Is it cricket?

[Nathan deGargoyle]

GARBAGE?

This is probably the most important discussed on this board. Politics may be a matter of life and death but cricket is much more important _{pace Shanks!}.

[gus2]

pinkgoyle said:

GARBAGE?

This is probably the most important discussed on this board. Politics may be a matter of life and death but cricket is much more important _{pace Shanks!}.

All sports are garbage except the one with the ladies showing their frilly knickers ;D and of course the sport of Kings. Cricket is boring but the one that takes the cake is cycling. The only thing it is good for is that it is a certain cure for insomnia.

gus

[E.D. Wivens]

pinkgoyle said:

GARBAGE?

This is probably the most important discussed on this board. Politics may be a matter of life and death but cricket is much more important _{pace Shanks!}.

Hear, hear, Gargs. Good to see you’ve got your priorities right.

I’m pretty much with Mathilde on this one. I don’t know whether the ball was tampered with but if, in the umpires’ opinion the condition of the ball has been changed there are actions they are allowed to take. They are the officials out on the field of play who can see what’s going on and obviously did believe that the condition of the ball had been altered so they were right to take the action they did. (Incidentally, as an aside, the Pakistan spokesman talked about the ball being in a bad state because of all the overs which had been bowled with it and all the sixes hit with it but, in fact, that ball hadn’t, apparently, been hit for six).

If Pakistan genuinely felt that an incorrect decision had been made then there were ways of dealing with it (there would have been a referee’s hearing after the day’s play at which their grievances could be aired). To have a sulk and say “we’re not playing” was out of order and did nothing to help their cause.

The ICC don’t come out of it particularly well, either. Once the umpires had removed the bails and awarded the match to England, it would have been sensible for everyone to cut their losses, an announcement made and the disappointed spectators could, at least have got on with the rest of their day, rather than sitting around watching nothing happen for hours (no, Madrigalman, I don’t think that would have been indistinguishable from the game). Once that had happened, Pakistan had lost the match and I would have thought that that was punishment enough for their foolishness. To have charged Inzamam with bringing the game in to disrepute just drags things out further and makes the whole situation more farcical. There is now a situation in which the cancellation of the rest of the tour is conceivable, which would be a ridiculous outcome to a bit of hanky-panky with the ball and a five run penalty.

[gus2]

wivens said:

pinkgoyle said:

GARBAGE?

This is probably the most important discussed on this board. Politics may be a matter of life and death but cricket is much more important _{pace Shanks!}.

Hear, hear, Gargs. Good to see you’ve got your priorities right.

I’m pretty much with Mathilde on this one. I don’t know whether the ball was tampered with but if, in the umpires’ opinion the condition of the ball has been changed there are actions they are allowed to take. They are the officials out on the field of play who can see what’s going on and obviously did believe that the condition of the ball had been altered so they were right to take the action they did. (Incidentally, as an aside, the Pakistan spokesman talked about the ball being in a bad state because of all the overs which had been bowled with it and all the sixes hit with it but, in fact, that ball hadn’t, apparently, been hit for six).

If Pakistan genuinely felt that an incorrect decision had been made then there were ways of dealing with it (there would have been a referee’s hearing after the day’s play at which their grievances could be aired). To have a sulk and say “we’re not playing” was out of order and did nothing to help their cause.

The ICC don’t come out of it particularly well, either. Once the umpires had removed the bails and awarded the match to England, it would have been sensible for everyone to cut their losses, an announcement made and the disappointed spectators could, at least have got on with the rest of their day, rather than sitting around watching nothing happen for hours (no, Madrigalman, I don’t think that would have been indistinguishable from the game). Once that had happened, Pakistan had lost the match and I would have thought that that was punishment enough for their foolishness. To have charged Inzamam with bringing the game in to disrepute just drags things out further and makes the whole situation more farcical. There is now a situation in which the cancellation of the rest of the tour is conceivable, which would be a ridiculous outcome to a bit of hanky-panky with the ball and a five run penalty.

Run for your lives a bloody cricket bore is loose.

gus

[E.D. Wivens]

Shucks, Gus, you say the nicest things.

[Nathan deGargoyle]

Sorry Gus but "Cricket bore" is a tautology. "Politics bore" on the other hand is an oxymoron.

But to return to the issue.

If the umpires decide that the condition of the ball has changed in a way that is unreasonable given the number of overs that it has been in use, they can change it. Effectively they can declare the ball sub-standard, However, having done that they gave Pakistan a 5 run penalty accusing them of ball tampering. I don't see how the umpires could decide that the ball had been tampered with unless they suspected someone of tampering with it? So who did it and where's the evidence. I think the Pakistanis were right to object but totally wrong in the way they did it. I'm following Imran Khan's latest line here.

[Daz Madrigal]

Well I think I'll poke my nose in having studied the evidence.

Here is my cunning device to find out once and for all. Just show us the ball(s)!!! I mean if they can find DNA evidence after hundreds of years they can surely tell if someones obviously tampered with the ball.

As for Dickie Bird saying 'he would have waited till ofter the match' thats a typical english copout. What he's really saying is 'lets just pretend it never happened' and then talk about it afterwards.

The Umpire who took the decision is an Aussie thank god and he's put his neck on the line. I dont think its going to get the chop personally and I dont really give much note of what Imran Khan says and neither should anyone else. The Umpires decision is final - if its totally wrong then his reputation is in tatters.

[gus2]

wivens said:

Shucks, Gus, you say the nicest things.

I try ;D

gus

[gus2]

Listen you silly fkers. ball, three sticks, tea in the pavillion. get real for chrissake. Snooker is more interesting. All sports with balls are fking stupid, end of discussion. Now take your boring thread to some dark section of the board where you can play with each others balls.and leave the general board for highly intelligent posts from the likes of me and the ladies.

gus

[Nathan deGargoyle]

One ball,, one wicket keeper, two bats, two umpires,two batsmen four bails, six stumps, eleven players, umpteen million fans.

[Daz Madrigal]

What ladies..I see no ladies. A few men in drag and a couple of floozies you mean.

Tree Lady must be a lady otherwise she'd be called Tree. Anyone who can handle a gun better than me can be called whatever she darn well wants!

JUST DONT POINT IT IN MY DIRECTION!

[Daz Madrigal]

pinkgoyle said:

One ball,, one wicket keeper, two bats, two umpires,two batsmen four bails, six stumps, eleven players, umpteen million fans.

Exclude the ball.

I've taken it away to be used as evidence. Anyway cheating is all part of the game..as long as they are not taking drugs its aceptable to see them as setting good role models to our children. Any drug taking must be taken elsewhere.

I've always been anti-drug. Its not for want of trying..I just didnt take to them at all. Mary Jane was more likely to make me pewk than spend the night..erm..giggling stupidly for no reason.

[purple joggers]

madrigalman said:

I'm not stirring the pot, man, its plain common sense.

It wasn’t the association with drugs to which I reacted but the remark about no skill. If skill becomes the basis of what’s the best sport, we’ll all have to fall asleep whilst watching golf.

I don’t doubt that taking drugs has played a big role in cycling, but one should also remember that the International Cycling Union has been for years at the forefront of dope-testing, and has therefore automatically found more ‘culprits’. The UCI had some substances on its barred list long before the Olympic Committee did.
Some sports have lagged far behind, both in what’s included on their list of drugs and in how often tests have been performed, swimming notably.

In the UK, over recent years dope/drug-taking has been more prevalent in archery, athletics, body-building, bowls (!), boxing, cricket, judo, power-lifting, rugby league, shooting, short-track ice-skating, snooker & billiards (yes, Gus!), ten-pin bowling, weight-lifting and wrestling, than in cycling.

To make small of this by saying some examples were probably like Botham having a few joints after a match, calling it ‘everyday stuff after arduous effort’ (as you did, Daz) only allows me to say well then there are many examples in cycling which are similar, like when cyclist Ulrich was once banned for having taken ecstasy at a disco. And I think you might agree, his effort was considerably more arduous than a typical cricket player engages in.

[purple joggers]

madrigalman said:

If it wasnt so boring i might even watch it.

Don’t be afraid of finding a match boring - one of the trainers in the recent B-level series (between ‘countries’ like Gibraltar, Channel Islands, Denmark, Germany, Scotland and Greece) admitted that, for a spectator, falling asleep during a match belongs to the tradition.

He said it helped with maintaining the mystery of the game – that way the sleeping spectator still couldn’t question or comprehend the outcome of the match.

Actor Robin Williams described cricket as ‘baseball on valium’, which probably isn’t that far off.

[purple joggers]

pinkgoyle said:

I don't see how the umpires could decide that the ball had been tampered with unless they suspected someone of tampering with it? So who did it and where's the evidence.

I read that the umpire felt that the ball was more than normal scratched for 56 overs, although he neither produced pictorial evidence nor considered that the same ball had been used by both sides during these 56 overs.

One wonders whether the umpire (who apparently has a history of being excessively conservative in his attitudes) may further inflame racial tension, especially since half of the 23,000 spectators were Pakistan fans, even though born in Britain.

Norman Tebbitt said in 1990 (with respect to a possible citizenship test for immigrants) something like ’A majority of the asiatic population of GB wouldn’t pass the cricket exam, because in a Test match, they wouldn’t support the land to which they’ve moved, rather the land from which they’ve come’.

To put it kindly, hardly a reason upon which to base citizenship, but endemic of an all-too-frequent, one-sided attitude, which at least George Bush later openly came out with, ‘If you’re not with us, you’re against us’.