball tampering and the umpire should have absolute proof. I don't think, so far, anyone has seen it. Hopefully, on Friday's hearing, he will show it to the concerned parties.

(2) England agreeing to continuing the game

In general, I may agree with you but in THIS situation, Hair could have been a bit more sensible instead of escalating the issue. He started the controversy and he could have helped contain it. There are clauses like "in the spirit of the game" and "in the best interest of the public" etc. that are often thrown in at other times to explain a lot of bizarre decisions. Very well, let us bow to the sticklers for the laws and who cares if the decisions made sense or not!

Hair/ICC have achieved what they wanted. With this decision of awarding the match to England, a lot of attention is diverted from the REAL issue of ball-tampering accusation. Already, press is making noises about "petulant pakistan" and such. Lovely. Can't wait for this unfold further.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2006, 03:37:06 PM by MockTurtle »
Logged

suraj

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,032
  • How about a tattoo with my name??

losingnow

i understand your position regarding point 3
it is correct that if he refuses to come out he forfeits the game i am sure he understands that.

today woolmer said that hair came upto inzi and asked him whether he is coming out or not. to which inzi apparently asked him the reason for the ball tampering accusation which hair did not answer.

hair may be right technically in awarding the match to england as pakistan were not on the field, at the same time inzi might be right in demanding the information from him first (which he is obliged to provide to him and did not).

it is a question which will be decided in the hearing on friday (may be not) but in circumstances like this it is more important to be malleable rather than rigid in applying the law. it is akin to a traffic warden fining you for parking outside a hospital when you went in to the ER with a seriously ill patient. the traffic warden is right but the situation is extraordinary.


eggjacktly! Sometimes its the spirit of the rule rather than te rule that is more important
Logged

suraj

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,032
  • How about a tattoo with my name??

Inoc,
the point about being malleable is good but the analogy is not. Inzy was not in any mortal trouble. In fact there was no other mitigating circumstance IIRC. He decided to protest the umpires' decision by forfeiting the match. This is something SL had not done when MM was no-balled.

Mock,
Whether Eng agreed or not is irrelevant. Either you support the principle that an umpire can use his judgment to punish ball-tampering or you do not. The umpire can very well make a mistake. The mistake may be honest or he can be biased. Either way, is this the way to protest the umpires' decision?

-P

It absolutely is- again maybe not the smartest way but it was the right way when the umpire refuses to share any information, provide any evidence and just acts like a stubborn SOB
Logged

justforkix

  • Global Moderator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14,896

*on the muralidharan chucking incident .. this one i am not entirely sure about, so would welcome anyone throwing more light ... the right course of action would have been to bring the issue to the notice of the ICC rather than a high profile no-balling .. and talking of precedents, did Murali not have enough precedents of bowling without being called in international cricket

Nope, when Hair no-balled Murali, the laws allowed Umpires to no-ball bowlers who straightened their arm. Murali's incident, Chuckter, Lee etc. forced ICC to ammend the laws and disallow Umps from no-balling bowlers for chucking suspicion.
Logged

suraj

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,032
  • How about a tattoo with my name??

Has anyone seen any official Indian reaction to this??

I strongly believe the issue will end up going one way or the other dependent on BCCI's stand- if we stay mum Pak/Inzy is in deep trouble but if we throw our weight behind them ICC will back up
Logged

justforkix

  • Global Moderator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14,896

But if Hair is victimised (and most likely will be) it will be a loss to the game because he is one umpire who really upholds the laws of the game. He did not make then but enforce them he does.

ICC will very well sell Hair down the river to save its arse because Hair is a easy scapegoat in a problem that has been created by the ICC by not defining the rules clearly and not stipulating who is to take what action in the event of a suspicion created by ball tampering.

No Sir. None of this will happen. Hair will stay in the elite panel and continue his racist acts.....
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up