England in Pakistan
- Thread starter dazza76
- Start date
taimurasad
Club Cricketer
ZexyZahid said:
I completely agree with you. Rana did so well in the last two tours(India & WestIndies) for Pakistan. He should surely replace Sami. Dont forget that he can also do a bit with the bat!
Pak_cricketer
Chairman of Selectors
Thats for the selectors to decide but i think Pakistan will stick with their bowling line up because it was thier winning combination.
tsyrmas
Club Cricketer
barmyarmy said:
That was the correct call, because the Umpire had to jusdge when he could clearly see the bail been dislodged from the groove in the stumps. i woul've called the same thing if i weas umpiring. and this is not from an ECB haters point of view, it is frmo an umpires.
Cricketman
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Location
- USA
:Hoggard and Pakistan team fined
Cricinfo staff
November 16, 2005
Matthew Hoggard has been fined 20% of his match fee for excessive appealing during the first Test at Multan while the entire Pakistan team have been fined for a slow over rate.
Hoggard was reported by the two on-field umpires, Simon Taufel and Billy Bowden, and the third umpire Asad Rauf, for his appealing as he celebrated the wicket of Salman Butt in Pakistan's second innings. He was found guilty at a hearing conducted by the match referee, Roshan Mahanama, at the end of the match.
Meanwhile, each member of the Pakistan team was fined 10% of their match fees while Inzamam-ul-Haq was penalised double that amount as captain. Pakistan fell two overs short of the minimum required to be bowled in the time available.
? Cricinfo
Only for 2 overs!!
Last edited:
Pak_cricketer
Chairman of Selectors
Why would you want to change 3 players?? Its changes the whole mommentum!
mohsinshahzad84
Banned for Account Faking
There was a salutary lesson on Tuesday for all those who believe technology should play a greater role in modern cricket.
There have been loud and sustained calls for the cameras and microphones to help the umpires rule on anything from leg-before decisions to bat-pad catches.
They'll help clear up any element of doubt, so the argument goes.
Well trying telling that to anyone who watched the fourth day of the first Test between Pakistan and England in Multan.
In the first over after lunch Pakistan's centurion Salman Butt ambled back for a third run as Paul Collingwood picked up the ball on the deep mid-wicket boundary.
A second or two later as the ball arrowed in to England 'keeper Geraint Jones it suddenly became obvious that Butt was struggling to make his ground.
The bails were off in a flash but it looked incredibly close, in short exactly the sort of situation on which TV replays would be able to give a definitive verdict.
After multiple viewings from numerous angles it finally appeared as if the stumps had been broken and Butt would be on his way back to the pavilion, but to general astonishment it was the green 'not out' light which flickered on.
I have to be honest and say that at that point I reckoned the decision was an awful one - so much so that I suggested it made a mockery of using the technology.
But a few hours later and after repeated replays and discussions, I have to hold up my hands and concede it was exactly the right decision.
The key are laws 28.1 and 28.1(b) which state:
The wicket is put down if a bail is completely removed from the top of the stumps, or a stump is struck out of the ground...
The disturbance of a bail, whether temporary or not, shall not constitute its complete removal from the top of the stumps...
A couple of angles clearly showed that the stumps had been pushed forward by Jones' gloves but it was impossible to say categorically that a bail had been removed in the split second before Butt's bat slid over the line.
Given which third umpire Asad Rauf made the correct and brave decision to give the benefit of the doubt to the batsman and rule it 'not out'.
The verdict could have turned the match - as it happened Butt was out fairly soon after as Pakistan collapsed - so the fact that it caused such controversy and polarised opinions is a real warning against extending the remit of the third umpire.
The system works as well as it possibly could at present - 99 times out of 100 we get a definitive answer to run out and stumping appeals - a markedly better ratio than we'd get by going with the two umpires on the field, however good they are.
This was simply the one out of 100 chance, the exception to the rule.
But imagine if we took the TV verdicts further - to rule on leg before for example?
It would lead to so many similar instances as this - where even with the help of the cameras we still couldn't agree on key decisions.
The third umpire would be regularly - and often unfairly - lambasted by TV commentators, supporters at the ground, and millions of TV viewers.
The game would also be slowed down as a result and the on-field umpires would lose a bit more of their authority.
Tuesday's incident should therefore serve as a useful reminder that the umpires have a better knowledge of the laws of the game than the majority of the watching public, commentators and even players.
The issue of whether the bail itself had to be removed wasn't even thrown into the melting pot until we searched for some sort of explanation as to why 'not out' had been the verdict.
And in another example earlier in the match, acting Pakistan skipper Younis Khan had questioned on-field umpire Billy Bowden's decision to call what looked a harsh wide against spinner Shoaib Malik.
But Bowden was absolutely spot-on - a recent change to the law means that if spinners use the rough outside the batsman's leg stump then that activates the one-day criteria on wides.
Indeed Bowden and his colleague Simon Taufel have been outstanding thoughout the course of the match.
When England last toured Pakistan there was plenty of controversy as the decisive third Test finished in near darkness in Karachi.
That won't happen in this game because Bowden and Taufel have set a clear precedent from day one as to when the light should be offered to the batsmen.
They've left the field at 4.41pm, 4.42pm, 4.42pm and 4.46pm (the extra few minutes on account of spinner Danish Kaneria bowling) on the first four days.
That's typical of the way they've handled the game and everything we've seen in the match suggests that the balance between their on-field authority and the use of technology is exactly right.
Sources Yahoo sports cricket
this is the answer .
There have been loud and sustained calls for the cameras and microphones to help the umpires rule on anything from leg-before decisions to bat-pad catches.
They'll help clear up any element of doubt, so the argument goes.
Well trying telling that to anyone who watched the fourth day of the first Test between Pakistan and England in Multan.
In the first over after lunch Pakistan's centurion Salman Butt ambled back for a third run as Paul Collingwood picked up the ball on the deep mid-wicket boundary.
A second or two later as the ball arrowed in to England 'keeper Geraint Jones it suddenly became obvious that Butt was struggling to make his ground.
The bails were off in a flash but it looked incredibly close, in short exactly the sort of situation on which TV replays would be able to give a definitive verdict.
After multiple viewings from numerous angles it finally appeared as if the stumps had been broken and Butt would be on his way back to the pavilion, but to general astonishment it was the green 'not out' light which flickered on.
I have to be honest and say that at that point I reckoned the decision was an awful one - so much so that I suggested it made a mockery of using the technology.
But a few hours later and after repeated replays and discussions, I have to hold up my hands and concede it was exactly the right decision.
The key are laws 28.1 and 28.1(b) which state:
The wicket is put down if a bail is completely removed from the top of the stumps, or a stump is struck out of the ground...
The disturbance of a bail, whether temporary or not, shall not constitute its complete removal from the top of the stumps...
A couple of angles clearly showed that the stumps had been pushed forward by Jones' gloves but it was impossible to say categorically that a bail had been removed in the split second before Butt's bat slid over the line.
Given which third umpire Asad Rauf made the correct and brave decision to give the benefit of the doubt to the batsman and rule it 'not out'.
The verdict could have turned the match - as it happened Butt was out fairly soon after as Pakistan collapsed - so the fact that it caused such controversy and polarised opinions is a real warning against extending the remit of the third umpire.
The system works as well as it possibly could at present - 99 times out of 100 we get a definitive answer to run out and stumping appeals - a markedly better ratio than we'd get by going with the two umpires on the field, however good they are.
This was simply the one out of 100 chance, the exception to the rule.
But imagine if we took the TV verdicts further - to rule on leg before for example?
It would lead to so many similar instances as this - where even with the help of the cameras we still couldn't agree on key decisions.
The third umpire would be regularly - and often unfairly - lambasted by TV commentators, supporters at the ground, and millions of TV viewers.
The game would also be slowed down as a result and the on-field umpires would lose a bit more of their authority.
Tuesday's incident should therefore serve as a useful reminder that the umpires have a better knowledge of the laws of the game than the majority of the watching public, commentators and even players.
The issue of whether the bail itself had to be removed wasn't even thrown into the melting pot until we searched for some sort of explanation as to why 'not out' had been the verdict.
And in another example earlier in the match, acting Pakistan skipper Younis Khan had questioned on-field umpire Billy Bowden's decision to call what looked a harsh wide against spinner Shoaib Malik.
But Bowden was absolutely spot-on - a recent change to the law means that if spinners use the rough outside the batsman's leg stump then that activates the one-day criteria on wides.
Indeed Bowden and his colleague Simon Taufel have been outstanding thoughout the course of the match.
When England last toured Pakistan there was plenty of controversy as the decisive third Test finished in near darkness in Karachi.
That won't happen in this game because Bowden and Taufel have set a clear precedent from day one as to when the light should be offered to the batsmen.
They've left the field at 4.41pm, 4.42pm, 4.42pm and 4.46pm (the extra few minutes on account of spinner Danish Kaneria bowling) on the first four days.
That's typical of the way they've handled the game and everything we've seen in the match suggests that the balance between their on-field authority and the use of technology is exactly right.
Sources Yahoo sports cricket
this is the answer .
This has never been the interpretation before. This is opening a can of worms imo. The system has always been if the ball hits the wicket before the batsman is in his ground he is out. We've never had to try and see daylight between the stumps and bails. The moment of contact is what has been judged before. If this is the actual rule then fine but lets get some consistency from third umpires. This has never been the practice in the past so it seems strange for an umpire to unilaterally decide to start enforcing it.
Worrying news also about Trescothick. His father-in-law has been involved in an accident and it looks like he might be going home. With Strauss going home for the third test and Vaughan not yet fit I think we can kiss this series goodbye.
andrew_nixon
Chairman of Selectors
Only if the bails are disturbed.barmyarmy said:
In this case the bails were disturbed, but only after the batsman was in his crease, although the ball hit the stumps when the batsman was out of his crease. Anyone who hears Micheal Holding commentate will know this is a particular bugbear of his, and the law does need to be rephrased to clear up this grey area.
ZexyZahid
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- May 12, 2005
- Online Cricket Games Owned
That is bad news for England. I surely hope his father-in-law isn't that injured that Trescothick needs to go. He still needs to find out:
Trescothick may have to fly home
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/4444798.stm
Trescothick may have to fly home
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/4444798.stm
m_vaughan
Chairman of Selectors
I disagree. The upload picture is of bad quality and I have seen video replays of that same angle, and the bails were dislodged before the bat had touched the line. Anyways I'll take that as bad luck, which every team faces sometime or the other.
And despite the loss, I am still very optimistic about this series because
1- England are a better team (with or without Vaughan)
2- England outplayed Pakistan for the first four days of the match, and blew it all away in the final day.
But having said that, England did the same thing a number of times during the Ashes, wherein despite dominating the entire match, allowed the opposition to make a comeback into the game in the last innings, and this made the otherwise one sided games appear as "close encounters".
England will have to play well throughout and especially towards the end. Because as it looks now, they seem to make a big mess of the easiest targets.
And despite the loss, I am still very optimistic about this series because
1- England are a better team (with or without Vaughan)
2- England outplayed Pakistan for the first four days of the match, and blew it all away in the final day.
But having said that, England did the same thing a number of times during the Ashes, wherein despite dominating the entire match, allowed the opposition to make a comeback into the game in the last innings, and this made the otherwise one sided games appear as "close encounters".
England will have to play well throughout and especially towards the end. Because as it looks now, they seem to make a big mess of the easiest targets.
Similar threads
