Rob W 0 Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 Fined 5 runs + 3 overs for ball tampering - now won't come out of the dressing room to restart after tea!!!!! I blame Souness me 'sel like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radgina 1 Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 Fined 5 runs + 3 overs for ball tampering - now won't come out of the dressing room to restart after tea!!!!! I blame Souness me 'sel like 181478[/snapback] watching it now...it's quite funny, nobody seems to know what to say or do !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radgina 1 Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 It's like the hokey cokey, down the stairs up the stairs, not coming out, going back in...Gowers flummoxed.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Manson 0 Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 Cheating bastards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 How can they be accused without evidence? The ball was over 50 overs old and had been hit into the stands a few times. Could that not account for the damage? I haven't seen any footage yet of a player caught in the act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Lazaru 0 Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 How can they be accused without evidence? The ball was over 50 overs old and had been hit into the stands a few times. Could that not account for the damage? I haven't seen any footage yet of a player caught in the act. 181551[/snapback] Reverse of last time many years ago when TV cameras quite clearly showed a Pakistan bowler gouging/tampering with the ball and the ball itself clearly showed what had been done, yet they got away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aimaad22 4222 Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 How can they be accused without evidence? The ball was over 50 overs old and had been hit into the stands a few times. Could that not account for the damage? I haven't seen any footage yet of a player caught in the act. 181551[/snapback] Yep. You would think that with so many cameras around these days they would pick up anything of the sort. Furthurmore, the umpires havent pointed out who did it or when. The funny thing is, the pakistan cricket board requested the ECB to appoint other umpires for the tour, since these two have been involved in so many scandals with us. The ECB turned down the request, and the bloody bastids are doing it again. They took the second test away from us with some unbelievable decisions and now they've messed up what was a great performance. Ian Botham pointed out that when the ball is that old there is no way you can judge that it has been tampered with just by looking at it, and when there is no TV evidence and the umpires fail to give an explanation, the players had every reason to go on strike. What a disgrace!!! Saying that I do hope nothing really happened, and these umpires were messing with just as they have been doing so in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jusoda Kid 1 Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 (edited) Excuse my ignorance here but why the fuck are they playing with 50 year old balls? Who do they think they are? Heather Mills Edited August 20, 2006 by Wacky Jnr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Within their rights to do so if the Umpire is going off a 'hunch' rather than actual concrete evidence. However, they should have come out 5 minutes late rather than the amount of time they pissed about, so the game should have been awarded to England under the letter of the law. Whitewash. Champion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9927 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 How can they be accused without evidence? The ball was over 50 overs old and had been hit into the stands a few times. Could that not account for the damage? I haven't seen any footage yet of a player caught in the act. 181551[/snapback] However, the umpires are trained to detect the difference where possible, and Pakistan's claim that the ball had been damaged by being hit to the boundary - and for six - is not entirely credible. The ball in question had not been hit for four during the previous three overs, and was never hit for six. What a mess tho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Until we see the ball, and hear the argument that the umpires are making regarding deliberate tampering, we are not going to be able to form a reasonable opinion ourselves. I was listening on the radio throughout the day and couldn't believe what I was hearing. Seeing the tv coverage later on, it struck me that the umpires seemed to be watching intently the pakistani players when they had the ball in hand - far more intently than I have ever noticed before. Innocent until proven guilty???? Are the Pakistanis innocent, as we have not seen the evidence; or are they guilty, as the umpires have alreaady delivered the verdict on them? After all, the umpires are there for that reason! Curiouser and curioser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46022 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 I get the impression Darrell Hair isn't all that keen on Pakistanis tbh. Shambles yesterday like, but tough tits. If I was Pakistan I'd have been wanting to get back in the middle to win the match, rather than sulking like bairns in the pavilion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 How can they be accused without evidence? The ball was over 50 overs old and had been hit into the stands a few times. Could that not account for the damage? I haven't seen any footage yet of a player caught in the act. 181551[/snapback] Reverse of last time many years ago when TV cameras quite clearly showed a Pakistan bowler gouging/tampering with the ball and the ball itself clearly showed what had been done, yet they got away with it. 181555[/snapback] Unlike Mike Atherton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted August 21, 2006 Author Share Posted August 21, 2006 ahhh but he's a GOOD Muslim the Pakistani's are BAD Muslims as they don't know the unwritten law y'see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Angus Frazer on TMS yesterday was saying evey pro cricketer has tampered with the ball at some point in their career. Hair just likes to keep more of an eye on the Pakistani fielders for his own reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Badly handled tbh. The umpires should've taken their time and had a look at the evidence at tea. As for ball tampering, I can remember when spinners rubbing a new (or newish) ball in the dirt was accepted practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Boycott summed it up, Hair likes to umpire like a drill sgt. Should have had a quiet word with Inzi and spoken to the match referee during tea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted August 21, 2006 Author Share Posted August 21, 2006 That's obviously the G Boycott who is known for his sensitivty to everyone - especially women and other races then ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 (edited) That's obviously the G Boycott who is known for his sensitivty to everyone - especially women and other races then ? 181763[/snapback] To be fair, Boycott is only racist against the Aussies. Edited August 21, 2006 by sweetleftpeg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 That's obviously the G Boycott who is known for his sensitivty to everyone - especially women and other races then ? 181763[/snapback] Talks a lot of sense when it comes to creeket tbf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted August 21, 2006 Author Share Posted August 21, 2006 That's obviously the G Boycott who is known for his sensitivty to everyone - especially women and other races then ? 181763[/snapback] To be fair, Boycott is only racist against the Aussies. 181769[/snapback] and people not from Gods Own County................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 2 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Bit of a bollocks all round really. I can see Pakistan's point of view. The umpires have decided they were cheating and punished them without first consulting Inzamam. There is currently no evidence of them cheating, and with the last two recognised batsmen and the crease and four whole sessions left, no reason for them to do so. With such wild accusations, from an umpire who has had rumours of bias against Asian teams before, I can see why they did what they did. Hell, the series was already lost, if losing a dead rubber means that Hair is investigated then it's a result for them. It's only a game and Racism has no part in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted August 21, 2006 Author Share Posted August 21, 2006 The Umpires were within the rules Pakistan should have complained to the match ref at tea and continued playing - bythrowing their toys out of th epram they forfeited the game - you can't have people walking off just cos they don't like the ref's decisions - CHrist we'd have no football at all if that idea got around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 The Umpires were within the rules Pakistan should have complained to the match ref at tea and continued playing - bythrowing their toys out of th epram they forfeited the game - you can't have people walking off just cos they don't like the ref's decisions - CHrist we'd have no football at all if that idea got around 182106[/snapback] It would have set a dangerous precedent had Pakistan got away with their protest, i.e. future teams could waste time in a match situation as a 'protest'. Still don't think the Umpires handled it particularly well though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted August 21, 2006 Author Share Posted August 21, 2006 Well most cricketing umpires are pretty low IQ - who was that old Yorkshire twerp who used to give the light when it was as sunny as the Sahara in July?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now