johnump
Regular Contributor
Posts: 18
|
Post by johnump on Aug 22, 2006 12:28:27 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? Yes I think a quiet word would have been possible and even if the cameras had picked up this quiet word its better than a forfeited Test Match and all the hullabaloo that has occured because of it.
|
|
|
Post by johnfgolding on Aug 22, 2006 12:37:31 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? I find that the quiet word works almost everytime.
|
|
|
Post by fatpunter on Aug 22, 2006 18:19:28 GMT
Nasser Hussein cheated every time that he edged the ball to the keeper and did not walk, also when he appealed knowing the batsman was not out. That is cheating.
However, he has never cheated by tampering with the ball (that I am aware of). Michael Atherton and the Pakistanis are the guys for this style of cheating.
|
|
johnump
Regular Contributor
Posts: 18
|
Post by johnump on Aug 22, 2006 18:51:13 GMT
Nasser Hussein cheated every time that he edged the ball to the keeper and did not walk, also when he appealed knowing the batsman was not out. That is cheating. However, he has never cheated by tampering with the ball (that I am aware of). Michael Atherton and the Pakistanis are the guys for this style of cheating. Almost every Test player does that so are you accusing all of them of being cheaters??? Accusing someone of cheating is a strong and offensive thing to do as this incident has shown.
|
|
|
Post by umpire50 on Aug 22, 2006 21:38:40 GMT
I'm confused by the comment by peterg about 'having a quiet word'. If the ball had been tampered with when the umpires inspected it, then surely it was too late to have a 'quiet word'.
|
|
|
Post by jwar7200 on Aug 22, 2006 22:26:07 GMT
As an umpire/administrator of a cricket association the I.C.C. must appoint the umpire Darrell Hair to the next test match. Politics and money must not get in the way as the laws and interpretations are made by an outside body. Umpire is only doing his role as players and captains have their role and must abide by the laws of the game. The captain and team management should have taken to field by the required time and lodged their protest after the game had finished not stay off the field. Cricket is the winner if all involved play by the rules as the umpire in question has done.
|
|
|
Post by n01dukeuk on Aug 22, 2006 22:37:35 GMT
Pakistan should not try to alter the Laws to suit one match.
|
|
|
Post by B A JAMULA on Aug 23, 2006 7:12:58 GMT
It was indeed a sad day for cricket. A lot has been said that with so many cameras nothing was seen by any camera on changing the condition of the ball. Well there has been many instances where replays have not helped reach a decission, the latest was during India/West Indese match where reply could not conclude if Dhoni of India was caught inside the boundary line or not and ICC had to come out with a guide line how to deal with such incidents in future. In my opinion in view of this Pakistan defence that nothing was seen on camera and hence they are not guilty in not tenable. Umpire alone has to decide. No where are umpires to refer such matter to anyone else. The other painfull matter is that the refusal to play is being justified in name of Pakistan county's honour. No one has said such thing and it is a feeble attemt to get out of the mess of thier creation. When Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid were sucpinded for Changing the condition no one shouted about India country's honour, but took the ban in their stride. The umpires have upheld the laws of the game and need to be commended and suppoted. well done you two men you have made the umpire's community prould by beeing upright. Icc must fully support them. B A Jamula First Class umpire and ACUS Overseas Instructer India
|
|
|
Post by Tim Flavell on Aug 23, 2006 8:13:56 GMT
If the cricket community want the laws changing so that a warning is given for ball tampering then so be it. At the moment no warning is issued the umpires TOGETHER decided that the ball had been tampered with and applied the law as required. No proof is required.
|
|
|
Post by fatpunter on Aug 23, 2006 18:28:17 GMT
Following on to what I have already said, basically everyone who has hit a ball and has not walked is a cheat. Everyone who appeals knowing that the batsman is not out is a cheat. Anyone who scuffs a ball is a cheat. If the Pakistanis have been caught changing the condition of the ball then the Pakistan Test team are cheats and as head Pakistani Test cricketer, Inzaman is responsible for his team and is therefore the biggest cheat of the lot.
It's about time that all this "gamesmanship" was brought to book and clamped down on. Three cheers to Mr Hair for being bold enough to do something about it. The Pakistanis have been cheating, they got caught and they didn't like getting caught because they have been doing it for years and getting away with it.
After all. it's just a game. Isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by swerveman on Aug 24, 2006 13:35:50 GMT
|
|
peterg
Regular Contributor
Posts: 11
|
Post by peterg on Aug 25, 2006 18:19:59 GMT
What do members feel about Daryl Hair's offer to resign in return for a payoff of $500,000? Does this not call his judgment into question?
|
|
|
Post by fatpunter on Aug 25, 2006 18:33:05 GMT
It certainly gives a new slant to peoples views of the charade.
|
|
|
Post by umpire50 on Aug 26, 2006 8:46:36 GMT
Now I have chance overnight to digest the contents of Darrell Hair's e-mail (It has been placed in the public domain by theICC!), I remain unconvinced that Darrell actually initiated his offer. The preamble indicates that he had been in discussion with Doug Cowie earlier, and the text leads me to believe that the wording may have been dictated to Darrell over the telephone - witness the use of the words "retain a" instead of "retainer".
I do not agree that this calls his judgement into question because it seems to me that, far from finding Inzamam-Il-Haq innocent (as some of the media would have you believe), this suggestion was made in the wider interests of the future of cricket (Darrell Hair not to comment publicly on the issue) without putting his financial future at risk (the amount was only what he would expect to receive from the ICC until his contract runs out).
|
|
|
Post by fatpunter on Aug 26, 2006 10:10:22 GMT
The fact remains that the Pakistanis were caught tampering with the ball.
The Darrell Hair emails scanario does not detract from this fact.
Personally, I believe that Darrell has taken his position as now being untenable and was looking for some kind of redundancy/pension. I may be wrong.
It is very sad that an umpire cannot use the laws of cricket as they are written without having to retire because some other people do not like his opinion.
Also, why have we never heard anything from Billy Doctrove. As the other umpire surely he is jointly seen to have made the original decision.
Just a thought.
|
|