|
21 Aug 06 - 01:29 AM (#1814850) Subject: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Rasener There are two issues here and each one is totally seperate. The first one - Tampering with the ball The second - The refusal of a team to continue the game, when asked to. Its very important people do not merge the two issues. In relation to the rules related to the second issue, the umpires were perfectly correct in accordance with the rules of cricket. Pakistan refused to continue the game after tea. The umpires waited the statutory 2 minutes and then declared that the Pakistan team by not being ready to play have therefore forfeited the game. The ball tampering has nothing to do with that decision. Whatever or however the Pakistan team think about the original decison, they do not have the right to stage a protest and refuse to continue the game at the appropriate time. If you let that happen, you may as well throw away the rules and not bother with umpires. I have no opinion concerning the ball tampering. That is for the Umpires to deal with. They obviously felt for some reason that the ball was tampered with. I am sure the investigation will come up with what happened. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 02:01 AM (#1814860) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: John O'L While it was unbelievably stupid behaviour from the Pakis, I think it may also have been a bit pedantic of the umpires to refuse to withdraw from their decision. Cricket's the loser. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 02:13 AM (#1814866) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Rasener The umpires are in charge and are expected to work to the rules. It applies to both teams. Without knowing what the umpires saw, its not really possible to comment on the decision of ball tampering. Pakistan know the rules of cricket and they should have known that if they were not on the pitch to start play, then they risked forfeiting the match. Irrespective of what they felt about the ball tamporing decision, under very strict rules of conduct, they should have continued the match and then complained at the end of the day to relevant decision makers. Instead, by refusing to continue with the match, they put the umpires under prssure to apply the necessaty rules. Tne umpires are in charge, not the cricketers. Under the circumstances the umpires were correct and a[pplied the rules correctly. Disapointing, yes to all cricket lovers, as the remainder of the match is lost. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 02:28 AM (#1814869) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: John O'L I agree Villain, the umpires have to maintain their authority, but they do so at the expense of their credibility when both teams want to play on, but are not allowed to. As you pointed out in your first post, the match being called forfeit has nothing to do with ball tampering, it's for a twenty-minute tantrum. A bad call IMO. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 02:29 AM (#1814870) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Rasener Sorry didn't do my proof reading and spell check The umpires are in charge and are expected to work to the rules. It applies to both teams. Without knowing what the umpires saw, its not really possible to comment on the decision of ball tampering. Pakistan know the rules of cricket and they should have known that if they were not on the pitch to start play, then they risked forfeiting the match. Irrespective of what they felt about the ball tampering decision, under very strict rules of conduct, they should have continued the match and then complained at the end of the day to relevant decision makers. Instead, by refusing to continue with the match, they put the umpires under pressure to apply the necessity rules. Tne umpires are in charge, not the cricketers. Under the circumstances the umpires were correct and applied the rules correctly. Disappointing, yes to all cricket lovers, as the remainder of the match is lost. Another very good point here is that the captain of Pakistan should have protested at the time of the ball tampering decision and asked it to be referred to the necessary authorities. He should have also said to the umpire that they were continuing the match under protest. Maybe he did. Cricket is not like football where the players think they are in charge. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 02:41 AM (#1814874) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Rasener >>As you pointed out in your first post, the match being called forfeit has nothing to do with ball tampering, it's for a twenty-minute tantrum. A bad call IMO<< Bad call or not, what are you expected to do as an umpire when a team decides they are going on strike. You can of course mediate, but in this particular instance, the umpire is enforced to carry out the rules, not make their own rules. The bad call is from the Pakistani team who refused to come out and continue with the game when the umpires were ready. If it proved that the umpires were correct about the ball tampering, where does that leave the Pakistani team. I just hope for the good of the game, that the umpires have some concrete evidence to support their decision. At this moment in time, it is unfair to do a witch hunt on the umpires, until all the facts are known. Who are we to beleive at the moment, without the complete facts at hand. If the Pakistanis are not cheats then I hope swift retribution is made against the umpires, but until the case is proven, the umpires are in charge and theerfore are correct. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 03:41 AM (#1814882) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: GUEST,Jon Jonathan Agnew's view on the BBC site. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 04:38 AM (#1814906) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Big Al Whittle I thought they were allowed to rub the ball, as long as they didn't pick the stitches out. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 04:41 AM (#1814907) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Liz the Squeak Funny how people who get caught out doing naughty things always try to deflect the guilt onto someone else... chap at work made a very expensive mistake last week.. he then spent 3 hours ranting about a work practice that would take an additional minute or two and would have picked up this mistake before the cheque could be issued the following day. He managed to make a £80,000 mistake and tried to blame it on the Area Director! It's similar to this argument over the game mentioned above. One side got caught doing a bad thing and they have done their best to make it someone else's fault, creating a bigger issue than the original error. Although.... in the interest of fairness, what nationality were the Umpires? LTS |
|
21 Aug 06 - 04:57 AM (#1814915) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: GUEST,Jon One side got caught doing a bad thing Not really Liz. As fa as I know, no evidence (including tv cameras) has been found to support the ball tampering charge. I agree with Pakistan forfeiting the match for not returning to the field of play and feel it would be awful for cricket to allow such protests but I don't think the ball tampering business itself is quite as clear as you are making it sound. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 04:58 AM (#1814916) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Rasener Theses are the rules about the match ball 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. (e) If there is any further instance of unfairly changing the condition of the ball in that innings, the umpires after consultation shall (i) repeat the procedure in (d)(i), (ii) and (iii) above. (ii) inform the captain of the fielding side of the reason for the action taken and direct him to take off forthwith the bowler who delivered the immediately preceding ball. The bowler thus taken off shall not be allowed to bowl again in that innings. (iii) inform the captain of the batting side as soon as practicable of what has occurred. (iv) report this further 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. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 05:04 AM (#1814919) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: GUEST,Jon But as far as I understand it Villian, the only evidience that exists is the umpires opinion based on the condition of the ball? |
|
21 Aug 06 - 05:08 AM (#1814920) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Rasener And here are the rules related to the result of the match. Umpires awarding a match (a) A match shall be lost by a side which either (i) concedes defeat or (ii) in the opinion of the umpires refuses to play and the umpires shall award the match to the other side. (b) If an umpire considers that an action by any player or players might constitute a refusal by either side to play then the umpires together shall ascertain the cause of the action. If they then decide together that this action does constitute a refusal to play by one side, they shall so inform the captain of that side. If the captain persists in the action the umpires shall award the match in accordance with (a)(ii) above. (c) If action as in (b) above takes place after play has started and does not constitute a refusal to play (i) playing time lost shall be counted from the start of the action until play recommences, subject to Law 15.5 (Changing agreed times for intervals). (ii) the time for close of play on that day shall be extended by this length of time, subject to Law 3.9 (Suspension of play for adverse conditions of ground, weather or light). (iii) if applicable, no overs shall be deducted during the last hour of the match solely on account of this time. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 05:14 AM (#1814923) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Rasener Guest Jon Until it has been investigated and a decision made, I don't think anybody is in a position to really say what went on. Until such times, the umpires decsion is final. The worst thing possible is for the umpires to have cheated. It would be a first time I think. As I say, I just hope that the umpires have a good basis for the ball tampering, becuase its not nice to be called a cheat if you are not. However as in all sports you have cheats. Les |
|
21 Aug 06 - 05:17 AM (#1814925) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Rasener About the umpires Before the match, two umpires shall be appointed, one for each end, to control the game as required by the Laws, with absolute impartiality. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 05:19 AM (#1814928) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: GUEST,Jon Until such times, the umpires decsion is final. Agreed. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 05:31 AM (#1814937) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Paul Burke The ball tampering allegation appears to have been unfounded- unless they have a new invisible way of doing it. The umpires seem to have been precipitate in interpreting a late return to the field as a final refusal to play. Hair has a history of dubious decisions, particularly against Asian teams. I can't help wondering if he has some issues there. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 05:37 AM (#1814940) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: John O'L Sure, I don't argue that point, I just think the match should have been allowed to go ahead when it became apparent that Pakistan had had their little hissyfit and were ready to play. There should always be room for umpires to think on their feet. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 05:38 AM (#1814941) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Rasener LTS The umpires were Billy Doctrove from Dominica Darrell Hair from Australia (who is disliked by the Pakistani's because he has been involved in other instances with them) One thing I have to say about Hair is that he is a stickler for the rules and is not prepared to be intimidated by players. Good on him. I only hope he hasn't got too personal and done something he might regret. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 05:38 AM (#1814942) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: John O'L Sorry Paul, I cross-posted. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 05:46 AM (#1814944) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Rasener OK John, what about the pakistani's doing as they were told and getting onto the pitch for the start of the match after tea. If you condone what they did, then all authority will be taken away from the umpires and then we will get the debacle that we have with footballers who seem to think that they can rule referees. If it is proven that Hair was out of order for the ball tampering affair then he should be sacked as an umpire. Until then. Pakistan will be hit for refusing to continue play when required, which is a bit like player power breaking the rules. You just can't let players rule the roost. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 05:58 AM (#1814947) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Strollin' Johnny Absolutely 110% correct Villan. The alternative is the kind of mayhem we see at football matches, where players blatantly cheat and intimidate the match officials. The plain and unadorned facts are that:- 1) The umpires stated that they believed the ball had been tampered with, and awarded England five penalty runs. 2) From that point on, they followed the laws of cricket absolutely to the letter. 3) They refused to be intimidated by Pakistan into reversing their decisions. Shame that football referees haven't got the same kind of courage. S:0) |
|
21 Aug 06 - 06:19 AM (#1814958) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: John O'L Over-regulation can spoil a game as much as weak refereeing/umpiring. I don't know what's been going on in European football, but it seems to be something that has you all pretty concerned that it will spill over into cricket. From what I read about it on the Cricinfo site, it seems like the sort of thing that should have been talked through before it got to the stage of forfeiting the match. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 06:30 AM (#1814964) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Paul Burke Nasser Hussain, Mike Gatting, Angus Fraser and Dicky Bird think the umpires were mistaken in this case. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 06:51 AM (#1814977) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Rasener Ask yourself why there are umpires John O'L As far as I know Hair asked the Pakistani skipper if he was coming out, and I think the answer was no. Hair then went to the wicket with the English players and presumably announced play, then allowed 2 minutes, but play didn't commence becuase the opposition had refused to come out. He then applied the rules as an umpire should. What do you think he should have done, crawled back to the dressing rooms and pleaded with them. I think not. Your authority has then been taken away. An umpire is there to interpret the rules, not to be a psychologist. All players will back each other against the umpire if they can get away with it, especially if they haven't umpired themselves. Its alright listening to the player/reporters of Sky, but has an umpire put their point of view yet. Its all loaded one way. As an ex umpire at village cricket level LOL, I know just what it is like when you have to make decisions with players who will try and get away with anything if they can. Sometimes I have to wonder why umpires do the job. Technology is constantly trying to make them look idiots. I remember once umpiring at a match in the Black Country. The wicket keeper was a tough old nut, who stood right up to the fast bowlers. I wondered why he stood up right on the stumps, until I had to make a stumping ruling. What this guy did, was touch the wicket with his pads so that the bails dislodged whilst he was collecting the ball. Becuase it was so fast and becuase as an umpire you had to process so many things in the flash of a second, a poor umpire would have given the batsmen out. I gave not out, and the wicketkeeper asked me why he wasn't out. Its not up to the umpire to explain, but I did explain that he had dislodged the bails before catching the ball and striking the wicket. After that he didn't try it again, becuase he knew I had twigged him. Afterwards I found out that was a trick he used and was very succesful with it too. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 07:01 AM (#1814980) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Rasener Paul Non of these people were in charge and who knows what they would really have done under the circumstances. Its easy with hindsight. Th rules are about the game, not the people who want to watch it. Irrespective of who is to blame for the ball incident, I blame Pakistan, for not doing what the umpire asked of them in terms of getting the match started again. Instead of blamimg the umpire, ask yourself, why didn't the Pakistanis get onto the field and start the match as they should have done - they are not in charge. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 08:11 AM (#1815022) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: The Walrus While I appreciate that emotions would be running high, the Pakistani team should have asked that the disputed ball be set aside for further study, continued to play and then, if they believed they were wronged, complained like hell to the relevent authorities. On the field of play, the Umpires *must* have the last word. If you think the decision is wrong, play on and complain afterwards. W |
|
21 Aug 06 - 08:53 AM (#1815040) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: John O'L Villain, clearly you are correct, and I can't argue any point you have made, but I still think that forfeiting a match is an extreme and unfortunate result which might have been avoided with just a little more communication than there seems to have been. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 11:46 AM (#1815159) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Richard Bridge The views of Nasser Hussain, Mike Gatting, Angus Fraser and Dicky Bird seem horrifyingly venal. Can someone point us to the facts of Hair's previously contentious work? Surely the ball was put aside, since a new one was selected by the captains. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 01:28 PM (#1815240) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Rasener Well it looks like the authorities are still insisting that the ball was tampered with and the captain of Pakistan is in the bubble and squeek. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/5269906.stm |
|
21 Aug 06 - 05:21 PM (#1815427) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Rasener Alec Stewart on the situation Meanwhile, former England captain Alec Stewart said it was vital the one-dayers do go ahead to ensure "relations between England and Pakistan are not damaged". Stewart, now an ambassador at Surrey following his retirement two years ago, was among the crowd at the Oval who witnessed the incredible drama unfold, ending the final Test prematurely. "It was a very bad day for cricket - I've never seen anything like it," Stewart added. "All I'll say is that you should accept the umpire's decision - that's what you're brought up to do. "I have sympathy with the umpires because they have made their decision believing what they have done is right, like them giving a catch behind or an lbw." Stewart also believes both the England and Wales Cricket Board, who staged the Test, can learn to improve their communication skills from this incident. "We had 24,000 people there and thousands more watching on television and the disappointing thing was that nothing came out," he said. "There was no information to let people know what was going on and why, they were having to second guess." Surrey and the ECB have already acted to automatically refund 40% of the price of yesterday's ticket and a full refund for the 12,000 people who bought tickets for Monday. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 06:08 PM (#1815479) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Peter K (Fionn) My sympathies are with Pakitan entirely. To accuse a team of cheating, while the game is in progress, is not remotely comparable with an lbw decision, as someone claimed above. If such a serious accusation can be resolved by awarding a mere five penalty runs, then that itself is a nonsence. In many sports cheating would mean disqualification, or at least that the offender be dismissed from the field. In this case it would seem that Pakistan were accused - and found guilty - on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. The match was being filmed by 21 television cameras, and all the indications today are that not one of those cameras picked up any untoward behaviour. The ball in question, in the course of its 56-over life, was hit beyond the field of play on several occasions and at least twice landed on concrete terracing after travelling more than 100 metres. It would be a brave adjudicator who could say such a ball had been tampered with illegally if there turns out to be no witness or film evidence. Certainly the Pakistan protest was misguided and immature, but it can hardly be a surprise that they were incensed. It would not have been unreasonable for the umpires to reflect, and cut them some slack. If forfeiture of the match was as straightforward a matter as Villan suggests it was, why could the authorities still not say at 10.30pm lat night whether the match was over? Was it really beyond the parties involved to resolve the matter to more positive effect, in all those hours of negotiation? My guess is that it will turn out to be the bloody-minded intransigence of umpire Hair, as demonstrated before, that's at the root of this matter. Villan says Hair is disliked by the PAkistanis. I think it would be fairer to say they have no confidence in him as an umpire. But if Villan was really intending to be fair, he might have gone on to say that Hair has crossed swords with several teams - India, Sri Lanka and New Zealand also having filed complaints against his decisions. So far the ICC have defended Hair through every crisis he's created. But with any luck, he's stood in his last test. |
|
21 Aug 06 - 07:32 PM (#1815542) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: GUEST Hair is a good umpire over the years yhere have been weak one,s who have not had the ball,s to stand up to some teams.In the world cup the referee should have awarded the Italian soccer player 10 points for his dive not a free kick |
|
21 Aug 06 - 07:58 PM (#1815568) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: John O'L No Easy Answers: "The bare facts are this; a Test match has been forfeited for the first time in the history of international cricket and Pakistan once again stands accused of ball tampering. It is tempting, as the feedback from our readers reveals, to accuse the umpires of bias, but by doing so, we run the risk of judging both by their past history. If we are to do that then we must also acknowledge that, historically, Pakistani bowlers have also been previously found guilty of ball tampering. To do either is wrong and the decision must be assessed in isolation." |
|
21 Aug 06 - 08:01 PM (#1815574) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Mr Happy The whole thing's a loada balls! Any sensible rules would dictate-'if the ball's b**GG*red- then use common sense- use a new one!- like they do in tennis & other ball games. ******** also - IMHO - I think another example of today's trendy Muslim Bashing! |
|
22 Aug 06 - 01:31 AM (#1815794) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Rasener From what I can make of the two umpires decision (It wasn't just Hair), the dramatic chnage of the ball occurred between 18 balls that were delivered. It would seem that only one four was scored in those 18 balls and nothing else occured that would make the ball chnage so dranatically, apart from tampering. I guees it wouldn't be difficult for Sky to have a look at those 18 balls and see if anything unusual occurred that would flaw the umpires (notice I say umpires and not umpire) judgement. I think there is no doubt the condition of the ball changed dranmatically in those 18 balls to make the umpires come to their decision. I suppose that the two umpires have been instructed not to comment until all investigations are over. >>Inzamam could be banned for up to four Tests or eight one-dayers when he appears at an ICC hearing on Friday.<< Now why would ICC do that unless they are absolutley sure that ball tampering occurred? I suppose we will get to know more on Friday. It would certainly IMHO be aesier for ICC to back the Pakistani's than back the umpires if the evidence is in any way flawed. |
|
22 Aug 06 - 01:49 AM (#1815804) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: John O'L As I understand it Inzamam has been charged with ball-tampering and another unspecified charge, presumably relating to the team's failure to take the field. Interesting. Everywhere I look everyone is saying there is no evidence, but if the ICC is laying charges they must surely have something. |
|
22 Aug 06 - 03:18 AM (#1815830) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Liz the Squeak What a load of bollocks... it's only a game! LTS |
|
22 Aug 06 - 08:28 AM (#1815970) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: The Sandman Its just not cricket any more,of course the rot started when batsmen stopped wanlking, but what a delightful game with all those positions like silly mid on, square leg,fine leg, silly point. who but an idiot would field at silly point.bowling a maiden over something I havent been able to do for a long time. I blame W G grace .he was the one who first refused to accept an umpires decision and said the crowd have come to see me bat, so im not out. umpires word is final , both umpires are neutral, both umpires were involved in the decision, havent certain previous pakistani test bowlers been found guilty of cheating, umpires are only human but if a team has a track record, of course it can affect an umpire,IM SURPRISED ANYONE WANTS TO BE AN UMPIREOR A REFEREE.next thing is some idiot will issue a fatwah to the umpires. |
|
22 Aug 06 - 08:46 AM (#1815985) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Rasener Stop wanlking - which letter do you want to remove CD - is it the n or the l :-) I used to field at silly point, when required. Specialist position. Used to love fielding in the point area or Cover/cover point/extra cover. Always preferred point though. |
|
22 Aug 06 - 08:47 AM (#1815986) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Rasener I see Mark Waugh is defending the umpires. |
|
22 Aug 06 - 10:31 AM (#1816137) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Strollin' Johnny Whether the umpires were correct in their decision that the ball had been tampered with is NOT the point at issue, PeterK. The Pakistan team and officials had several avenues open to them by which to protest that decision, and they chose the very worst one - to try to take the game out of the umpires' hands by (a) refusing to re-start play at the appointed time not once, but twice and then, (b) when the umpires had dropped the bails (thereby declaring the match finished) coming out on to the pitch in an obvious attempt to blackmail the umpires into restarting the game. Now we hear they are continuing their attempted blackmail by threatening to pull out of the one-day series, thus hitting out at a completely innocent England team, officials and supporters. It stinks. BTW, personally I don't believe the ball was tampered with, and I totally understand why the Pakistanis felt aggrieved, but their actions are totally out of order and tantamount to the same kind of anarchy that's utterly ruining our other national game, football. S:0) |
|
22 Aug 06 - 11:11 AM (#1816172) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: The Sandman Until we know otherwise we have to accept, that the umpires had good grounds for their decision. their have been problems with umpires before, I have a recollection that the pakistani team objected to david constant some years ago.But the system is much fairer these days in that you have umpires from many different countries, WHO ARE LESS LIKELY TO BE BIASED. my misspelling should have been walking not wanking. |
|
22 Aug 06 - 11:26 AM (#1816188) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Paul from Hull 'scuse me LTS....whats this: "IT'S ONLY A GAME" nonsense??? *G* |
|
22 Aug 06 - 11:26 AM (#1816189) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: The Sandman Then there was arthur fagg, former england test player, and then test umpire,who refused to take the field in 1973 after the west indies had disputed one of his decisions.Umpiring is a thankless task, if we want quality umpires they have to be paid well and they must be allowed to have the final decision, any questioning of decisions should be done in private and afterwards, umpires performances should be monitored and checked periodically and they should be assessed as to whether they are good enough to continue as test umpires but this should be done away from the media in private and with decorum and dignity. |
|
22 Aug 06 - 12:06 PM (#1816208) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Rasener And the very worst thing is that they the Pakistani's are now deciding who will or won't umpire any future matches when they are playing. Under those circumstances Hair would umpire every match until they stop such threatening behaviour. Its not acceptable. Incidentally I would hold the same view if the tampering was against England. The umpires are in charge not the players. I don'tlike cheats and blackmailers fullstop. Although this is not the subject of thsi thread, I am totally against Rooney ever becoming captain of England. He is a thug and is the very worst example of what football is about these days. Hemight be a bloody good footballer, but is a disgrace in setting a good example to youngsters. A statement from Hair Australian Darrell Hair, the umpire at the centre of the forfeited Oval Test, maintains he was correct to penalise Pakistan and award the game to England. And he dismissed criticism of his past performance officiating Asian teams. "People who know me know I would not take action unless I really thought it was necessary," he said. "I have umpired quite a lot in the sub-continent and when the ICC have asked me to do a job I try and do it to the best of my ability." Hair told Brisbane's Courier-Mail: "I stand by what I have done, but if anything comes out at the inquiry that proves me incorrect I would accept that too." Just remeber that Billy Octrove was party to the decision about tampering and forfeiting. So why isn't anybody having a go at both of them. By all accounts, they are two of the very best umpires. |
|
22 Aug 06 - 12:07 PM (#1816209) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Paco Rabanne Serves the buggers right for cheating! |
|
22 Aug 06 - 09:01 PM (#1816585) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Peter K (Fionn) Interesting stuff on the front page of the Daily Telegraph yesterday (or day before) which I hadn't seen before. The report said Duncan Fletcher had alerted the umpires to the possibility of ball-tampering before start of play on Sunday morning. Suspicions had already been widely voiced in the England camp apparently. Sky camera crew were similarly alerted to focus on the ball as it was passed from player to player, and Trescothick spent a long time watching individual fielders through binoculars. Former England fast bowler Angus Fraser has responded to the saga by saying that fielding teams always push the boundaries (pun intended) - for instance by sucking sweets in the knowledge that sugar-rich saliva gives a better shine; and by rubbing lip balm into their clothing. (Applying lip balm directly to the ball is prohibited, but rubbing the ball on clothing is allowed.) Maybe I should just wait till the fat lady has sung. |
|
23 Aug 06 - 01:30 AM (#1816736) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: GUEST,Allen in Oz Keith Miller used to argue that if the bowler were permitted to shine the ball, the batsman should have the right to rub it in the dirt ! I was at the SCG when England left the field after John Snow had his jumper pulled by a bloke in front of the Bob stand and the game was allowed to continue after a long period. There was never any question of a forfeit that day but I suppose technically it could have been . It is propoer that cheats do not prosper. The umpires must be allowed to control the game in exact accordance with the LAWS (not rules) of cricket AD 1943 |
|
23 Aug 06 - 02:57 AM (#1816762) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Big Al Whittle well I've read through all of this - what a complicated subject! I think the answer would be to have two games - two sports. One game where everybody is allowed to do what they like with the ball - have a funny shaped ball, and the fielding team have little kits like manicure sets where they can upick, rub in lip balm, etc to their hearts content. Perhaps have a little unpicking break - now and then. then another sport where nothing like that is allowed - not even rubbing. And a new ball every six overs or so. then people could choose which they wanted to see. |
|
23 Aug 06 - 03:11 AM (#1816771) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Peter K (Fionn) LOL |
|
23 Aug 06 - 04:01 AM (#1816788) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Strollin' Johnny WLD, wrong!! The answer is for match officials to grow some balls and face up to their true reponsibilities (which Hair and Doctrove clearly did in the game in question!), and for cheating bastards (of all nationalities - we have our share of them here in the UK) to be expelled sine die from whichever sport in which they take part. S:0) |
|
23 Aug 06 - 05:15 AM (#1816814) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: GUEST,Jon Well SJ, I could agree with that in principle but while I do believe the decision for Pakistan to forfeit the game was correct, the ball tampering/cheating issue to me is far from clear at the moment. |
|
23 Aug 06 - 12:16 PM (#1817084) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: ard mhacha Why didn`t someone get the former England captain Michael Atherton to give his opinion, after all, Mike had the experience, didn`t he do a bit of cheating by doctoring the ball with a pocketful of dirt. |
|
23 Aug 06 - 05:14 PM (#1817336) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: The Sandman Your on the ball ard mhacha, spot on. now I reckon cork will win the all Ireland hurling, AND THEY WILL DO IT WITHOUT ANY BALL TAMPERING, just call for the bold thady quill. |
|
23 Aug 06 - 06:32 PM (#1817390) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Big Al Whittle nice to see you back ard, where you been? I really think though, it would be a good idea to have a sort of free form sports - where everybody was allowed all the drugs they wanted, and ingenious ways of bending the rules were tolerated with a sly chuckle, perhaps with the exception of where they endangered other players. then all the nice guys could go on question of sport, and the other lot could on they think its all over. |
|
23 Aug 06 - 07:32 PM (#1817424) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: John O'L ...then all the nice guys could go on question of sport, and the other lot could on they think its all over. I think we need some kind of regulatory body or code of definition to work that one out, wld |
|
24 Aug 06 - 06:03 AM (#1817698) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Strollin' Johnny Guest Jon - read my other post, I'm not making a judgment on whether they did or did not tamper with the ball. What I'm saying is that, if match officials in other sports took their lead from those in cricket, we wouldn't have to watch e.g. the nauseating spectacle of footballers screaming in simulated agony, rolling over and over and over, and demanding a card be shown for a foul that never actually took place. |
|
24 Aug 06 - 06:12 AM (#1817700) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: GUEST,Jon Sorry, SJ - I'd not connected the previous post. I agree with you there. |
|
24 Aug 06 - 07:35 AM (#1817741) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: ard mhacha How many Test players walk now when the umpire fails to spot an outside edge?, not too many, if any, all those days of sportsmanship have gone. |
|
24 Aug 06 - 08:25 AM (#1817756) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: GUEST,Jon Ard, I would agree the game has gone shall we say more "professional". Perhaps that should add to reasons for not wanting umpiring to be dictated to by "player power"? |
|
24 Aug 06 - 08:41 AM (#1817764) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Strollin' Johnny Jon - no problem! Ard - all the more reason for the match officials to (a) know and fully understand the laws/rules of the game, (b) apply those laws/rules to the letter and (c) have the balls to refuse to allow the players to intimidate them. Achieve those three and the unsportsmanship will be reduced to the minimum because miserable cheating shits won't be allowed to get away with it. BTW - what the feck does an Irishman know about cricket? LOL! Only joking, Ard! S:0) |
|
24 Aug 06 - 08:41 AM (#1817765) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Richard Bridge I would have thought it appropriate that deliberate cheating should result in forfeture - even if established after the event from recordings. I have particularly in mind Maradonna's handball - his team should have been retrospectively disqualified as soon as the facts were established. At present, it seems to me, it remains a matter of speculation whether ball tampering did in fact take place, but the refusal to play allowed only one consequence. |
|
24 Aug 06 - 09:20 AM (#1817785) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Paul from Hull Granted, most men used it back in his era, but it seems to me Freddie Trueman always had a LOT of Brylcreem in his hair, & with that sort of 'floppy' hairstyle he sported at one point, was always running his finger through his hair to get it out of the way. He cant have been the only one, but the more I think about it, the more it seemed that his hairstyle & everything was contrived to enhance that little trick! |
|
24 Aug 06 - 09:23 AM (#1817788) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Paul from Hull Oops, couple of typo's in there I meant 'running his FINGERS through his hair' of course & 'the more it SEEMS' not seemed....present not past tense. |
|
24 Aug 06 - 09:57 AM (#1817811) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: ard mhacha When the governing bodies in Cricket begin to use the technology which is available, then we shall see the end of cheats, it is there , so why not use it. StrollingJohnny away back in the early 1960s I was at the Oval one blistering summers day and seen Ken Barrington grind his way to a 50, it took him all of two hours, I was good enough to get on to our works team in London, how fit I was then, don`t look back. Captain Birdseye what an epic awaits us, Cork v Kilkenny in this years All-Ireland Hurling final, it is a shame that some poor souls on this Thread won`t be as priviliged as us, can any game compare. Hope you are well, Weelittledrummer. |
|
24 Aug 06 - 10:43 AM (#1817864) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Strollin' Johnny Happy days Ard! BTW, the match officials, at least in international cricket, do use technology - hence the third umpire with a TV screen and hi-motion to check for edges, carries, bump balls etc. They have at least made a pretty good start - you have to ask yourself why the powers that be in football don't do the same - is it because they're scared stiff of the over-paid nancy-boys who play the game? |
|
24 Aug 06 - 12:07 PM (#1817945) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: ard mhacha Sorry, I was referring to the biggest bug-bear in Cricket,LBW, how long and many are the arguments when the Umpire gets it wrong, that contraption they use on TV4 is marvellous, if they ever make use of it, the Umpires lot will be so easy,they will will only be concerned with the dirty ball boys. |
|
24 Aug 06 - 01:43 PM (#1818025) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Big Al Whittle well I never did like sportsmen.. have you noticed they always get more goes than anybody else when you go bowling, or playing skittles. they are too competitive for normal life. it follows that this is something they develop on the sports field, and it completely takes over when they are playing at a really high level. I sometimes play scrabble with this bloke who is one of the best in England. He knows all these idiotic words with just consonants that no one EVER uses. However he let me win, last time I played with him. I bet you never get a footballer or cricketer who even lets his kids win. Not too bad Ard, waiting to see a surgeon about the old ticker. depressing prospect - if he says he can help - its a day out with the bloke who demonstrates the JML cutter slicer grater on your innards.If he can't help, well the huffing and puffing will probably get worse. Still, no use in moaning about it. Its been a good summer. |
|
24 Aug 06 - 01:52 PM (#1818029) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: GUEST,Shimrod I couldn't believe the amount of air time BBC Radio 4 devoted to this bit of irrelevant trivia the other day. It's about time that players and fans of 'Boring Game' got a life!! |
|
24 Aug 06 - 02:40 PM (#1818061) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Strollin' Johnny Gotcha Ard! Yes, I agree the use of a 'Hawkeye'-type of software would be of great assistance in LBW decisions, although I have to say that I'm astonished how frequently the umpires and Hawkeye agree - the umpires seem to have a pretty high accuracy rate. |
|
25 Aug 06 - 05:16 AM (#1818506) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: The Sandman I think cricket is rather like chess.I used to like some of the1960 entertaining cricketers like Bomber Wells,and Henry Horton who had a stance like [someone shitting on a sooting stick].and theimmortal Brian Johnson with his [thebowlers Holding the batsmens Willey]. |
|
25 Aug 06 - 08:15 AM (#1818610) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: The Sandman and then there was the occasion when bomber was batting no 11 for gloucestershire, with charlie cook at no 10,cook got fedup with wells idiosyncratic running, and said for god sake bomber, call please. so next time a run was scored bomber shouts out tails.now cricket was entertainment in those days and players walked. and everyone realised it was just a game, the playing of the game and the craic were the important things. |
|
25 Aug 06 - 08:25 AM (#1818616) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Big Al Whittle its probab;y your fault - all those bloody e numbers you put in the fish fingers, we're all on edge these days and we want to win. |
|
25 Aug 06 - 08:39 AM (#1818624) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: GUEST,Elfcall Captain B T'was Sam Cook - and there is also a story that when both Sam and Bomber were injured and batting with runners that all 4 ended up at one end! Elfcall |
|
25 Aug 06 - 10:24 AM (#1818721) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: The Sandman he was C Cook, Cecil[sam] Cook, my apologies,there was another occasion when sam was badly hurt and losing blood after tasking a knock,as the rest of the team gathered round, Milton said never mind sam its only worthington e your losing. |
|
25 Aug 06 - 11:36 AM (#1818753) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: GUEST,Jon It's getting very strange... Darrell Hair offered to resign as an umpire in exchange for $500,000,. I'm not sure what to make of that. |
|
25 Aug 06 - 01:00 PM (#1818796) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Peter K (Fionn) According to ICC chief exec Malcolm Speed, "He was seeking to find a solution that was in the interests of the game." I suppose Hair's fans in this thread might believe that. How jolly decnet of him not to put his own interests first! |
|
25 Aug 06 - 02:21 PM (#1818837) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: GUEST,Jon I suppose you are right but one thing that gets me is the figure involved. I must admit I haven't the first clue as to what might constitute a say (I'm not sure what to call it or really accept what I'm about to call it) "reasonable settlement" but it still seems to me a sort of outrageous (could it even be taken seriously?) figure. I think I'll remain baffled and wait to see what the outcome is. |
|
25 Aug 06 - 02:37 PM (#1818845) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: The Sandman the game has fallen into total dis repute.if iwas living in tunbridge wells, I would be disgusted .I suggest we all take up watching hurling and GAA football . yours DickMiles disgusted of cooragurteen, ballydehob. |
|
25 Aug 06 - 02:46 PM (#1818851) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Den I recently read that Martin McGuinness is a cricket fan. Its a funny old world. How are you Ard? I was just over in the ould sod. Had a great time. |
|
25 Aug 06 - 03:15 PM (#1818870) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Nigel Parsons As to the story above about Hair's offer to resign for $500,000, a test cricketer on Radio 4 this teatime said that that was probably about the amount Hair could expect to earn from umpiring in the next four years. As (unlike footballers) age and infirmity would probably not rule him out of the game for some years to come, it seems a reasonable offer. Apparently it was made directly to the ICC and intended to be a confidential agreement. Not so much "give me a bung and I'll keep quiet", as "I'll retire as long as it doesn't cost me too much" CHEERS Nigel |
|
25 Aug 06 - 03:20 PM (#1818874) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: GUEST,Jon Thanks Nigel, I think that at least clears my thoughts with regards to the amount up. |
|
25 Aug 06 - 03:43 PM (#1818887) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Peter K (Fionn) But Nigel, if such a claim was ever tested at litigation, the circumstances of Hair's retirement (including any contribution he may have made to it himself) and his potential to earn alternative income would have to be valued in determining the "remedy". No wonder he was demanding a speedy result - ie the dollars in his bank account by the end of August! - and was hoping the proof of his derangement might be kept secret. (How did he think the ICC could chuck half-a-million dollars away without telling anyone?) Hair knows he is finished in international cricket and was looking to walk away with four years' pay for doing nothing. |
|
25 Aug 06 - 04:33 PM (#1818919) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: The Sandman hang on, theres two umpires that made a decision,what about the other umpire, why shouldnt he be finished in the sub continent as well, why is everyone assumingthat billy octrove had no part in this. |
|
25 Aug 06 - 05:09 PM (#1818942) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: GUEST,Jon I'm not assuming anything with regards to the ball tampering incident, although it is perhaps fair to comment that Hair's offer has increased my doubts about Hair and not the umpire who did not make the offer. The only bit I feel convinced on is the decision following Pakistan's protest was the correct one. That is based purely on my understanding of the law and a wish that "player protests" do not become a feature of the game even if they have been treated in a manner that is later shown to be wrong. That is not to say that I believe Pakistan might not have good reason to feel aggrieved (or for that matter that I feel convinced that the umpires' decision regarding the ball tampering might not have been founded). |
|
26 Aug 06 - 03:02 AM (#1819223) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Peter K (Fionn) But John, what about the England protest after John Snow's entanglement with a spectator? If sanity can prevail once, why not again? Considering how long the talks went on afterwards, I think we can safely assume the ICC was keen for the game to proceed, and were thwarted by the intransigence of the umpires (or perhaps jus one of them). TheEngland camp, presumably, were happy to take the forfeit. |
|
26 Aug 06 - 04:42 AM (#1819249) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: The Sandman Yes i agree hairs decision was strange, but we dont know how much pressure he has been under ,has he received threatening anonymous letters etc, whatever. the umpires have a right to change the ball if they believe its been tampered with, and the pakistanis made the wrong decision in delaying their return to the field. |
|
26 Aug 06 - 05:07 AM (#1819259) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Dave Hanson Darrell Hair must surely be totally discredited after the latest revalation that he offered to resign for half a million US dollars, kept secret of course. eric [ and I hate cricket ] |
|
26 Aug 06 - 06:12 AM (#1819279) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Paul Burke The latest revelations make Hair look at best like a dangerous nutcase, and at worst having set the incident up for gain. He may have followed the rules to the letter, but any umpire who was trying to solve a problem without unnecessary confrontation would have called the captains together to discuss the state of the ball, and would have gone to almost any lengths to continue the test. |
|
26 Aug 06 - 06:24 AM (#1819285) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: GUEST,Jon To be honest, Peter, while I do remember John Snow, I know nothing of the incident you refer to. --------- Re the emails, I see they now have the exchanges here on the BBC site. In all this speculation, I find Hairs opening: From: Darrell Hair Sent: Tuesday 22nd August 2006 To: Doug Cowie Subject: The way forward Doug, just to firm up what we discussed earlier this evening. I appreciate the ICC may be put in a untenable position with regards to future appointments and having taken considerable time and advice, I make this one-off, non-negotiable offer. [snip] And the reply: From: Doug Cowie To: Darrell Hair CC: David Richardson Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 Subject: Re: The way forward. Darrell, Your offer may have merit and is acknowledged and under discussions with ICC management. Your timeframes seemed impractical at first glance even if agreement were achieved on the suggestion. Will discuss this further tomorrow, Doug Interesting. Although Speed later got involved and said to Hair. "The matters raised by you concerning your future employment are entirely inappropriate. There is a clear process that is to be followed and it is in place." I do wonder what might have happened and would love to know what the initial converation between Hair and Cowie was and who did the initial suggesting that leaving may be the best option. |
|
26 Aug 06 - 08:15 AM (#1819323) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: The Sandman I repeat there were two umpires involved. |
|
26 Aug 06 - 08:29 AM (#1819325) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: GUEST And the point of you repeating yourself is? |
|
26 Aug 06 - 08:49 AM (#1819335) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: The Sandman that everybody is focusing on hair. why/ .why not doctrove. |
|
26 Aug 06 - 09:14 AM (#1819352) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: GUEST,Jon I can't speak for any of the others but my focusing on Hair has to do with corresponace that doctrove to the best of my knowledge has nothing to do with. Another reason why one might focus more on Hair is that he has been involved in controversy before and Pakistan had not wanted him to umpire. This does alter the fact the decision was made by both umpires but it does contribute towards feeings and speculatitive opinions regarding this issue. |
|
26 Aug 06 - 10:00 AM (#1819385) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Dave Hanson Whats more the feckin ICC said they will continue to emply him and give him the appropriate guidence, he should have been sacked forthwith, not for the ball tampering fiasco but for his outrageous offer. eric |
|
27 Aug 06 - 02:17 AM (#1819834) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: GUEST Jon The incident with John Snow was at the Sydney Cricket Ground in the 1970s when Snow was grabbed by a spectator near what is now the Bill O'Reilly Stand and Illingworth took the England team from the field. After long discussions , probably a quick cup of tea and a yarn, the England team came back on and sanity prevailed .I was there that day (on the Hill) and nobody thought that a forfeit was in the offing. Hair could have called the 3rd Umpire in to discuss the delay with Inzy and perhaps sanity would have once again prevailed. Who knows? It might have been worth a try anyway. AD 1943 in Australia |
|
27 Aug 06 - 03:57 AM (#1819855) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: Terry K All of the fault lies with the ICC. The umpires are employed by the ICC to ump the match in accordance with the laws, which is exactly what they did. The umps don't have any alternative - it is not within their job description to agree to waive the laws if they choose to. Any appeal process would not involve the umps, but should have been made directly from the Pakistani team hierarchy to the match referee (not the 3rd umpire), who is the official representative of the ICC. That office clearly failed to deal with the matter at the time, with all the resulting confusion and controversy. Darell Hair has been the object of criticism since then, mainly because of the ICC's failure to clarify the situation. I think he has a claim against them, but that is a different matter. In an ideal world, the ICC should have had an announcement made to the crowd immediately the match was forfeited, and to say that they were considering whether or not to uphold the forfeiture - if in fact they really were considering that. That way it would have been clear that the umpires' actions were clearly correct and would have taken the umps completely out of the firing line. As to the ball tampering, surely the umps knew that their joint decision would be inflammatory, and that they would get a lot of stick out of it. So why would they volunteer for all the trouble unless they had some reason - what else was in it for them? cheers, Terry |
|
27 Aug 06 - 07:16 AM (#1819911) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: The Sandman the spirit and laws of the game have to be upheld. David Gower has written a very sensible article in the sunday times.[mind you i think its a crap paper]which is worth looking at. |
|
27 Aug 06 - 07:34 AM (#1819916) Subject: RE: BS: Pakistan forfeit test match From: GUEST,Jon Thanks Guest. There seems to me to be quite a difference between taking the team off because of what sounds like the violent action of a member of the crowd and an action taken because an umpiring decision concerning (I suppose I'll call it) "the normal events of a game". While I take it both of these events did constitute refusal to play, IMO one set of circumstaces was rather more negotiable than the other. |