PAKISTAN Cricket team shame on them! - Page 2

Tealeaf · 22-08-2006, 10:32

I suspect the simple truth is that Pakistan lost a series they expected to win and out of frustration the team acted as they did. Umpires have far more difficult decisions to make in most games - such as over LBW appeals - and teams accept whatever decision the umpire will make. If Pakistan do wish to kick up a fuss over their continued participation in the one day series, than let 'em go home. It will be far better not to play than to sink to their tawdry level.

zayno14 · 22-08-2006, 10:41

An LBW decision and being branded cheats is a totally different thing all together! Especially as there is no evidence for tampering...If the shoe was on the other foot i'm convinced Andrew Strauss and Duncan Fletcher would have acted in the same way..

ossyclogger · 22-08-2006, 11:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

I suspect the simple truth is that Pakistan lost a series they expected to win and out of frustration the team acted as they did. Umpires have far more difficult decisions to make in most games - such as over LBW appeals - and teams accept whatever decision the umpire will make. If Pakistan do wish to kick up a fuss over their continued participation in the one day series, than let 'em go home. It will be far better not to play than to sink to their tawdry level.

To quote a friend on another thread :- You are a complete and utter ******.

SPUGGIE J · 22-08-2006, 12:14

So much for innocent until proven guilty. It seems to me that they are found guilty with no eveidence to indicate they cheated. Its not that long ago that England had a ball tampering incident and that sort of "sailed away" and was forgotten. Inzamam has the possibility of facing charges of bringing the game into disripute but it all started with the umpire so in my opinion the umpire should face the charge not the Pakistan Captain.

Tealeaf · 22-08-2006, 13:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPUGGIE J

So much for innocent until proven guilty. It seems to me that they are found guilty with no eveidence to indicate they cheated. Its not that long ago that England had a ball tampering incident and that sort of "sailed away" and was forgotten. Inzamam has the possibility of facing charges of bringing the game into disripute but it all started with the umpire so in my opinion the umpire should face the charge not the Pakistan Captain.

Well, there are others in this world who know far more about cricket than I do - and certainly far more than Ossyclogger, whose main contribution to this debate is to refer to my personal sexual activities. It is interesting to note however, that the ICC - the governing council of cricket - will be meeting on friday. That will act as a court for Inzamam and the two counts will be that of ball tampering and match forfeiture. I suspect that the hearing will follow the tradition of British justice and let him off on ball tampering (some doubt) but guilty as sin on match forfeiture. And so it should be. So you can all go and mas***ate over that.

SPUGGIE J · 22-08-2006, 20:46

Is there proof of him tampering with the ball? If there isnt how can he be held resposible for match forfiture when it was the same umpire that did the accusing that said they forfit the match.

cashman · 23-08-2006, 00:20

i think the allegation is wrong-without substance to back it up. read an interview with nasser hussain (ex england captain) he said he would have reacted in the same way, in those circumstances. feel sorry for the fans but if anyone called me a cheat i,d be very tempted to snot em.

Ianto.W. · 23-08-2006, 09:24

Cashman I always wondered why good old Nasser was replaced obviously lacks moral fibre, the evidence of ball tampering will have to be presented
at the hearing, so dont prejudge the issue. furthermore Hussain would not
have been alowed to concede the match, they would have sacked him first.

mani · 23-08-2006, 10:10

what i dont get is this.

they're accusing pakistan of ball tampering - yet no evidence of how or more importantly who has been produced - if the dirt in the pocket can be caught a few yrs ago then y wasnt this?

the ref made some errors himself in that he wasnt willing to show the damage to the ball to the pakistan team nor was he willing to explain his initial decisions. he later did relent but by then the damage had been done.

what pakistan did wasnt right - they shud've lodged the protest now after the game not during it - but the ref isnt clean in all of this either.

wasim akram and waqar younis in the 90's was accused of cheating but due to the sheer pace of the ball and the then unknown art of reverse swing was always labelled a cheat. and from this the pakistan team did rather wrongfully get the label of cheats in the british press

expat · 23-08-2006, 11:14

I do hope they have proof,most ballers have ways of ball tampering ie; zinc cream, Shane warnes hair gel, sticky toffees, sweat,

Tealeaf · 23-08-2006, 13:16

It seems to me that there is a sub-text in a number of postings on here, which reads that firstly, the sky TV cameras could see no evidence of ball tampering and that secondly, the umpires do not have the right to make an immeadiate decision in the game.

When I last looked at my Laws of Cricket book, I could find no reference to the role of TV cameras (unlike, for instance, in International Rugby Union); my interpretation was that should a team be unhappy with the umpire's decision, they could refer this to the referee off the field of play, who could in turn put the case to appeal.

Pakistan were in a dominant postion on Sunday afternoon. I am at a loss to understand why, after Mr Hair decided to penalise them for the measly total of 5 runs, they subsequently decided to deny the paying specator the continuance of the game. On Monday night, would Accrington Stanley have walked off the pitch had Forest been awarded a penalty in the 95th minute of dubious injury time? I think not.

I don't really care if the team was Pakistan; If it was Australia, India or even England my view would still have been the same - what happened was disgraceful to the game of cricket and the team should be sent home immeadiatly.

zayno14 · 23-08-2006, 14:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

On Monday night, would Accrington Stanley have walked off the pitch had Forest been awarded a penalty in the 95th minute of dubious injury time? I think not.

I don't think you get the point tealeaf..Pakistan protested becuase they were branded cheats without any evidence! So i don't have a clue why you have used this example..It wasn't the five runs that incensed them it was the accusation with no evidence..

Tealeaf · 23-08-2006, 14:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by zayno14

I don't think you get the point tealeaf..Pakistan protested becuase they were branded cheats without any evidence! So i don't have a clue why you have used this example..It wasn't the five runs that incensed them it was the accusation with no evidence..

What sort of logic is this statement? Both umpires looked at the ball and decided that it had been unfairly tampered with. On that decision they awarded 5 runs to England and a change of ball; the old one being kept. The Pakistan team had every right to appeal to the match referee afterwards and the suspect ball would have been available as evidence. Should the match referee subsequently have decided that there was insufficient proof of deliberate gouging, then a statement would no doubt have been issued. In the unlikely event of England succeeding in a runs victory, then Pakistan would at least have been able to claim a moral one; instead, they have sullied the name of cricket and dragged the name of their country further into the mud.

ossyclogger · 23-08-2006, 15:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

What sort of logic is this statement? Both umpires looked at the ball and decided that it had been unfairly tampered with. On that decision they awarded 5 runs to England and a change of ball; the old one being kept. The Pakistan team had every right to appeal to the match referee afterwards and the suspect ball would have been available as evidence. Should the match referee subsequently have decided that there was insufficient proof of deliberate gouging, then a statement would no doubt have been issued. In the unlikely event of England succeeding in a runs victory, then Pakistan would at least have been able to claim a moral one; instead, they have sullied the name of cricket and dragged the name of their country further into the mud.

The evidence will be closley scrutinised BY OTHER UMPIRES who as we all know are visualy impaired. Who are they going to support come hell or high water. Earlier in this thread I called you an uncomplimentary name to which you took exeption. However I have since shown the evidence to some of my friends, and they completely agree with me. Do you now accept these findings ?

Tealeaf · 23-08-2006, 15:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by ossyclogger

However I have since shown the evidence to some of my friends, and they completely agree with me. Do you now accept these findings ?

What evidence? Just what are you waffling on about now? Are you referring to the grainy TV or long range photoshots of the ball?

Do your best to explain and I may think about giving an answer. And what evidence do you have that umpires are visually impaired?