A black day for cricket

[Duke of Gloucester]

Pakistan have forfeited the 4th test today following a row about ball tampering and a refusal to resume the game after tea.

The BBC's explain what happened in more detail here: link

Of course, the real losers are the spectators, because the match was interestingly poised, although Pakistan had a clear advantage. England have lost the opportunity of testing their grit and determination to fight back which might have given them confidence in the up-coming Ashes series.

Who is to blame in my view:

Inzamam al Haq and the rest of the Pakistan team - you shouldn't refuse to play and if you do you can't complain if the match is forfeited. It shows a lack of respect for the spectators, their opponents and the umpires. How dare they return to the field of play after the match had been signalled forfeited - very poor, although the blame for this may lie elsewhere.

Mike Procter - the match referee. He has seriously mishandled the whole thing and failed to back up his umpires. Once the umpires had signalled that the match was forfeited that decision had to stand. Even asking them to reconsider was wrong and making everyone wait until 10:30 pm to confirm a decision made at 5 to 5 is farcical. I think he is responsible for the ridiculous spectacle of a team returning to the pitch after forfeiting a match. It seems he brokered a deal to continue between the captains but forgot to check with the umpires that they were happy to officiate. Not surprisingly, they said that they had already declared the match forfeit and had no intention of backing down.

I think the original decision to penalise Pakistan for ball-tampering was wrong, but there were better ways for them to establish their innocence.

If you think this is sport and belongs in the front room, then check out some comments on the TMS message board.

[Tribesman]

Saw this on the British news earlier , at that stage they said the crowd had been sitting there for an hour with nothing happening .
I thought that was just normal for cricket .

[Ronin]

what the hell do you espect from a sport that actually has stoppage time for tea???

[scotchedpommes]

Saw this on the British news earlier , at that stage they said the crowd had been sitting there for an hour with nothing happening .
I thought that was just normal for cricket .

[Just too easy.]

My settings were never on French.
Why is the quote labeled so?

[English assassin]

Whether the ball tampering decision was right or wrong, it was certainly wrong to refuse to come out to play after tea. I'm not sure how long the umpires gave them before forfeiting the match but I hope it was plenty of time and that the Pakistanis were warned in advance they would forfeit, otherwise it seems an overreaction.

No one comes out of it with much credit

[Pannonian]

Whether the ball tampering decision was right or wrong, it was certainly wrong to refuse to come out to play after tea. I'm not sure how long the umpires gave them before forfeiting the match but I hope it was plenty of time and that the Pakistanis were warned in advance they would forfeit, otherwise it seems an overreaction.

No one comes out of it with much credit

From usenet:

4.35pm when the umpire's first called for play to resume post tea/light.
4.55pm when the batsmen came out (only usually appear after the fielders)
5.00pm when the umpires call a forfeit
5.27pm when Pakistan finally confirm that they will take to the field
** 27 minutes after the game had been called over!! **
5.32pm when they are informed the forfeit would not be rescinded

Credit to original poster.

Before the original 4:55 resumption, Hair asked the Pakistan players if they were coming out. We don't know what the answer was, but it was evidently not positive, and the umpires went back out with the batsmen, waited the required few minutes as stated under the Laws, then removed the bails signalling the end of the match. After some diplomacy between the Pakistan team and the match referee, the Pakistan players finally take the field at around 5:30. However, the referee apparently did not check with the umpires, who confirmed that the match had been forfeited and would not be resumed.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Whether the ball tampering decision was right or wrong, it was certainly wrong to refuse to come out to play after tea. I'm not sure how long the umpires gave them before forfeiting the match but I hope it was plenty of time and that the Pakistanis were warned in advance they would forfeit, otherwise it seems an overreaction.

No one comes out of it with much credit

I agree. It was great pity that the umpires did not have a stern (but quiet) word with Inzamam about their suspicions. David Shephard would have left him in no doubt as to the severity of his gentle advice.

Nonetheless, the umpires' word is law and should be respected as such otherwise cricket will end up like soccer, where referees exist merely as whipping boys. The penalty imposed on Pakistan was not great, and they were in with a good chance of winning. They could have made a strong protest after the match and held a strong moral position. Instead, they had a tantrum and there is no place for that - utterly stupid and I hope they get severely punished. Had they been allowed back on, we would have seen rashes of 'protests' from now on.

The decision to make them forfeit the match was correct, even if it hurt the spectators. In case there are some members of a civilised country who do not appreciate cricket (I am told there are such, but have never had it verified ) this is the first time in 129 years of Test cricket that a country has forfeited. Now, I can see you care suddenly.

The worst aspect is the ongoing pigheadedness of the ICC. They should never have appointed Darrel Hair to umpire this match - he has slightly disturbing form with teams from the sub-continent, and whereas I don't hold with allowing national sentiments to influence umpire selection, all sides need to have full confidence in the choice made. If there are suspicions about an umpire's bias, however unfounded, he should not be a Test umpire.

[Scurvy]

after the umpires took the bails off there was no way they could continue the game, i think almost everyone was at fault (the match refferee for bad handling, the umpires fro being too hasty - and perhaps a bad ball tampering decision, the pakistan team for not making their actions clear.... whats interesting is that none of the officials went against any regulations, so i suppose cannot be "officially" at fault - they just did there job. It would be interesting to se some video evidence of ball tampering... it seems to me that the scuffing could be caused by the ball hitting concrete or some other surface (pieterson hit seom long sixes, some of which certainly left the pitch)

[Duke of Gloucester]

Scurvy, I agree with what you say, except:

pieterson hit seom long sixes, some of which certainly left the pitch

These sixes were hit after the ball was changed. There was one boundry between Cook's wicket and the umpires decision to change the ball. I can't tell you what this boundary hit or whether it left the field of play.

[Scurvy]

Scurvy, I agree with what you say, except:



These sixes were hit after the ball was changed. There was one boundry between Cook's wicket and the umpires decision to change the ball. I can't tell you what this boundary hit or whether it left the field of play.

ah kk, i only watched the higlights and channel five scrambled it around a bit... it would be v interesting to see the whole of that period of play on vid then...

[danfda]

Okay, you guys have got this poor kid across the pond confused...tea breaks? Seriously? I do remember hearing things about months-long games, so I suppose there would have to be breaks of some sort. This game confounds my American sensibilities. Hell, I am finally figuring out soccer (err, "football"), and that's primarily becuase I have a French boss.

Our parent nation plays strange sports...

[Red Peasant]

Our parent nation plays strange sports...

Ditto baseball: ineffably abstruse and dull.

[ShadesWolf]

Okay, you guys have got this poor kid across the pond confused...tea breaks? Seriously? I do remember hearing things about months-long games, so I suppose there would have to be breaks of some sort. This game confounds my American sensibilities. Hell, I am finally figuring out soccer (err, "football"), and that's primarily becuase I have a French boss.

Our parent nation plays strange sports...

The game goes on for 5 days..... Yes i did say 5 days

Each days starts at about 11.AM. and should finish at 6PM if the allocated number of overs have been bowled. Usually 90 per day. If not, then it can go on a little longer.

Morning session 11-1PM
1 PM Lunch
Afternoon session 1.40 - 3.40 (ish)
3.40 PM Tea
4.00 - 6.00pm Evening session

[Red Peasant]

Just as the ancient Greeks judged those who didn't speak their language to be hoi barbaroi, so likewise we Brits judge all those who don't play cricket.

[danfda]

Ditto baseball: ineffably abstruse and dull.

Ahh, agreed (for the most part )

Football (ya know, the one without much foot to ball action), OTH...

The rest of the world needs to pick that one up...

[Pannonian]

Ahh, agreed (for the most part )

Football (ya know, the one without much foot to ball action), OTH...

The rest of the world needs to pick that one up...

Rugby football is already popular in many countries.

[Incongruous]

Yeah an you wont catch this prop wearing silly girly girl armour.
But I have to admit after the League is over and i'm still in the mood I love to watch a bit of AF.

[English assassin]

Back to the cricket, on Today this morning the Pakistani sports minister was very critical of Inzamam for not taking the field, saying, quite rightly, that if you have a protest to make you make it on the field in front of the cameras and not holed up in your changing room. Which I agree with and which is the sort of comment that takes some heat out of the situation (unlike charging Inzamam with bringing the game into disrepute which is just going to inflame things. Forfeiting the match is punishment enough surely)

I do think Hair could have handled it better. Dickie Bird would have been in the Pakistani dressing room for a firm word with Inzamam and I bet they would have been back on the pitch five minutes later....

Actually I'm surprised more Americans don't like cricket, given the truly stupendous opportunities it offers to quote sporting statistics. Oh, and sit in the sun all day drinking beer. What's not to like?

[Duke of Gloucester]

It was inevitable that Inzimam be charged on both counts after the debacle on Sunday. The ICC had no choice because it had to back the umpires. Probably he won't have the book thrown at him though. Certainly other umpires would have handled the situation differently, and DH needs to take some of the blame, but Inzi did bring the game in to disrepute by not going out on to the field of play after tea. He was upset at the time, but he should have risen above it.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Back to the cricket, on Today this morning the Pakistani sports minister was very critical of Inzamam for not taking the field, saying, quite rightly, that if you have a protest to make you make it on the field in front of the cameras and not holed up in your changing room. Which I agree with and which is the sort of comment that takes some heat out of the situation (unlike charging Inzamam with bringing the game into disrepute which is just going to inflame things. Forfeiting the match is punishment enough surely)

I don't think they have a choice, since the captain is responsible for the conduct of his team, and the protest did bring the game into disrepute. You have to apply the law, otherwise this sort of thing will become established.

However, I hope they just issue a reprimand and leave it at that. I also hope that Bob Woollmer stops issuing veiled threats about the one-day series, which I suspect will make the ICC get even harder, just to show they're not going to be pushed around.

I do think Hair could have handled it better. Dickie Bird would have been in the Pakistani dressing room for a firm word with Inzamam and I bet they would have been back on the pitch five minutes later....

I agree. Though it wouldn't have been five minutes, Dickie would have had them onto that pitch so fast they still have the second day to play.

Actually I'm surprised more Americans don't like cricket, given the truly stupendous opportunities it offers to quote sporting statistics. Oh, and sit in the sun all day drinking beer. What's not to like?

Americans like to invent a sport and then continue to be World Champions at it forever. This usually means ensuring no-one else is interested in playing it apart from Japan and Cuba.

The British invent sports that everyone (aside from the Americans, see above) loves to play, and then spend centuries losing to Vanuatu fifth XI/XV and being bewildered.

Drinking beer is, of course, necessary to survive both these rituals.

[Pannonian]

Americans like to invent a sport and then continue to be World Champions at it forever. This usually means ensuring no-one else is interested in playing it apart from Japan and Cuba.

The British invent sports that everyone (aside from the Americans, see above) loves to play, and then spend centuries losing to Vanuatu fifth XI/XV and being bewildered.

Our most cherished cricketing trophy celebrates one of our most famous defeats. The Ashes urn must be, on looks alone, the most pathetic trophy in sport.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ashes

Drinking beer is, of course, necessary to survive both these rituals.

The ritual of playing those sports, or the ritual of being British? AFAIK beer is necessary for both, and so playing sport while British requires double the amount. Proper beer with flavour, not the bland stuff across the (and mixed with) water. Lager is only drinkable if it comes from Germany or the Czech Republic, whose brewers are superb.

[English assassin]

Slightly OT, but my for college second XI games fielders were allowed to take beer onto the pitch. We made a special rule that any fielding activity that was so energetic as to involve any beer spilling (eg running to take a catch without carefully putting your glass down first) was unsporting, and, by analogy with a no ball, the batsman could not be out.

I feel the acme of British civilisation will have been reached when these rules are adopted for first class internationals. (Although I must admit the team that batted second was generally at a serious handicap)

[danfda]

You are correct--American beer (for the most part) is quite awful. That said, we do consume a helluva lot of it...

Americans like to invent a sport and then continue to be World Champions at it forever. This usually means ensuring no-one else is interested in playing it apart from Japan and Cuba.

The British invent sports that everyone (aside from the Americans, see above) loves to play, and then spend centuries losing to Vanuatu fifth XI/XV and being bewildered.

We invented basketball. A large part of the world enjoys that...and we don't win international basketball tourneys anymore. Which is because most of our players have forgotten how to play the game.

[drone]

Slightly OT, but my for college second XI games fielders were allowed to take beer onto the pitch. We made a special rule that any fielding activity that was so energetic as to involve any beer spilling (eg running to take a catch without carefully putting your glass down first) was unsporting, and, by analogy with a no ball, the batsman could not be out.

I feel the acme of British civilisation will have been reached when these rules are adopted for first class internationals. (Although I must admit the team that batted second was generally at a serious handicap)

We have similiar rules for beer softball. We handicap the batters as well, they must drink at every base they get to.

[Don Corleone]

American beer is not categorically awful. Sam Adams, Pete's Wicked Ale, Yuengling... all good beers, all available across the USA. If you choose to be a slave to marketing and the so-called 'king' of beers, then do so quietly, but do not besmirch the rest of the American brewing industry by lumping them all together. This doesn't even touch the whole subject of micro-brews.

On topic... Cricket... I think the Americans don't follow it because we know nothing about it. Snazzy sweaters and chinos, a really cool looking bat, a stick a ball and some croquet wickets. That's what we know. The very, very few times (I can count them on my thumbs) that I've seen Cricket on TV, there was no explanation or commentary... just a seemingly endless parade of Jamaicans and pasty white guys hitting a ball and running to and fro between two sticks. The astronomical scores, the lllloooooonnnnnngggg matches, the lack of obvious gameplay, all of this tends to leave us flat. Maybe you should start an outreach program, EA.

I know, export a thousand barrels of your precious Spitfire. But in order to get into the bar serving it, you have to listen to a rules lecture, then pass the quiz on Cricket rules. THEN, with that sweet nectar in hand, we might actually take the sport on. Heck, we have BOWLING on TV as a sport, for crying out loud.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Just for you Don

The Rules of Cricket

You have two sides, one out in the field and one in.

Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out.

When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side thats been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out.

Sometimes you get men still in and not out.

When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in.

There are two men called umpires who stay out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out.

When both sides have been in and all the men have out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Or try this

[Don Corleone]

Without some Spitfire to wash it all down, I cannot begin to digest these rules. Kindly send a couple of barrels along to my residence in New Hampshire? There's a good chap... I promise, once I have a mug full and my feet up on the deck, I'll proceed to commit these to memory.

[English assassin]

I've looked into the Spitfire thing, but alas for mail order the brewery only do it in cans. I bought some canned Spitfire once, in a dire emergency. I couldn't do it to you. Putting Spitfire in cans is like putting Catherine Zeta Jones in a spacesuit.

I'm sorry Don but it looks like we will have to keep the Spitfire to ourselves. I'll think of you as I open a bottle after work though.

[danfda]

American beer is not categorically awful. Sam Adams, Pete's Wicked Ale, Yuengling... all good beers, all available across the USA. If you choose to be a slave to marketing and the so-called 'king' of beers, then do so quietly, but do not besmirch the rest of the American brewing industry by lumping them all together. This doesn't even touch the whole subject of micro-brews.

That's why I said (for the most part). I've enjoyed a Sam Adams or three in my day. I also enjoy Leinenkugel's Red, which is a regional brew from my neck of the woods, and another named Spotted Cow. Both quite tasty. But I prefer New Castle brown ale... So good.

Also, sorry for hijacking the thread. Bad mannered American I must be.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Also, sorry for hijacking the thread. Bad mannered American I must be.

Not at all. This is the spirit of cricket. The sun is warm, there's nowt much happening in the middle because Hoggard is bowling, so naturally the talk turns to beer.

Your round by the way.