Oval Test result 'to be changed'

[shefellover93]

Can this post be deleted?

It adds nothing to the argument as to whether Darrell Hair was in his right to remove the bails because Ranjan Madugalle ruled that there was no evidence at all.

He hasn't even read any of this thread after the post he quoted.

We had a right to protest, and we did. We suffered by losing Inzamam for 4 matches because he brought the game into disrepute.

And he is directly calling the Pakistan team a bunch of cheats.

Just shut up, and leave. And don't let the door kick your butt on the way out.

It does add to the argument, certainly much more than "Just shut up, and leave. And don't let the door kick your butt on the way out."

It's very rich for you to say I didn't read the thread because you couldn't even be bothered to read the post properly, you'd much prefer twisting it into whatever monstrosity you came up with, I never called the Pakistani's cheats, what I said was that if Hair thought that they were cheating then he had every right to pick them up on it, much like what happened to Micheal Atherton, because if he didn't it would be unfair on the English team.

So please stop misquoting people to strengthen your flagging argument and insulting people for their opinion.

Oh, and don't let the door kick your butt on the way out.

 

[Insomniac]

The appropriate course of action, as m vaughan has stated, is to continue with the match (which you'd have won anyway, IIRC) and then make your protest after the match.

Madugalle admitted that had Pakistan not staged their protest then and there, he would have gone on the word of the umpires. If we did what you said, then we would have Inzamam banned for around 12 matches (8 for ball tampering, 4 for bringing the game into disrepute)

Madugalle ruled, after the match, that evidence is required. Until the ICC start employing phsycic umpires, it is difficult to see how they are supposed to take future judgements into account when making decisions - all they can do is follow the rules as they stand.

Madugalle (and the guidelines for umpires) state that the umpires need to know the PLAYER who was ball-tampering as well. Darrell Hair to this day is yet to mention a SINGLE Pakistani player that has ball-tampering .

It has nothing to do with the thread title and everything to do with the
argument that has been going on in this thread.



I only repeated what I heard on Test Match Special. It's not really relevent anyway, I didn't bring it up.



That's not blackmail. I suggest you real my point again.

Yes, I will "real" your point again.

Fact is, Darrell Hair by the regulations set by the MCC and ICC has to have a name of a player who was ball tampering. That is also what I mean by evidence.

Many experts testified that the cricket ball was not tampered. Forensics proved it was not tampered. In fact, they stated that the ball was in excellent condition for the fact it was in its 56th over.

Darrell Hair knew he was in trouble because had no proof, no names (of players who tampered), NOTHING. Even the cricket ball, which he looked at, had no evidence of ball tampering, and he was also proven wrong by forensic science.

That's not how it works. After the match, I believe all appeals and wickets are reviewed to ensure the correct decision was made. Therefore a 'wicket' not given my Hair would be checked independantly, unless you now believe the whole of the ICC is anti-pakistan

You're bloody wrong. All 300 balls (in an ODI) are taken into account, and whether a decision was correct during that ball. None of this appeals and wickets review crap. If it was done your way, Asoka de Silva would have a 15% correct percentage. Do your research, young chap.

Replies in bold.

 

[usy]

Hair thinks alot of things... just because he is a Australian umpire? he's not World Leader or something.

Fair enough eveybody makes mistakes, Hair did, Inzi did.

 

[Insomniac]

It does add to the argument, certainly much more than "Just shut up, and leave. And don't let the door kick your butt on the way out."

Well, make some better posts then.


It's very rich for you to say I didn't read the thread because you couldn't even be bothered to read the post properly, you'd much prefer twisting it into whatever monstrosity you came up with, I never called the Pakistani's cheats, what I said was that if Hair thought that they were cheating then he had every right to pick them up on it, much like what happened to Micheal Atherton, because if he didn't it would be unfair on the English team.

It would help if your posts are clearer. I'm not twisting anything around, I'm interpreting your unclear posts as best as I can.

Secondly, Darrell Hair has no right to pick up on a half-chance of cheating. He has to SEE a player tampering with the ball. He has to be able to NAME a player tampering with the ball. To this day, Darrell Hair is yet to do either of those things.

So please stop misquoting people to strengthen your flagging argument and insulting people for their opinion.


Please learn to speak english properly and write your posts in a clear enough manner in which I can understand them properly.

Posts in bold.

zMario added 1 Minutes and 16 Seconds later...

Hair thinks alot of things... just because he is a Australian umpire? he's not World Leader or something.

Fair enough eveybody makes mistakes, Hair did, Inzi did.

The difference is Hair made bigger mistakes.

I remember a Cricinfo article where the author was asking Hair to stop pretending to be the God of Cricket.

This man thinks that the thousands of people pay money to come and see him, not the players

 

[m_vaughan]

Cricinfo was wrong then.

 

[shefellover93]

Look, if you want to pick up small mistakes that anybody could make and be pedantic and go off the point (Like you did for FreddieFan) then fine, but tbh I was just stating my opinion on the situation and then you just felt the need to tell me to go away, which isn't very democratic now is it?

I speak English very clearly and everybody on this forum (This doesn't include you, I'm talking about people) understands me and my last post was very clear.

Final point on this because I hate having to deal with bullish and pedantic people like you, Hair needs to act if he thinks cheating is going on (Ball tampering, running on pitch ect) and deal with it. Put it in a hypothetical situation, imagine the boot was on the other foot and Hair thought England were ball tampering, Hair plays on and England win the test. After the match it turns out that Michael Vaughan was ball tampering, what would you think then?

I bet you would say that Hair should have acted, even though he only had a sneaking suspicion that Vaughan was in fact ball tampering. Don't tell me otherwise because you know that you, and the rest of Pakistan would be up in arm's about the incident

 

[FreddieFan]

I'm bored of this argument, it's clear that neither side will ever convince the other round to their point of view. I've made my views clear and will leave it there.

 

[Sureshot]

People need to start respecting other peoples views and stop using such vile language. Any more "shut up's" or any swear words will result in this being closed.

Sureshot added 27 Minutes and 14 Seconds later...

And Sureshot, can you tell me why the Sri Lankans refused to play in games with Darrell Hair?

They refused to play in games with Hair because he called Murali for throwing. Not the only umpire to do so.

Then what was it? Exactly what was it, if it wasn't blackmail?

He was offering his resignation in return for compensation for the loss of money he would not have received. Blackmail is when you hold someone to ransom for information you have in return for money (or other means). He asked for the details to be kept private. That's not blackmail. If he'd have said, "If this doesn't stay private I will...." that would be blackmail.

I would at this time like to bring out some significant points now.

One is that Darrell Hair walked out of the ball-tampering meeting on the evening of the 4th Day during the Oval test when Inzamam asked him and I quote, "Why are we being accused?"

What's your point?

 

[manee]

What's your point?

That Hair did not have a legitimate reason. (That is his point, not mine, don't shoot the messenger)

 

[Insomniac]

Look, if you want to pick up small mistakes that anybody could make and be pedantic and go off the point (Like you did for FreddieFan) then fine, but tbh I was just stating my opinion on the situation and then you just felt the need to tell me to go away, which isn't very democratic now is it?

I usually don't make mistakes such as "weather for whether"...

I speak English very clearly and everybody on this forum (This doesn't include you, I'm talking about people) understands me and my last post was very clear.

So I'm not a person now? Even usy thought you were calling us cheats. Thats two PEOPLE, who are PERSONS. Obviously you were not very clear when you spoke at first.

Final point on this because I hate having to deal with bullish and pedantic people like you, Hair needs to act if he thinks cheating is going on (Ball tampering, running on pitch ect) and deal with it. Put it in a hypothetical situation, imagine the boot was on the other foot and Hair thought England were ball tampering, Hair plays on and England win the test. After the match it turns out that Michael Vaughan was ball tampering, what would you think then?

Big words for you huh.

Darrell Hair had no PROOF of ball tampering. He NEVER saw anyone ball tampering. Are you blind of the fact that if there was ball tampering going on, Sky Sports' 28 different cameras would probably pick it up. And don't you think that the Match Referee, and third umpire watch the match?

Darrell Hair had to have a name of a person who he WITH his EYES saw ball tampering. He could not name a single person.

And I'm not going to deal with your "hypothetical" situation because with 28 cameras, Sky would have probably immediately picked the situation, and informed the umpires.

I bet you would say that Hair should have acted, even though he only had a sneaking suspicion that Vaughan was in fact ball tampering. Don't tell me otherwise because you know that you, and the rest of Pakistan would be up in arm's about the incident

Do you actually know me? Stop generalizing.

Posts in bold.

 

[Sureshot]

That Hair did not have a legitimate reason. (That is his point, not mine, don't shoot the messenger)

Which has been established fact for a couple of years. Thus why he was kicked off the panel and did that course Telling us nothing we don't know.

You've not been shot, this time.

 

[Insomniac]

People need to start respecting other peoples views and stop using such vile language. Any more "shut up's" or any swear words will result in this being closed.

Sureshot added 27 Minutes and 14 Seconds later...



They refused to play in games with Hair because he called Murali for throwing. Not the only umpire to do so.

Who was the other umpire that called Murali for throwing? Don't remember one, but please do enlighten me on that.

Darrell Hair accused Murali of chucking / cheating. If the Sri Lankans can walk off the field for that, so can we. Same umpire, different charges of cheating.



He was offering his resignation in return for compensation for the loss of money he would not have received. Blackmail is when you hold someone to ransom for information you have in return for money (or other means). He asked for the details to be kept private. That's not blackmail. If he'd have said, "If this doesn't stay private I will...." that would be blackmail.

Darrell Hair would have received money even if the ICC decided to dump him there and then. He would have been "available" as an umpire till March 2008 (I have no idea whose the bozo who renewed that contract - if it was renewed)

Darrell Hair also sued his employers for racial discrimination, did he not? He never received the $500,000, and therefore, sued for racism (God knows how he got this idea)



What's your point?

The point is that we didn't tamper with the cricket ball, as shown by Sky's 28 cameras, the analysts called on by Inzamam (including Geoffery Boycott and Shane Warne IIRC), and that Darrell Hair was completely out of order by accusing us of ball tampering.

Darrell Hair could not point out ANY Pakistani player who he had seen tamper with the cricket ball. The cricket ball did not even look tampered, and forensic analysts showed that it was not tampered with.

As far as our protest is concerned, Ranjan Madugalle ADMITTED that had Inzamam not protested on that day, he would have gone on the word of the umpires, and slapped Inzamam with a ban for ball tampering as well as bringing the game into disrepute.

For refusing to come and play at the correct time, we suffered in that Inzamam was banned for 4 ODIs. As far as the umpires deeming the forfeit, it was correct. However, the reason it was forfeited was basically the umpire's fault - He refused to tell Inzamam why the ball was changed, and felt he was bigger than the game - which is why the game was changed to a draw.

Posts in bold.

 

[usy]

zMario gonne stop doing "Posts in bold" it's annoying..

Also, Sureshot, make sure you're 10,000th post is worth it ;P

Wanted to say they should stop playing cricket in Oval now, worst place ever.

 

[Will_NA]

It's ironic that you deem Hair as thinking he's bigger than the game when the Pakistan cricket team believed that they could deliberately come out of the dressing room late and still expect to be able to restart play.

 

[Sureshot]

Who was the other umpire that called Murali for throwing? Don't remember one, but please do enlighten me on that.

Ross Emerson, iirc, there was a bigger furore over when he called Murali.

Darrell Hair accused Murali of chucking / cheating. If the Sri Lankans can walk off the field for that, so can we. Same umpire, different charges of cheating.

That doesn't mean you can do also walk off the field, anyway, they walked off the field when Emerson called Murali, not hair, in 1999.

Darrell Hair also sued his employers for racial discrimination, did he not? He never received the $500,000, and therefore, sued for racism (God knows how he got this idea)

It never went to court, pulled out of it only days after calling it iirc.

The point is that we didn't tamper with the cricket ball, as shown by Sky's 28 cameras, the analysts called on by Inzamam (including Geoffery Boycott and Shane Warne IIRC), and that Darrell Hair was completely out of order by accusing us of ball tampering.

Darrell Hair could not point out ANY Pakistani player who he had seen tamper with the cricket ball. The cricket ball did not even look tampered, and forensic analysts showed that it was not tampered with.

I've never denied he was wrong in in the ball tampering accusation. Most of the cricketing world agrees with that, thus his banning from umpiring for however many years/months it was.

As far as our protest is concerned, Ranjan Madugalle ADMITTED that had Inzamam not protested on that day, he would have gone on the word of the umpires, and slapped Inzamam with a ban for ball tampering as well as bringing the game into disrepute.

Which the PCB would have appealed against the ICC would have been forced to change the rules regarding it. I think they did after the incident.

For refusing to come and play at the correct time, we suffered in that Inzamam was banned for 4 ODIs. As far as the umpires deeming the forfeit, it was correct. However, the reason it was forfeited was basically the umpire's fault - He refused to tell Inzamam why the ball was changed, and felt he was bigger than the game - which is why the game was changed to a draw.

But it wasn't a draw though, Pakistan forfeited the game. It makes no impact on the series result. But it can't be a draw when one side forfeits the game through refusing to take to the field, extenuating circumstances or not.