Pakistan in England/Scotland 2006

[Sureshot]

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!

Nothing in the laws say you have to walk so how is it cheating?

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.

Fletcher has very little history of controversy with England.

Take it with a pinch of salt

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.

Most websites are running this story it has a fair chunk of crediblity in it.

As you seemed to have neg repped me I thought I'd put my thoughts on the matter.

Along with his dancing just 10 months ago.

 

[valvolux]

The Fletcher situation is rumour.

Team coaches would quite often go to see Match Referees.




If you believe any conspiracy theory going.

No cricket ball will act the same as another.

Cricinfo, who've been reluctant to pick up on the afridi case because of uncertainty, maintain that sources close to england said he enquired about something relating to the ball. Of course they will deny, and no doubt Proctor will also deny..more so he will be advised to deny it - imagine what will happen if they reveal it as true. The ODI series will be over, Pakistani/Pom ties will become wafer thin and the cricketing world will be thrown into further chaos. England have denied that they enquired about the state of the ball - it makes no mention they didn't request umpires to have a closer look at certain bowlers. You all saw the attention Hair was paying to the person with the ball in between deliveries - i have never seen this sort of scrutiny before, especially when the batting side is 2/200 odd.

Just on the ball, someone posted that it was the seam that appeared to be lifted - i haven't seen this reported anywhere? What are the sources? I just figured it was the large scratch on the ball that could be seen when Sky zoomed in on Hair with the ball. And when Woolmer was trying to replicate it he appeared to be scratching the leather rather than the seam.

 

[JamesyJames3]

Cricinfo, who've been reluctant to pick up on the afridi case because of uncertainty, maintain that sources close to england said he enquired about something relating to the ball. Of course they will deny, and no doubt Proctor will also deny..more so he will be advised to deny it - imagine what will happen if they reveal it as true. The ODI series will be over, Paki/Pom ties will become wafer thin and the cricketing world will be thrown into further chaos. England have denied that they enquired about the state of the ball - it makes no mention they didn't request umpires to have a closer look at certain bowlers. You all saw the attention Hair was paying to the person with the ball in between deliveries - i have never seen this sort of scrutiny before, especially when the batting side is 2/200 odd.

Just on the ball, someone posted that it was the seam that appeared to be lifted - i haven't seen this reported anywhere? What are the sources? I just figured it was the large scratch on the ball that could be seen when Sky zoomed in on Hair with the ball. And when Woolmer was trying to replicate it he appeared to be scratching the leather rather than the seam.

Although both picking the seam and the leather are considered ball tampering, picking the seam wouldn't assist reverse swing, picking the leather would.

 

[MUFC1987]

I think the ICC backing the Umpires means that Pakistan can not come out of this with nothing against them. It appears as though they've been assumed guily, which basically means, either an individual or the Captain is going to pay for it. It's ****ed up logic which only happens in sport as a civil court would simply laugh at it.

 

[evertonfan]

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!

Not walking isn't cheating. As far as i'm concerned, a batsmen is payed to do his job and his job is to score runs and protect his wicket. A batsman has to graft hard to get his runs and it's up to the umpires to give him out or not. It's a competetive sport so why should he do the opposition a favour by waking without being given out?

As for the appealing, well you have to appeal or you don't get wickets.

 

[MUFC1987]

Not walking isn't cheating. As far as i'm concerned, a batsmen is payed to do his job and his job is to score runs and protect his wicket. A batsman has to graft hard to get his runs and it's up to the umpires to give him out or not. It's a competetive sport so why should he do the opposition a favour by waking without being given out?

As for the appealing, well you have to appeal or you don't get wickets.

See I have no problem with the not walking thing, but what gets me is when players moan when the Umpire gives them out when they probably shouldn't have. It's a live by the sword, die by the sword thing from my point of view.

 

[evertonfan]

Most websites are running this story it has a fair chunk of crediblity in it.

Along with his dancing just 10 months ago.

I am definitley believing the truth in this Afridi matter for now; His track record isn't the best is it?

 

[treva]

Not walking isn't cheating. As far as i'm concerned, a batsmen is payed to do his job and his job is to score runs and protect his wicket. A batsman has to graft hard to get his runs and it's up to the umpires to give him out or not. It's a competetive sport so why should he do the opposition a favour by waking without being given out?

As for the appealing, well you have to appeal or you don't get wickets.

It shouldn't be anything to do with money :

It should be to do with the spirit of the game!

In my opinion maybe not walking is not really cheating but stuff like appealing when the bastman hasn't hit it is cheating.In my opinion they do it just because they can't get the batsman out themselves and have to pressurise the umpire by over appealing when you know the batsman hasn't touched it and then complaining about it.

 

[evertonfan]

It shouldn't be anything to do with money :

It should be to do with the spirit of the game!

In my opinion maybe not walking is not really cheating but stuff like appealing when the bastman hasn't hit it is cheating.In my opinion they do it just because they can't get the batsman out themselves and have to pressurise the umpire by over appealing when you know the batsman hasn't touched it and then complaining about it.

And the players are aware that they can be punished for it, so it's fine as far i'm concerned.

 

[bazz118]

Umpire's are payed to make decisions, players are payed to play. Let the players play and the umpires decide

 

[evertonfan]

Umpire's are payed to make decisions, players are payed to play. Let the players play and the umpires decide

Wow, what a good post. That's very true and more people should accept that.

 

[sohum]

Umpire's are payed to make decisions, players are payed to play. Let the players play and the umpires decide

That's a nice way to look at the situation with no context whatsoever.

 

[evertonfan]

That's a nice way to look at the situation with no context whatsoever.

He's right though, if Pakistan had just bit their bottom-lip and played on and won the match then this situation would be a lot less ugly, and the series could have ended with a presentation ceromony which it deserved.

 

[sohum]

He's right though, if Pakistan had just bit their bottom-lip and played on and won the match then this situation would be a lot less ugly, and the series could have ended with a presentation ceromony which it deserved.

If India had just bit their lip and continued to tolerate the British, we could still have been a British colony.

A little extreme, but I simply won't agree with you that Pakistan should not have reacted.

 

[MUFC1987]

He's right though, if Pakistan had just bit their bottom-lip and played on and won the match then this situation would be a lot less ugly, and the series could have ended with a presentation ceromony which it deserved.

Why the hell should they? If it was England I doubt that would be your response. But no, because it's 'dirty forriners' they deserve to rot or some such which is a shocking attitude. Stop seeing it as Pakistan and see it as any cricket team or group of people, may help you to strip your bias then.