Pakistan Spit The Dummy Out!!!
Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster
Everything was done by the book and by the laws. Undoubtedly, the umpires made the correct decision to declare the game forfeitted. The question is really whether the ball had actually been tampered with in the first place to cause the stand off, and we have no way of knowing until Darrell Hair makes his reasons for making his decision public, with the ball for evidence. I reckon that will become one of the great mysteries of sporting history.
As for Pakistan being applauded for standing up for their beliefs... sorry but you have to keep the moral high ground in that situation. They didn't, and it backfired badly, deservedly, and by the book.
As for Pakistan being applauded for standing up for their beliefs... sorry but you have to keep the moral high ground in that situation. They didn't, and it backfired badly, deservedly, and by the book.
-
simon redshaw
- Super User
- Posts: 4454
- Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 8:50 am
- Location: Tonbridge
Very true, Jon.
However, the length of the ban for tampering with ball is utterly meaningless. One match is a totally ridiculous punishment for someone found guilty of such an action. I am not pre-judging Inzy's guilt here BTW. What I am trying to say is that someone found guilty of such a misdemeanour should face a far stiffer punishment. Inzy, if found guilty on both charges, would have a far longer ban for the bringing the game into disrepute charge then for the alleged ball tampering affair which sparked off this whole controversy. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
In my view punishments for those found guilty of ball tampering should be on a sliding scale:
First offence: The player is banned for a year.
Second Offence: The player is banned for 5 years.
Third Offence: The player is banned for life.
Only if such stiff sentences were adopted, would this cancer on the game be eradicated. There would be no disparity in the sentence for each instance, all instances would be treated the same in making the sentence. The present punishments are pathetic and no disincentive at all.
The other thing to add is why is that only Inzy is being charged? Surely, the bowler would also have some part in play in this and/or another fielder. Ian Botham said when the ICC were making a fudge of the issue when all the ICC were saying at 6.30 that evening was that the issue was being discussed and fudging the issue can equally be described to this. They make me despair! : :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: Probably another load of old farts like the RFU!
However, the length of the ban for tampering with ball is utterly meaningless. One match is a totally ridiculous punishment for someone found guilty of such an action. I am not pre-judging Inzy's guilt here BTW. What I am trying to say is that someone found guilty of such a misdemeanour should face a far stiffer punishment. Inzy, if found guilty on both charges, would have a far longer ban for the bringing the game into disrepute charge then for the alleged ball tampering affair which sparked off this whole controversy. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
In my view punishments for those found guilty of ball tampering should be on a sliding scale:
First offence: The player is banned for a year.
Second Offence: The player is banned for 5 years.
Third Offence: The player is banned for life.
Only if such stiff sentences were adopted, would this cancer on the game be eradicated. There would be no disparity in the sentence for each instance, all instances would be treated the same in making the sentence. The present punishments are pathetic and no disincentive at all.
The other thing to add is why is that only Inzy is being charged? Surely, the bowler would also have some part in play in this and/or another fielder. Ian Botham said when the ICC were making a fudge of the issue when all the ICC were saying at 6.30 that evening was that the issue was being discussed and fudging the issue can equally be described to this. They make me despair! : :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: Probably another load of old farts like the RFU!
We all have our beliefs. Keiron Fallon has beliefs. Dwain Chambers has beliefs.redtiger wrote:Pakistan have stood up for their rights and their beliefs, i don't think anyone should be criticised for that. i'll criticise them for their dodgy fielding tho!!
If you're accused of something you just defend yourself.
Saying "I have beliefs therefore you mustn't accuse me of anything." is simply being pompous.
Kicks and scrums and ruck and roll.....Is all my brain and body need!