Pakistan in England/Scotland 2006

[andrew_nixon]

I was listening to the radio and someone emailed in and said

"Chetaing is when you don't walk when you've nicked it,Cheating is when the slips appeal for a catch when the ball hasn't touched the bat!What's the difference in that from this???They are all ways of cheating"

I think that's a very good point!

The difference is that the first two are not cheating, as they aren't against the laws of the game. Unfair play yes, but not cheating.

 

[irottev]

The only suspision I get from 173 all out is whether or not England showed up that day.

Really, thats just being pathetic. Surely no marks were discovered on that day, enough wicket breaks were taken.

The fact is, the ball got to that condition somehow, yet strangly, from all the camera footage and everything there are no traces. It is a mystery.

Now theres this Afridi interview which is just strange. Its old and if its all true and stuff then I just wonder why the ICC havn't investigated.

It doesn't make sense for the winning team to be tampering with the ball in a winning position and then be so sure about not tampering with it that they refused to continue the game.

edit: Thats a reasonable point ^ though it isn;t in the rules to walk when you get an edge and its not given. So really it isn't cheating.


Now if the ball was illegally tampered with, then it means Pakistan have been lieing the whole time. It still means Hair skrewed up and made an accusation without seeing it happen and also that Play should still have continued and the test should have been completed.

 

[treva]

The difference is that the first two are not cheating, as they aren't against the laws of the game. Unfair play yes, but not cheating.

Yes but It does not say in the rules that you are allowed to do this!

I believe they are ways of cheating obviously not as servere but it is still a form of cheating.

Now with that Afridi interview It seems very made up but If not that is very serious!I believe you should not tamper with the ball as the effects of the ball should be natural and should be part of the game.

Now I am an England supporter but what if to get the reverse swing in the Ashes they tampered with the ball?

Now I don't believe that happened but what if??

If Fletcher spoke to Hair before I think Hair wouldn't have really taken an notice as it would be himself to look and as he is stubborn he would just believe that he would find it himself!

 

[rickyp]

Kid, this article is fake. Can''t imagine how children come to cricket forums !!!

which would be why most cricket sites have been covering it..... might wanna get some of your facts right before you look like an idiot, it has been verified and is legit

 

[barmyarmy]

I can understand the reaction that says it is fake because it is such a damaging article both to Pakistan and to Afridi.
That is I'm sure why other sites have been so slow to pick it up - it is now on several reputable sites including the BBC and I expect to see it appearing on many more as the day goes on.
(still waiting on my e-mail from Jordan at Cricinfo!)

 

[irottev]

It doesn't say in the rules that if a player knows he edged the ball or should have been out lbw or anything like that, that they should walk. It's fully up to the umpires decision. I don't know about fielders appealing when they know it isn't out, but in that case theres no way of enforcing that anyway. So neither is 'cheating'.

If the England coach did have suspicions before the day and it is fishy. Could have influenced Hair in acting rash, which he did.


-> On the Afridi article. I find it so hard to believe because the ICC obviously havn't done ANYTHING about what he said.

 

[treva]

It doesn't say in the rules that if a player knows he edged the ball or should have been out lbw or anything like that, that they should walk. It's fully up to the umpires decision. I don't know about fielders appealing when they know it isn't out, but in that case theres no way of enforcing that anyway. So neither is 'cheating'.

If the England coach did have suspicions before the day and it is fishy. Could have influenced Hair in acting rash, which he did.

But I have already said it doesn't say they can do that.

It is a minute way of cheating and I do realise that this is a bigger matter.

but it is still a form of cheating(In my view)!

Also we know how stubborn hair is i don't think it would have influenced him!

 

[sohum]

If Pakistan are stubborn in their refusal to play when Hair is officiating, and the ICC are oblivious to the same, I could see a partition developing in international cricket--albeit mental. The Asian countries are likely to stand by Pakistan, given that Sri Lanka has been plagued by Hair before and India has had to deal with Bucknor despite vocal protests in private and in public against him.

With the World Cup coming up in less than a year, and the Champions trophy in less than two months, it'll be interesting to see how much the ICC can really screw up the situation.

 

[The_gas]

The curtain of shame is falling on Pakistan.

 

[Sureshot]

I can't see us playing 4 out and out bowlers, even if they are useful with the bat. For the simple reason that I can't see England selecting Read to bat him at 7. I expect him to play, but from number 8, as he's shown in the past that he can get to 20 or 30 quickly, but I wouldn't back him to score 70 or 80 at this level to rebuild an innings in the same way that Jones did.

Read has more domestic hundreds than Jones.

He's better than Jones in every department bar maybe the back foot square cut.

 

[kodos]

The curtain of shame is falling on Pakistan.

I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss Pakistan's appeal against the allegations. I would wait until Friday when it is hopefully all revealed.

 

[Sureshot]

Perhaps your are right as the England bowlers depend on the conditions and the pitch to produce something but the Pakistani bowlers are capable of producing special deliveries on any surface, provided they are not disqualified for ball tampering because the balls become unplayable for the opposing batsmen. :

So that's why we have a better away record than Pakistan off the sub continent? Because we rely on English conditions.

Must read for anyone who hasn't already
Afridi admits tampering

I just lost the last bit of any respect I had for him.

 

[ZexyZahid]

If Pakistan are stubborn in their refusal to play when Hair is officiating, and the ICC are oblivious to the same, I could see a partition developing in international cricket--albeit mental. The Asian countries are likely to stand by Pakistan, given that Sri Lanka has been plagued by Hair before and India has had to deal with Bucknor despite vocal protests in private and in public against him.

With the World Cup coming up in less than a year, and the Champions trophy in less than two months, it'll be interesting to see how much the ICC can really screw up the situation.

That's the same thing I thought after Sunday. We could go back to the '80's, where Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh could have their own competition eventually and maybe joined by some other nations. I wouldn't mind it, if this would taken place, just to come away from the stubborn control of the ICC and from where these countries could make an own supervisional board.

It doesn't say in the rules that if a player knows he edged the ball or should have been out lbw or anything like that, that they should walk. It's fully up to the umpires decision. I don't know about fielders appealing when they know it isn't out, but in that case theres no way of enforcing that anyway. So neither is 'cheating'.

If the England coach did have suspicions before the day and it is fishy. Could have influenced Hair in acting rash, which he did.


-> On the Afridi article. I find it so hard to believe because the ICC obviously havn't done ANYTHING about what he said.

I actually saw that about what the coach did, on late Sunday/early Monday, and I was surprised this wasn't highlighted by the media yet. But by then it were rumours, so I wasn't sure about that yet. But slowly it entered the rest of the media and now it seems that England, at least the coach, had a hand in the accusation of the ball-tempering against Pakistan. If this is true this would damage the relationship between these countries.

But I still won't believe this unless it's verified, just like the Afridi interview which happened on February, which the most English fans are very easy to accept it.

 

[Sureshot]

Hair has been doing it for so many years and his main targets are Asian teams (dont know if that means he is a racist) so he is a known bully in this field. The interesting aspect about this whole scenario is Fletcher going up to the umpires and asking them to watch out for ball tampering and then even accusing Asif. Now if the ECB get involved in the case, which was previously not the case, then the ODIs might also not be played.

The Fletcher situation is rumour.

Team coaches would quite often go to see Match Referees.

Good point. England did win the Ashes with profound and early reverse swing.
Raises some questions.

If you believe any conspiracy theory going.

No cricket ball will act the same as another.

 

[ZexyZahid]

I see on the cricinfo headline now: 'England deny Fletcher claims'

Off course they will deny it. At least for now. Also Fletcher was seemed to make answers to the Sky team why they didn't follow the ball more closely when Pakistani had the ball. An investigation on the Sky employees could answer the question if Fletcher asked this or not.