Thread: It's Just Not Cricket

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie

And allow them to carry on using a ball that the umpire believes has been tampered with? You must be joking.

Your missing the point you can't alter the appearence of cricket ball in an over the early signs are there and do not affect the way the ball behaves.

Did first-innings tricks alert Hair?
By Derek Pringle

(Filed: 30/08/2006)






One of the main unexplainedmysteries of Hairgate is why the burly umpire picked the moment he did, at the end of the 56th over, to change the ball in England's second innings.
After all, he had been able to inspect it at the fall of Alastair Cook's wicket 20 minutes earlier, which doesn't leave a huge amount of time to abrade a cricket ball with fingernails alone.
One answer that has come to light, via the usual information creep, is that the ball Pakistan used in England's first innings displayed such obvious signs of tampering (much more than the ball the umpires eventually changed) that Hair, at least in his own mind, needed only slender evidence in the second innings to pounce.
A ball prepared for reverse-swing on the Thursday of the Oval Test, whether legally or illegally, would certainly explain many things, not least why Pakistan bowlers Mohammad Asif and Umar Gul suddenly began to swing a ball 45 overs old around corners later that day.
It would also explain why Hair plunged in on the Sunday afternoon without the slightest thought that he might be being a bit hasty, and why he cited the whole team (the reason captain Inzamam-ul-Haq is facing the rap) rather than any single individual. It is as if the umpires never saw any one moment or person to pin it on, but that the end product was beyond doubt.
Asif, considered to be something of a swing genius by his team-mates at Leicestershire, finished with four for 56 in England's first innings. While three of those wickets were taken early on, when the ball moved off seam, it was an over to Steve Harmison in the afternoon, which saw the ball swing both ways, that aroused suspicion in the England camp.
The clincher though was probably the beauty from Gul that uprooted Monty Panesar's stumps first ball. That swung into the left-hander very late, something Gul replicated to a lesser degree when he had Cook lbw in the second innings.
Suspicion is not hard evidence though, which is why several England players were seen using binoculars to see if they could spot the methods being used once England's second innings was under way after tea on the Saturday.
Of chief interest to the spotters would have been Asif's methods of polishing the ball, which he does with both hands on both thighs, though not at the same time. The mystery though is that a red stripe (the usual sign that a ball is being polished) appears only on his left thigh and not his right.
An eagle-eyed Daily Telegraph reader, who had watched TV pictures closely, e-mailed to say that Asif appeared to have a square patch sewn on to his right thigh. However, a closer inspection of photographs taken during the Test showed it to be nothing more sinister than a plaster covering up a sponsor's logo, something that most bowlers have.
Hard evidence of what goes on between members of the fielding side between balls is sketchy and Sky Sports, despite having 25 cameras at the ground during Test matches, claim to have no "interesting" footage to speak of.
That is plausible, especially as footage not used in the main broadcast does not tend to get saved. Also, modern coverage tends to offer replays, graphics, as well as adoring vignettes of the commentary team, rather than lingering shots on bowlers walking back to their mark, as used to be the case.
Proof seems to be what Pakistan want though the International Cricket Council claim that the judgment of cricket experts will suffice, which is why their match referees are all former Test players who have been around the block.
If that is the case, Mike Procter, the man in that particular hot seat at the Oval, could still play a significant role, though the moment he should have acted was on that Sunday evening before the Test was officially forfeited by Pakistan.
If the ball used in England's first innings does show the tell-tale signs of tampering, it would probably not be called at Inzamam's hearing, scheduled for late September.
His lawyers would want to know, for instance, why the umpires did not report it at the time, a lack of disclosure sure to prejudice the ICC's case.
That likelihood may explain why Hair, lacking strong evidence save for a ball obviously tinkered with during England's first innings, made the moves he did in asking the ICC for $500,000 severance pay. It also suggests that he went out in the second innings to fit Pakistan up for a "crime" committed earlier in the Test match.
At this juncture I must confess that I do not see ball tampering as the evil that batsmen and other moralisers do. Provided outside agents such as bottle tops and knives are not used to alter the condition of the ball, I am with the Pakistan coach, Bob Woolmer, in liberalising the laws on ball tampering.
Unfortunately, those running the game, and most of its stakeholders, prefer to see bat dominate ball, so common sense isn't like to prevail any time soon.

Originally Posted by Troubled

I still stand by what i psoted earlier Inzaman will be found not guilty of ball tampering and guilty of bringing the game into disrepute.

Gasp. Right for possibly the first time this year. I wil need to sit down and have a cold beer or two
Inzaman is banned for 4 1 day internationals

BBC SPORT | Cricket | International Teams | Pakistan | Disrepute ban for skipper Inzamam

Originally Posted by Little Chuchok

Di I must confess that I do not see ball tampering as the evil that batsmen and other moralisers do. Provided outside agents such as bottle tops and knives are not used to alter the condition of the ball, I am with the Pakistan coach, Bob Woolmer, in liberalising the laws on ball tampering.
Unfortunately, those running the game, and most of its stakeholders, prefer to see bat dominate ball, so common sense isn't like to prevail any time soon.

thats shite - the game is all about how can the bowler move the ball by the bowling action such that he can intimidate the batsmen to restrict his game and thus runs scored or wickets falling - or the batsmen getting into a bowlers head by hitting him around the ground, and thus scoring said runs.

If you allow ball tampering then its called UNFAIR advantage.

Aussie umpire hair will now not be umpiring in the forcoming Icc champions trophy after Pakistan found not guilty of ball tampering in the 4 test at the Oval

Originally Posted by Troubled

What I found amusing is that after the furore had calmed down the Pakistani team asked for the game to be declared null and void as they were in an "unassailable position" when the incident occured.
Did anyone on their side think this thing through or was it the Thai team out there in their place?

Perhaps they thought if they stamped their feet long and loud enough they would get their own way. They must be professional sportsmen

u obviously havent played cricket with the indian and paki teams here .... IMO - they are FAAAAAAAAAAAAR worse than a thai team could ever be.

cheat, moan and groan, carry on, friends and cousins get games instead of teh best player etc etc.

and its a well known (fact) that CAT (cricket assoc. thai) is corrupt ...