bigsteve Posted August 21, 2006 Report Share Posted August 21, 2006 Very odd situation. Why put yourself in a position that you could end up forfeiting the match, for the sake of a 5-run penalty? If you're not happy about the umpiring decisions, leave it to your team management to sort out and let them lodge an appeal. Sitting on your backsides in the changing rooms is only going to get 1 result. Unless they were after the publicity, which they've certainly got :? btw, when we next tour Pakistan, can we have Darryl Hair umpiring please? :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Kane Posted August 21, 2006 Report Share Posted August 21, 2006 I'm glad that they lost the match, if Daryll Hair has seen them cheating then they can have no complaints, usually I'd question it but with pakistan they have a history, Imran Kahn & co in 92 and who can forget Afridi scuffing the pitch last winter for which he got the mighty one match ban What really annoys me is the knee jerk response form Pakistan, Racism. They play that card every time, every time they get a bad decision its racist everytime they have somethin like this its racist. Then they sight Hair as being against Asian teams doing well because he called Murali for chucking, at the end of the day i admire the courage of his convictions and hope that the ICC heavily sanction Pakistan and make their board pay back all of the lost income to the ECB and then ban them from tests for a year. Oh no, actually we can't do that...... It'd be racist :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsteve Posted August 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2006 Its a tricky one this, because Hair has a history and so do Pakistan. But, both umpires agreed the ball had been tampered with. What is more stupid is the way Pakistan handled the 'cheating' allegation. They should have issued a statement at tea declaring their innocence (if that is the case) and then lodged their appeal at close of play. When do you see a football team sitting in their changing rooms after a bad refereeing decision? You don't, you accept the decision and get on with it. Whilst I accept a Cheating allegation is serious, it should be dealt with appropriately. However, I wonder what the odds were on an England win yesterday lunchtime :? :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Kane Posted August 21, 2006 Report Share Posted August 21, 2006 A guy on the GK board out a tenner on England after the Pakistan 1st Innings had finished at a healthy 22-1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briggsy Posted August 21, 2006 Report Share Posted August 21, 2006 I have mixed feelings about this whole thing. A part of me does actually think, that on this occasion, Pakistan are actually innocent. Why do I think this? Well, here's my reasons....... 1. Pakistan were totally in control of the game and would have won easily (very easily in fact). Why risk a match when your heading for a win? Its not as thought England had any batsman that was in for hours, scoring slowly but building a high score, so it wouldn't have been a case of them becoming frustrated. OK, Pieterson got a biggish score - but in typical Pieterson style, he did it fairly quickly with 4's and 6's. 2. Daryl Heir has a reputation against Pakistan. 3. In the media today, other umpires that have worked alongside Daryl Heir claim that he's not a very nice umpire to work with - he's quite bossy and doesn't communicate very well. They are suggesting that, with Daryl Heir being the senior umpire yesterday, the other umpire wouldn't have had much of a say in whether he thought the ball had been tampered or not. What Heir says, goes according to them. 4. The match was live on TV with numerous cameras around. In the past, ball tampering has been picked up very quickly by TV crews - and on some occasions, its been the TV crew that have alerted match officials to something "dodgy" going on. With all the cameras there yesterday, I'd have thought it would have been quite easy for them to notice someone deliberately scuffing the ball. 5. England did not ever raise the fact that they thought something"suspicious" was going on. 6. Just how competent is Daryl Heir? Very few people realise that Daryl Heir lives in this country, and has done for the past 4 years! He's the only umpire in the world that no longer competes at a "competetive" level on a regular basis. Since moving to England, he's not umpired Country Cricket - he's just down as a "reserve" on the ECB list, which means he only umpires county cricket should a "regular" umpire have to pull out of a match through illness or any other reason that he can't take control of the match. The only level Daryl Heir umpires at outside of test-standard cricket is "2nd eleven" standard (basically, country reserve level), and at district league level (a high standard of cricket that is often regarded as better than 2nd eleven cricket, and has a variety of county players that don't play for their counties very often or are just returning from injury and need a run out - plus players that are too good for "pub team" cricket, but not quite good enough for county cricket). Something doesn't seem quite right about yesterdays game. I guess the truth will only come out over a matter of time. The whole situation was handled poorly though by both Pakistan and the match officials (all four of them!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsteve Posted August 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2006 Good points there Briggsy. I didn't realise Hair is not officiating regularly. Why is he even on the list? Very good point about him being 'bossy.' I'd never heard of the other umpire and if he's not had many Tests he could easily have 'gone along' with Hair. However, none of this would have been so controversial if Pakistan had have just issued a statement and got on with the game. I suppose the series was already lost and it would have been a consolation win. Now that Inzhaman has been charged twice (which unfortunately means any bans will run consecutively) the whole one-day series is in doubt, leaving spectators with nothing to watch and the ECB even more out of pocket. Whatever decision is reached on Friday isn't going to be good for the game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Kane Posted August 21, 2006 Report Share Posted August 21, 2006 The whole thing is a farce whichever way you look at it, but if Hair has seen something that he believes means that Pakistan have been cheating then surely they have to be punished, if Hair made a mistake then Pakistan should have said ok we'll prove our innocence through proper channels, instead of throwing their rattle out of the pram and effectively refusing to play until they realised what clowns they were gona look forfeiting a basically 'won' game. If an innocent man is tried for a crime that he didn't commit he doesn't just refuse to 'play' so to speak, he puts forward his case and hopes that the truth will out. If no cameras picked anything up and the umpires had no proof then Pakistan would have been acquitted and Hair banned from umpiring as is the correct course of action. Now it's going to be the ECB who suffer through lost revenue and possibly a cancelled one day situation. What really annoyed me more than any cricketting issue is that the Pakistan commentator (Rameez Raja) and the whole PCB have used the incident to once again fire off about racism and politics, give it a rest it's a game of cricket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briggsy Posted August 21, 2006 Report Share Posted August 21, 2006 Apparently, Pakistan have issued a statement tonight saying that they will be taking part in the five one days matches and the Twenty20 match that is coming up - even if Inzamam Ul-Haq is banned. I agree completely about the way it was handled though. Pakistan should have raised concerns about Hair's attitude, lodged an official complaint and carried on as normal. If they were found to be innocent, the result would have stood. If they'd been found to have cheated, the result would have been void and awarded to England. Instead, whether they're innocent or guilty, their behaviour has resulted in Inzamam getting either a four test ban, or an eight one-day international ban. Inzamam is a key player for them, and his suspension could affect their results, and, ultimately, their world ranking position. I would imagine alos, should they decide to suspend him from one-day cricket, then three of those matches will probably be world cup matches when it starts in the winter. I also think this could be the end of someones career. If Inzamam is found guilty, I suspect he'll retire (certainly from international cricket anyway). Should Pakistan be found innocent, then Daryl Hair will be removed from the ICC umpire panel, so then he'll probably be shoved into County Cricket, and then during winter, when there's no cricket, he'll be watching Neighbours and Home & Away from his home here, rather than an ICC-funded 4 star hotel in Sri Lanka....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsteve Posted August 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2006 Apparently, Pakistan have issued a statement tonight saying that they will be taking part in the five one days matches and the Twenty20 match that is coming up - even if Inzamam Ul-Haq is banned. That disagrees with what Bob Woolmer is saying. He said on Channel 4 News that his players are right behind the captain and he strongly hinted they wouldn't be playing in the one-day series if Inzaman is banned. The saga goes on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Kane Posted August 22, 2006 Report Share Posted August 22, 2006 Yeh i heard Woolmer saying that if Inzamam is found guilty and given a hefty ban that there is a strong likelyhood that they won't play, if that is the case then PCB should refund all of the one day tickets sold and reimburse the ECB for the lost revenue as it's nothing to do with us, why should our board suffer because of Pakistan's ridiculous ethics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsteve Posted August 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 23, 2006 Well it looks lik the ECB have got themselves out of this little wrangle then. Apparently a family member of the match referee is ill and therefore he cannot conduct the hearing on Friday and Pakistan and England want this match referee. Therefore the hearing will now be after the one-day series. Surely another referee could quite simply be appointed. This whole saga is a farce. Maybe they're hoping it will simply 'go away.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Kane Posted August 24, 2006 Report Share Posted August 24, 2006 South Africa have volunteered to take Pakistans place if they boycott, i say get the Proteas in anyway, Pakistan have caused us so much grief why should we play them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsteve Posted August 25, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2006 The saga goes on... How right I was. Hair offered his resignation in return for $500,000. He later rescinded this and changed it to 'loss of future earnings.' http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/5286690.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Kane Posted August 26, 2006 Report Share Posted August 26, 2006 That made me laugh, Hair offering to quit for half a mill, making himself look a complete tool at the same time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsteve Posted October 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2006 Inzamam gets a minimum ban for the 1st ever forfeit through bringing the game into disrepute :? Something that was described as the biggest thing in cricket sine the Borderline series... :? And Hair is withdrawn from the Champions Trophy for 'Security Measures,' but India (the host nation) say that they will protect everybody attending the event, including umpires/officials. Seems like the ICC doesn't know how to handle the whole farce. A 4-match ban means Inzamam will miss the Champions Trophy, hardly an important series tbf. As the ICC didn't charge Pakistan with ball tampering, mainly because the ball had no signs of it, Hair should be kicked out of cricket and fined for bringing the game into disrepute. Inzamam, as the captain of Pakistan, should have had a harsher ban which would have encompassed 'important' Tests/ODIs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Kane Posted October 1, 2006 Report Share Posted October 1, 2006 I think that what's happened is an entire farce but the punishment issued to Inzamam isn't too far off the mark, the only difference is that he should have been banned for 4 tests not ODIs. Daryl Hair should in retrospect never have called them for ball tampering if he had no conclusive proof and his subsequent actions should have loed to either a resignation or his dismissal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quadrant Posted October 5, 2006 Report Share Posted October 5, 2006 Darryl Hair... is he the Australian umpire? I dont watch Cricket but I know my bats from my balls! :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsteve Posted October 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 ...And now look who's accused of taking performance enhancing drugs :al-j2: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simcut Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 lol, funny that isnt it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.