I have no idea who is to blame, because all facts are not known yet. All I know is both Darrell Hair and Inzi/Woolmer (I count the 2 as a single entity for the purpose of this argument) could have handled it a lot better.
Im completey behind Pakistan. I dont think there is any evidence to suggest they did anything to the the ball. Its sly on Inzamam charging him.
Why would you be behind Pakistan who are known for doing lots and lots of stuff that get them into trouble. I don't trust Pakistan. In fact with them pointing the finger at the umpires it reminds me of what my little niece and nephew would do when something goes wrong. THey blame eachother instead of coming out and owning up to it.
I agree on that. Firstly blaming an umpire for this is just plain stupid. Secondly, refusing to play in a game of cricket is just plain childish. Thirdly, The media over on the sub continent has got to stop adding fuel to the fire and start by criticising their own players.
the rules state that if the ball is switched because the umpires believe that it has been tampered with, but a specific player has not been identified as responsible, the captain is automatically charged with ball tampering. the bringing the game into disrepute charge is a seperate matter though, but i don't think there was much choice over that either. they should have come out and carried on with the game regardless. they were given two chances to come out and play but stayed in the dressing room. once the bails had been removed by the umpires the pakistanis obviously shat themselves and realising their bluff had been called finally came out on to the field but it was already too late by then. you cannot refuse to play just because you don't like what one of the umpires is doing, you have to just get on with it. on the other hand until someone shows some close up pictures of that ball, and demonstrates that there is clear evidence of tampering, i will continue to think that pakistan were hard done by. the tv pictures they showed of it at the time certainly did not show any evidence of tampering, but you could not see the whole ball so they were inconclusive. but the umpire should not change the ball unless there is blatant evidence that its condition has been altered by one of the players. he has to either see the player doing it, or the ball has to have been changed in some way that couldn't be explained by pietersen smacking it into the stands where it lands on concrete. no player has been singled out (which is why the captain has been charged) so obviously the umpires did not see a player doing it. therefore i presume that the state of the ball must speak for itself. so why not show people? bet we never, ever, see that ball again.
Surely the umpire can change the ball if it deteriorates faster than expected even if it is not due to deliberate actions by the bowling side? Incidentally (IIRC), Pietersen didn't hit this ball into the stands - it was the replacement he did that with.
With the World Cup coming up next year, cricket certainly didn't need this. Very bad timing for a scandal. Wonder if only Ashes will be the highlight for a long time to come. I nominate a Pakistani umpire to be the match referee for all Ashes tests. Already, cycling and track & field (athletics) have become disreputed with their steroid scandals. (Association) Football had the Zidane/Materazzi soap opera. Formula-1 had the Michelin tyre farce in USA last year, and they still aren't out of the woods yet with good potential for a big explosion. (I think of the Michael Schumacher incident in Monaco as a pre-shock.) Baseball in USA is a bogus steriod league. Cricket is having its moment of crisis. Is tennis next, or maybe Rugby Union?
the umpire can change the ball if it loses its shape i think. i think the fielding team has to ask for it though. not sure. you're right, pietersen flayed the second ball for six, but the first one went into the stands a few times via the boundary rope.
Don't know much about cricket, but found this article a little helpful in explaining the effects of tampering (or aging, as it were). I was surprised to read that players could use saliva on the ball, as the "spitball" was outlawed in baseball decades ago. I also don't understand why balls are not routinely rotated or replaced as they age, which happens in baseball & tennis, to avoid this very issue. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/general/story.jsp?story=703532
in test cricket a new ball becomes available to the bowling side after 80 overs (or 480 balls). they can carry on bowling with the old ball after that for as long as they like but generally they take it straight away. (nb there are 90 overs in a day's play in total). having a ball that ages and changes performance is all part of cricket. when the ball is new the advantage is generally with the bowling side, as the ball gets older it gets softer and less bouncy and generally it gets easier to bat against an older ball, then the ball is replaced with a brand new one and the game changes again. but also as the ball ages the fielding side work on one side of the ball, using saliva (or sweat) to help shine the ball, whilst leaving the other side staying rough. this helps to get swing on the ball when bowling. if you can get the ball to swing it helps to counter the effect of the ball becoming softer and less use to you as a bowler.
pakistan has been suspected of ball tampering more then any other team. back in the 90s when they had waqar and wasim the cheating was rife. every time they got accused they start playing the race card .Apparently darrel hair is "anti-asian" .They are also blackmailing the cricket officials to drop the charges or the tour is over . This is a team who will bend the rules as much as possible . like when shahid afridi was caught on camera tampering with the pitch when england played away in pakistan. f'ck this team .
inzamam's disciplinary hearing has been pursponed. apparently the guy supposed to be chairing it couldnt make it for "personal reasons", and because of the ODI schedule they're going to have difficulty "fitting it in" over the next couple of weeks. load of old shit, ICC just scared that pakistan will cancel the tour if inzamam was banned. should've called pakistan's bluff.
might be best if the one day series is cancelled. the games will end up being too heated and will result in trouble on and off the field. their fans are total dollar clowns .who could forget the behaviour in the previous one day series afew years back .it will all turn ugly .
i've got tickets for the lords one so i don't agree! they can cancel it after that. will probably all be rained off at the present rate anyway.
You don't even give a shit about how serious cricket is when it comes to ball tampering. Of course you are going to take the side of the pakistanis when it comes to this. Why? Because you always want to take the easy way out. ICC are not scared, little idiots unlike some people on an internet forum posting their opinion on things. What a loser you are.
i don't blame the umpires, but the way they dealt with the situation could have improved. a bit like when darrell hair no-balled murali 7 times in three overs instead of just reporting his action to the ICC like he was supposed to.
The other thing is that you wouldn't of known is the fact that the new rules on chucking weren't introduced just yet until a year after that occurred. Goes to show how much you know.
did you report your personal attack on me? i am very hurt that you called me a loser. also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/5271108.stm you know better than the other umpire on the day do you?