do you thing is was right what Pakistan did with the cricket against England?

Answer 1

rac_fleming above is very selective in his recounting of what happened.

Hair followed the rules exactly as prescribed in the Laws of Cricket for ball-tampering. This included giving the batsmen a choice of any ball from 6 (including new balls and balls with over 80 overs bowled with them) as a replacement for a 55 over ball. He also penalised the Pakistani team by 5 runs. These two actions can only occur if the umpire belives that the ball was tampered with by the fielding team to get unfair advantage.

Hence Hair's actions are tantamount to accusing Pakistan of cheating.

The problem is not the rules...indeed if they were cheating then good on Hair! But the problem is that there is no evidence of cheating...despite 26 cameras on the action. The onus is on Hair to explain his rationale for the accusation. If he can satisfactorily do so (to an independent's content) then the punishment is just and Inzy should be punished for the subsequent protest. Inzy should not be tried by previous instances of cheating by pakistani teams...judge this case on it's merit!

However if the evidence is insufficient then Hair should be pusished and Inzy exhonerated for the later protest. Hair should not be tried by his previous actions picking on players from the sub-continent. Judge this case on it's merit!

A final point....the ICC can not be deemed as 'independent' here as they are judging 'their' officials here and are worried about the reaction of the other unpires. Clearly ECB and PCB aren't independednt. The only relevant body that is...is the International Arbitration Council for Sport (I think that is what it is called).

Answer 2

rac_flemingLevel 4

It should be remembered that Hair didn't actually accuse anybody of cheating! He had a suspiscion that the ball MAY have been tampered with, and so changed it in accordance with his job requirement. He never accused anyone, didn't lodge a complaint, or report anyone. He simply changed the ball to make sure Pakistan weren't gaining an unfair advantage. Pakistan took affront to this and staged a very juvenile protest. They were more than 15 minutes late, and so, in accordance with the rules, they chose to forfeit the game - foolish! Especially as, despite Cook and Pietersen batting well, they were still in a commanding position. If they had of wanted to complain about Hair's treatment of them, the correct time was AFTER the game. They cheated the fans, if not with the ball.

Answer 3

•inzi was perfectly roght...he dint harm the spiirit of the game...i bet had there been any other captain...he would have walked off straight away...but inzi dint wanna insult bllody daryl hair...daryl hair is YET 2 PROVIDE EVIDNCE...and the law says that u cannto judge just by looking at the state of the ball that is has been tempered...one has 2 provide evidnce and nam a player or 2....and my point is that when cook got out...the ball was reversing and then it was in poisession of the umpires..were the umpires blind at that time...??and just in 2 overs time...they found a big scratch and accused the team of tempering...this is shameful umpiring...agree or not...but both billy and hair have always been against apakistan...i have dozens and dozens of proofs of thier biasness against team pakistan...and had that been planned...inzi would have been oprating with 2 fast bowlers rather than kaneria at one end...or did he expext kaneria 2 rverse swing the ball with the so called tempered ball?? the rules imply that if a team efuses 2 play the umpire must go 2 the captain n iform him b4 h puts the match 2 n end...but what hair did...was taht he awarded the win and went away...and if u say that hair is the man of laws...does nay1 remmeber thr run out decision at faisalabad against inzi...according to the law...he shouldnt have refred it 2 the 3rd umpire even...and what will u say upon strauss and peitersen talkin on moboile sets when the match was not called off yt!!!! were they talking 2 som booikies..?? coz i am sure had that been pakistani player talkin on mobile in the dresseing room...he would have been accusd of match fixing...bloody malcom speed is an australian...therefore hell always support hair!!! hate HAIR...hate ICC

Answer 4

What Pakistan did was not at all correct. If they had any grtievance against the decision of the umpire, they should have lodged the complaint after the match was over instead of refusing to take the field.

Answer 5

in case you spot the developments, Pakistan and India were trading victories and losses. India gained twenty20 (w/pak 2d position) yet pak gained kitply cup. This time, the rage does bypass in direction of india, yet i might want to assert that the no you would possibly want to anticipate the end result because the suits are very just about continuously capricious. i might want to admit pak lost badly with india (6 wickets) yet I did be conscious that pak gamers became discouraged and reckless through india's preliminary batting prowess. this would replace in the subsequent sport in the journey that they initially commence out good.

Answer 6

Pakistan did the Right Thing to protest , in my view they shouldn't have returned to field until Dareel Hair take back its decision. or ICC Bans Darrel Hair

Answer 7

no i do not think the paks did right of not coming in the field after the tea break n if they had complain to the manager so they should come out n play the match,but when every one went home then they came out of their room.

Answer 8

pakis r cheaters. they hv a long history behind them . any indian wud remember hw sachin ws run out after shoaib akhtar obstructed him on the pitch. and afridi is in the news fr supporting ball tampering . they r cheaters and they got wht they deserved

Answer 9

NO.

ANY DISPUTES SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO MATCH REFREE.

NO BODY HAS THE RIGHT TO CONCLUDE THE MATCH FOR HIS DESIRES OR PERSONAL UNHAPPYNESS.

ITS AN INSULT TO ALL FANS.

Answer 10

no they shud have protested in a more decent manner