Pakistan forfeit 4th Test

[Xerol]

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engvpak/content/current/story/257055.html

Sure, I can understand why they're upset, but to refuse to play (and forfeit the match)? Especially since they were in such a commanding position, it just seems like a stupid thing to do.

 

[Scuffer]

It's a funny one. I wonder whether they intended to forfeit when they refeused to come out after tea, and were persuaded otherwise by the management. By then it was too late anyway, so made them look a trifle daft.

Mishandled by the umpires for not handling the problem better initially, and a silly response by the Pakistan team. They could have lodged a really strong protest, come out, played, and probably won. Instead they chose an option that denied them the chance of winning.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Amazing game but it looks like Inzy will be held to have brought the game into disrepute. I wonder if the Pakistanis are going to up sticks and go home before the one-dayers can be played? A big shame if so…

 

[Technocactus]

Inzy shouldn't be found guilty of ball-tampering. If he's being charged, the umpirees didn't see who, if anyone did it. Seems they're just going on a hunch. Still, it saved our team from defeat to Pakistan.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Inzy shouldn't be found guilty of ball-tampering. If he's being charged, the umpirees didn't see who, if anyone did it. Seems they're just going on a hunch. Still, it saved our team from defeat to Pakistan.

When no individual is found guilty it is always the captain that cops it.

 

[azzaman333]

We all know the real reason they didnt come out after Tea. Inzy hadnt finished his food yet!

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Hair is just stupidly obstinate. When the Pakistan team relented and said they would restart play, then he should have been big enough to accept that. He has a lousy track record of pragmatism (cf Murali), and really isn't up to the man management side of the game which international cricket umpiring now requires.

 

[Xerol]

Geez, and I thought this situation couldn't get any weirder.

 

[Stapel]

Having read tons of comments on other forums, I've come this conclusion:

Hair, inspecting the ball after every over, probably did conclude the ball had been tampered with. However, he did not see anybody actually tampering with the ball. The most common thing to do in such a situation is warning the captain. According to the laws, Hair was within his rights to give a 5 runs penalty without a warning. Somewhat dubious... I dare not to say not giving a warning first is based on racism. Seems a bit far-fetched. Even the most political correct umpire knows Pakistan has a poor reputation.

Inzy was right to protest, but by know means in this way. Imagine the penalty would have been recalled! Nice precedent!

Inzamam-ul-Haq simply did what only a totally idiot captain would do.

Hair was simply wrong, which can happen (still stupid).
Inzy crossed the line. What he did is simply ridiculous. A nice ban would fit in well here.
And than Hair reacted wrongly again.

 

[phoenix_night]

Nice post Stapel.

 

[Xerol]

I'm still withholding judgement until I hear more about the ball. Pakistan was playing well, they wouldn't NEED to tamper with the ball (unless that was the cause). It's so easy to make snap judgements in situations like this, without knowing all the facts, and I heard the inquiry was delayed a month, so we'll just have to see what happens.

 

[Stapel]

I'm still withholding judgement until I hear more about the ball. Pakistan was playing well, they wouldn't NEED to tamper with the ball (unless that was the cause). It's so easy to make snap judgements in situations like this, without knowing all the facts, and I heard the inquiry was delayed a month, so we'll just have to see what happens.

I guess it's all awfully simple: A ball may very well look like it has been tampered with, even if such thing is actually not the case. When Pakistan is the fielding side at such a moment, many people would suspect the ball condition is not completely natural (we can't deny the Paks have a history). Hair seems to be a guy that would immediately suspect ball-tampering in a situation like this. Of course, a good umpire would give a warning first.....

 

[Rik Meleet]

It's a funny one. I wonder whether they intended to forfeit when they refeused to come out after tea, and were persuaded otherwise by the management. By then it was too late anyway, so made them look a trifle daft.

Mishandled by the umpires for not handling the problem better initially, and a silly response by the Pakistan team. They could have lodged a really strong protest, come out, played, and probably won. Instead they chose an option that denied them the chance of winning.

They probably felt that fair play is more important than winning.

Wait, that sounds silly. Or does it ?

 

[Scuffer]

No, not really. Especially as the umpire in question has a had a long history with Pakistan.

And having thought about in the time that has passed, I wouldn't be surprised if he had predetermined to call for ball-tampering, in the same way he seemed to decide to call Muralitharian for throwing all of a sudden.

I suppose the good side of the fiasco is that they will re-examine the range of powers of umpires to give a more balanced approach.