Pakistan in England/Scotland 2006

Who are your men of the series? (select one from each team)


  • Total voters
    75
evertonfan said:
Because they are proffessional sportsmen who should have accepted that no matter how proposterous the claims where, they should hav edealt with it after the match.
They are human beings before they are sportsmen!

Kev said:
As far as I am aware it is up to the umpires to judge if the ball has been artificially tampered with. If they deem that to be the case the procedure is 5 penalty runs and the batting side get to choose a new ball.
Yes, and one expects that the umpire does not do that in a reckless manner. In the case that he has, he has to be held strongly accountable. Again, nothing has come out from Hair. As it stands, if Hair has not told Pakistan or Inzamam that he had seen them tamper with the ball, he is just working on a presumption.
 
sohummisra said:
They are human beings before they are sportsmen!

But they should have realised that there is a paying public watching them. My views sound very shallow and to some they may sound idiotic, but they should have dealt with this after the game, and therefore, they wouldn't have had any disrepute charges against them and this situation would be a lot better.
 
sohummisra said:
They are human beings before they are sportsmen!
Exactly! If I were in Inzi's shoes I may have actually walked off the field at that moment. The heat of the moment can sometimes get the better of us. Many captains around the world probably would not have been as calm as Inzi under those situations and against an umpire who has time and again robbed their bowlers of certain wickets.
 
sohummisra said:
It's easy to sit in an AC room and throw the rulebook at the face of the Pakistani players. If your teacher in school failed you because he thought you had cheated on the test you may have reacted otherwise. But you may not have. You may have an above-average tolerance for personal insult--but that does not mean everyone does.
So you are saying a child would be right to storm out of a classroom if he is accused of cheating. Children do sometimes behave like that, it is not acceptable behaviour in an adult enviroment and chlidren will learn that as they develop into adults.
 
evertonfan said:
But they should have realised that there is a paying public watching them. My views sound very shallow and to some they may sound idiotic, but they should have dealt with this after the game, and therefore, they wouldn't have had any disrepute charges against them and this situation would be a lot better.
I completley agree they should have taken it in and either protested later that evening after play or at the end of the test match!

I do understand that calling them a cheat is a personal remark and they should not be able to take that but at least wait until the end of the match!
 
evertonfan said:
But they should have realised that there is a paying public watching them. My views sound very shallow and to some they may sound idiotic, but they should have dealt with this after the game, and therefore, they wouldn't have had any disrepute charges against them and this situation would be a lot better.
There are times that I believe that a human being should be selfish. Cricket wouldn't exist without spectators, but I'm sure if the paying public had been made knowledgeable about the events that were passing while they were passing, their opinion would be slightly less ignorant.

Kev said:
So you are saying a child would be right to storm out of a classroom if he is accused of cheating. Children do sometimes behave like that, it is not acceptable behaviour in an adult enviroment and chlidren will learn that as they develop into adults.
If he is accused of cheating in front of 20,000 people and a far larger global audience, he may have to resort to something like that just to clear his name.

treva said:
I completley agree they should have taken it in and either protested later that evening after play or at the end of the test match!

I do understand that calling them a cheat is a personal remark and they should not be able to take that but at least wait until the end of the match!
But that would defeat the very point of their protest. I have not been talking with the PCB/Pakistani team but I am pretty sure that 5 penalty runs being docked and forfeiting was the last thing on their mind. Their protest was meant to show that the allegation levelled against them with, what seemed to be, inexistent proof, may be acceptable according to the ICC rulebook, but not acceptable with how they felt as human beings.
 
sohummisra said:
If he is accused of cheating in front of 20,000 people and a far larger global audience, he may have to resort to something like that just to clear his name.
But he doesnt have to resort to this behaviour to clear his name. He could have protested in the correct manner and he probably would have been cleared. All he is doing here is acting like a naughty child in a public place and drawing even more attention to himself.
 
treva said:
I completley agree they should have taken it in and either protested later that evening after play or at the end of the test match!

I do understand that calling them a cheat is a personal remark and they should not be able to take that but at least wait until the end of the match!
One thing people fail to realize is that Pakistanis have had many problems with him in the past year. Harsh warnings against bowlers and batsmen for running on the pitch. Giving Inzi runout when he shouldn't have been. Plumb decisions not given (a few here and there are okay, but its getting ridiculous). And now this!

Like I said in an earlier post, Inzi may not have protested in such a manner if it wasn't Hair, we have such an unpleasant history with him.
 
nightprowler10 said:
One thing people fail to realize is that Pakistanis have had many problems with him in the past year. Harsh warnings against bowlers and batsmen for running on the pitch. Giving Inzi runout when he shouldn't have been. Plumb decisions not given (a few here and there are okay, but its getting ridiculous). And now this!

Like I said in an earlier post, Inzi may not have protested in such a manner if it wasn't Hair, we have such an unpleasant history with him.

If the problem lies with Hair, then that still doesn't excuse the fact that this could have been dealt with after the game.

And was this Inzi run out the one at Faisalabad with Steve Harmison? If so, then he was out of his ground when the ball hit the stumps, and as far as I know, that's out.
 
Kev said:
But he doesnt have to resort to this behaviour to clear his name. He could have protested in the correct manner and he probably would have been cleared. All he is doing here is acting like a naughty child in a public place and drawing even more attention to himself.
I believe there is a difference of opinion here that will not contribute anything substantial to this debate.
 
Kev said:
But he doesnt have to resort to this behaviour to clear his name. He could have protested in the correct manner and he probably would have been cleared. All he is doing here is acting like a naughty child in a public place and drawing even more attention to himself.
By your logic revolutionaries like Mandela were nothing more than naughty children. When wrong has been done, people sometimes have to go against the rules to make their point.

Not that I'm comparing our Aloo with Mandela. :D

evertonfan said:
And was this Inzi run out the one at Faisalabad with Steve Harmison? If so, then he was out of his ground when the ball hit the stumps, and as far as I know, that's out.
Then you must've missed out on the reports that followed, which showed clearly that by law Inzi could not have been given out in that situation.
 
evertonfan said:
If the problem lies with Hair, then that still doesn't excuse the fact that this could have been dealt with after the game.

And was this Inzi run out the one at Faisalabad with Steve Harmison? If so, then he was out of his ground when the ball hit the stumps, and as far as I know, that's out.
Its not out if you are taking avoiding action. but thats an old issue.

nightprowler said:
By your logic revolutionaries like Mandela were nothing more than naughty children. When wrong has been done, people sometimes have to go against the rules to make their point.

Not that I'm comparing our Aloo with Mandela.
I dont think I even will dignify that with a response.
 
Last edited:
I hope that one thing at least comes out of this ungodly mess. I know this is asking too much but the ICC should look at making some changes to the rules of cricket, which they seem to believe have been passed on directly when God Himself descended upon the original MCC headquarters (or wherever the damn rules were written) and wrote them down in His likeness, never to be challenged again.
Many people are hiding behind the argument that Pakistan should not have protested the way they did. Maybe so, but this has to be taken in the broader concept. You have to keep in mind the history behind it all. this was not something that happened on the spur of the moment. It has been building up for years. The years when Wasim and Waqar were vilified for ball tampering. The perception of unfairness when the same reverse swing was hailed as England's saviour when they won the Ashes last year, no questions asked. As it is coming out now, if it was England dressing room that prompted the umpires to look at the ball then thats double standards to say the least. The perception of biased (whether true or not is besides the point) umpiring from both umpires, especially Hair in the recent matches when Pakistan is involved. At some point this was going to break the camel's back, and it did at the Oval.
Umpiring is so much more than the rules of the game, as many columnists have rightly pointed out. You cannot be an officious prick and ignore everything else just because it says so in the rules book. Where is the tact, the diplomacy, the simple common sense?
Where are the rules governing incompetent umpiring? Any problems in that regard are supposedly dealt with behind closed doors, no sanctions ever come out in public. Four umpires in the England-Pak series in Pakistan gave Inzimam runout when he was evading the ball thrown by Harmison. This was not even a situation where they had to make a split second decision, it was referred to the third umpire, and in that time not one of the four umpires or the match referee realized that this was a wrong appeal. Absolutely, categorically against their precious rules of cricket, but was any of them reprimanded? Did they lose 50% or 100% of their match fees for glaring incompetence? No. This has to change.
You have the authority to accuse a team of cheating, making them liars and cheats in the public opinion without ANY avenue of appeals until after the match is done and dusted. Only after that you have a closed door meeting and things are decided. But by then even if the accused party comes out clean, it is TOO BLOODY LATE. They have already been branded cheats and this is contrary to all social laws. The rules of cricket deem you to be guilty until proven innocent, and that has to change.
No matter what comes out of the ICC in this regard on Friday, I would really like the Pakistan camp to listen to Imran Khan and take Hair to court. He set the precedent when he sued Botham and Lamb for libel and won in court. This needs to be done immediately. Rules of cricket be damned at this point, this goes much beyond cricket in my opinion. Inzimam and Pakistan can pay whatever bans and fines come their way for the forfeiture, but when they win in court (as they will) then maybe something will be done about the precious rules.
 
Last edited:
nightprowler10 said:
Then you must've missed out on the reports that followed, which showed clearly that by law Inzi could not have been given out in that situation.

My mistake, I wasn't aware that there was such a rule; Sorry!

You learn something new everyday don't you?
 
I agree with a few people on the attitude thing as well.

England reverse swing an old ball = fantastic/brilliant players.

Pakistan reverse swing an old ball = cheats.

I guess I made the mistake of thinking that these prejudiced views were not around anymore.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top