Cricket Yesterday

I was actually at the Oval yesterday and up until the tea interval it was a thoroughly enjoyable day.
However I think the blame lies entirely with the umpires on this.

Firstly there has been no TV evidence that any member of the Pakistan team tampered with the ball. It was 56 overs old already when they awarded England 5 runs. By this point it has been smashed around for quite a few hours and any amount of damage could have been caused.

The Pakistan team were only registering a protest after tea for 5 minutes after tea and were always ready to continue playing. However due to the "timing out" law they then had to forfeit the game This law is fairly new and it appears that no-one in their team was aware of it's existence.

At this point the umpires should have informed them of this and it seems at no point this happened. A quick word in the ear should have solved this.

Finally why would Pakistan tamper with the ball at a point when they were an innings and a hundred runs ahead of England and totally on top of the whole game?

Darryl Hair has alot to answer for in my view.

Posted By: Cat and Canary on August 21st 2006 at 09:56:21

Message Thread

Cricket Yesterday (General Chat) - Cat and Canary, Aug 21, 09:56:21
- There was little information being given at the ground (General Chat) - Cat and Canary, Aug 21, 10:16:49
  - I've taken the umpiring qualification...... (General Chat) - InTheAbsenceOfAHorse, Aug 21, 10:19:19
    - Pity Darryl Hair hasn't n/m (n/m) (General Chat) - Cat and Canary, Aug 21, 10:20:45
- refund available for yesterday (General Chat) - shoddy, Aug 21, 10:13:32
- not correct (General Chat) - fal5taff, Aug 21, 10:13:00
  - Can't agree with that....... (General Chat) - InTheAbsenceOfAHorse, Aug 21, 10:15:07
    - Hm.....well I think things are generally better dealt with on a cricket field (General Chat) - fal5taff, Aug 21, 10:28:58
    - Is that correct within the laws of the game? (General Chat) - BerlinCanary, Aug 21, 10:20:28
      - There has to be evidence of tampering. What that evidence is isn't stated. (General Chat) - InTheAbsenceOfAHorse, Aug 21, 10:24:44
        
        Fair enough. (General Chat) - BerlinCanary, Aug 21, 10:31:13
        
        The protest came about as a result of the umpires report to Mike Proctor the match referee (General Chat) - InTheAbsenceOfAHorse, Aug 21, 10:39:17
        
        Aha - that explains that (General Chat) - BerlinCanary, Aug 21, 10:42:14
        
        what if an umpire sees ball tampering? (General Chat) - mr carra, Aug 21, 10:29:00
        
        What if it was a game in the local park? (General Chat) - InTheAbsenceOfAHorse, Aug 21, 10:37:38
        
        The penalty runs thing is new then? When did they introduce that? (General Chat) - BerlinCanary, Aug 21, 10:40:43
        
        not sure - must be fairly recently (General Chat) - mr carra, Aug 21, 10:46:08
        
        As I said, you don't have to have seen anyone. (General Chat) - InTheAbsenceOfAHorse, Aug 21, 10:49:48
        
        could have been done by a fan though (General Chat) - mr carra, Aug 21, 10:57:23
        
        The ball is inspected regularly. (General Chat) - InTheAbsenceOfAHorse, Aug 21, 11:01:35
        
        as long as they change the ball England aren't really treated unfairly though (General Chat) - mr carra, Aug 21, 11:11:44
        
        But Pakistan are. (General Chat) - InTheAbsenceOfAHorse, Aug 21, 11:14:56
        
        Balls are regularly changed at the request of the fielding side..... (General Chat) - InTheAbsenceOfAHorse, Aug 21, 10:43:14
        
        Interesting - have there really been enough instances of ball-tampering to justify it? (General Chat) - BerlinCanary, Aug 21, 11:03:45
        
        it seems pointless (General Chat) - mr carra, Aug 21, 11:14:40
        
        It's there to provide some summary justice, to show that it's not allowed. (General Chat) - InTheAbsenceOfAHorse, Aug 21, 11:16:19
        
        You have to have some penalty. (General Chat) - InTheAbsenceOfAHorse, Aug 21, 11:10:10
        
        2003. (n/m) (General Chat) - InTheAbsenceOfAHorse, Aug 21, 10:46:33
        
        Although I will check my Tom Smith again as to what constitutes evidence. (n/m) (General Chat) - InTheAbsenceOfAHorse, Aug 21, 10:27:06
- Your understanding of the laws of cricket is somewhat wrong. (General Chat) - InTheAbsenceOfAHorse, Aug 21, 10:11:18
  - And a lack of TV evidence does not mean that something was not seen by the umpires..... (n/m) (General Chat) - InTheAbsenceOfAHorse, Aug 21, 10:13:04
- One can only presume that the umpires will present some damning evidence (General Chat) - The Judge, Aug 21, 10:06:25
- I'm sorry i disagree (General Chat) - Jim, Aug 21, 10:06:02
  - Yep, totally agree with Jim (General Chat) - LincolnshireCanary, Aug 21, 10:09:21

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.