I'm interested in what people are thinking about yesterday's events at the Oval- ie the ball-tampering accusations and the forfeiture of the game by Pakistan. What do you think went on?
2006-08-20 22:45:01 · 16 answers · asked by Sitting Still 4 in Sports ➔ Cricket
the umpire was wrong to accuse Pakistan of cheating when the only evidence he had was the marks on the ball which was 55 overs old.
Pakistan decided to protest by delaying coming out of their dressing room for 'a few minutes' (which was in reality over half an hour) so the umpires had to assume they weren't coming out at all and the bails were removed.
the rules state that if, in the opinion of the umpire a team refuses to play the game must be awarded to the other team so he was right to award it to England.
It comes down to:
Pakistan were right to be aggreived at the accusation and they they had two options:
1. Continue to play (and probably win) and deal with the accusations after the match. This would be seen by many as admitting guilt since they continued to play.
2. Refuse to play (although they wanted to continue after their protest) and lose the match but stand your ground and totally refute the allegation.
they chose option 2
2006-08-21 01:26:07 · answer #1 · answered by fishfinger 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Pakistan threw a fit when they were adjudged to have altered the state of the ball (and to be fair, they do have previous 'form') though there seems to be no camera evidence, the Pakistan defence that the ball had been hammered around was a thin one - the majority of the KP onslaught came off the replacement ball!!. They refused to play and despite a warning from the umpires 20 mins after the scheduled restart they sat in the dressing room while the umpires carried out the procedures to award the game to England (including walking to the middle with the England batsmen, waiting a further 2 minutes before removing the bails). This was the ONLY decision available to the umpires given Pakistan's refusal to continue the match then pursue their grievance through the appropriate channels after the match. There is criticism of Daryl Hair for being anti-Asian - the truth is he is merely a stickler for the rules - under the rules of cricket at the time of the Hair/ Muralitheran controversy, Murali does 'throw' so Hair was correct in principle to no ball him,but it is due to a physical condition which means Murali cannot fully extend his arm. Cue rule change to get around the problem. In this case Hair was implementing an ICC rule on interfering with the ball to the best of his judgement and I would expect the ICC to support him fully, just as they would the decision to give Strauss out to a ball that the Great God TV showed to pitch outside off and be missing leg......
2006-08-20 23:22:57 · answer #2 · answered by eriverpipe 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Pakistanis might or might not have got a rough decision - I don't have any evidence on which to judge - but their reaction was petulant and pointless.
You shouldn't play any sport if you're not willing to accept the decision of the referee or umpire. If they'd initially refused to play the match because Hair was standing, I'd have every sympathy (he does seem to relish the controversy) - but once they'd started they should have seen the match through, whatever.
The best response would have been to bowl England out with the replacement ball, win the game, and THEN say that they'll never play in a match where Hair is umpire again - not to ruin an intriguing match to which a lot of spectators had dedicated their time and money.
2006-08-20 23:37:01 · answer #3 · answered by gvih2g2 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Pakistan were poorly treated as a result of bad umpiring. They should have been warned. The umpire should have considered that any damage was caused by the ball hitting concrete or advertising when struck of the field.
Reverse swing is something new, but good bowlers van achieve it. It is not a sign ob unnatural treatment of the ball.
I think Pakistan should have continued the game (and won it, I think) and left the debate until later. All we have left now is a lot of bad feeling.
2006-08-20 23:04:27 · answer #4 · answered by lykovetos 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The Umpire cheated because he is a racist and is corrupt.
Pakistan should sue him and the ICC, and then join India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh plus other fringe countries in breaking away from the dirty ICC and form a new organisation and only allow in England, Australia etc when they have proved their umpires meet the standards and that they can lose a game fairly and not make cheating accusations.
2006-08-22 15:00:27 · answer #5 · answered by vaivagabundo 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The bottom line is that you can't have a team dictating terms to the umpires. There are plenty of other avenues to persue grievances. To preserve the integrity of the sport, one has to back the umpires.
2006-08-21 01:04:22 · answer #6 · answered by Roger B 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think Pakistan not tampered the ball coz' Inzamam is not a liar.
2006-08-21 02:17:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
pakistan cheated, coulden't take it and refused to play, but the umpires had already taken the bails off, signalling the end of play when the pakistanis came out to play
2006-08-20 22:50:51 · answer #8 · answered by strettyford 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i dont think pakistan did anything to the ball. i think it was pieterson who smashed the ball. but pakistan lost the test match so england won 3-0.
2006-08-20 23:24:56 · answer #9 · answered by rocky 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A very sad conclusion to a wonderful test match.
2006-08-20 22:54:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋