Ball tampering!

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Chat' started by Big Twigge, Aug 20, 2006.

  1. Big Twigge

    Big Twigge Active Member

    Nothing like a bit of controversy on a sunday afternoon to liven up a cricket match!

    England have been awarded 5 penalty runs by the umpires in the England/Pakistan match as a result of suspected ball tampering...

    How exciting!

    What effect would a scratch on the ball have, i know that the ball was beginning to reverse swing - may that have been as a result of this suspected tampering?

    Where's Will the Sec when you need him?!
  2. Will the Sec

    Will the Sec Active Member

    9.20 Monday 7th August. Martin of ELB rings me and says "Can you help out at Valentines Park on 20th August?"

    Will checks diary. "Yes."

    9.33 Monday 7th August. MWG, CEO of the Small Business Service approaches me and says "I can't make the Oval on 20th August and have four tickets! Can you take two or four of them?":frown:

    So, the answer, dear Twigge, is just back from Valentines Park.

    LBB, on the other hand is at the Oval, and says the crowd knew nothing about it - they thought it was bad light stopped play.

    The match IS over - Pakistan conceded. The umpires will not come out tomorrow, and if they are replaced then test match umpiring will never be the same as umpires will live in fear of having to second guess what ICC referees or ECB officials might do.

    Regardless of the rights or wrongs of it all, Pakistan were ignorant in their choice of protest, "just to delay it by ten mintues or so" (According to their tour manager Shahriyar Khan live on Sky Sports) given it only takes two minutes to forfeit, and their long time fractuous realtionship with Darrell Hair.

    Cricket will never be the same.
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2006
  3. persins

    persins Member

    Certainly a strange one. Will be interesting to see the fall out of this decision by Pakistan, the umpires and the ECB / ICC.

    keep yours eyes on this one then!
  4. Big Twigge

    Big Twigge Active Member

    Not sure you'll have a choice - for once cricket will be on the front and back pages!
  5. brassneck

    brassneck Active Member

    I agree with you and Geoff Boycott. When the umpire removed the bales, technically the game has been ended in favour of England! Now that they want to negotiate further play, it now seems a bit of a farce (regardless of that umpire's previous history with Pakistan).
  6. Will the Sec

    Will the Sec Active Member

    Just to be strictly correct- Pakistan forfeited (rather than conceded) by refusing to play on.
  7. Big Twigge

    Big Twigge Active Member

    The news on the ICC website keeps was definitely off tomorrow and then it might not be. It all appears to be a farce and official communication with the public has, from what I've heard, been shocking. Most of the day's events have been told through speculation and detective work my those in the media. THings could have been made clearer by a couple of official statements!
  8. MRSH

    MRSH Supporting Member

    Statements HERE

    I find the PCB statement rather strange to say the least. Especially - "Umpires are within their rights to decide without consulting but there was no consultation with anyone and no evidence seems to have been given." So, if the umpires are within their rights (and therefore within the rules of the game) to penalise a team like this why do the PCB say "What we feel very resentful about is that the captain was not informed something was going wrong with the ball and told to contain it." :confused::confused:
  9. ploughboy

    ploughboy Active Member

    Well . . . . they take the bales off at the end of every day's play, so they could have been signalling that was it for the day! Sadly for Cricket, and as usual the paying fans that wasn't the case, The only plus point i can see are that relations between ECB and PCB are pretty solid so with a change of officials hopefully the one day series will go ahead.
  10. Will the Sec

    Will the Sec Active Member

    Not quite - there have to be two teams on the pitch for the umpires to call 'play' or 'time'. The ritualistic taking of the bails when the batsmen or enough of the fielding side to breach the playing conditions are absent signifies the cessation of the game.

    Absolutely. If the umpires had anything to tell the captain about a change to the state of the ball, then under Law 42 note 3, they would have to change the ball and impose a 5 run penalty anyway.

    If the umpire's word ceases to be law, and decisions can be altered retrospectively, a whole new breed of umpires will be needed, and God help us, Hawkeye will be taken as 100% accurate. (It isn't. In the opoinion of most players, it clearly over estimates the bounce on more occasions than not.)

    Lastly, if the photograph on the front page of this morning's Metro (a freebie London paper owned by the Daily Mail group) is genuine, (and for their sake, given the words captioning the picture, it had better be) then the Pakistani fielder who appears to have the nails of his left hand deep into the leather of the ball has some tricky questions to answer.
  11. Cantonian

    Cantonian Active Member

    Sadly, I feel that adjusting the condition of the ball artificially is the norm nowadays.

    In the 60's and 70's you would see players spit on the ball and polish one side of it on their trousers.

    As Michael Holding said yesterday, the sugar in mints will give a better shine. The vast amounts of sun cream on some players faces even when there is no sun seems pretty suspicious to me
  12. Will the Sec

    Will the Sec Active Member

    As a bowler, I feel I must comment on that. For years until I retired, if there was a wind, I bowled into it. So that was every week.....

    "Sun" block was essential, even on overcast days, especially if there is any wind. I can assure you from personal experience that wind burn on the forehead can be quite as severe as sun burn....
  13. brassneck

    brassneck Active Member

    - maybe I should have been more accurate with my statement ... the umpire knocked the bales off the stumps signalling cessation of the match! :redface:
  14. Straightmute

    Straightmute Active Member

    I understand from recent news that Pakistan captain is now being charged with bringing the game into disrepute. Not good.

    interesting too to trace the history of the relationship between Pakistan and umpire Hair over the years. If I recall correctly he was at the centre of the 'chucking' accusation a few years ago and there have been a few dubious decisions against Pakistan which will fuel their ire.

    Last edited: Aug 21, 2006
  15. Will the Sec

    Will the Sec Active Member

    The most famous "chucking" Hair moment was Murali. The one involving Pakistan concerned Hair reporting Shabbir Ahmed - who was subsequently reported again (by someone else) and is still banned from international cricket.

    Hair is a brave man, who firmly believes in convictions. He makes mistakes (such as the referral of Inzaman for the Harmison run out - but the third umpire should have known the rules and given Inzi not out) but the only time he got it absolutely wrong (as opposed to someone saying his decision was flawed) was when he called Murali. This was because the decision on whether an action was legal was taken away from umpires the year before Hair called Murali. I suspect that Hair (quite rightly) saw that decision as a further threat to the umpire's absolute authority when it comes to on pitch decisions (after line calls) and tried to make a stand.

    All this notwithstanding, if a country if allowed to say who should be appointed for a test series and who should not, then we're back to the days when David Constant was unfairly pilloried by Pakistan - whilst the PCB conveniently appointed comedians to umpire when Abdul Qadir was at his peak. If that's the case, then why have neutral umpires?

    I would add that I feel strongly about people who call or imply that umpires are cheats - it was such an allegation and subsequent words that incensed me enough to retire from club cricket.
  16. Straightmute

    Straightmute Active Member

    Agreed 100% and I hope that you didn't read any such implication into my reply. I feel the same about those who abuse adjudicators! But the points at which their paths cross are often characterised by acrimony, a point not made in the earlier discussion.

    My cat also does that! It was obviously Ahmed I was thinking of in this context (but couldn't remember his name).


  17. Will the Sec

    Will the Sec Active Member

    Not at all.
  18. Cantonian

    Cantonian Active Member

    Sorry to appear cynical again, but would Inzi and the Pakistan players have made a such a stand if the series were 1-1 at the time instead of being in the driving seat of a Test match that had no effect on who won the series?
  19. Will the Sec

    Will the Sec Active Member

    I don't see that as cynical, Mike. It's a question that a self confessed cricket hater posed at the office today, when "heartily sick of all the coverage".

    I suppose you could take that point even further and ask is this a means to deflect away from the fact that despite two centuries from Yousuf and one from Younis Khan Inzi's Pakistan were 2-0 down after 3? Like 9/11 being "a good day to bury bad news"...

Share This Page