can nice guys tamper with balls?
subi...@hotmail.com
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/jan/06/england-accused-cheating-third-test
StraightDrive
"subi...@hotmail.com" <sub...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c89664d1-b242-4b35...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> esp if he is the golden boy of the icc?
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/jan/06/england-accused-cheating-third-test
Yes they can and get away with it too if they are Caucasian......
GS
"subi...@hotmail.com" <sub...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c89664d1-b242-4b35...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/jan/06/england-accused-cheating-third-test
South Africans crying about cheating LOL - if the SA team had thought they
had a leg to stand on they'd have made an official complaint, instead they
dropped the matter now De Villiers goes crying to the media trying to make
excuses for the last test showing himself to be a petty minded loser.
Will S
"subi...@hotmail.com" <sub...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c89664d1-b242-4b35...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> esp if he is the golden boy of the icc?
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/jan/06/england-accused-cheating-third-test
if it was a Pakistani that did that I reckon it would get a lot more comment
arahim
> esp if he is the golden boy of the icc?
>
The last para is interesting:
Cook said that England's bowlers deserved to be recognised for their
skills, and not placed under suspicion. He said: "We've been trying to
find ways of getting the opposition out abroad when the Kookaburra
[ball] goes flat, and the lads have been very skilled and put in a lot
of hard work with [bowling coach] Ottis Gibson to become better
reverse-swingers of the ball."
Considering that this is the side that raised hell for Wasim and Waqar
reversing.
Also interesting that it is the same side that had a problem with a
pirouette on a pitch (at least the ground is for walking) but
pirouettes on a ball are apparently ok. Probably ICC and the match
referees too need to look at what the penalty for a pirouette on the
pitch were and what has been reported here.
See video 1 starting at 7:50 onwards.
http://cricket-online.tv/england-vs-south-africa-day-4-highlights-3rd-test-cape-town/
arahim
> On Jan 6, 9:31 pm, "subi...@hotmail.com" <subi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > esp if he is the golden boy of the icc?
>
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/jan/06/england-accused-cheating-...
>
> The last para is interesting:
> Cook said that England's bowlers deserved to be recognised for their
> skills, and not placed under suspicion. He said: "We've been trying to
> find ways of getting the opposition out abroad when the Kookaburra
> [ball] goes flat, and the lads have been very skilled and put in a lot
> of hard work with [bowling coach] Ottis Gibson to become better
> reverse-swingers of the ball."
>
> Considering that this is the side that raised hell for Wasim and Waqar
> reversing.
>
> Also interesting that it is the same side that had a problem with a
> pirouette on a pitch (at least the ground is for walking) but
> pirouettes on a ball are apparently ok. Probably ICC and the match
> referees too need to look at what the penalty for a pirouette on the
> pitch were and what has been reported here.
>
>
> See video 1 starting at 7:50 onwards.http://cricket-online.tv/england-vs-south-africa-day-4-highlights-3rd...
See how the ball is covered by one hand while the other is used to do
something:) You can even sort of see one finger seperate from the
others on the seam:)
Unknown
<arahim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 7, 11:03=A0am, arahim <arahim_ara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> See video 1 starting at 7:50 onwards.http://cricket-online.tv/england-vs-=
>south-africa-day-4-highlights-3rd...
>
>See how the ball is covered by one hand while the other is used to do
>something:) You can even sort of see one finger seperate from the
>others on the seam:)
See how the ball is held in one hand and polished with the other.
You can even sort of see his legs moving too.
I know what exactly what he's doing with the ball. He certainly isn't
scratching the surface, or picking the seam. He is altering the
condition of the ball, or maybe not, it depends on how you regard his
actions. Considering you don't seem to know what or why he is doing
it, you couldn't possibly have an opinion.
Do you know what he is doing with the ball? It isn't rocket science.
In fact it is clear from the clip.
arahim
> >On Jan 7, 11:03=A0am, arahim <arahim_ara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> See video 1 starting at 7:50 onwards.http://cricket-online.tv/england-vs-=
> >south-africa-day-4-highlights-3rd...
>
> >See how the ball is covered by one hand while the other is used to do
> >something:) You can even sort of see one finger seperate from the
> >others on the seam:)
>
> See how the ball is held in one hand and polished with the other.
> You can even sort of see his legs moving too.
>
> I know what exactly what he's doing with the ball. He certainly isn't
> scratching the surface, or picking the seam. He is altering the
> condition of the ball, or maybe not, it depends on how you regard his
> actions. Considering you don't seem to know what or why he is doing
> it, you couldn't possibly have an opinion.
>
But Hair could with no evidence while here at least we see spikes on
the ball, a very scratched ball, and a very strage grip to hold the
ball for shining:)
Unknown
<arahim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 7, 12:04=A0pm, (max.it) wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:08:21 -0800 (PST), arahim
>>
>> <arahim_ara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 7, 11:03=3DA0am, arahim <arahim_ara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> See video 1 starting at 7:50 onwards.http://cricket-online.tv/england-=
>vs-=3D
>> >south-africa-day-4-highlights-3rd...
>>
>> >See how the ball is covered by one hand while the other is used to do
>> >something:) You can even sort of see one finger seperate from the
>> >others on the seam:)
>>
>> See how the ball is held in one hand and polished with the other.
>> You can even sort of see his legs moving too.
>>
>> I know what exactly what he's doing with the ball. He certainly isn't
>> scratching the surface, or picking the seam. He is altering the
>> condition of the ball, or maybe not, it depends on how you regard his
>> actions. Considering you don't seem to know what or why he is doing
>> it, you couldn't possibly have an opinion.
>>
>
>But Hair could with no evidence while here at least we see spikes on
>the ball, a very scratched ball, and a very strage grip to hold the
>ball for shining:)
He's trying to keep the seam proud. That breed of ball has a seam that
flattens very quickly. The ball used in England has a much more
prominent seam. The idea is to polish really heavily around the edge
of the seam, in order to keep it as proud as possible. I don't think
it works, but you see some bowlers at it as if they are trying to
screw the ball apart. You could call it unfairly altering the
condition of the ball, but I bet they call it preserving the condition
of the ball.
dechucka
"arahim" <arahim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f54e6b47-1f70-4e20...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
==============================================================
and you have got to the bottom of the problem. Nobody is going to accuse
anybody of ball tampering without absolute 200% proof including but not
limited to a written confession by the perpetrator and his whole team, the
teams Mums, the Head of State signed and sworn before the Pope/s and
spirituals leaders of all the religions in the world. The reason the
disgusting behavior of the Pakistan team and subsequent disgusting action
against one of the two umpires involved.
Nirvanam
Max, are you defending Broad / Anderson? Or are you saying that it is
obvious they were 'working the ball' / tampering?
I, for one, would allow such working (not the shoe spikes though)
because maintaining a ball is an art in its own. What I don't like is
the continuous accusations of Pakistan "tampering" but whereas when
someone else does it they are "working the ball"
jzfredricks
> What I don't like is
> the continuous accusations of Pakistan "tampering" but whereas when
> someone else does it they are "working the ball"
They get called cowards more than they do cheats. They would have
shown more honour had they played on and argued their case AFTER the
game, rather than have a sook and stay off the field.
arahim
This is blatantly incorrect. First you can easily do a search for oh
let's say this forum, then let's say for cricinfo then let's say the
internet. Most journalists or people would have used neither term
whether they agreed or disagreed with the position of the pakistani
team. Then you have a very large number of opinions and just do a
count on how much the word cheat and how much the word coward is used.
You are incorrect. If anyone was in a winning position in that game it
was Pakistan. By taking the action that they did they only had
something to lose (at best a drawn game at worst much worse). The
cowardly thing would have been to do what"everybody" else wanted you
to do if there was going to be anything cowardly at all. Those who
argue that the act was wrong can argue that but accept to say it in
frustration or anger or plain hate there was nothing cowardly nor
would the number of times it has been used comes close to cheat.
Second the idiots like dechucka now tell us that it is because of that
that no umpire would now call it while on the other hand they argue
that the as they say "pakis are cheats" so what's the problem in a
match that does not involve Pakistan? Surely all the non-cheat upright
British and Australian players would have employ the stiff upper lip.
dechucka
dechucka
"arahim" <arahim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6b03be6c-21b6-4c67...@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
===================================================
My argument is that Umpires will not make the tough decisions because of
the lack of support they receive from the ICC. If we now want to discuss the
disgraceful behavior on the occasion of Hair and Doctrove calling Pakistan
for ball tampering we can.
Unknown
<viz.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 8, 1:39=A0am, (max.it) wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:17:13 -0800 (PST), arahim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <arahim_ara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 7, 12:04=3DA0pm, (max.it) wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:08:21 -0800 (PST), arahim
>>
>> >> <arahim_ara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Jan 7, 11:03=3D3DA0am, arahim <arahim_ara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> See video 1 starting at 7:50 onwards.http://cricket-online.tv/engla=
>nd-=3D
>> >vs-=3D3D
I'm just saying what we have seen, and trying to keep an eye on the
law at the same time..
I've said this in another thread. The law has been transgressed if the
action is "likely to alter the condition of the match ball". Broad's
shoe certainly is obvious, the fielder is a little less clear as it
falls into a grey polishing or shining area of the law. However if the
umpires had decided that both incidents were transgressing the law,
then there would have been 10 penalty runs, two new balls, and the
bowler in action at the time of the 2nd transgression would have been
taken off.
What is needed is clarity and consistency. It's been 9 years now since
the 2000 revamp of the laws, and the first "big" introduction to law
42 was Pakistan through Hair and Billy Doctrove. Didn't everyone
handle that one well - not
>
>I, for one, would allow such working (not the shoe spikes though)
>because maintaining a ball is an art in its own. What I don't like is
>the continuous accusations of Pakistan "tampering" but whereas when
>someone else does it they are "working the ball"
Give a dog a bad name. I live only a few miles from the dog fighting
capital of probably the world. and I keep bull terriers. I don't fight
them, they are both pets, but when I'm walking on the street with them
people get offside, and other dog owners cross the road. Sometimes you
get an asshole who doesn't restrain his dog (I always keep mine on a
lead) and then he lets his doggie get too close to mine barking and
stuff. Now, if one of my bull terriers grab the molesting dog (it only
takes one bite of those big jaws), even though my dogs are restrained,
they will get the blame. The cry would be "should have been muzzled"
or should have had a halti harness on.
Of course it is clear that the out of control dog is the one who was
bitten, but such is public opinion the bull terrier will be blamed.
I think Pakistan have a similar problem. Give a dog a bad name.
arahim
The only cowardly act, which largely remained unnoticed, was from the
England camp in sending Fletcher to Proctor in a clandestine meeting.
If there were concerns both teams reps should have been called in to
the match referee. Proctor and Hair just acted as instruments. ICC has
never conducted a full investigation of it or at least has not made it
public. The other cowardly act if any was on the part of Proctor in
the spineless manner he acted against Hair. He was in negotiations
with the Pakistan team when the match was "forfeited". It was either
his duty not to negotiate with them and to tell them to go out or if
he was in negotiation then to hold things at a standstill until he
resolved one way or the other.
dechucka
=============================================
When Proctor was in "negotiation" the game was well over. It was over since
the Pakistani team refused to play and the bails were removed. Stick to the
Laws of the game
Nirvanam
Na na...you are arguing on a specific instance. I am talking about in
general...consider the stupid rant of Vettori after losing the T20
semi final implying things. Right from the 90s when Pakistan do it
they are immediately chastised but when murray mints happens the
reaction is 'what an ingenious way of maintaining the ball'.
Of course there are allegations even against Indians like Denness'
stupidity and Dravid's chewing gum incident. But generally the media,
commentators, etc don't go on and on about it (maybe prevention
against losing out by upsetting BCCI in some way or the other?). And
the reactions when any other team does it also is similarly subdued.
But Pak always gets a raw deal.
If Broad was not trying to alter the ball illegally, then I don't know
what people were watching. Common sense tell any bowler that stopping
a ball by landing your foot on it will probably result in a
McGrathesque injury. For a fast bowler to consciously use that as a
way of stopping the ball when there was no pressure of a run being
taken is rather obvious.
Come on JZ, Broad knew what he was doing.
Nirvanam
> "arahim" <arahim_ara...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Dechucka, in case you are trying to defend Hair's rather obvious
stupidity of making the decision that he made, it does not matter
whether you deviate away from the main issue and call Pakis cowards or
whatever. The fact of the matter is that Hair should not have made the
decision without evidence to back him up...its a serious allegation
and although the law gives the power to the ump, the law implicitly
expects that umpires use sense while ruling a decision. Just cause the
law does not necessitate an umpire to have objective conclusive
evidence of ball tampering, does not mean an ump can accuse a team of
ball-tampering based on his whims and fancies. The expectation of
evidence is implicit. That was a moronic act by Hair. He had no
evidence of ball-tampering. Hypothesizing that the ball "must have
been tampered with because it 'looks' so" is not evidence. Capturing
or witnessing the 'act of tampering' is the evidence. What a moronic
decision by Hair. It only shows how quick Hair was to act upon his
whims and fancies. It also shows prejudice because apart from Murali,
Hair has not acted upon his whims and fancies so quickly against
anyone else but Pakistan.
Unknown
<viz.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 9, 1:13=A0am, "dechucka" <vo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "arahim" <arahim_ara...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:5d1e1601-f75a-4048...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 8, 4:12 am, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 8, 9:35 pm, Nirvanam <viz.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > What I don't like is
>> > > the continuous accusations of Pakistan "tampering" but whereas when
>> > > someone else does it they are "working the ball"
>>
>> > They get called cowards more than they do cheats. They would have
>> > shown more honour had they played on and argued their case AFTER the
>> > game, rather than have a sook and stay off the field.
>>
>> The only cowardly act, which largely remained unnoticed, was from the
>> England camp in sending Fletcher to Proctor in a clandestine meeting.
>> If there were concerns both teams reps should have been called in to
>> the match referee. Proctor and Hair just acted as instruments. ICC has
>> never conducted a full investigation of it or at least has not made it
>> public. The other cowardly act if any was on the part of Proctor in
>> the spineless manner he acted against Hair. He was in negotiations
>> with the Pakistan team when the match was "forfeited". It was either
>> his duty not to negotiate with them and to tell them to go out or if
>> he was in negotiation then to hold things at a standstill until he
>> resolved one way or the other.
>>
>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>
>> When Proctor was in "negotiation" the game was well over. It was over sin=
>ce
>> the Pakistani team refused to play and the bails were removed. Stick to t=
>he
>> Laws of the game
>
>Dechucka, in case you are trying to defend Hair's rather obvious
>stupidity of making the decision that he made, it does not matter
>whether you deviate away from the main issue and call Pakis cowards or
>whatever. The fact of the matter is that Hair should not have made the
>decision without evidence to back him up...
Bullshit. The ball is evidence, and Doc and Hair were expert eye
witnesess to the condition of the ball at any point during the game.
You can't get any better than that.
>its a serious allegation
Point of fact without malice or prejudice to be acted mandatorily upon
by the umpires.
>and although the law gives the power to the ump, the law implicitly
>expects that umpires use sense while ruling a decision.
I don't remember reading that in my law book. You must be reading a
fake copy.
>Just cause the
>law does not necessitate an umpire to have objective conclusive
>evidence of ball tampering, does not mean an ump can accuse a team of
>ball-tampering based on his whims and fancies.
Utter shite. You have no proof to back up that statement.
> The expectation of
>evidence is implicit. That was a moronic act by Hair. He had no
>evidence of ball-tampering.
Of course the umpires had evidence. They couldn't have penalised
Pakistan otherwise. It only takes one umpire to disagree and there is
no penalty.
>Hypothesizing that the ball "must have
>been tampered with because it 'looks' so" is not evidence.
It certainly is evidence. Expert eye witness accounts are better than
usenet waffles any day of the week.
>Capturing
>or witnessing the 'act of tampering' is the evidence.
No, that is exposing the concealment of the alteration of the ball.
Didn't you just castigate a fielder because he looked like he might be
holding the ball in a way that might conceal abuse? Maybe that was
Rahim?
>What a moronic
>decision by Hair.
No the decision was correct and fair and made by TWO expert eye
witnesses. If it were a charge of nurder Pakistan would have been hung
in any court.
>It only shows how quick Hair was to act upon his
>whims and fancies.
That's wrong again. Doc and Hair acted in within the laws. It was
Pakistan that had the whims and fancies.
>It also shows prejudice because apart from Murali,
>Hair has not acted upon his whims and fancies so quickly against
>anyone else but Pakistan.
Why do you think that is? Why do you think Hair, a well known tight
strict and fair umpire, was paired for that match with Doc, an umpire
with previous experience of ball altering issues?
jzfredricks
> general...consider the stupid rant of Vettori after losing the T20
> semi final implying things. Right from the 90s when Pakistan do it
> they are immediately chastised but when murray mints happens the
> reaction is 'what an ingenious way of maintaining the ball'.
Yeah, I'd say that in general there is a bit of a double standard. I
guess it all started with the home umpires.
<snip>
> Come on JZ, Broad knew what he was doing.
I've seen it, and if I was umpiring I'd probably have raised an eyelid
at him, or coughed out a warning. I've seen MANY players at my level,
through lack of skill, been forced to stop a ball with their shoe. Now
that I think about it, I'm sure I did once. I think the ball was
coming in real low, I started to swoop down to catch, realised
simultaneously that a) I wasn't going to make it and 2) the crap
fields we play on are so rough they aren't fit for mountain goats...
so I stopped it with the sole of my shoe.
Broad's situation is quite different, as it was gently rolling at
about 1km/h.
I'm just saying that we can't throw the "you're a ball tamperer"
blanket over all incidents of using your sole to stop the ball.
I'm my mind it was 99% absent-mindedness, and 1% "haha, this might
rough it up a bit".
I criticise Hair for his actions* on That Day, and I'll do the same
for anyone calling Broad a cheat and/or ball-tamperer. Having said
that, Broad's case is actually more damning, as there is footage (no
pun intended) of the incident. All Hair had to go on was the ever-
changing condition of the ball, which by all reports (and I'm sure the
reports COULD be influenced) looked within normal bounds for damage.
* the 5 run penalty part, that is. His decision to call the game off
was perfect, and I applaud him for it.
jzfredricks
> anyone else but Pakistan.
I agree with most of that, but you do agree he made the correct
decision to call the game off, no?
jzfredricks
> Pakistan otherwise. It only takes one umpire to disagree and there is
> no penalty.
I'd like to know if Hair "talked" Doc into agreeing, or something like
that.
arahim
> > Na na...you are arguing on a specific instance. I am talking about in
> > general...consider the stupid rant of Vettori after losing the T20
> > semi final implying things. Right from the 90s when Pakistan do it
> > they are immediately chastised but when murray mints happens the
> > reaction is 'what an ingenious way of maintaining the ball'.
>
> Yeah, I'd say that in general there is a bit of a double standard. I
> guess it all started with the home umpires.
>
Ah another and earlier part of the constant whining:) Pakistan wanted
neutral umpires while it was others that tried to stop the move.
dechucka
"Nirvanam" <viz.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:af542908-468a-4c35...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
===============================================
Aren't you forgetting that there were 2 umpires on the feild and that they
acted within the Laws ( read Law 42 ). The Laws don't imply anything, the
Law does not demand anything the Law states that :-. Fair and unfair play -
responsibility of umpires "The umpires shall be the sole judges of fair and
unfair play." If the Umpires thinks the ball has been tapered with they
should act. Hey what if they don't act against a team playing against
Pakistan and Pakistan loses by 4 runs you'd quickly be on the other side.
The team who has been acted against has every right to be miffed and take
action after the match this way they look like the good guys. Having a sulk
and refusing to play and then coming back after the Laws have said the game
is over and wanting to play makes you look like spoiled little babies.
BTW I will support any Umpire who follows the Laws.
dechucka
"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bf007a6e-ee6c-40f6...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
If so than Doctrove shouldn't be a Test umpire or an Umpire
jzfredricks
> unfair play." If the Umpires thinks the ball has been tapered with they
> should act.
but there is an onus on them to get it right.
There is a lot of doubt over whether they did get it right that day,
wrt to unfair play.
If post match inspection results in "um... I see no clear evidence of
tampering" then it seems to me that the umps made their minds up based
on "unusual gradual change"(UGC). I assume at the first sign of this,
Hair would've been watching very closely, both the ball and the
players. He never caught anyone in the act. So all of his evidence was
the UGC.
Many things could have caused this. The leather might have been of a
poorer quality. The lacquer too. The ball might have hit the fence in
a few bad spots. Stuff like that.
I've not seen the ball, and I'm not silly enough to say there was no
post-match cover-up. There may well have been.
arahim
Unknown
Dunno, that was suggested, but you have to begin with all umpires are
equal, there is no senior or junior, if you have the ticket and the
appointment, then you are equal to your colleague.
Doc has form, proven law 42 enforcer, so I can't see him being
bullied or persuaded. He only had to disagree and the issue was
finished. Remember the umpires both examine the ball at different
times at will, and their combined opinion is what they go on.
Saying that. I have had matches where I have stood with overly
official colleagues, only to find out later that they have no quals
and are standing because they have always been available for every
match since forever began.
As for the glee from certain places about Hair and elite panels. They
must not be aware that Hair is training all the umpires to come, and
standing in icc associate and even affiliate matches all over the
world.
Probably that goes someway to prove that the sparrow story is true -
almost.
R. Spanditt
wrote:
> "subi...@hotmail.com" <subi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c89664d1-b242-4b35...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > esp if he is the golden boy of the icc?
>
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/jan/06/england-accused-cheating-...
>
That's racist.
R. Spanditt
> "subi...@hotmail.com" <subi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c89664d1-b242-4b35...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > esp if he is the golden boy of the icc?
>
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/jan/06/england-accused-cheating-...
>
Any footage anywhere? From the sounds of it it was pretty blatant
spikes into the ball?
dechucka
Once again it was not Hairs decision there were 2 Umpires on the ground. If
the thought that any unusual change was because of ball tampering than they
should of acted and did.
jzfredricks
> > that.
>
> http://pdfs.island.lk/2006/09/27/p12.pdfhttp://www.cricinfo.com/engvpak/content/story/260592.html
It's stories like this that make me side with Pakistan on the first
charge - being ball tampering cheats, and ofc say Hair did wrong.
For me, though, that was the opening chapter to The Book of Shame,
most of the rest being written by Pakistan and edited by the ICC. And
thankfully later sent to the backshelf by your beloved MCC (when the
rightfully had the result returned to a forfeit).
Nirvanam
> witnesess to the condition of the ball at any point during the game.
> You can't get any better than that.
Wow, what logic. Let's use the same logic in another situation.
'tampered' ball = 'supposed to be dead' human. Pakistan team =
friend / relative / neighbor / or physically next to 'supposed to be
killed human'. Hair = Cop. Cop sees 'supposed to be killed body' and
sees Mr. X standing next to it and declares Mr.X is the killer. Now,
doctors come on to the scene and show very clearly that the killed-
fellow is actually alive he only fainted / got injured. Cop argues
according to me he was dead so Mr.X is guilty. Court asks cop "did you
see Mr.X kill the fellow?". Cop says "no, but I can tell a dead body
from a living body". All and sundry come up and say "the guy was not
dead at all. Yes he seemed to have fainted but that much normally
happens to anyone who has been under the sun for a period of time".
Cop insists "no he is dead".
Now, there are 2 problems here: one cop is the ONLY fellow claiming
that the fellow is dead. Everyone else confirms that the fellow is
alive. Second problem is, cop did not SEE Mr.X "kill" the fellow but
ASSUMED Mr.X killed the fellow and in all his arrogant stupidity
accuses Mr.X of killing the fellow without any evidence. Max, the body
is not the evidence. The evidence is the 'witnessing of the act of
killing'.
What happens normally...cop is asked to take a hike, stripped of his
duties, and charged with criminal misrepresentation. Hair deserved
what he got.
> Point of fact without malice or prejudice to be acted mandatorily upon
> by the umpires.
What?
> I don't remember reading that in my law book. You must be reading a
> fake copy.
You will never read it in any law book that is why it is called
'implicit'. Max, at work when you are asked to lead a particular task,
the boss is giving you the leadership role because he expects you to
handle conflicts between team members without necessitating
involvement of HR and policy documents everytime. If an umpire thinks
he is beyond logical and objective justification for why he made such
a serious allegation then the ump's arrogance deserves to be
demolished.
> >Just cause the
> >law does not necessitate an umpire to have objective conclusive
> >evidence of ball tampering, does not mean an ump can accuse a team of
> >ball-tampering based on his whims and fancies.
>
> Utter shite. You have no proof to back up that statement.
Proof of what, Max?
> Of course the umpires had evidence. They couldn't have penalised
> Pakistan otherwise. It only takes one umpire to disagree and there is
> no penalty.
Do you know what the "evidence" was? Are you sure he had the evidence.
What did Hair have with him to charge Pakistan of ball-tampering?
Please illuminate us
> It certainly is evidence. Expert eye witness accounts are better than
> usenet waffles any day of the week.
> >Capturing
> >or witnessing the 'act of tampering' is the evidence.
Every expert eye witness said the ball did not look tampered with
except Hair.
> No, that is exposing the concealment of the alteration of the ball.
> Didn't you just castigate a fielder because he looked like he might be
> holding the ball in a way that might conceal abuse? Maybe that was
> Rahim?
Yep it was Rahim
> No the decision was correct and fair and made by TWO expert eye
> witnesses. If it were a charge of nurder Pakistan would have been hung
> in any court.
Look at the example given on murder above
> That's wrong again. Doc and Hair acted in within the laws. It was
> Pakistan that had the whims and fancies.
Laws are not always right. It takes exceptional incidents to occur for
the lawmakers to realize the possibility of such occurrence and modify
the law accordingly. For example, in Sharia Law a woman who is raped
has to produce 4 male(?) eye witnesses of the act else she does not
get a conviction for the rapist(s), and if by chance she gets pregnant
because of the rape since she is not able to provide 4 eyewitnesses
she is convicted for illegitimate sex. Of course this is a much much
worser and nastier case but if the law says cop can accuse anyone
because he is cop then either you are implicitly expecting the cop to
be sensible enough to have logical proofs for the person's guilt or
the lawmakers were absolute idiots. I'd think the former is the case.
> Why do you think that is? Why do you think Hair, a well known tight
> strict and fair umpire, was paired for that match with Doc, an umpire
> with previous experience of ball altering issues?
>
> max.it
Conspiracy?
Nirvanam
Did he call off the game or did Pak refuse to play? I am referring to
his decision of accusing Pak of tampering with the ball without any
evidence.
Nirvanam
> "Nirvanam" <viz.sha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Aren't you forgetting that Hair and his lawyer did not even argue why
"only Hair was being trialled and not Doctrove too". Any lawyer, damn
any common sensible person would argue that. Why did Hair choose not
to. And on the other hand he went up to the extent of claiming that SA
umpire (forgot his name) as also saying Pak were cheaters.
dechucka
==============================================
He ended the game when the Pakistani team refused to play after refusing to
accept an Umpires decision
dechucka
"dechucka" <vo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tcednbbXgujcddXW...@westnet.com.au...
Sorry, THEY ended the game when the Pakistani team refused to play after
refusing to accept a decision by the Unpires
>
dechucka
============================================
because it was damm obvious why it was Hair. Are you claiming that Doctrove
is such an incompetent Umpire that he didn't partake in the decision. We
know that he has been involved in those decisions in the past.
alvey
>> Bullshit. The ball is evidence, and Doc and Hair were expert eye
>> witnesess to the condition of the ball at any point during the game.
>> You can't get any better than that.
>
> Wow, what logic.
Err no. That's not "logic", them's "facts".
Facts are things like; Cheatistan have the world's best record of
ball-tampering, and that Hair had personal experience with Cheatistan going
the tamper. Or would you care to deny that?
> Let's use the same logic in another situation.
Seeing as you're basing whatever's following on a false premise then this
should be entertaining.
> 'tampered' ball = 'supposed to be dead' human. Pakistan team =
> friend / relative / neighbor / or physically next to 'supposed to be
> killed human'. Hair = Cop.
Phew. Looks like heavy weather ahead.
> Cop sees 'supposed to be killed body' and
> sees Mr. X standing next to it and declares Mr.X is the killer.
A copper wouldn't do any such thing. It's not their job to pronounce guilt
or innocence.
> Now,
> doctors come on to the scene and show very clearly that the killed-
> fellow is actually alive he only fainted / got injured.
Police are actually trained to detect mortality. (In the State of Dictoria
the standard practice to determine if someone's dead is by shooting them
until they are.)
> Cop argues
> according to me he was dead so Mr.X is guilty. Court asks
Eh? How did we get from the scene of the non-crime to court? And if the
"'supposed to be dead' human" isn't actually dead then exactly what are we
doing in court?
> "cop did you see Mr.X kill the fellow?".
And if we *are* in court and this "fellow" (who's chuffed to be upgraded
from "human") isn't actually dead then why is this question being asked?
> Cop says "no, but I can tell a dead body
> from a living body".
True. See above ref to police training.
> All and sundry come up and say "the guy was not
> dead at all. Yes he seemed to have fainted but that much normally
> happens to anyone who has been under the sun for a period of time".
> Cop insists "no he is dead".
Hang on. "All and sundry come up..." Have we gone through a wormhole in the
time-space continuum and are now back at the scene of the non-crime? Golly
but you're erratic.
>
> Now, there are 2 problems here:
Nope, there's only one problem here. You.
snip unread.
alvey
Unknown
<viz.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bullshit. The ball is evidence, and Doc and Hair were expert eye
>> witnesess to the condition of the ball at any point during the game.
>> You can't get any better than that.
>
>Wow, what logic. Let's use the same logic in another situation.
Another situation is not a cricket match and is therefore not covered
by cricket law. I will decline to read your "another situation" on
those grounds.
>> Point of fact without malice or prejudice to be acted mandatorily upon
>> by the umpires.
>
>What?
The evidence is a poiunt of fact. Not a whim or fancy.
>
>> I don't remember reading that in my law book. You must be reading a
>> fake copy.
>
>You will never read it in any law book that is why it is called
>'implicit'. Max, at work when you are asked to lead a particular task,
>the boss is giving you the leadership role because he expects you to
>handle conflicts between team members without necessitating
>involvement of HR and policy documents everytime. If an umpire thinks
>he is beyond logical and objective justification for why he made such
>a serious allegation then the ump's arrogance deserves to be
>demolished.
If it isn't in the law book then it isn't a cricket law.
BTW. I'm the boss, my workers do as I say or they won't be there.
>
>> >Just cause the
>> >law does not necessitate an umpire to have objective conclusive
>> >evidence of ball tampering, does not mean an ump can accuse a team of
>> >ball-tampering based on his whims and fancies.
>>
>> Utter shite. You have no proof to back up that statement.
>
>Proof of what, Max?
That any of the umpires involved penalised Pakistan on a whim or
fancy.
>
>> Of course the umpires had evidence. They couldn't have penalised
>> Pakistan otherwise. It only takes one umpire to disagree and there is
>> no penalty.
>
>Do you know what the "evidence" was? Are you sure he had the evidence.
>What did Hair have with him to charge Pakistan of ball-tampering?
>Please illuminate us
I don't need to know, and you don't need to know. The important thing
is that Doctrove and Hair had evidence enough to convince them that
Pakistan had altered the condition of the match ball.
>
>> It certainly is evidence. Expert eye witness accounts are better than
>> usenet waffles any day of the week.
>
>> >Capturing
>> >or witnessing the 'act of tampering' is the evidence.
That is incorrect. Isn't a murder weapon and a body evidence that a
murder has occured?
>Every expert eye witness said the ball did not look tampered with
>except Hair.
There were only two expert eye witnesses and they both agreed that the
condition of the ball had been altered. Any further unofficial
examination of the evidence would render the evidence useless in law.
>
>> No, that is exposing the concealment of the alteration of the ball.
>> Didn't you just castigate a fielder because he looked like he might be
>> holding the ball in a way that might conceal abuse? Maybe that was
>> Rahim?
>
>Yep it was Rahim
>
>> No the decision was correct and fair and made by TWO expert eye
>> witnesses. If it were a charge of nurder Pakistan would have been hung
>> in any court.
>
>Look at the example given on murder above.
No.
>
>> That's wrong again. Doc and Hair acted in within the laws. It was
>> Pakistan that had the whims and fancies.
>
>Laws are not always right. It takes exceptional incidents to occur for
>the lawmakers to realize the possibility of such occurrence and modify
>the law accordingly. For example, in Sharia Law ......
Stoped right here.
>> Why do you think that is? Why do you think Hair, a well known tight
>> strict and fair umpire, was paired for that match with Doc, an umpire
>> with previous experience of ball altering issues?
>>
>> max.it
>
>Conspiracy?
Gotta to be. Truth told, nothing would suprise me.
Though the only conspiracy that could be is that Hair was set up, and
Billy Doc and Pakistan were collateral damage.
If that was to be the case then why is Hair training international
umpires and still standing in international matches?
Nirvanam
I am not claiming anything. Someone said why was Hair the only one who
had to go to court...that why wasn't Doctrove charged too? Therefore
my response that if Hair felt that Doctrove was equially responsible
then he should have asked the court why only he was being tried and
not Doctrove.
Nirvanam
What is the point of fact here? The point of fact in this case is that
there exists a ball which had been used for x overs. It ends there.
Rest is conjecture. Conjecture of Hair was that the ball is in a
different condition (this conjecture has been unanimously quashed by
all and sundry). Second conjecture of Hair is that ball is in
different condition because someone deliberately did something to it.
Based on that conjecture if Hair claims that I know the did it then it
is another conjecture...quite rightly termed a whim, not a fact.
> If it isn't in the law book then it isn't a cricket law.
> BTW. I'm the boss, my workers do as I say or they won't be there.
Luckily the world is not so autocratic. And luckily the people you
report to would be sensible. One individual can never have the power
to misrepresent other individuals...that is why we have conflict
resolutions. You are made an umpire not just because you can interpret
the law. Umpiring involves man-management on the field as well,
conflict resolution, etc, etc. If you did not possess those skills you
and a machine...nothing different.
> >Proof of what, Max?
>
> That any of the umpires involved penalised Pakistan on a whim or
> fancy.
Yes they did. They did not have any "proof" to show Pakistan
deliberately tampered the ball.
> I don't need to know, and you don't need to know. The important thing
> is that Doctrove and Hair had evidence enough to convince them that
> Pakistan had altered the condition of the match ball.
Huh? You are assuming that Hair has the evidence and based on that you
are arguing Hair is right. If not to us, at least to the court Hair
would've presented some evidence? What evidence did he present.
> That is incorrect. Isn't a murder weapon and a body evidence that a
> murder has occured?
Yes, murder weapon is an evidence. Did Hair have any evidence of a
"murder weapon"?
> There were only two expert eye witnesses and they both agreed that the
> condition of the ball had been altered. Any further unofficial
> examination of the evidence would render the evidence useless in law.
Then why is the other "expert witness" not called to court? Secondly
if you believe that umpires are the only experts on how a ball looks
then you seriously are worshiping them. Every one on the field at that
point in time was an expert of what the condition of the ball
is...they play with it don't they? They spin it, they hit it, they
polish it, they swing it, they hurl it....and they are not experts to
understand how the ball behaves or how a ball should look after a few
overs?
> Gotta to be. Truth told, nothing would suprise me.
> Though the only conspiracy that could be is that Hair was set up, and
> Billy Doc and Pakistan were collateral damage.
> If that was to be the case then why is Hair training international
> umpires and still standing in international matches?
>
> max.it
So do something about the conspiracy then. Take the matter to court.
Conspiracy theorists are either generally convinced of the conspiracy
and it is their conviction that helps them go dig out information and
present their case, or believe stuff (they could have believed the
other way too). Now, if you are of the former category then show some
evidence of Hair being right in, firstly claiming the ball was
tampered with, secondly in claiming Pakistani players tampered the
ball. The first is a subjective interpretation, the second needs
objective evidence. The subjective inference is normally presented to
other related experts and if their inference also matches Hair's
inference then the subjective interpretation is given weight. Clearly
that did not happen. On top of that Hair had no objective evidence
linking Pakistani players to the "tampering" of the ball.
Unknown
<viz.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The evidence is a poiunt of fact. Not a whim or fancy.
>
>What is the point of fact here? The point of fact in this case is that
>there exists a ball which had been used for x overs. It ends there.
>Rest is conjecture. Conjecture of Hair was that the ball is in a
>different condition (this conjecture has been unanimously quashed by
>all and sundry). Second conjecture of Hair is that ball is in
>different condition because someone deliberately did something to it.
>Based on that conjecture if Hair claims that I know the did it then it
>is another conjecture...quite rightly termed a whim, not a fact.
That conjecture would be frequent and irregular inspections of the
ball. The knowlege of the laws and the experience of two elite panel
umpires.
>
>> If it isn't in the law book then it isn't a cricket law.
>> BTW. I'm the boss, my workers do as I say or they won't be there.
>
>Luckily the world is not so autocratic. And luckily the people you
>report to would be sensible.
I'm the boss. I don't report to anyone. I set you the task and if you
can't do it or do it poorly, I chase you - simple. That's how business
works.
> One individual can never have the power
>to misrepresent other individuals...that is why we have conflict
>resolutions.
Sadly, you are wrong again. Any individual who is representing his
country at anything has the power to misrepresent the entire nation.
>You are made an umpire not just because you can interpret
>the law. Umpiring involves man-management on the field as well,
>conflict resolution, etc, etc. If you did not possess those skills you
>and a machine...nothing different.
If there are two competent captains then there are no man management
issues. Umpires are not responsible for the conduct of the players.
>
>> >Proof of what, Max?
>>
>> That any of the umpires involved penalised Pakistan on a whim or
>> fancy.
>
>Yes they did. They did not have any "proof" to show Pakistan
>deliberately tampered the ball.
I'm sure it wasn't the batsmen who dunnit.
>
>> I don't need to know, and you don't need to know. The important thing
>> is that Doctrove and Hair had evidence enough to convince them that
>> Pakistan had altered the condition of the match ball.
>
>Huh? You are assuming that Hair has the evidence and based on that you
>are arguing Hair is right. If not to us, at least to the court Hair
>would've presented some evidence? What evidence did he present.
The umpires don't need to present evidence to anyone outside the rope.
They simply make their report like an umpire in any other match. If
they are required to attend a hearing, then they make their report
again to the hearing. The hearing does not void the transgression. It
is simply to decide what action should be taken against the person
responsible.
>> That is incorrect. Isn't a murder weapon and a body evidence that a
>> murder has occured?
>
>Yes, murder weapon is an evidence. Did Hair have any evidence of a
>"murder weapon"?
In fact he did. He had the ball.
>
>> There were only two expert eye witnesses and they both agreed that the
>> condition of the ball had been altered. Any further unofficial
>> examination of the evidence would render the evidence useless in law.
>
>Then why is the other "expert witness" not called to court? Secondly
>if you believe that umpires are the only experts on how a ball looks
>then you seriously are worshiping them. Every one on the field at that
>point in time was an expert of what the condition of the ball
>is...they play with it don't they? They spin it, they hit it, they
>polish it, they swing it, they hurl it....and they are not experts to
>understand how the ball behaves or how a ball should look after a few
>overs?
A witness in your own defence? That's a killer blow to any allegation.
>
>> Gotta to be. Truth told, nothing would suprise me.
>> Though the only conspiracy that could be is that Hair was set up, and
>> Billy Doc and Pakistan were collateral damage.
>> If that was to be the case then why is Hair training international
>> umpires and still standing in international matches?
>>
>> max.it
>
>So do something about the conspiracy then. Take the matter to court.
>Conspiracy theorists are either generally convinced of the conspiracy
>and it is their conviction that helps them go dig out information and
>present their case, or believe stuff (they could have believed the
>other way too). Now, if you are of the former category then show some
>evidence of Hair being right in, firstly claiming the ball was
>tampered with, secondly in claiming Pakistani players tampered the
>ball. The first is a subjective interpretation, the second needs
>objective evidence. The subjective inference is normally presented to
>other related experts and if their inference also matches Hair's
>inference then the subjective interpretation is given weight. Clearly
>that did not happen. On top of that Hair had no objective evidence
>linking Pakistani players to the "tampering" of the ball.
The photographs of the ball at the time showed clearly two marks that
looked like finger nail imprints. What the panel of "experts" couldn't
decide was how the marks were made. I can't remember but I think there
was only a couple of boundary balls since the fall of the previous
wicket. The ball was inspected at the fall of that wicket.
Hair must have dunnit, nobody suspects the umpire of tampering with
the ball. Then there was the photo that was blasted about of the
pakistani player picking dirt off the replaced ball - unsupervised.
alvey
If only you didn't respond more often...
alvey
dechucka
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I can't remember it going to court as such. However why should Hair try and
pull Doctrove into the quagmire when everybody knew why Hair was being
persecuted. It was a political persecution as was shown by the fact that he
was the only one consistently attacked.
alvey
And to more people. Let them know what they're missing!
alvey
Nirvanam
> ball. The knowlege of the laws and the experience of two elite panel
> umpires.
So what? Even if you stop and look at the ball every fucking ball, it
is still CONJECTURE until you have material evidence to prove that
Pakistan did something with the ball. And how often did those two
inspect the ball? Did Hair tell Inzi that he thinks something is
fishy...at least a warning kinds?
> I'm the boss. I don't report to anyone. I set you the task and if you
> can't do it or do it poorly, I chase you - simple. That's how business
> works.
Thank goodness I don't work with you. Autocratic, dictatorial bossing
around works only for some time, mate.
> Sadly, you are wrong again. Any individual who is representing his
> country at anything has the power to misrepresent the entire nation.
How is that relevant to this discussion?
> If there are two competent captains then there are no man management
> issues. Umpires are not responsible for the conduct of the players.
But umpires are expected to base their decision on logic and tight
cases before accusing someone of such serious stuff.
> I'm sure it wasn't the batsmen who dunnit.
Are you even sure it was done? Or did you just take your fellow-umpire
Hair's word for it....brotherhood thing is it?
> The umpires don't need to present evidence to anyone outside the rope.
> They simply make their report like an umpire in any other match. If
> they are required to attend a hearing, then they make their report
> again to the hearing. The hearing does not void the transgression. It
> is simply to decide what action should be taken against the person
> responsible.
They MUST present evidence in a court of law. If they don't present
evidence and make such serious allegations then this is what will
happen to them.
> In fact he did. He had the ball.
Are you seriously having a contemplational issue here? Murder weapon =
weapon. Dead body = ball? What are you saying
> A witness in your own defence? That's a killer blow to any allegation.
Have you never witnessed or read about law. Didn't you know that
defence also can present their witnesses? Anyway the question
was...you argued the two expert witnesses felt it was tampered with.
So my question was in reference to Doctrove (the other expert witness)
and why he was not charged like Hair to appear before court and defend
his decision
> The photographs of the ball at the time showed clearly two marks that
> looked like finger nail imprints. What the panel of "experts" couldn't
> decide was how the marks were made. I can't remember but I think there
> was only a couple of boundary balls since the fall of the previous
> wicket. The ball was inspected at the fall of that wicket.
Neither have you touched the ball yourself nor have you seen it
yourself. If the photographs showed clearly nail marks why the hell di
each and everyone except Hair say it could not have been tampered
with??????
> Hair must have dunnit, nobody suspects the umpire of tampering with
> the ball. Then there was the photo that was blasted about of the
> pakistani player picking dirt off the replaced ball - unsupervised.
>
> max.it
LOL!
Nirvanam
It didn't go to court? It did mate, in London.
When Hair had the gall to say that South African ump said "the cheats
deserved to exit out of the tournament"...why did he drag that umpire
in?
Boss, if u and a fellow worker take a decision and someone is screwing
you for it, would you not, quite justifiably, say that the other
fellwo was also involved in the decision?
arahim
It was Hair who took it to court claiming racial discrimination. He
did call Doctrove as a witness. Doctrove was supposed to arrive and
then he did not board the plane:)
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Unknown
<viz.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That conjecture would be frequent and irregular inspections of the
>> ball. The knowlege of the laws and the experience of two elite panel
>> umpires.
>
>So what? Even if you stop and look at the ball every fucking ball, it
>is still CONJECTURE until you have material evidence to prove that
>Pakistan did something with the ball. And how often did those two
>inspect the ball? Did Hair tell Inzi that he thinks something is
>fishy...at least a warning kinds?
Read the law book. Your argument is foolish. Step inside the rope and
you are bound by cricket law. Like it or not this is the way it works.
Ignorance of the law is no defence.
>> I'm the boss. I don't report to anyone. I set you the task and if you
>> can't do it or do it poorly, I chase you - simple. That's how business
>> works.
>
>Thank goodness I don't work with you. Autocratic, dictatorial bossing
>around works only for some time, mate.
You wouldn't be working with me, you would be working for me. My
method of business has worked very well for a long time. I don't take
any shit so I tend not to get any shit. Fuck me about and you get
chased.
I wear a different hat on the cricket field.
>> Sadly, you are wrong again. Any individual who is representing his
>> country at anything has the power to misrepresent the entire nation.
>
>How is that relevant to this discussion?
Why did you snip the piece that I responded to? Cheating? Post
tampering? Altering the condition of the text in order to attempt to
gain some kind of advantage? You are letting your whole country down,
tut tut.
You said
>One individual can never have the power
>to misrepresent other individuals...that is why we have conflict
>resolutions.
I pointed out that you are sadly wrong.
>
>> If there are two competent captains then there are no man management
>> issues. Umpires are not responsible for the conduct of the players.
>
>But umpires are expected to base their decision on logic and tight
>cases before accusing someone of such serious stuff.
Umpires are expected to apply the law and base any decision they might
have to make on the law.
>> I'm sure it wasn't the batsmen who dunnit.
>
>Are you even sure it was done? Or did you just take your fellow-umpire
>Hair's word for it....brotherhood thing is it?
Actually it was Billy Doctrove who confirmed the suspicion that the
condition of the ball had been altered. Had Doc disagreed, there would
have been no penalty.
>> The umpires don't need to present evidence to anyone outside the rope.
>> They simply make their report like an umpire in any other match. If
>> they are required to attend a hearing, then they make their report
>> again to the hearing. The hearing does not void the transgression. It
>> is simply to decide what action should be taken against the person
>> responsible.
>
>They MUST present evidence in a court of law. If they don't present
>evidence and make such serious allegations then this is what will
>happen to them.
What court of law? There was no court or trial. You are dreaming.
>> In fact he did. He had the ball.
>
>Are you seriously having a contemplational issue here? Murder weapon =
>weapon. Dead body = ball? What are you saying.
The condition of the ball is monitored by both umpires. This is the
evidence that cricket law uses.
>>Then why is the other "expert witness" not called to court? Secondly
>>if you believe that umpires are the only experts on how a ball looks
>>then you seriously are worshiping them. Every one on the field at that
>>point in time was an expert of what the condition of the ball
>>is...they play with it don't they? They spin it, they hit it, they
>>polish it, they swing it, they hurl it....and they are not experts to
>>understand how the ball behaves or how a ball should look after a few
>>overs?
Expert witnesses Like when Inzi asked each player hand on heart if
they had altered the condition of the match ball? They all said no!
Shit we gatta believe them - really......dohhh
> A witness in your own defence? That's a killer blow to any allegation.
>
>Have you never witnessed or read about law. Didn't you know that
>defence also can present their witnesses? Anyway the question
>was...you argued the two expert witnesses felt it was tampered with.
>So my question was in reference to Doctrove (the other expert witness)
>and why he was not charged like Hair to appear before court and defend
>his decision.
Which court? I don't remember any court? I don't remember any
"charge". At the hearing Hair was summoned to attend, Doctrove did not
attend in person. Are you sure his evidence was not available to the
hearing? If you do know, please enlighten me.
>> The photographs of the ball at the time showed clearly two marks that
>> looked like finger nail imprints. What the panel of "experts" couldn't
>> decide was how the marks were made. I can't remember but I think there
>> was only a couple of boundary balls since the fall of the previous
>> wicket. The ball was inspected at the fall of that wicket.
>
>Neither have you touched the ball yourself nor have you seen it
>yourself. If the photographs showed clearly nail marks why the hell di
>each and everyone except Hair say it could not have been tampered
>with??????
I spoke to Hair at a funeral, but I didn't have the balls to bring up
the subject of the Oval test.
We don't have to touch the ball. There were two elite umpires
officiating the game to do that for us.
The panel had no jurisdiction. No matter what they think, it is of no
consequence to the penalty runs awarded or the result of the match.
You know I think that there were only two boundarys scored after the
inspection of the ball. Surely these hits are in archive, surely the
exact point of impact on the boards could have been discovered. Maybe
there would have been something on that board which made a mark that
looked like it had been made by a finger nail.
Rather than use your much wagged Pakistani "logic" to investigate the
actions of the umpires, and why they thought what happened did.
Pakistan decided to cry foul target only one of the umpires and behave
in a manner that brought the game of cricket into disrepute.
>
>> Hair must have dunnit, nobody suspects the umpire of tampering with
>> the ball. Then there was the photo that was blasted about of the
>> pakistani player picking dirt off the replaced ball - unsupervised.
>>
>> max.it
>
>LOL!
The umpires should have informed the captain of their suspicions and
subsequent actions more clearly. It appeared that Inzi didn't seem to
be aware of what was actually happening at the time. Not that it would
have made any difference to the decision the umpires had to make.
alvey
>
> Read the law book. Your argument is foolish. Step inside the rope and
> you are bound by cricket law. Like it or not this is the way it works.
> Ignorance of the law is no defence.
A fine example of cultural differences.
In Nivanam's world ignorance of the law is a standard offence...
snip whatever
alvey
alvey
No it didn't. It went to an employment tribunal.
>
> When Hair had the gall to say that South African ump said "the cheats
> deserved to exit out of the tournament"
What Hair actually claimed that Koertzen said was; "that's great news,
those cheats can now go home."
>...why did he drag that umpire in?
To establish that Pakistan have form for cheating? Perfectly reasonable
thing to do.
snip another hilarious attempted analogy.
Can you answer these two questions?
Q1. What Law or protocol did Hair & Doctrove not obey in the incident?
Q2. Why wasn't Doctrove given the same penalty as Hair?
alvey
StraightDrive
"subi...@hotmail.com" <sub...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c89664d1-b242-4b35...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> esp if he is the golden boy of the icc?
>
Never trust the FORKED TONGUED RACE..........
R. Spanditt
wrote:
> ..."subi...@hotmail.com" <subi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c89664d1-b242-4b35...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > esp if he is the golden boy of the icc?
>
>
> Never trust the FORKED TONGUED RACE..........
you have issues.
Nirvanam
> you are bound by cricket law. Like it or not this is the way it works.
> Ignorance of the law is no defence.
You cannot hide behind that justification, Max. Seriously, try it even
in regular life...there is always a context and laws assume that the
people interpreting the laws are sensible enough to make decisions
based on evidence.
> You wouldn't be working with me, you would be working for me. My
> method of business has worked very well for a long time. I don't take
> any shit so I tend not to get any shit. Fuck me about and you get
> chased.
> I wear a different hat on the cricket field.
See that is the difference. I consider my job as 'working WITH' not
'working FOR'. No one works for anyone, Max. People work for
themselves. Just coz you report to a Manager does not mean you work
FOR him. You are not some kinda servant or slave. You work with
people, Max.
> Why did you snip the piece that I responded to? Cheating? Post
> tampering? Altering the condition of the text in order to attempt to
> gain some kind of advantage? You are letting your whole country down,
> tut tut.
> You said
I did not have anything to add to that point...if u haven't noticed by
now that is what I always do...I reply only to the points where I have
a response and I try as much as possible to have only the immediate
preceding level of the conversation. No malice there.
> >One individual can never have the power
> >to misrepresent other individuals...that is why we have conflict
> >resolutions.
>
> I pointed out that you are sadly wrong.
Wrong as per your opinion. These are opinions about other things which
are not directly relevant to the topic in discussion and there is no
point wasting time on personal judgments here hence I did not find it
necessary to respond. Anything wrong with that? Sometimes you feel
like responding, like above on the boss thing, and sometimes you
don;t, like this one in the previous post.
> Umpires are expected to apply the law and base any decision they might
> have to make on the law.
Which is right no disagreement there. The disagreement is in having
justification to accuse someone of a serious thing like that. Look law
says umpire is the final authority on declaring an LBW (pls lets leave
the witty ones of UDRS and all out). Now, law would say that if the
umpire thinks that the ball hits in line of the stumps and is going on
to thit the stumps then he should give it out. The main thing here is
that the law has given a guideline on when to use th LBW and has left
it to the umpire's conjecture for every specific case. As per the law
book the umpire is very much "right" if he gives a ball pitching
outside leg stump and hits outside leg stump line and probably would
even miss hitting the stumps or bounce higher than them. No one to
question him..law book said this is the guideline, and umpire has the
necessary expertise and logical brain to interpret it and do justice
to the law. Umpire is saying that he has enough conviction to believe
it was going to hit the stumps and that it pitched in line, hit in
line, etc. As per law he is not wrong. but there is an implicit
expectation that he will have enough evidence to back him up. A replay
immediately shows his incompetence if he gets it wrong. Now, similarly
law says umpire can accuse of ball tampering but they are implicitly
expecting ump to have justifiable reasons and evidence for the same.
Why aren't u understanding that?
> Actually it was Billy Doctrove who confirmed the suspicion that the
> condition of the ball had been altered. Had Doc disagreed, there would
> have been no penalty.
Then why wasn't Billy taken to task too? Obviously one of the 2 was
the instigator and the enforcer. If both of them were equally
responsible for the accusation then they both should've been acted
upon by the ICC. Please explain why Doctrove was not treated the way
Hair was
> What court of law? There was no court or trial. You are dreaming.
My dear Max, there was a court of law in Sep/Oct of 2007(8?) Inzi flew
from Pak to London to give his evidence...or at least was supposed to.
Doctrove didn't turn up
> Expert witnesses Like when Inzi asked each player hand on heart if
> they had altered the condition of the match ball? They all said no!
> Shit we gatta believe them - really......dohhh
Why should we take one man's word ober another's? The best way to deal
with this is to have evidence...Hair did not have any evidence.
> Which court? I don't remember any court? I don't remember any
> "charge". At the hearing Hair was summoned to attend, Doctrove did not
> attend in person. Are you sure his evidence was not available to the
> hearing? If you do know, please enlighten me.
Rahim also has written about it on the top. go on u'll find it even in
cricinfo if u want to know of the case.
> I spoke to Hair at a funeral, but I didn't have the balls to bring up
> the subject of the Oval test.
Then on what basis are u saying the ball was tampered? And why are u
taking Hair's word over someone else's? Coz Hair is your pal?
> We don't have to touch the ball. There were two elite umpires
> officiating the game to do that for us.
> The panel had no jurisdiction. No matter what they think, it is of no
> consequence to the penalty runs awarded or the result of the match.
No you and I don't have to but you seem to be so convinced that the
ball was tampered with that it was reasonable to ask you if you
actually saw the ball yourself.
> You know I think that there were only two boundarys scored after the
> inspection of the ball. Surely these hits are in archive, surely the
> exact point of impact on the boards could have been discovered. Maybe
> there would have been something on that board which made a mark that
> looked like it had been made by a finger nail.
If all that science can be done then Hair should've asked for it to be
done. I can understand Hair not having the presence of mind because of
the tension he was in, but his lawyer could have adviced Hair to ask
for such tests to be done.
> Rather than use your much wagged Pakistani "logic" to investigate the
> actions of the umpires, and why they thought what happened did.
> Pakistan decided to cry foul target only one of the umpires and behave
> in a manner that brought the game of cricket into disrepute.
What Pakistani logic am I using here? And it was only one arrogant ump
who brought the game to disrespute by alleging someone of a serious
thing without even having the necessary justifications and evidences
for it. Is Hair that dumb that he believes an umpire can allege
anything and people will keep quiet?
Nirvanam
> To establish that Pakistan have form for cheating? Perfectly reasonable
> thing to do.
And Koetzen denied saying it...lol!
> Q1. What Law or protocol did Hair & Doctrove not obey in the incident?
Who ever said they broke any "law". Hair did not care to gather or
keep track of evidences that could vindicate his allegation. And he
was making a serious allegation. I don;'t think he is so stupid that
people will just accept any damn indictment just coz he has "crossed
the line on to the field"
> Q2. Why wasn't Doctrove given the same penalty as Hair?
Isn't that what I am also asking? Why didn't Doctrove get the same
penalty. Why only Hair
higgs
He had plenty of evidence.
It's just that various bodies decided to ignore that evidence.
Put it this way.
If Ashocka or another sub-continental umpire had taken the same stand
against an Australian player, you'd be banging on about how the law
has to be upheld, how you can't doubt the word of an elite umpire and
must accept his decision etc etc
Higgs
Higgs
Nirvanam
Higgs, please understand such petty personal thrashing does not help
anyone. Mate, why unnecessarily start assuming that every Tom, Dick,
and Harry views thru the frame of race and nationality and religion.
Stop it Higgs. At least please don't imply things about me that way.
Have I ever done that to you?
higgs
You mean you don't view everything thru the frame of race, nationality
and religion?
When did you have this epiphany?
Higgs
Unknown
<viz.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Read the law book. Your argument is foolish. Step inside the rope and
>> you are bound by cricket law. Like it or not this is the way it works.
>> Ignorance of the law is no defence.
>
>You cannot hide behind that justification, Max. Seriously, try it even
>in regular life...there is always a context and laws assume that the
>people interpreting the laws are sensible enough to make decisions
>based on evidence.
In everyday life there ignorance of the laws is no defence.
Where I live I've watched murdering scum hide behind justification,
I've watched them rise through the terrorist ranks into government.
They are still murdering scum, they broke the law whether they were
ignorant or justified.
>
>> You wouldn't be working with me, you would be working for me. My
>> method of business has worked very well for a long time. I don't take
>> any shit so I tend not to get any shit. Fuck me about and you get
>> chased.
>> I wear a different hat on the cricket field.
>
>See that is the difference. I consider my job as 'working WITH' not
>'working FOR'. No one works for anyone, Max. People work for
>themselves. Just coz you report to a Manager does not mean you work
>FOR him. You are not some kinda servant or slave. You work with
>people, Max.
I don't report to anyone, and I'm not a manager. In my line of work I
have no equal.
Who pays you? If I pay you then you work for me. That's how business
works, no slavery involved. I pay for a job done to an acceptable
standard. If I don't get that, then you go.
>
>> Why did you snip the piece that I responded to? Cheating? Post
>> tampering? Altering the condition of the text in order to attempt to
>> gain some kind of advantage? You are letting your whole country down,
>> tut tut.
>> You said =A0
>
>I did not have anything to add to that point...if u haven't noticed by
>now that is what I always do...I reply only to the points where I have
>a response and I try as much as possible to have only the immediate
>preceding level of the conversation. No malice there.
>> >One individual can never have the power
>> >to misrepresent other individuals...that is why we have conflict
>> >resolutions.
>>
>> I pointed out that you are sadly wrong.
>
>Wrong as per your opinion.
No, your assumption is wrong, the assumption that you snipped, the one
that I quoted from you. The same assumtion that you are now saying is
not relevent. That one
>These are opinions about other things which
>are not directly relevant to the topic in discussion and there is no
>point wasting time on personal judgments here hence I did not find it
>necessary to respond. Anything wrong with that? Sometimes you feel
>like responding, like above on the boss thing, and sometimes you
>don;t, like this one in the previous post.
Why don't you feel it necessary to respond? You initiated the comment,
you received a reply and you snipped it. You snipped the statement
that I responded to and now you say not directly relevent.
Don't like it snip it? Make a bloomer? Ah sure just snip it
>
>> Umpires are expected to apply the law and base any decision they might
>> have to make on the law.
>
>Which is right no disagreement there. The disagreement is in having
>justification to accuse someone of a serious thing like that. Look law
>says umpire is the final authority on declaring an LBW (pls lets leave
>the witty ones of UDRS and all out). Now, law would say that if the
>umpire thinks that the ball hits in line of the stumps and is going on
>to thit the stumps then he should give it out. The main thing here is
>that the law has given a guideline on when to use th LBW and has left
>it to the umpire's conjecture for every specific case. As per the law
>book the umpire is very much "right" if he gives a ball pitching
>outside leg stump and hits outside leg stump line and probably would
>even miss hitting the stumps or bounce higher than them. No one to
>question him..law book said this is the guideline, and umpire has the
>necessary expertise and logical brain to interpret it and do justice
>to the law. Umpire is saying that he has enough conviction to believe
>it was going to hit the stumps and that it pitched in line, hit in
>line, etc. As per law he is not wrong. but there is an implicit
>expectation that he will have enough evidence to back him up. A replay
>immediately shows his incompetence if he gets it wrong. Now, similarly
>law says umpire can accuse of ball tampering but they are implicitly
>expecting ump to have justifiable reasons and evidence for the same.
>Why aren't u understanding that?
Consider law 46.1 for example. This law tells us that no fielder,
(bowler excluded)shall have any part of his person grounded or
extended over the pitch. until the ball has made contact with the bat
or person of the striker.
Apart from WI I don't know of anywhere that marks the ten feet cut
strip. However, the umpire calls noball because the fielder has a hand
extended over the pitch. There is no evidence that the fielder
actually did extend his hand over the pitch, and as captain you are
angry about it. What action would you take?
>> Actually it was Billy Doctrove who confirmed the suspicion that the
>> condition of the ball had been altered. Had Doc disagreed, there would
>> have been no penalty.
>
>Then why wasn't Billy taken to task too? Obviously one of the 2 was
>the instigator and the enforcer. If both of them were equally
>responsible for the accusation then they both should've been acted
>upon by the ICC. Please explain why Doctrove was not treated the way
>Hair was
I understand the complaint was directed against Hair. Though, I can't
imagine why.
>> What court of law? There was no court or trial. You are dreaming.
>
>My dear Max, there was a court of law in Sep/Oct of 2007(8?) Inzi flew
>from Pak to London to give his evidence...or at least was supposed to.
>Doctrove didn't turn up.
That was the action brought by Hair, not by Pakistan and not about a
cricket ball.
>> Expert witnesses Like when Inzi asked each player hand on heart if
>> they had altered the condition of the match ball? They all said no!
>> Shit we gatta believe them - really......dohhh
>
>Why should we take one man's word ober another's? The best way to deal
>with this is to have evidence...Hair did not have any evidence.
The umpires had monitored the condition of the ball, and in their
opinion the condition of the ball had been unfairly altered, that is
all the evidence that is needed in cricket law.
>> Which court? I don't remember any court? I don't remember any
>> "charge". At the hearing Hair was summoned to attend, Doctrove did not
>> attend in person. Are you sure his evidence was not available to the
>> hearing? If you do know, please enlighten me.
>
>Rahim also has written about it on the top. go on u'll find it even in
>cricinfo if u want to know of the case.
Rahim corrected your mistake as I have done above, if I remember.
>> I spoke to Hair at a funeral, but I didn't have the balls to bring up
>> the subject of the Oval test.
>
>Then on what basis are u saying the ball was tampered? And why are u
>taking Hair's word over someone else's? Coz Hair is your pal?
Hair isn't my pal, I had never met him before. He was pleasent, and
polite as is expected from mourners.
>> We don't have to touch the ball. There were two elite umpires
>> officiating the game to do that for us.
>> The panel had no jurisdiction. No matter what they think, it is of no
>> consequence to the penalty runs awarded or the result of the match.
>
>No you and I don't have to but you seem to be so convinced that the
>ball was tampered with that it was reasonable to ask you if you
>actually saw the ball yourself.
Of course the condition of the ball was changed unfairly. Two out of
the ten best cricket umpires in the world inspected the ball and
agreed that the condition of the ball had been altered unfairly.
>> You know I think that there were only two boundarys scored after the
>> inspection of the ball. Surely these hits are in archive, surely the
>> exact point of impact on the boards could have been discovered. Maybe
>> there would have been something on that board which made a mark that
>> looked like it had been made by a finger nail.
>
>If all that science can be done then Hair should've asked for it to be
>done. I can understand Hair not having the presence of mind because of
>the tension he was in, but his lawyer could have adviced Hair to ask
>for such tests to be done.
It is not up to the defence to provide information that will assist
the prosecution. Hair's case was sound and the result in the scorebook
shows that the case is still sound.
>> Rather than use your much wagged Pakistani "logic" to investigate the
>> actions of the umpires, and why they thought what happened did.
>> Pakistan decided to cry foul target only one of the umpires and behave
>> in a manner that brought the game of cricket into disrepute.
>
>What Pakistani logic am I using here? And it was only one arrogant ump
>who brought the game to disrespute by alleging someone of a serious
>thing without even having the necessary justifications and evidences
>for it. Is Hair that dumb that he believes an umpire can allege
>anything and people will keep quiet?
Wrong again. It was Inzimam who was charged with bringing the game
into disrepute, a charge he did not contest.
You might like this, I've posted it before. One of my colleagues was
umpiring in the ICL. He had a day off, and went to the game. He was in
the tv umpire's room, with two other off duty colleagues and the match
referee. The referee spotted a Lahore player picking the seam just
before the match. He informed the onfield umpires to watch the player.
Later the ref noticed the same player picking the seam during the
game. He informed the onfield umpire, who took no action. He (Dave
Orchard I think)said he didn't see the incident. The ref convened a
hearing with the Lahore manager, skipper (Inzi?) and the fielder
(Malik?). The manager turned up alone, watched the footage and refuted
the allegations. He said the player was picking dirt off the ball (a
transgression on it's own). The ref wasn't happy and instructed the
Lahore manager to present his captain and the player concerned.
Poor Inzi. From the Oval to India and ball tampering follows him.
The Lahore team ignored this instruction and went home.
It seems to be difficult for some cricket players to adopt the concept
of respect for the spirit of the game, the role of the umpires, and
the laws of the game they play.
Bootnote:
The law covers actions likely to unfairly alter the condition of the
match ball. I can only assume that, Doc and Hair regarded the
"fingernail" marks on tha ball as coming from such an action.
When the issue was raised on the field it goes that Doc wanted to hold
off and catch the fielder responsible, but as the umpires had already
met and examined the ball in full view of the players and the millions
of cricket watchers in tv land, that was unlikely to happen.
I'm killing this thread now, if I remember.
Some advice for you. Learn the laws, take some training.
You will embarrass yourself a little less - perhaps.
Nirvanam
What are you going on about, Higgs?
Nirvanam
> Where I live I've watched murdering scum hide behind justification,
> I've watched them rise through the terrorist ranks into government.
> They are still murdering scum, they broke the law whether they were
> ignorant or justified.
Who is talking about ignorance of law?
> I don't report to anyone, and I'm not a manager. In my line of work I
> have no equal.
> Who pays you? If I pay you then you work for me. That's how business
> works, no slavery involved. I pay for a job done to an acceptable
> standard. If I don't get that, then you go.
My company pays me for my services. I don't work FOR them, I work WITH
them. It is a mutual-benefit relationship. Anyway lets leave this for
some other time and some other thread
> No, your assumption is wrong, the assumption that you snipped, the one
> that I quoted from you. The same assumtion that you are now saying is
> not relevent. That one
What assumption was it? Now what are you going to do? Say that oh this
is why u should not have snipped. Come on Max, where are you going
with this? Stick to the topic and leave this personal things aside for
a bit. Not every conversation/debate/argument has to turn into some
form of personal bashing or trying to show the other person in a bad
light. You are arguing the point not the person.
> Why don't you feel it necessary to respond? You initiated the comment,
> you received a reply and you snipped it. You snipped the statement
> that I responded to and now you say not directly relevent.
> Don't like it snip it? Make a bloomer? Ah sure just snip it
Why do you need to respond to everything. Some arguments you will have
counter arguments. Some arguments you feel are not worth arguing
further. Some arguments you accept. Some arguments you feel are not
relevant.
> Consider law 46.1 for example. This law tells us that no fielder,
> (bowler excluded)shall have any part of his person grounded or
> extended over the pitch. until the ball has made contact with the bat
> or person of the striker.
> Apart from WI I don't know of anywhere that marks the ten feet cut
> strip. However, the umpire calls noball because the fielder has a hand
> extended over the pitch. There is no evidence that the fielder
> actually did extend his hand over the pitch, and as captain you are
> angry about it. What action would you take?
There is evidence. Replays? Now, in this particular decision, it is a
no-ball call the fielding captain may think it is not worth pursuing.
Suppose a batsman was out and the no-ball was called by the ump for
this purpose, then luckily at this point in time they have the UDRS.
If they don't then they accept the decision. But accepting the
decision does not mean the decision was "right". Replays will be the
evidence to show us whether the decision itself was right or wrong.
Umpire's call is accepted in 99.99999999%. It is in rare cases like
this one where an ump is accusing something very serious that ppl
expect the ump to have evidence. Is it not fair to expect someone to
have evidence if he is going to accuse you of something really
serious?
> I understand the complaint was directed against Hair. Though, I can't
> imagine why.
If Pak complained about Hair, then either they believe Billy was not
involved in the decision or were being stupid because in any court of
law it would be viewed as selective bashing / accusing. The smartest
thing Hair could've done if he believed Doctrove also was equally
responsible for the decision was to question Pakistan why they were
pointing at him when there were 2 umps? Did he do that?
That's the whole point innit, that it was Hair's call. It does not
take rocket science to specify that the decision was taken by both the
umps and as a matter of logical flow both of them would have been
charged or complained against. Why did Hair not defend himself by
saying he and his colleague are equally responsible? An excuse like he
didn't want Doctrove to be dragged in is not done coz this is a
serious thing..its a matter of his career and future to do with
cricket. If he chose to be the martyr then no sympathies to him
> That was the action brought by Hair, not by Pakistan and not about a
> cricket ball.
Then what was it about, my dear. Yep you'll say Hair accused ICC of
racism. But at the end of the day he could play that card only if he
argued that Doctrove should have also been complained against. He
clearly did not. He hammered his own leg. And on top of that tried to
negotiate with ICC to shut up. He ruined the case himself. Why
couldn't he have kept his eyes open and just waited to catch Pak red-
handed or at least look for tamper items before charging them with
such a serious thing. Was he not aware the seriousness and the history
of the whole controversy to be so pig-headed and make such a decision
without having any presentable evidence. Oh the last few sentences do
not mean Pak did it, it just means that if Hair was certain they were
doing it then he should've been smart enough to catch them properly
instead of arrogantly expecting people to accept whatever he
pronounces.
> The umpires had monitored the condition of the ball, and in their
> opinion the condition of the ball had been unfairly altered, that is
> all the evidence that is needed in cricket law.
Listen, that is not evidence. I mean please speak to a lawyer or
anyone who deals with some form of formal logical evaluation...even
the HR department of a company. Max, as an ump and as what the book
says Hair did nothing wrong. Where he was wrong was in abusing his
power. People cannot make serious allegations like that and hope to
get away because the law book gives the benefit of conjecture to the
umpire. In any equal society that cannot be tolerated. The moment you
accuse a team of cheating it no longer remains on the field, it
becomes a very serious thing. So umpires and officials need to find
ways to deal with the problem (if they think there is a problem) in a
more conflict-avoiding way
> Rahim corrected your mistake as I have done above, if I remember.
What mistake? And what mistake have you corrected. There again you are
getting personal. Stop it man.
> Of course the condition of the ball was changed unfairly. Two out of
> the ten best cricket umpires in the world inspected the ball and
> agreed that the condition of the ball had been altered unfairly.
There again you go. There is no evidence to show the ball was unfairly
altered. Conjecture is what they made. And umpteen experts have
conjectured that the ball could not have been unfairly altered. You
are not looking at the bigger picture here. It is not a "out/not-out"
decision that the umpire's word is final. This is a serious serious
allegation, any ump worth his salt will ensure evidence is gathered
before he can make the decision. Hair also would've done that of all
you know but something must've taken over his mind and he lost his
presence of mind and didn't think thru the implications of such an
allegation. Why could he not wait and find something tangible or at
least caught them red-handed? Obviously he was looking around with
hawk eyes for overs together and did not find any. On top of that if
he chose to make that decision, which court of law will accept his
decision was a logical, unbiased one?
> It is not up to the defence to provide information that will assist
> the prosecution. Hair's case was sound and the result in the scorebook
> shows that the case is still sound.
LOL!
> Wrong again. It was Inzimam who was charged with bringing the game
> into disrepute, a charge he did not contest.
Yep he did not refute because he was the one who decided not to go on
to the field. Given that he was being called a cheat he probably felt
if he went on the field he will be vindicating Hair's allegation. And
yes he rightly deserves to be punished for that, which he was? But at
the same time Hair also brought disrepute to the game by alleging
something so serious and hoping to get away with it without any
evidence.
> You might like this, I've posted it before. One of my colleagues was
> umpiring in the ICL. He had a day off, and went to the game. He was in
> the tv umpire's room, with two other off duty colleagues and the match
> referee. The referee spotted a Lahore player picking the seam just
> before the match. He informed the onfield umpires to watch the player.
> Later the ref noticed the same player picking the seam during the
> game. He informed the onfield umpire, who took no action. He (Dave
> Orchard I think)said he didn't see the incident. The ref convened a
> hearing with the Lahore manager, skipper (Inzi?) and the fielder
> (Malik?). The manager turned up alone, watched the footage and refuted
> the allegations. He said the player was picking dirt off the ball (a
> transgression on it's own). The ref wasn't happy and instructed the
> Lahore manager to present his captain and the player concerned.
>
> Poor Inzi. From the Oval to India and ball tampering follows him.
>
> The Lahore team ignored this instruction and went home.
> It seems to be difficult for some cricket players to adopt the concept
> of respect for the spirit of the game, the role of the umpires, and
> the laws of the game they play.
Hmm...thanks for letting me know the incident but if this incident was
supposed to help make the current case in any way then you would know
that such a type of logical association falls under different fallacy
categories..."straw man", and "red herring" being pretty obvious. For
your reference -
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
That's what...you are assuming that Doc and Hair actually saw finger
nail marks and ready to believe their version that they thought the
ball was being tampered with. Why are you ready to believe Hair's word
over someone else's word? This is exactly why all courts of law ask
for objective evidence and not just a conjecture.
Here's a logical question...if Hair and Doctrove felt that the ball
was tampered and their examination of the ball happened so obviously
that everyone on TV and at the ground knew what they were doing, why
did they not make the call immediately? Or did they? Or did they wait
for a few more overs when they finally "realized they were not going
to catch the thugs because now they are all conscious the cameras will
be on them". And without having evidence Hair still chose to make that
decision, does it not sound arrogant to you?
I can understand he is part of your brotherhood but he did not do
things smartly...accept that.
> I'm killing this thread now, if I remember.
> Some advice for you. Learn the laws, take some training.
> You will embarrass yourself a little less - perhaps.
>
> max.it
There again you go. Don't get personal everytime someone argues with
you. What law are you talking about, Max? When have I ever argued that
as per the law book Hair did the wrong thing? This is what you are
doing....misrepresenting.
Unknown
<viz.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
<Snipped>
>Why do you need to respond to everything. Some arguments you will have
>counter arguments. Some arguments you feel are not worth arguing
>further. Some arguments you accept. Some arguments you feel are not
>relevant.
>
>> Consider law 46.1 for example. This law tells us that no fielder,
>> (bowler excluded)shall have any part of his person grounded or
>> extended over the pitch. until the ball has made contact with the bat
>> or person of the striker.
>> Apart from WI I don't know of anywhere that marks the ten feet cut
>> strip. However, the umpire calls noball because the fielder has a hand
>> extended over the pitch. There is no evidence that the fielder
>> actually did extend his hand over the pitch, and as captain you are
>> angry about it. What action would you take?
>
>There is evidence. Replays?
There is no other evidence.
>Now, in this particular decision, it is a
>no-ball call the fielding captain may think it is not worth pursuing.
Persuing for what exactly?
>Suppose a batsman was out and the no-ball was called by the ump for
>this purpose, then luckily at this point in time they have the UDRS.
I said, we have no other evidence
>If they don't then they accept the decision.
OK.
>But accepting the
>decision does not mean the decision was "right".
How do you know if the decision is not "right"?
>Replays will be the
>evidence to show us whether the decision itself was right or wrong.
No other evidence is available.
>Umpire's call is accepted in 99.99999999%.
Don't know about that.
>It is in rare cases like
>this one where an ump is accusing something very serious that ppl
>expect the ump to have evidence. Is it not fair to expect someone to
>have evidence if he is going to accuse you of something really
>serious?
Really serious ? you're having a laffff. I can remember the umpire
training for the all new 2000 codex, I can remember how much debate
there was about throwing the ball into the ground, and cleaning it
without the umpire being present, or mysteriously occuring marks on
the ball, or that fabric strip sewn into the whites that appeared a
while back. It isn't a serious offence, the call should be made more
often for the reasons outlined above.
Something that seems to me to be missing from tv cricket, is the pre
match conference between the umpires,captains and scorers. You can
understand just how important this brief meeting is. The roles of each
pair is outlined and their responsibilities are accepted. They may
each think each other is an asshole, but the bounds have been set at
that point.
<snipped>
>> I'm killing this thread now, if I remember.
>> Some advice for you. Learn the laws, take some training.
>> You will embarrass yourself a little less - perhaps.
>>
>> max.it
>
>There again you go. Don't get personal everytime someone argues with
>you.
I'm not getting personal, I'm Irish. In person you would have to
decipher the words from the mumbling conversation littered with
profanities and blasphemies and unfounded abusive retorts.
On your employment:
I read this on a toilet wall in Harland and Wolffe.
"Those who try to do their best, Go down the road like all the rest"
alvey
>> No it didn't. It went to an employment tribunal.
> And those are not a category of courts?
Nope.
Generally a court has the judicial authority of the State. Tribunals don't.
>
>> To establish that Pakistan have form for cheating? Perfectly reasonable
>> thing to do.
>
> And Koetzen denied saying it...lol!
I'm afraid that's another error. Koertzen took the standard politicians way
out and said that he had no recollection of saying that. That's a
significant difference.
"He [RK] confirmed he had spoken to Hair by telephone during the World Cup
but said he could not recall saying what Hair claimed."
http://tinyurl.com/ydqojkf
>
>> Q1. What Law or protocol did Hair & Doctrove not obey in the incident?
>
> Who ever said they broke any "law".
You've missed the point.
The point is that if Hair & Doctrove did not break any Law or protocol then
they do not have a case to answer.
> Hair did not care to gather or
> keep track of evidences that could vindicate his allegation.
What feeble and grasping rubbish. The Laws state that it is the umpires'
opinion. EoS.
> And he was making a serious allegation.
Not really. If it was a "serious" crime then it'd be worth more than a
lousy five run penalty. And who knows? Perhaps he took into account that
Pakistan were repeat tampering offenders? Certainly Hair wouldn't have
expected a reaction of frothing populists jumping up and down shouting
about Cheatistan's "good name" being outrageously slurred by being accused
of something that they had form for. What rational person would've expected
that eh?
> I don;'t think he is so stupid that
> people will just accept any damn indictment just coz he has "crossed
> the line on to the field"
What!! You mean that players in a game shouldn't take any notice of what
the umpire decides. Wonderfull stuff! (You must've been a total little shit
playing games in the backyard.)
>
>> Q2. Why wasn't Doctrove given the same penalty as Hair?
>
> Isn't that what I am also asking? Why didn't Doctrove get the same
> penalty. Why only Hair
Because certain countries didn't like him and were able to express
themselves. In a totally corrupt, morally indefensible and grossly
hypocritical manner, but hey, what's new?
alvey
Nirvanam
Why would you say Replays are not an evidence? What constitutes the
term 'evidence' according to you? A replay from an appropriate angle
will show whether person was on the pitch or not.
> >Now, in this particular decision, it is a
> >no-ball call the fielding captain may think it is not worth pursuing.
>
> Persuing for what exactly?
Pursuing the need for defending himself...like how Inzi defended his
team because he believed no ball tampering was done.
> How do you know if the decision is not "right"?
Scientific proof. Cricket rules say the umpiure's decision is final.
They NEVER claim that umpire's decision is right...if they do then
please enlighten me with the actual text or reference. That is why we
accept the umpire's decision...its only in extraordinary circumstances
that we rise up to question the umpire's decision
> Really serious ? you're having a laffff. I can remember the umpire
> training for the all new 2000 codex, I can remember how much debate
> there was about throwing the ball into the ground, and cleaning it
> without the umpire being present, or mysteriously occuring marks on
> the ball, or that fabric strip sewn into the whites that appeared a
> while back. It isn't a serious offence, the call should be made more
> often for the reasons outlined above.
I am not laughing at the incident...I am laughing at the way you are
bringing in red-herrings.
> >There again you go. Don't get personal everytime someone argues with
> >you.
>
> I'm not getting personal, I'm Irish. In person you would have to
> decipher the words from the mumbling conversation littered with
> profanities and blasphemies and unfounded abusive retorts.
What has you being Irish got to do with getting personal or not...if
it was supposed to be a cultural 'saying' or 'joke' or 'proverb' or
whatever then I did not get it.
Nirvanam
> Generally a court has the judicial authority of the State. Tribunals don't.
What happens to the decisions / pronouncements made by the tribunal?
Are they treated and respected like decisions from courts, or are such
tribunals only meant to make a report and then it goes to the court
for passing the judgment? I don't know how it is done hence asking u
> I'm afraid that's another error. Koertzen took the standard politicians way
> out and said that he had no recollection of saying that. That's a
> significant difference.
lol!
> "He [RK] confirmed he had spoken to Hair by telephone during the World Cup
> but said he could not recall saying what Hair claimed."http://tinyurl.com/ydqojkf
what does that statement mean...pls explain in your own words.
> You've missed the point.
> The point is that if Hair & Doctrove did not break any Law or protocol then
> they do not have a case to answer.
Your opinion. Unfortunately enough people think otherwise. Look, you
need to be able to differentiate a decision made by the umpire related
to let's say a catch or out-not out and alleging a team of cheating.
If an umpire does not have the presence of mind to collect enough
evidence that can vindicate why he made the decision that he made then
he deserves to be taught a lesson.
> What feeble and grasping rubbish. The Laws state that it is the umpires'
> opinion. EoS.
Fortunately, sense prevailed and all and sundry showed thru their
reading of the ball that Hair was abusing his power.
> Not really. If it was a "serious" crime then it'd be worth more than a
> lousy five run penalty. And who knows? Perhaps he took into account that
> Pakistan were repeat tampering offenders? Certainly Hair wouldn't have
> expected a reaction of frothing populists jumping up and down shouting
> about Cheatistan's "good name" being outrageously slurred by being accused
> of something that they had form for. What rational person would've expected
> that eh?
Seriousness of te crime is not in the magnitude of runs deducted but
in the implication that the team has cheated. But yes according to you
or many others it may not be 'serious enough'. However ICC thought it
was serious enough hence the questioning of Hair
> > I don;'t think he is so stupid that
> > people will just accept any damn indictment just coz he has "crossed
> > the line on to the field"
>
> What!! You mean that players in a game shouldn't take any notice of what
> the umpire decides. Wonderfull stuff! (You must've been a total little shit
> playing games in the backyard.)
>
What exactly are you interpreting from that statement, Alvey? Did you
even understand what the statement is saying? Try representing your
understanding of my statement first so I can correct or confirm any
misinterpretations.
> > Isn't that what I am also asking? Why didn't Doctrove get the same
> > penalty. Why only Hair
>
> Because certain countries didn't like him and were able to express
> themselves. In a totally corrupt, morally indefensible and grossly
> hypocritical manner, but hey, what's new?
>
> alvey
Since its not new then what's the point in crying about it. If you
care enough then do something about it. Just cribbing about it on a
forum here over and over and over does not change the fact that Hair
was stripped of his responsibilities, he was rehabilitated, etc.
Unknown
<viz.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There is no other evidence.
>
>Why would you say Replays are not an evidence? What constitutes the
>term 'evidence' according to you? A replay from an appropriate angle
>will show whether person was on the pitch or not.
I said there is no evidence. Why have you dreamed up replays when I
already said there is no evidence. The fielder wasn't on camera or
there were no cameras, or the camera man was drunk and forgot to
remove the lens cap.
>> >Now, in this particular decision, it is a
>> >no-ball call the fielding captain may think it is not worth pursuing.
>>
>> Persuing for what exactly?
>
>Pursuing the need for defending himself...like how Inzi defended his
>team because he believed no ball tampering was done.
Why should he want to persue it?
>> How do you know if the decision is not "right"?
>
>Scientific proof. Cricket rules say the umpiure's decision is final.
>They NEVER claim that umpire's decision is right...if they do then
>please enlighten me with the actual text or reference. That is why we
>accept the umpire's decision...its only in extraordinary circumstances
>that we rise up to question the umpire's decision.
There can be no scientific proof, because as I have already said there
is no evidence.
>> =A0Really serious ? you're having a laffff. I can remember the umpire
>> training for the all new 2000 codex, I can remember how much debate
>> there was about throwing the ball into the ground, and cleaning it
>> without the umpire being present, or mysteriously occuring marks on
>> the ball, or that fabric strip sewn into the whites that appeared a
>> while back. It isn't a serious offence, the call should be made more
>> often for the reasons outlined above.
>
>I am not laughing at the incident...I am laughing at the way you are
>bringing in red-herrings.
No red herrings, just comparisons.
You are the guy wanting to persue a no ball call for lack of evidence.
Here is the question again.
the umpire calls noball because the fielder has a hand
extended over the pitch. There is no evidence that the fielder
actually did extend his hand over the pitch, and as captain you are
angry about it.
What action would you take?
Imagine the scene. You have never seen this called before.
The players think the umpire is being excessive, you think the call is
unfounded and appears to you that he has a strong bias to the other
side.. You think this umpire has it in for you. Say the noball went to
the boundary. You have conceded 5 valuable runs. The fielder swears he
didn't do it.
>> >There again you go. Don't get personal everytime someone argues with
>> >you.
>>
>> I'm not getting personal, I'm Irish. In person you would have to
>> decipher the words from the mumbling conversation littered with
>> profanities and blasphemies and unfounded abusive retorts.
>
>What has you being Irish got to do with getting personal or not...if
>it was supposed to be a cultural 'saying' or 'joke' or 'proverb' or
>whatever then I did not get it.
You wouldn't last long here mate.
jzfredricks
> team because he believed no ball tampering was done.
Another reason he should have played on and fought it out later -
perhaps someone in the team DID tamper with the ball, but without
Inzi's knowledge. And this player didn't have the guts to own up to
it.
Inzi should have considered this, played on, and defended his team
post-match.
alvey
>> Nope.
>> Generally a court has the judicial authority of the State. Tribunals don't.
>
> What happens to the decisions / pronouncements made by the tribunal?
> Are they treated and respected like decisions from courts, or are such
> tribunals only meant to make a report and then it goes to the court
> for passing the judgment? I don't know how it is done hence asking u
>
>> I'm afraid that's another error. Koertzen took the standard politicians way
>> out and said that he had no recollection of saying that. That's a
>> significant difference.
>
> lol!
>
>> "He [RK] confirmed he had spoken to Hair by telephone during the World Cup
>> but said he could not recall saying what Hair claimed."http://tinyurl.com/ydqojkf
>
> what does that statement mean...pls explain in your own words.
Shan't! The well-worn response phrase of "I have no recollection of..." is
what is known as 'Weasel Words'. And here's a reasonable definition of
'Weasel words' from TheFreeDictionary.
"An equivocal word [AS: or phrase] used to deprive a statement of its force
or to evade a direct commitment.
[From the weasel's habit of sucking the contents out of an egg without
breaking the shell."
>
>> You've missed the point.
>> The point is that if Hair & Doctrove did not break any Law or protocol then
>> they do not have a case to answer.
>
> Your opinion.
No, it's not an opinion, it's a fact. Of course you could prove me wrong by
quoting the relevant Law/protocol that they didn't follow.
> Unfortunately enough people think otherwise.
Really? Let's hear from them then on what Law/protocol that H & D didn't
follow.
> Look, you
> need to be able to differentiate a decision made by the umpire related
> to let's say a catch or out-not out and alleging a team of cheating.
Nope. You're wrong once again. All of the examples that you quote are
decided in exactly the same manner. They are the opinion of the umpire.
Actually, come to think of it, the charge of ball-tampering *is* different
to other decisions. It requires the opinion of *both* umpires.
> If an umpire does not have the presence of mind to collect enough
> evidence that can vindicate why he made the decision that he made then
> he deserves to be taught a lesson.
You're just mindlessly repeating ridiculous dribble now. Exactly what
"evidence" are the on-field umps supposed to collect? Pix on their mobiles?
Signed confessions? Half-a-dozen fingernails wedged in the quarter-seam?
What? What?
>
>> What feeble and grasping rubbish. The Laws state that it is the umpires'
>> opinion. EoS.
>
> Fortunately, sense prevailed and all and sundry showed thru their
> reading of the ball that Hair was abusing his power.
You mean Hair & Doctrove "abused their power".
And of course once again you are wrong. What "showed" was that other people
had a different opinion to H & D. Of course cynics believe that once the
farce proceeded to that statge then there was never a chance in Sydney of
any witnesses having any other opinion.
>
>> Not really. If it was a "serious" crime then it'd be worth more than a
>> lousy five run penalty. And who knows? Perhaps he took into account that
>> Pakistan were repeat tampering offenders? Certainly Hair wouldn't have
>> expected a reaction of frothing populists jumping up and down shouting
>> about Cheatistan's "good name" being outrageously slurred by being accused
>> of something that they had form for. What rational person would've expected
>> that eh? �
>
> Seriousness of te crime is not in the magnitude of runs deducted but
> in the implication that the team has cheated. But yes according to you
> or many others it may not be 'serious enough'. However ICC thought it
> was serious enough hence the questioning of Hair
Lordy! Quoting the ICC as an august and impartial arbiter! I laughed 'till
I chundered.
>
>>> I don;'t think he is so stupid that
>>> people will just accept any damn indictment just coz he has "crossed
>>> the line on to the field"
>>
>> What!! You mean that players in a game shouldn't take any notice of what
>> the umpire decides. Wonderfull stuff! (You must've been a total little shit
>> playing games in the backyard.)
>>
> What exactly are you interpreting from that statement, Alvey?
Exactly what I wrote.
> Did you even understand what the statement is saying?
Of course not. I just plucked some words at random and assembled them the
same way.
> Try representing your
> understanding of my statement first so I can correct or confirm any
> misinterpretations.
Frankly m'dear, I don't care to.
Your posts in this brief exchange have had as many errors as a Pakistan
fielding session plus the recurring habit of bleating "You didn't
understand what I was saying..." add up to me having had enough.
>
>>> Isn't that what I am also asking? Why didn't Doctrove get the same
>>> penalty. Why only Hair
>>
>> Because certain countries didn't like him and were able to express
>> themselves. In a totally corrupt, morally indefensible and grossly
>> hypocritical manner, but hey, what's new?
>>
>> alvey
>
> Since its not new then what's the point in crying about it.
Brilliant! No more History lessons kiddies!
> If you care enough then do something about it.
Exactly what do you suggest? [Rhetorical question. Answer not required.]
> Just cribbing about it on a forum here over and over and over does not change the fact that Hair
> was stripped of his responsibilities, he was rehabilitated, etc.
Yet it's perfectly ok for you to keep on braying falsehoods! Marrrvellous
effort that!
alvey
Mad Hamish
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I'd like to know if Hair "talked" Doc into agreeing, or something like
>> > that.
>>
>> http://pdfs.island.lk/2006/09/27/p12.pdfhttp://www.cricinfo.com/engvpak/content/story/260592.html
>
>It's stories like this that make me side with Pakistan on the first
>charge - being ball tampering cheats, and ofc say Hair did wrong.
>
>For me, though, that was the opening chapter to The Book of Shame,
>most of the rest being written by Pakistan and edited by the ICC. And
>thankfully later sent to the backshelf by your beloved MCC (when the
>rightfully had the result returned to a forfeit).
For me those stories are considerably slanted.
Quotes I've seen say that Doctrove agreed that the ball had been
tampered with but wanted to leave it a couple of overs to see if they
could spot who was having a go at it and Hair reminded him that under
the playing conditions if the umpires were in agreement that the ball
had been tampered with it had to be replaced immediately.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au
Nirvanam
> already said there is no evidence. The fielder wasn't on camera or
> there were no cameras, or the camera man was drunk and forgot to
> remove the lens cap.
I already told you what may typically be done in both cases...if
replays exist or if they don't
> Why should he want to persue it?
How would I know in this example? But in Inzi's case, as he has said,
he felt that it was a very serious allegation which was not true and
therefore he did what he did.
> No red herrings, just comparisons.
Do you even know what a red-herring is in the context of logical
fallacies? This might help - http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html
> You are the guy wanting to persue a no ball call for lack of evidence.
Don't twist what I said...I said if the captain feels it is worth it
then he may pursue it else no.
> Here is the question again.
> the umpire calls noball because the fielder has a hand
> extended over the pitch. There is no evidence that the fielder
> actually did extend his hand over the pitch, and as captain you are
> angry about it.
> What action would you take?
Nothing really. Just clarify with the ump why it was a no-ball and he
tells me the reason. There ends the matter.
> Imagine the scene. You have never seen this called before.
The moment the umpire clarifies that there is such a rule then there
ends the matter.
> The players think the umpire is being excessive,
the moment umpire clarifies the reason for the no-ball why would
players think umpire was being excessive. Well individuals can think
what they want but as captain I'd just let it go.
> you think the call is
> unfounded and appears to you that he has a strong bias to the other
> side.. You think this umpire has it in for you.
All this does not arise because the reason has already been given and
it is very much possible that some or the other fielder must have
leaned on the pitch. It ends there. The allegation does not amount to
anything serious, at least in my view, so why bother?
> Say the noball went to
> the boundary. You have conceded 5 valuable runs.
Does not matter whether it went for 6 or 4 or whatever. Umpire has
already explained why he gave it no ball..its over.
> The fielder swears he
> didn't do it.
Again, does not matter...for one if my fielder swears that he didn't
do it and insists complains be made against the ump I'd say leave it.
Now as an individual if he still wants to complain and take the ump to
court or whatever he wants to do about it for this matter, I as
captain and the team will not get involved. It is too trivial a matter
to waste time or energy on.
> You wouldn't last long here mate.
>
> max.it
OK
Just in case you are using the no-ball example to say Hair did the
right thing then it would help you to know that you are committing a
logical fallacy of the type 'Weak Analogy' Fallacy. You can get more
information of this Fallacy here - http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/weak-analogy/
When you go to that page, you will see all the types of fallacies
listed on the right hand side. I'll leave it for you to go through
them and see if each argument above is a logical fallacy and if so
which one is it. That way you'd do well not to argue on logical
grounds for what Hair did.
It is your opinion that Hair was right in doing what he did. That is
fair. I cannot question your opinion, but I question the logic and
through your logical arguments it is evident that they are fallacious
arguments.
Nirvanam
That's what I'd think he should've done. But he didn't and the fact
that he didn't does not mean Hair was right in accusing Pakistan of
ball tampering. Inzi deserved to get his ban as did Hair deserve to be
humiliated and put on rehabilitation.
Nirvanam
That's what I'd think he should've done. But he didn't and the fact
Nirvanam
> what is known as 'Weasel Words'. And here's a reasonable definition of
> 'Weasel words' from TheFreeDictionary.
>
> "An equivocal word [AS: or phrase] used to deprive a statement of its force
> or to evade a direct commitment.
>
> [From the weasel's habit of sucking the contents out of an egg without
> breaking the shell."
Thanks for clarifying it. But unfortunately the tribunal did not agree
with your "weasel words" representation of Koetzen.
>
> >> You've missed the point.
> >> The point is that if Hair & Doctrove did not break any Law or protocol then
> >> they do not have a case to answer.
>
> > Your opinion.
>
> No, it's not an opinion, it's a fact. Of course you could prove me wrong by
> quoting the relevant Law/protocol that they didn't follow.
The fact ends here..."> >> The point is that if Hair & Doctrove did
not break any Law or protocol" and the opinion begins here "then
> >> they do not have a case to answer."
> Really? Let's hear from them then on what Law/protocol that H & D didn't
> follow.
Again who ever said they broke a law or protocol?
> Nope. You're wrong once again. All of the examples that you quote are
> decided in exactly the same manner. They are the opinion of the umpire.
> Actually, come to think of it, the charge of ball-tampering *is* different
> to other decisions. It requires the opinion of *both* umpires.
Yep. Now you are understanding it finally. Some decisions are opinions
that can be verified. When verified and they are true then the opinion
is based on fact. When verified and found no evidence to justify them
then the opinion is based on non-fact. So whether the opinion is held
by 1 person or 7 billion it is still an opinion. The opinion may
definitely be based on factual evidence. Unfortunately in this ball-
tampering case there was no factual evidence available.
> You're just mindlessly repeating ridiculous dribble now. Exactly what
> "evidence" are the on-field umps supposed to collect? Pix on their mobiles?
> Signed confessions? Half-a-dozen fingernails wedged in the quarter-seam?
> What? What?
For one, if they have seen someone do it their case will be stronger.
Secondly, if the cameras have caught anything then that will also
become evidence. Now neither did the cameras catch anything (does not
mean it didn't happen..but if it did happen then we need to look for
some other form of evidence to prove it happened) nor did the umpires
see the ball being tampered with (again does not mean it did not
happen but if it did happen then we need something at least to back up
the accusation). Now if the umpire does not have strong material to
back his opinion then he was risking being taken to task for making
such a serious allegation. Good he did, he now learned that in any
dispute-resolution outside of the cricket ground they rightly give
weight to objective evidence. On the field the ump, as per cricket
law, did not do anything wrong. But surely it does not mean that any
ump can start accusing any team of anything without justification. He
may get away with it on the field of play but the moment they cross
the field of play he will have to bear the consequences of alleging
things....if he did it rightly then he need not fear anything but if
he didn't then his arrogance must be dealt with.
> You mean Hair & Doctrove "abused their power".
Well that's my opinion. But here's the difference...I am not claiming
it as fact. Its an opinion
> And of course once again you are wrong. What "showed" was that other people
> had a different opinion to H & D. Of course cynics believe that once the
> farce proceeded to that statge then there was never a chance in Sydney of
> any witnesses having any other opinion.
well adds nothing to do the discussion
> > Seriousness of te crime is not in the magnitude of runs deducted but
> > in the implication that the team has cheated. But yes according to you
> > or many others it may not be 'serious enough'. However ICC thought it
> > was serious enough hence the questioning of Hair
>
> Lordy! Quoting the ICC as an august and impartial arbiter! I laughed 'till
> I chundered.
The above argument can be categorized as the logical fallacy called
"Ad Hominem", or even the logical fallacy called "Appeal to
Popularity" in case we consider that the popular opinion about ICC is
that it is not a very credible body. Your reference for fallacies -
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
>
> >>> I don;'t think he is so stupid that
> >>> people will just accept any damn indictment just coz he has "crossed
> >>> the line on to the field"
>
> >> What!! You mean that players in a game shouldn't take any notice of what
> >> the umpire decides. Wonderfull stuff! (You must've been a total little shit
> >> playing games in the backyard.)
>
> > What exactly are you interpreting from that statement, Alvey?
>
> Exactly what I wrote.
Then you have misinterpreted my statement.
> Of course not. I just plucked some words at random and assembled them the
> same way.
That explains it
> Frankly m'dear, I don't care to.
> Your posts in this brief exchange have had as many errors as a Pakistan
> fielding session plus the recurring habit of bleating "You didn't
> understand what I was saying..." add up to me having had enough.
OK
>
> Yet it's perfectly ok for you to keep on braying falsehoods! Marrrvellous
> effort that!
What falsehoods? Name one please
Unknown
<viz.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I said there is no evidence. Why have you dreamed up replays when I
>> already said there is no evidence. The fielder wasn't on camera or
>> there were no cameras, or the camera man was drunk and forgot to
>> remove the lens cap.
>
>I already told you what may typically be done in both cases...if
>replays exist or if they don't.
Remind me, I must have missed that.
>> Why should he want to persue it?
>
>How would I know in this example? But in Inzi's case, as he has said,
>he felt that it was a very serious allegation which was not true and
>therefore he did what he did.
You suggested that the captain might want to persue it. I just
wondered why you thought he might?
>> No red herrings, just comparisons.
>Do you even know what a red-herring is in the context of logical
>fallacies? This might help - http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html
You're doing one right now.
>> You are the guy wanting to persue a no ball call for lack of evidence.
>
>Don't twist what I said...I said if the captain feels it is worth it
>then he may pursue it else no.
Why might the captain feel it would be worth it?
>
>> Here is the question again.
>> the umpire calls noball because the fielder has a hand
>> extended over the pitch. There is no evidence that the fielder
>> actually did extend his hand over the pitch, and as captain you are
>> angry about it.
>> What action would you take?
>
>Nothing really. Just clarify with the ump why it was a no-ball and he
>tells me the reason. There ends the matter.
Clarify what? The umpire has called noball and you think he has done
so with malice.
>> Imagine the scene. You have never seen this called before.
>
>The moment the umpire clarifies that there is such a rule then there
>ends the matter.
>
>> The players think the umpire is being excessive,
>
>the moment umpire clarifies the reason for the no-ball why would
>players think umpire was being excessive. Well individuals can think
>what they want but as captain I'd just let it go.
You don't believe the umpire.
>> you think the call is
>> unfounded and appears to you that he has a strong bias to the other
>> side.. You think this umpire has it in for you.
>
>All this does not arise because the reason has already been given and
>it is very much possible that some or the other fielder must have
>leaned on the pitch. It ends there. The allegation does not amount to
>anything serious, at least in my view, so why bother?
It is unfair for a fielder to encroach onto the pitch. The fielder
swears he didn't the umpire says he did. The fielder is lying or the
umpire is lying. Remember the captain is responsible for the actions
of his team.
>> Say the noball went to
>> the boundary. You have conceded 5 valuable runs.
>
>Does not matter whether it went for 6 or 4 or whatever. Umpire has
>already explained why he gave it no ball..its over.
>
>> The fielder swears he
>> didn't do it.
>
>Again, does not matter...for one if my fielder swears that he didn't
>do it and insists complains be made against the ump I'd say leave it.
>Now as an individual if he still wants to complain and take the ump to
>court or whatever he wants to do about it for this matter, I as
>captain and the team will not get involved. It is too trivial a matter
>to waste time or energy on.
What would you do if you got a call from the match ref about
overheard comments made about the incident by the fielder to his
colleagues? It wouldn't be trivial then, you might have wished you
wasted more energy sorting it out at the time.
>> You wouldn't last long here mate.
>>
>> max.it
>
>OK
>
>Just in case you are using the no-ball example to say Hair did the
>right thing then it would help you to know that you are committing a
>logical fallacy of the type 'Weak Analogy' Fallacy. You can get more
>information of this Fallacy here - http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/weak-analogy/
>When you go to that page, you will see all the types of fallacies
>listed on the right hand side. I'll leave it for you to go through
>them and see if each argument above is a logical fallacy and if so
>which one is it. That way you'd do well not to argue on logical
>grounds for what Hair did.
Bullshit. You are blustering. When a usenet correspondent posts that
link it's a sure sign that they are struggling.
>It is your opinion that Hair was right in doing what he did. That is
>fair. I cannot question your opinion, but I question the logic and
>through your logical arguments it is evident that they are fallacious
>arguments.
There can be no opinion. What the umpires did was mandatory.
On fallacies:
You said - Hypothesizing that the ball "must have
been tampered with because it 'looks' so" is not evidence.
What bigger misconception could there be than that statement.
Read law 42 (d) it requires you to use some logic, but since you are
such a logical expert you should be able to work it all out.
Unknown
<newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
>On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 18:00:10 -0800 (PST), jzfredricks
><jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> > I'd like to know if Hair "talked" Doc into agreeing, or something like
>>> > that.
>>>
>>> http://pdfs.island.lk/2006/09/27/p12.pdfhttp://www.cricinfo.com/engvpak/content/story/260592.html
>>
>>It's stories like this that make me side with Pakistan on the first
>>charge - being ball tampering cheats, and ofc say Hair did wrong.
>>
>>For me, though, that was the opening chapter to The Book of Shame,
>>most of the rest being written by Pakistan and edited by the ICC. And
>>thankfully later sent to the backshelf by your beloved MCC (when the
>>rightfully had the result returned to a forfeit).
>
>For me those stories are considerably slanted.
>Quotes I've seen say that Doctrove agreed that the ball had been
>tampered with but wanted to leave it a couple of overs to see if they
>could spot who was having a go at it and Hair reminded him that under
>the playing conditions if the umpires were in agreement that the ball
>had been tampered with it had to be replaced immediately.
When the umpires start looking at the ball, there is no chance of
catching the person responsible, he's hardly likely to do it again.
gokrix
Thanks,
gokrix
alvey
>
> What falsehoods? Name one please
"It didn't go to court? It did mate, in London."
"And Koetzen denied saying it...lol!"
"Look, you need to be able to differentiate a decision made by the umpire
related to let's say a catch or out-not out and alleging a team of
cheating."
"Fortunately, sense prevailed and all and sundry showed thru their
reading of the ball that Hair was abusing his power."
"Therefore my response that if Hair felt that Doctrove was equially
responsible then he should have asked the court why only he was being tried
and not Doctrove."
"That's what I'd think he should've done. But he didn't and the fact
that he didn't does not mean Hair was right in accusing Pakistan of
ball tampering. Inzi deserved to get his ban as did Hair deserve to be
humiliated and put on rehabilitation."
"The fact of the matter is that Hair should not have made the
decision without evidence to back him up...its a serious allegation
and although the law gives the power to the ump, the law implicitly
expects that umpires use sense while ruling a decision. "
"If the photographs showed clearly nail marks why the hell did
each and everyone except Hair say it could not have been tampered
with??????"
jzfredricks
> catching the person responsible, he's hardly likely to do it again.
Oh. Lots of people have spoken of the umpires noticing an unusual but
gradual change in the ball's condition, as someone worked it.
Now you are saying that there was a single event which changed the
ball enough that it was clearly tampered with?
Unknown
No. That's clearly not what I'm saying.
Either I didn't get my point across in my previous post,and if this is
the case then I apologise with my whole heart, or you are just simple
buck fuck stupid.
Your call.
For you:
As soon as the umpires come together and make it clear that they are
examining the ball, and discussing the condition of the ball, it then
becomes unlikely that the person responsible for altering the
condition of the ball(if there is one) will continue to do so.
This means that as soon as the umpires decide that the condition of
the ball has been altered unfairly, they must take action (they have
no choice). Even if there is no culprit available for castigation at
that time the shit lands on the fielding captain.
jzfredricks
> >> catching the person responsible, he's hardly likely to do it again.
>
> >Oh. Lots of people have spoken of the umpires noticing an unusual but
> >gradual change in the ball's condition, as someone worked it.
>
> >Now you are saying that there was a single event which changed the
> >ball enough that it was clearly tampered with?
>
> No. That's clearly not what I'm saying.
> Either I didn't get my point across in my previous post,and if this is
> the case then I apologise with my whole heart, or you are just simple
> buck fuck stupid.
> Your call.
I'll go with the 3rd option - you meant to say "there's not much
chance", rather than "there is no chance of catching".
Saying "no chance" validates my response, as it means the act of
tampering doesn't actually happen again. This rules out the often-
mentioned gradual change (and its implied frequent ball inspections)
and only leaves a single event doing sufficient damage.
I'm sure we both agree there's a stage where the ump isn't sure the
ball has been tampered with, and is keeping an eye on things.
Unknown
I'm only realising now what you mean - gradual. Like hasten the wear
on the ball. Throwing in on the bounce maybe.
Sure, but it should never get that far. The umpires are required to
keep a close eye on the condition of the ball. If they both agree that
the condition of the ball has been altered unfairly then they must
start the law 42 procedure.
Throwing in on the bounce is liable to the same penalty as picking the
seam, or scratching the ball.
Law says " any action, likely to alter the condition -"
Curious too, that none of the arguements against my opinions in this
matter quote law 42. It's just that law 42 is a bit grey on altering
the condition of the match ball. It says that in the event of any
fielder altering the condition of the ball, bla bla. It gives no
indication of when umpires should intervene, or even if they should
intervene having a subjective opinion on the matter without catching
anyone red handed.
So I enjoy bantering away with peeps, safe in mind that the law I'm
suggesting they read, infact really supports them more than they know.
Nirvanam
> >tells me the reason. There ends the matter.
>
> Clarify what? The umpire has called noball and you think he has done
> so with malice.
Clarify why he called it a no-ball...whether the bowler over-stepped,
or fielder was right behind the keeper or whatever other reason.
What's wrong in asking the ump what caused the no-ball?
> >the moment umpire clarifies the reason for the no-ball why would
> >players think umpire was being excessive. Well individuals can think
> >what they want but as captain I'd just let it go.
>
> You don't believe the umpire.
Huh? How are you assuming that?
> It is unfair for a fielder to encroach onto the pitch. The fielder
> swears he didn't the umpire says he did. The fielder is lying or the
> umpire is lying.
Or both may be honestly feeling they didn't. Or both lying or any
other combination. What matters is the seriousness of the isue. A no-
ball and "cheating" are extremely different things. You are continuing
to pursue in the direction of this example ins spite of being informed
that this is a logical fallacy of the type "Weak Analogy". What
happens in the case of this example has no earing on what must happen
in the case of a ball-tampering allegation.
> Remember the captain is responsible for the actions
> of his team.
And yes the captain is responsible only for cricketing matters. He is
not responsible for all the actions of other individuals. If a fielder
goes and stabs the umpire or the other way around how can the captain
be held responsible? See now, this is another example of a logical
fallacy of type "Weak Analogy". Hope you understand it now. Anyway
coming back to the point of lying. It doesn't matter who lied or
whether the fielder feels umpire is lying. Its the nature and
implication of the incident that matters. Its clearly a non-need-to-
waste-even-5-seconds matter
> What would you do if you got a call from the match ref about
> overheard comments made about the incident by the fielder to his
> colleagues? It wouldn't be trivial then, you might have wished you
> wasted more energy sorting it out at the time.
What comments? and why are you traversing on this line of arguing? Its
clearly irrelevant to the discussion on hand...based on what I answer
you are imaging up another situation and asking me to answer that and
then again....
> Bullshit. You are blustering. When a usenet correspondent posts that
> link it's a sure sign that they are struggling.
oooooo!
> There can be no opinion. What the umpires did was mandatory.
LOL!
> On fallacies:
> You said - Hypothesizing that the ball "must have
> been tampered with because it 'looks' so" is not evidence.
>
> What bigger misconception could there be than that statement.
> Read law 42 (d) it requires you to use some logic, but since you are
> such a logical expert you should be able to work it all out.
>
> max.it
Again the logical fallacies and logical argumentation is not built for
cricketing laws, Max. It is the other way around...the laws and rules
of engagement are based on logical inductions or deductions. Now in
some cases for some rules you will have to work with subjectivity and
in those cases when an organization is making a rule book it
implicitly expects that its own employees who will interpret the rule
book also consider things from different angles instead of being pig-
headed. If that was intended then there is no need for a human
element, a machine can "interpret" the law book very well...even more
accurate in giving the decisions than an umpire...you just need to
hard code the laws into it and there ends the matter.
Unknown
>> =A0What would you do if you got a call from the match ref about
After all this, all you have to offer is that it was the
interpretation of the incident by Pakistan that was the problem.
Sure we all knew that anyway.
Nirvanam
WHAT??????????????
You've lost it, Maxy. You are going in circles and trying so hard to
confuse the other posters. Come on mate, you expect to give authority
to someone to accuse others of serious things and on top of that ready
to accept his allegations without an iota of proof. Seriously, you are
so power-corrupted. Thank goodness not all umpires are so. Here's
hoping you come across such a situation in your life albeit nothing
that harms you, so that you will be able to empathize and then gain
the understanding of why laws implicitly assume that the person who is
applying a law or rule has justified logical grounds before making
decisions. Keep a look out, you will experience this in some walk of
life pretty soon. But don't worry it will not harm you, it will only
sensitize you.
Unknown
<viz.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> =3DA0What would you do if you got a call from the match ref about
I'm actually one of the "quiet word" umpires, but I would have no
hesitation sharing any ball condition concerns with my colleague. If
he agreed that the condition of the ball has been unfairly altered
then it is mandatory to award the penalty, no other option is
available. If he disagrees then play on nothing else happens. That's
the way it is.
> Thank goodness not all umpires are so. Here's
>hoping you come across such a situation in your life albeit nothing
>that harms you, so that you will be able to empathize and then gain
>the understanding of why laws implicitly assume that the person who is
>applying a law or rule has justified logical grounds before making
>decisions. Keep a look out, you will experience this in some walk of
>life pretty soon. But don't worry it will not harm you, it will only
>sensitize you.
That's a broad hope. The logic is in the law, and if a law becomes
illogical then it will evolve. Stamping your feet and crying foul just
makes you look stupid and really reinforces the cheat label. Like a
small child.
You haven't levelled anything in this discussion that proves the
umpires decision was incorrect You have tried to add bits that suit
your purpose into the laws. This is cognitive dissonance. The
justification for failing to play was really the shame of being caught
altering the condition of the match ball, mass cognitive dissonance if
you like. The constant crying about evidence and outside experts is
sheer whataboutery an attempt to distract from the original
transgression. Again very childish.
If you can't play within the laws and respect the role of the umpires,
then don't be suprised if people don't trust you, and people just
don't trust Pakistan. Of course it is unfair to tar every player with
the same brush, but it only takes one eejit to screw it up for
everyone else.
Bootnote:
If the cameras had not caught Afridi screwing up the pitch.
Would you have taken Taufel(?)'s word on it?
jzfredricks
> If the cameras had not caught Afridi screwing up the pitch.
> Would you have taken Taufel(?)'s word on it?
If the cameras missed, but Taufel caught and punished him, and
Pakistan stormed off the field in protest AND a post-match inspection
showed no signs of "screwing"? Then no, I'd probably not take his word
on it.
arahim
Incorrect analogy. Would you have taken Taufel's word if no one
including him had seen it but he "felt" the pitch had been screwed
with but the pitch did not even look tampered. The from his feelings
he had assumed that a fielder had done it. That would be equivalent.
> max.it- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Unknown
OK. Afridi was an extreme case of blatant cheating caught on camera.
All encroachments onto the pitch cause damage, even a training shoe.
The batsmen and the bowlers and fielders sometimes. It becomes a
transgression when the damage is avoidable.
It is a simple case of stay off the pitch, if you don't need to be on
the pitch. It is a transgression of law 42.13 to be there.
Unknown
<arahim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 19, 1:33=A0pm, (max.it) wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:06:29 -0800 (PST), Nirvanam
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <viz.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 16, 11:46=3DA0pm, (max.it) wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 07:43:50 -0800 (PST), Nirvanam
>>
>> >> <viz.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >Nothing really. Just clarify with the ump why it was a no-ball and=
> he
>> >> >> >tells me the reason. There ends the matter.
>>
>> >> >> Clarify what? The umpire has called noball and you think he has don=
>e
>> >> >> so with malice.
>>
>> >> >Clarify why he called it a no-ball...whether the bowler over-stepped,
>> >> >or fielder was right behind the keeper or whatever other reason.
>> >> >What's wrong in asking the ump what caused the no-ball?
>>
>> >> >> >the moment umpire clarifies the reason for the no-ball why would
>> >> >> >players think umpire was being excessive. Well individuals can thi=
>nk
>> >> >> >what they want but as captain I'd just let it go.
>>
>> >> >> You don't believe the umpire.
>>
>> >> >Huh? How are you assuming that?
>>
>> >> >> It is unfair for a fielder to encroach onto the pitch. The fielder
>> >> >> swears he didn't the umpire says he did. The fielder is lying or th=
>e
>> >> >> umpire is lying.
>>
>> >> >Or both may be honestly feeling they didn't. Or both lying or any
>> >> >other combination. What matters is the seriousness of the isue. A no-
>> >> >ball and "cheating" are extremely different things. You are continuin=
>g
>> >> >to pursue in the direction of this example ins spite of being informe=
>d
>> >> >that this is a logical fallacy of the type "Weak Analogy". What
>> >> >happens in the case of this example has no earing on what must happen
>> >> >in the case of a ball-tampering allegation.
>>
>> >> >> Remember the captain is responsible for the actions
>> >> >> of his team.
>>
>> >> >And yes the captain is responsible only for cricketing matters. He is
>> >> >not responsible for all the actions of other individuals. If a fielde=
>r
>> >> >goes and stabs the umpire or the other way around how can the captain
>> >> >be held responsible? See now, this is another example of a logical
>> >> >fallacy of type "Weak Analogy". Hope you understand it now. Anyway
>> >> >coming back to the point of lying. It doesn't matter who lied or
>> >> >whether the fielder feels umpire is lying. Its the nature and
>> >> >implication of the incident that matters. Its clearly a non-need-to-
>> >> >waste-even-5-seconds matter
>>
>> >> >> =3D3DA0What would you do if you got a call from the match ref about
>> >> >> overheard comments made about the incident by the fielder to his
>> >> >> colleagues? It wouldn't be trivial then, you might have wished you
>> >> >> wasted more energy sorting it out at the time.
>>
>> >> >What comments? and why are you traversing on this line of arguing? It=
>s
>> >> >clearly irrelevant to the discussion on hand...based on what I answer
>> >> >you are imaging up another situation and asking me to answer that and
>> >> >then again....
>>
>> >> >> Bullshit. You are blustering. When a usenet correspondent posts tha=
>t
>> >> >> link it's a sure sign that they are struggling.
>>
>> >> >oooooo!
>>
>> >> >> There can be no opinion. What the umpires did was mandatory.
>>
>> >> >LOL!
>>
>> >> >> On fallacies:
>> >> >> You said - Hypothesizing that the ball "must have
>> >> >> been tampered with because it 'looks' so" is not evidence.
>>
>> >> >> What bigger misconception could there be than that statement.
>> >> >> Read law 42 (d) it requires you to use some logic, but since you ar=
>e
>> >> >> such a logical expert you should be able to work it all out.
>>
>> >> >> max.it
>>
>> >> >Again the logical fallacies and logical argumentation is not built fo=
Double incoorect Rahim, see my reply to Jz.
BTW
42.3(d) requires both umpires. 42.14(a) requires only one umpire.
higgs
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your interpretation of the law appears to be that it somehow doesn't
apply to Pakistan.
Higgs
arahim
Who cares:) Not valid to the point I am making.
> max.it
>
>
>
>
>
> >> max.it- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
arahim
If that is what max.it's interpretation is because I said I have no
issue with his interpretation (whether right or wrong):)
> Higgs- Hide quoted text -
Unknown
<arahim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You just wouldn't be you mate, if you didn't have a problem with my
analogies. I'd vote for you to serve on any laws committee. Every
committee deserves an awkward question guy, and you are the best there
is at being akward regarding crickety admin stuff.(compliment) incase
you don't understand the analogy.
Before you reply to me, try drinking a half dozen pints of Guinness
first. That way you will have the gift of the yarns and all will
become clear. You will be enlightened beyond your wildest dreams,
remember a mars bar and a bottle of lucozade before bed you don't want
that oul blood sugar shock in the morning.
>
>> max.it
>
arahim
My other issue is with MCC that if it is going to be this upright
guiding light of rules to be followed and clarifications to be issued
then it do it in a consistent and fair way which it is very very
guilty of not doing so.
Some have argued that it used to be bad but now has reformed itself
but recent selective cases do not look good. Also with its penchant
for fixing past results surely it must champion that all fc matches
granted that status in SA during the ban be stripped of that status
per the rules at that time:)
> max.it
arahim
Maybe that will convince MCC (with Holmans recommendation:) to put me
on their laws committee which in my opinion is the most fixed
committee of its supposed stature.
> Before you reply to me, try drinking a half dozen pints of Guinness
> first. That way you will have the gift of the yarns and all will
> become clear. You will be enlightened beyond your wildest dreams,
> remember a mars bar and a bottle of lucozade before bed you don't want
> that oul blood sugar shock in the morning.
>
> max.it
>
>
>
>
>
Unknown
<arahim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 19, 2:37=A0pm, (max.it) wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 14:27:24 -0800 (PST), arahim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <arahim_ara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 19, 1:33=3DA0pm, (max.it) wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:06:29 -0800 (PST), Nirvanam
>>
>> >> <viz.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Jan 16, 11:46=3D3DA0pm, (max.it) wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 07:43:50 -0800 (PST), Nirvanam
>>
>> >> >> <viz.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >Nothing really. Just clarify with the ump why it was a no-ball =
>and=3D
>> > he
>> >> >> >> >tells me the reason. There ends the matter.
>>
>> >> >> >> Clarify what? The umpire has called noball and you think he has =
>don=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> >> so with malice.
>>
>> >> >> >Clarify why he called it a no-ball...whether the bowler over-stepp=
>ed,
>> >> >> >or fielder was right behind the keeper or whatever other reason.
>> >> >> >What's wrong in asking the ump what caused the no-ball?
>>
>> >> >> >> >the moment umpire clarifies the reason for the no-ball why woul=
>d
>> >> >> >> >players think umpire was being excessive. Well individuals can =
>thi=3D
>> >nk
>> >> >> >> >what they want but as captain I'd just let it go.
>>
>> >> >> >> You don't believe the umpire.
>>
>> >> >> >Huh? How are you assuming that?
>>
>> >> >> >> It is unfair for a fielder to encroach onto the pitch. The field=
>er
>> >> >> >> swears he didn't the umpire says he did. The fielder is lying or=
> th=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> >> umpire is lying.
>>
>> >> >> >Or both may be honestly feeling they didn't. Or both lying or any
>> >> >> >other combination. What matters is the seriousness of the isue. A =
>no-
>> >> >> >ball and "cheating" are extremely different things. You are contin=
>uin=3D
>> >g
>> >> >> >to pursue in the direction of this example ins spite of being info=
>rme=3D
>> >d
>> >> >> >that this is a logical fallacy of the type "Weak Analogy". What
>> >> >> >happens in the case of this example has no earing on what must hap=
>pen
>> >> >> >in the case of a ball-tampering allegation.
>>
>> >> >> >> Remember the captain is responsible for the actions
>> >> >> >> of his team.
>>
>> >> >> >And yes the captain is responsible only for cricketing matters. He=
> is
>> >> >> >not responsible for all the actions of other individuals. If a fie=
>lde=3D
>> >r
>> >> >> >goes and stabs the umpire or the other way around how can the capt=
>ain
>> >> >> >be held responsible? See now, this is another example of a logical
>> >> >> >fallacy of type "Weak Analogy". Hope you understand it now. Anyway
>> >> >> >coming back to the point of lying. It doesn't matter who lied or
>> >> >> >whether the fielder feels umpire is lying. Its the nature and
>> >> >> >implication of the incident that matters. Its clearly a non-need-t=
>o-
>> >> >> >waste-even-5-seconds matter
>>
>> >> >> >> =3D3D3DA0What would you do if you got a call from the match ref =
>about
>> >> >> >> overheard comments made about the incident by the fielder to his
>> >> >> >> colleagues? It wouldn't be trivial then, you might have wished y=
>ou
>> >> >> >> wasted more energy sorting it out at the time.
>>
>> >> >> >What comments? and why are you traversing on this line of arguing?=
> It=3D
>> >s
>> >> >> >clearly irrelevant to the discussion on hand...based on what I ans=
>wer
>> >> >> >you are imaging up another situation and asking me to answer that =
>and
>> >> >> >then again....
>>
>> >> >> >> Bullshit. You are blustering. When a usenet correspondent posts =
>tha=3D
>> >t
>> >> >> >> link it's a sure sign that they are struggling.
>>
>> >> >> >oooooo!
>>
>> >> >> >> There can be no opinion. What the umpires did was mandatory.
>>
>> >> >> >LOL!
>>
>> >> >> >> On fallacies:
>> >> >> >> You said - Hypothesizing that the ball "must have
>> >> >> >> been tampered with because it 'looks' so" is not evidence.
>>
>> >> >> >> What bigger misconception could there be than that statement.
>> >> >> >> Read law 42 (d) it requires you to use some logic, but since you=
> ar=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> >> such a logical expert you should be able to work it all out.
>>
>> >> >> >> max.it
>>
>> >> >> >Again the logical fallacies and logical argumentation is not built=
> fo=3D
>> >r
>> >> >> >cricketing laws, Max. It is the other way around...the laws and ru=
>les
>> >> >> >of engagement are based on logical inductions or deductions. Now i=
>n
>> >> >> >some cases for some rules you will have to work with subjectivity =
>and
>> >> >> >in those cases when an organization is making a rule book it
>> >> >> >implicitly expects that its own employees who will interpret the r=
>ule
>> >> >> >book also consider things from different angles instead of being p=
>ig-
>> >> >> >headed. If that was intended then there is no need for a human
>> >> >> >element, a machine can "interpret" the law book very well...even m=
>ore
>> >> >> >accurate in giving the decisions than an umpire...you just need to
>> >> >> >hard code the laws into it and there ends the matter.
>>
>> >> >> After all this, all you have to offer is that it was the
>> >> >> interpretation of the incident by Pakistan that was the problem.
>> >> >> Sure we all knew that anyway.
>>
>> >> >> max.it
>>
>> >> >WHAT??????????????
>> >> >You've lost it, Maxy. You are going in circles and trying so hard to
>> >> >confuse the other posters. Come on mate, you expect to give authority
>> >> >to someone to accuse others of serious things and on top of that read=
>y
>> >> >to accept his allegations without an iota of proof. Seriously, you ar=
>e
>> >> >so power-corrupted.
>>
>> >> I'm actually one of the "quiet word" umpires, but I would have no
>> >> hesitation sharing any ball condition concerns with my colleague. If
>> >> he agreed that the condition of the ball has been unfairly altered
>> >> then it is mandatory to award the penalty, no other option is
>> >> available. If he disagrees then play on nothing else happens. That's
>> >> the way it is.
>>
>> >> > Thank goodness not all umpires are so. Here's
>> >> >hoping you come across such a situation in your life albeit nothing
>> >> >that harms you, so that you will be able to empathize and then gain
>> >> >the understanding of why laws implicitly assume that the person who i=
Probably nor mine. I've forgot.