|
|
Post by Acumen on Aug 20, 2006 18:32:12 GMT
|
|
webs
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by webs on Aug 21, 2006 8:40:13 GMT
Umpires do not make the Laws. It is my opinion that the Umpires carried out the LAWS (not rules to be altered) to the letter. I cannot see any other way that the Umpires (both of them not just one) could have altered their decisions. They carried out the Laws of Cricket. For any Umpire to disagree with what the Umpires did needs to continue to read the Laws of Cricket.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnchartres on Aug 21, 2006 9:03:24 GMT
I was appalled by the ignorance of the Laws by all press and radio/TV commentators- I would expect them to display greater professional competence
Had I been in the happy position of umpiring a Test, I might have applied 'Law 43' myself in the process, as I am sure many first-class umpires do, but if, as I assume is the case, the umpires agreed that the ball had been tampered with, and it is surely a team view of the two, subsequently supported by the other two, then they applied the Law correctly. Whether you agree with the Law or not is irrelevant. The Law was introduced to cope with a problem in the game, and people should ask themselves why it was needed.
Where there may have been a problem was in communications after the end of the tea interval, where Pakistan wre clearly either imprecise or slow in responding to the umpires' question of whether they were refusing to play. Again, I wonder whether 'Law 43' should have been applied again, and a little longer given absolutely to make sure Parkistan were so refusing.
John Chartres
|
|
peterg
Regular Contributor
Posts: 11
|
Post by peterg on Aug 21, 2006 9:13:30 GMT
I basically agree with the previous contributor. But there are a couple of factual points on which I am still unclear, even after wading through this morning's media coverage.
Is it true that just as the umpires were returning to the pavilion for the first time, the Pakistan team were about to come out on to the field?
Is it true that the Pakistan team had TWO chances to come out on to the field? The first one mentioned above, and a second when the umpires and the two English batsmen waited on the field together?
If the answer to the first question is yes, should the two umpires have shown commonsense and allowed the Pakistan team to take the field?
If the answer to the second question is yes, then didn't the Pakistan team blow their big chance to get the match going?
When the deal to resume play was brokered between the two teams, it was the umpires who refused to continue by sticking to the laws and regulations. When umpiring at our lower levels, don't we all have occasion to use commonsense rather than sticking to the letter of the laws?
But here the question is whether the two umpires could afford to show "commonsense" under the glare of publicity and world attention. I think that once things had got so far, the umpires had to insist on sticking to the laws and the regulations.
Or it needed a representative of the ICB to tell the umpires that on this occasion the laws and regulations could be waived. The umpires could not make that decision themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by wisden17 on Aug 21, 2006 13:29:31 GMT
As there appears to be some confusion as to what actually happened, let me summarise.
The umpires walked out onto the Field of Play after an early tea (which had been taken due to B.L.S.P) and as the light had now improved play could re-commence.
At this point the England batsmen were ready and waiting to take to the field, but, as is usual, were waiting for the fielding side (Pakistan) to take to the field first. It became clear that Pakistan would not be taking to the field of play, and so the umpires walked off.
As the umpires were walking off, and at the boundary's edge, 3 members of the Pakistan team (including their captain) walked out of their dressing room. It was not clear if they were preparing to take to the field or not.
Apparently, the umpires then warned both captains that their actions were being considered refusals to play and that if they continued in their actions the match would have to be abandoned.
The umpires, 10 minutes later, then took to the field again. This time the England batsmen walked out with them (thus to show they were willing to play). At this time the Pakistan wicket-keeper was seen sitting on the players balcony, without his pads or gloves on, reading the paper. The umpires waited a short while (2-3 minutes) and there was no sign of Pakistan appearing.
Darrell Hair can then be seen asking the two England batsmen if they are "ready to play". When the batsmen, obviously, answer yes, the two umpires remove the bails from the stumps (thus signifying, that they have awarded the match, under Law 21.3).
About 30 minutes later (following the ECB and PCB having discussions) the Pakistan team took to the field. Obviously the umpires did not appear (as they had already awarded the match) and so after a minute or so the Pakistan team returned to their dressing room.
The PCB's Chariman, Mr. Khan then gave interviews stating that both teams were ready and willing to play, but that the umpires were now not ready/willing.
It took 4 hours before the situation was resolved, and everyone ''agreed' with what had happened.
So Pakistan had a clear opportunity to come to the field of play, but they refused to do so. Thus the umpires were correct to award the match under Law 21.3. The issue about Law 43 doesn't really come in here. The umpires gave Pakistan a clear chance to continue the game and they refused. Mr. Khan appeared to suggest that the team had not decided what to do at the point when the umpires took to the field for a second time. The umpires gave the team sufficient time in my opinion for them to decide whether to continue or not (and it would be ridiculous to suggest that the umpires should have waited longer than they did for the team to decide).
|
|
peterg
Regular Contributor
Posts: 11
|
Post by peterg on Aug 21, 2006 15:20:28 GMT
This is a very clear and helpful account, which does a lot to show that (a) the umpires acted with punctilious correctness and (b) the Pakistan side pushed their protest further than their spokesman claimed.
There is one point of detail that is important: in paragraph five, the writer says that "apparently" the umpires warned both sides that their actions would be considered "refusals to play".
If the Pakistan side really were warned in this way, then they appear to have been bent on confrontation.
Can the writer enlighten us as to the strength of "apparently"? Is this for sure, or not?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Doc Sutton on Aug 21, 2006 16:14:53 GMT
From the recent comments your points are swaying from the fact: refer to LAW 21 3a i & ii.
From the days event, which I watch, the Umpires both carried out the LAW as per ICC.
My View, this LAW 21 and a few others, because they not enforced very often need to be looked at again and either modified or changed.
Points raised ie Damaged to ball in play, surely a sensible view would have invoked LAW 5 sec:5 which as reported the Ball In Play had completed 56 overs then I would have thought a change of ball within the Law-5 would have been a better solution.
Doc. ACU&S
|
|
|
|
Post by wisden17 on Aug 21, 2006 16:53:32 GMT
Let me respond to my use of the word "apparently". The reason why I have put this is that this is what I have read happened, from a number of different sources. All of the rest was visible on the TV broadcast, which I saw live.
|
|
johnump
Regular Contributor
Posts: 18
|
Post by johnump on Aug 21, 2006 18:53:45 GMT
This incident could have been dealt with much better by using proper man-management. Someone like Simon Taufel or Aleem Dar would have spoken to Inzy about the ball and the situation would have been dealt with and nothing more would have come of it. I personally feel that Darrell Hair hasn't approached the situation in the right manner and has further made the situation worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by nompere on Aug 21, 2006 18:53:47 GMT
The TV picture I saw on the news last night appeared to show that the seam was rather prominent on one side. Did anyone get a better look? Are there any other pictures on the internet?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nobby on Aug 21, 2006 19:17:37 GMT
The umpires were spot on. If they thought that the ball had been tampered with, get it changed and bang in a five run penalty.
I'm sure it's not something that was taken lightly.
Pakistan have always favoured "gamesmanship" and they appear to have taken the huff when caught in the act by an umpire bold enough to do something about it.
I'm pleased that the authorities have backed up the umpires actions by calling the Test a win by forfeit. Pakistan should be banned from International cricket for at least 12 months. Doing something like this will make all sides think twice about doing something "a little naughty".
I found it ironic that the coverage on Sky had Michael Atherton giving his two pennorth. He magically forgot to mention the furore caused when he tampered with the ball by having a pocket full of dirt. That must not be cheating! Also, Nasser Hussein was very vocal in his opinions. I think he was one of the biggest cheats ever to take to the field and I have never liked him. He is the only bad thing about Sky Sports, particularly as he backed the Pakistanis in the current shenanigans. Once a cheat....etc.
|
|
johnump
Regular Contributor
Posts: 18
|
Post by johnump on Aug 21, 2006 19:31:01 GMT
When did Nasser Hussain cheat??? Have you any evidence??
|
|
|
|
Post by nompere on Aug 22, 2006 7:41:04 GMT
|
|
peterg
Regular Contributor
Posts: 11
|
Post by peterg on Aug 22, 2006 9:26:10 GMT
A theme is emerging in media comments to the effect that Daryl Hair was too intransigent in the way he handled the initial incident. By contrast, it is said, a younger umpire such as Simon Taufel might have "had a quiet word" with Inzamam rather than invoke the ball-tampering procedure.
Do members believe there was space for an umpire to have dealt with this informally, using the "have a quiet word" method rather than the full force of the cricket laws?
At our level of umpiring we are advised in some circumstances to use this informal approach as a preliminary step before getting into formal procedures, although I know that not all umpires agree with this.
But could this approach have been used at a test match subject to the full glare of media attention and publicity?
|
|
|
|
Post by johnfgolding on Aug 22, 2006 11:38:43 GMT
What is interesting are two things in what is now a media led circus.
Firstly the BBC reporter kept referring to the fact that "If the Umpire had kept to the Spirit of the Game" - She or her researchers have obviously not read the rules.
Secondly was how quickly Michael Atherton jumped in as David Gower was reading from a list of famous recent incidents of ball tampering, probabaly just before his name came up.
It is obvious the letter of the law was adhered to. What is not obvious from the coverage, and will not until after the ICC has held its hearings is whether the Umpires - lets not forget there were two of them - had expressed concern about the state of the ball before they actually took action.
What is positive is that the ICC actually backed the Umpires, when they must have been under enourmous media ans political pressure.
|
|
