Pakistan in England/Scotland 2006

[Eddie]

actually no, i understand what he means..

He means, just because no camera saw the ball being tampered with, does not mean that it wasn't tampered with.

 

[nightprowler10]

But his statement could be interpreted as "just because we didn't see you committing a crime doesn't mean we won't convict you".

 

[Eddie]

it does imply that..

ok here's an analogy to explain it better..

A man throws a stone at a window and breaks it. No one sees him do it..but the window is still broken..

 

[nightprowler10]

it does imply that..

ok here's an analogy to explain it better..

A man throws a stone at a window and breaks it. No one sees him do it..but the window is still broken..

But that means the man was seen throwing the stone, which is a lot easier to prove and has a lot less ramifications than ball tampering.

 

[Eddie]

But that means the man was seen throwing the stone, which is a lot easier to prove and has a lot less ramifications than ball tampering.

ok bad analogy..

but not all crimes are witnessed, but evidence leads to the perpetrator being caught.

I suppose in this case the evidence is the ball, so untill we see the ball ( never happen) its hard to understand.

 

[nightprowler10]

BTW, I never realized this, but how could Hair have been considered a neutral umpire in Pakistan-England matches if he is apparently a UK citizen?

 

[Eddie]

He's not English, he just lives here.

 

[afridi118]

actually no, i understand what he means..

He means, just because no camera saw the ball being tampered with, does not mean that it wasn't tampered with.

is there any evidence or a witness no u cant do any thing without an evidance and the ball tampering it could have been tampered in the refrees office as "inzy i asked hair where is the old ball ball or tampered ball" "hair replied some where in refrees office"
?????

 

[nightprowler10]

He's not English, he just lives here.

I understand that, my question was is he still considered an Australian umpire by the ICC even when he's been living in the UK for many years? Its a very good possibilty he's not so neutral when umpiring in matches involving England.

BTW, I'm not implying that he favors England on purpose in his decisions, I just wanna know what the rule book says about that, if anything.

 

[Eddie]

is there any evidence or a witness no u cant do any thing without an evidance and the ball tampering it could have been tampered in the refrees office as "inzy i asked hair where is the ball tht is tampered" "hair replied some where in refrees office"

there appears to be no witness, but the ball is evidence, either that tampering occured, or that nothing occured ( ie. natural wear and tear).

This is something us members of the public will probly never here or see what happened to the ball.

I understand that, my question was is he still considered an Australian umpire by the ICC even when he's been living in the UK for many years? Its a very good possibilty he's not so neutral when umpiring in matches involving England.

He's an Australian Umpire. Though he maybe contoversal at times, he is one of the better umpires in world cricket. (Equally unpleasant to everyone )

 

[kodos]

I understand that, my question was is he still considered an Australian umpire by the ICC even when he's been living in the UK for many years? Its a very good possibilty he's not so neutral when umpiring in matches involving England.

BTW, I'm not implying that he favors England on purpose in his decisions, I just wanna know what the rule book says about that, if anything.

He may reside in England but he still is an official representative for Australia. I'd say many umpires around the world may live away from their birth nation.

 

[Eddie]

He may reside in England but he still is an official representative for Australia. I'd say many umpires around the world may live away from their birth nation.

well, since they can't Umpire in the country they represent, why live there? cos you will always be umpiring abroad..

most umpires spent all their time travelling

 

[aussie1st]

Warne was thinking of moving to England and living but he'll always be considered Australian so same would be the case with Hair.

 

[barmyarmy]

it does imply that..

ok here's an analogy to explain it better..

A man throws a stone at a window and breaks it. No one sees him do it..but the window is still broken..

A Tree falls in a forest and there's no-one there to hear it...

This is going pretty much as we suspected. Hair said it happened so the ICC will accept that. There is obviously going to be no video/photo evidence and the main question still remains did he see the window being broken or did he find it broken.

 

[Eddie]

This is going pretty much as we suspected. Hair said it happened so the ICC will accept that. There is obviously going to be no video/photo evidence and the main question still remains did he see the window being broken or did he find it broken.

exactly...however, i feel this is a question to which we will never know the answer..