This will interest cricket fans!

nibb said:
This was taken after our innings about 4 weeks ago.

We were 38-2 after 8 overs!:eek:

It's listed on the Cricinfo website as the 2nd highest score ever in 45 over non-first class cricket.:eek:

Image098.jpg

Reminds of the "12th Man" recordings. An Oz impersonator doing all the commentary team. In one edition it was " Welcome back the MCG where Australia have made 535-3 off their 50 overs" One of those throw away lines you have to listen to twice.

If any cricket lover hasn't heard the 12th man. you should. Its hysterical
 
Ian J said:
an extra five runs awarded to the batting side is a ridiculous penalty as most bowlers would happily gouge a lump out of the cricket ball if they knew that it would only cost them five runs.

That is a slight,nay huge,exaggeration.
 
Before this erupts into a debate on 'scratching', I thought I'd offer my congratulations - if that's the sentiment that is due - otherwise just amazement at what is a phenomenal score. With batting talent such as that, has the guy on the left ever figured there's a place for him in a Steve Harmison-impersonation competition?
 
Darrell Hair has a long history with Pakistani & other sub-continent cricketing Nations. Below is a brief outline of the history between Darrel Hair & The Asian sub continent:

1 - In his first match as an international umpire in 1992, when India played Australia, Wisden noted that the game was "marred...by controversy over lbw decisions - eight times Indians were given out, while all but two of their own appeals were rejected".

2 - Infamously, in the match between Sri Lanka and Australia in 1995, he called Muttiah Muralitharan seven times in three overs for throwing. Wisden commented: "unusually, he made his judgement from the bowler's end, and several minutes passed before the crowd realised that Muralitharan's elbow, rather than his foot, was at fault."

3 - In the mid-90's quoted to have told the Pakistani Captain (Wasim Akram...I think) ""I hope you people will not in this series carry on appealing like monkeys", which could be considered racist.

4 - India's team in England last time they toured were unhappy at some of his decisions and three years later Hair had an altercation with then India coach Kapil Dev during a match against New South Wales.

5 - Umpires Darrell Hair and Peter Willey report Shoaib Akhtar for a suspicous bowling action. Shoaib was also reported a second time 16 months later, but was cleared both times.

6 - In 2004 Hair and fellow umpire Billy Bowden reported Pakistan fast bowler Shabbir Ahmed for a suspect bowling action for the 2nd time.

7 - March 2005, Harbhajan was reported for chuckiing for the 2nd time by Umpire Darrell Hair & the match referee Chris Broad.

8 - April/May 2005 Darrell Hair reported Pakistani bowler Shabir Ahmed for chucking.

9 - In a test match last November, he gave the Pakistan captain Inzaman-ul-Haq run out, even though Inzaman was standing in his crease and was merely jumping to avoid the ball which had been thrown by the English bowler at his stumps.

10 - In the same game, Hair was involved in two further controversial decisions against Pakistan players, Shahid Afridi and Salman Butt.

Bowlers Kumar Dharmasena (SL) Shoaib Malik (PAK) & Mohammed Hafeez (PAK) have also been called for their bowling actions by Umpire Hair & Chris Broad (Shoaib Malik on two different occasions).
 
PRINCEGRINCH - I think that what you have pointed out is that there seem to be a number of problems concerning Asian bowlers.

He did infamously no-ball Muttiah Muralitharan several times for "chucking" but I don''t know of anyone within cricketing circles that doesn't agree with him. Murali's action was illegal under the existing laws which have now been changed, partly to suit him.

Bowlers reported for suspect actions have their actions examined by a panel of international experts and whilst Shabir Ahmed has twice been reported by Hair the international panel has agreed with him and suspended him twice until his action has been remodelled bringing it within the laws.

Hair may have been involved in an "incident" involving Shaid Afridi last year but it was all caught on camera and Afridi was quite clearly cheating. The match referee studied the vido evidence and banned Afridi for the next two Tests.

I think that one has to be really struggling to try and make his comments about "appealing like monkeys" appear racist. I don't remember who was playing in that game but several Pakistanis try and put pressure on the umpire by excessive appealing which takes the form of leaping up and down and screaming. Behaving like monkeys is an apt description for that type of behaviour and racism doesn't enter into it.

From memory Mushtaq Ahmed is about the worst offender that I have seen who co-incidentally is a Pakistani. He is still at it years later and Chris Reed of Notts was warned earlier this year when he had an altercation with Mushtaq about his excessive appealing
 
Well, no evidence has been found of ball tampering. Had there been any you can bet that it would have been shown non-stop in a loop on Sky, and front page on the tabloids with the usual sensationalist headlines ( I can imagine them).

Daryl Hair's really f***ed up big time and it shows that this guy is not an impartial Umpire.
He needs to be booted out, in style.
 
MR ETOME said:
Daryl Hair's really f***ed up big time and it shows that this guy is not an impartial Umpire.
He needs to be booted out, in style.

I dont think he should be booted out.As a umpire he needs to take the decisions in the middle like giving lbw,caught behind decision and sometimes he gets them wrong like all umpires and he may of got this wrong but booting him out i say no.

Btw why does everybody think he can keep an eye on the ball all the time :confused: sometimes the only clue is how the ball looks and from hes experience he thought its been tampered with and far as i know the other umpire agreed, so lets wait for the icc report but i can guarantee as the pakistanis are saying they will run home asap if inzi is banned, no blackmail guys :rolleyes: he/team will cleared on the cheating front (that should keep the odi's on) but hopefully atleast he will get some sort of short ban for the protracted protest (remember they had the 2nd chance to play) which ruined a possible cliffhanger game on monday.
 
MR ETOME said:
Daryl Hair's really f***ed up big time and it shows that this guy is not an impartial Umpire.
He needs to be booted out, in style.

And I doubt whether you are an impartial cricket fan either.
 
Ian J said:
And I doubt whether you are an impartial cricket fan either.

As a fan I don't need to be impartial, an Umpire on the other hand....
 
Dubster said:
I dont think he should be booted out.As a umpire he needs to take the decisions in the middle like giving lbw,caught behind decision and sometimes he gets them wrong like all umpires and he may of got this wrong but booting him out i say no.

Btw why does everybody think he can keep an eye on the ball all the time :confused: sometimes the only clue is how the ball looks and from hes experience he thought its been tampered with and far as i know the other umpire agreed, so lets wait for the icc report but i can guarantee as the pakistanis are saying they will run home asap if inzi is banned, no blackmail guys :rolleyes: he/team will cleared on the cheating front (that should keep the odi's on) but hopefully atleast he will get some sort of short ban for the protracted protest (remember they had the 2nd chance to play) which ruined a possible cliffhanger game on monday.

Yes, any Umpire can get lbw/caught behind decisions wrong but this guy seems to get quite a lot wrong, depending on who's batting. These decisions are accepted by the players, they have no choice. Ball tampering is a completely different issue as it insinuates The Pakistanis were cheating. They have every right to protest their innocence.

I dont know what his agenda is against teams from the sub-continent, but he's obviously made this decision, the way he did, to raise controversy knowing that The ICC will back him to the hilt.
 
It is interesting though, that the other Umpire has gone along with him. If he was unsure, for the sake of his fledgeling International career, wouldn't he have distanced himself from Hair?

Without the video evidence though, I can't see that this is gonna be resolved conclusively.
 
From cricinfo, Bob woolmer has come out with a classic.

"I'd allow bowlers to use anything that naturally appears on the cricket field," Woolmer continued. "They could rub the ball on the ground, pick the seam, scratch it with their nails - anything that allows the ball to move off the seam to make it less of a batsman's game.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engvpak/content/story/257514.html

Madness. Just imagine the state the ball would end up in.
 
I see the Inzy tribunal set for Friday has been canecelled. Apparently ICC Chief Ranjan Madugalle is unable to travel due to "family reasons"!
Right! That should read "afraid of diplomatic ramifications in the region"! :eek:

Where does that leave the one day series now?
 
It is interesting that India have said that they will back whatever decision the ICC come up with.

I think that the allegations that Darrell Hair makes his umpiring decisions based on race rather than cricket are ludicrous and it seems that most of the more venemous criticism is coming from Pakistanis.

Most of his (and every other umpire's) decisions are televised. The whole cricket loving world saw Shahid Afridi cheating by deliberately scuffing up the pitch.

We also saw Danish Kaneria running on the pitch in his follow through in the same match when he was warned.

We've all seen Shabbir Ahmed chucking the ball and even the Sky commentators agreed that his action was suspect.

Controversy never seems to be far away as far as Pakistan cricket is concerned whether it is past ball tampering allegations or even match fixing.
 
Ian J said:
It is interesting that India have said that they will back whatever decision the ICC come up with.

I think that the allegations that Darrell Hair makes his umpiring decisions based on race rather than cricket are ludicrous and it seems that most of the more venemous criticism is coming from Pakistanis.

Most of his (and every other umpire's) decisions are televised. The whole cricket loving world saw Shahid Afridi cheating by deliberately scuffing up the pitch.

We also saw Danish Kaneria running on the pitch in his follow through in the same match when he was warned.

We've all seen Shabbir Ahmed chucking the ball and even the Sky commentators agreed that his action was suspect.

Controversy never seems to be far away as far as Pakistan cricket is concerned whether it is past ball tampering allegations or even match fixing.

If India were in the position Pakistan are in I think their attitude would be different.

Ian Botham has been pretty venomous in his criticism of the umpiring, as far as I am aware he is not Pakistani. In the post match discussion on Sky, all of the commentators were critical of Daryl Hairs umpiring. If I remember correctly, one of Englands former captains said that if he was in Inzamams position, he would have considered taking his team off straight away.

Shahid Afridi cheated and he got punished for it, I can't remember The Pakistanis protesting the decision. He is not the only person to have cheated in a cricket match.

Is it just Pakistani bowlers that run on the pitch in their follow through? I have seen many warnings given to bowlers regardless of nationality.

If we are going to talk about past test match controversies, what about Michael Athertons ball tampering incident, The South African and Indian match fixing allegations, Mike Gatting changing his fielding positions as his bowler is in the delivery run up? etc.etc.
 
MR ETOME said:
Ian Botham has been pretty venomous in his criticism of the umpiring, as far as I am aware he is not Pakistani. In the post match discussion on Sky, all of the commentators were critical of Daryl Hairs umpiring.

I agree with Ian Botham and the others that Darrell Hair could have handled the situation better but not one of them has suggested that he changed the ball because he was a racist.

You're quite right that Michael Atherton was fined in the "dirt in pocket" incident but none of us are complaining that it was because the Australian match referee that fined him was a racist and didn't like poms.

Why not wait for the hearing to see what the outcome is rather than prejudge everything without being in possession of the facts.
 
Ian J said:
PRINCEGRINCH - I think that what you have pointed out is that there seem to be a number of problems concerning Asian bowlers.

He did infamously no-ball Muttiah Muralitharan several times for "chucking" but I don''t know of anyone within cricketing circles that doesn't agree with him. Murali's action was illegal under the existing laws which have now been changed, partly to suit him.

Bowlers reported for suspect actions have their actions examined by a panel of international experts and whilst Shabir Ahmed has twice been reported by Hair the international panel has agreed with him and suspended him twice until his action has been remodelled bringing it within the laws.

Hair may have been involved in an "incident" involving Shaid Afridi last year but it was all caught on camera and Afridi was quite clearly cheating. The match referee studied the vido evidence and banned Afridi for the next two Tests.

I think that one has to be really struggling to try and make his comments about "appealing like monkeys" appear racist. I don't remember who was playing in that game but several Pakistanis try and put pressure on the umpire by excessive appealing which takes the form of leaping up and down and screaming. Behaving like monkeys is an apt description for that type of behaviour and racism doesn't enter into it.

From memory Mushtaq Ahmed is about the worst offender that I have seen who co-incidentally is a Pakistani. He is still at it years later and Chris Reed of Notts was warned earlier this year when he had an altercation with Mushtaq about his excessive appealing

Firstly sorry fr the late reply as I have been very busy.

Murli - He is "double jointed" and has a medical report to prove he is not chucking which in the eyes of the LAW is perfectly acceptable. Shoaib Akhar also has a similar report of his HYPER EXTENSION, neither are deliberate or can be helped. If the MEDICAL & BOWLING Panel have cleared them, then why would an umpire want to question their bowling action? According to the LAWS they are perfectly LEGAL, so unless the actions have been changed again, then why should the UMPIRE(S) choose which LAW they accept and which the DON'T. Why not just follow the LAW that has been given to them, rather than making their own judgments. I beleive they are NOT doing their job CORRECTLY (or by the LETTER OF THE LAW as some prefer), when they question the "cleared" actions.

Shabbir on the other hand was blatantly "chucking" the bowl. Everyone from the Umpires to the match referree to the commentators all agreed on this. Pakistan also accepted this without any problems and there was NO PROTEST as it was a fair judgement.

When I was referring to the Hair and Afridi incident, I meant that Hair ALSO called Afridi for chucking for which he was also cleared. Regarding Afridi's "Break Dance", he was the first to admit that what he did was absolutely stupid and accepted the punichment as did the Pakistan Board and fans, even though the commentators and fans thought it was too harsh.

If you said "appealing like monkeys" to any coloured or especially black team they would consider it to be racist as do the articles around the net which talk about this incident.

As for Mushtaq, I admit he over appeals, but regarding the Reed issue, he made an absolute fool out of him that over and got him out. That is what got to Reed and he lost his cool.

I'm sorry to say but not ONLY is Darrell Hair a poor incompetent Umpire, he is also the least respected Umpire around most of the world.
 
Firstly Pakistan's alleged/accusation of "Ball Tampering" is more important than the match being FORFEITED (Especially in the eyes of Pakistan). The BALL TAMPERING ISSUE led to the match being declared as FORFEITED.

Darrel Hair still does NOT have no proof whatsoever that the ball had been tampered by the on-field Pakistani Players. He does not have any eye witnesses, no TV Cameras (HD Cameras for more detail), no Photos and neither has he seen it himself or any of the other three umpires & match referee. Darrel Hair, Billy Doctrove, 3rd/4th Umpires and the match referee have to have "seen" a player(s) on the field Tampering with the ball, NOT ASSUME it has been tampered with. Since Darrel claims it has been "scuffed" and NOT "scratched", an external abbrasive object must have been used, which no one would've missed.

Secondly, the match was NEVER FORFEITED by Pakistan. The rules state the Umpires have to ask and give the opposition side two opportunities to continue the match, with a VERBAL REPLY each time STATING their DECISION/INTENTION. However, the first time round Darrel did NOT get a reply from Inzamam as he walked away without getting it, and the 2nd time he never bothered to ask. He MUST get a response from Inzamam for it to be considered as a CHANCE EACH TIME. (Please DO check the Rules)

The Match was NEVER ENDED by the Umpires as ONLY the BAILS were removed, which normally means END OF PLAY for the day NOT END OF MATCH. The stumps MUST be REMOVED if the match has finished. THIS WAS NEVER DONE, so the Umpires are chatting **** about the match being FORFEITED, or they simply don't know the rules. (Please refer to the RULES again and AUS V ENG match last year).

Regarding the Rooney Comparison that some people are making, what planet are you guys on? Rooney being sent off and a protest being held in comparison to the Pakistani Ball Tampering accusation are two completely differnt things. Rooney made a "bad" tackle n studded the player in the knackers and deserved to be sent off. This can't be compared to the Pakistan incident, as it was not classed as "cheating", but part of the games rules.

Maradonna on the other hand "cheated" and used his hand to net the ball and we all remember how everyone in England were upset about it. That can be comapred to the PAKISTAN issue as both were regarded as cheating. The difference here is that Argentina would've still beaten England, where as Pakistan with the return of 1 of their 3 Front line bowlers would've MOST LIKELY beaten England.
 
Did you get excited when you saw how many replies you'd had about your team :rotfl:
 
People are saying the Pakistani's will run home is nonsense. Pakistan do not have anything against the ECB as long as they stay neutral, which they have done so far. They have a contract with the ECB to play the matches, they don't want to be paying the potential 10m that ECB would lose out on.

Regarding the Umpires again, they should also be charged with bringing the match into dis-repute for reasons I have explained in an earlier post.

As for the ICC, no doubt they will clear their Umpires, but Pakistan with the Legal Team they have should be able to RIP through both the ICC and the Umpires for bothe the FORFIETURE & TAMPERING ALLEGATIONS.

Darrel Hair wants to retire within the next 12 months and release his NEW BOOK, which is why he also tries creating controversies so they sell. Well sorry Darrel, all the money you make this time will be going to the PCB and its players for damages.
 
PRINCEGRINCH said:
Pakistan with the Legal Team they have should be able to RIP through both the FORFIETURE & TAMPERING ALLEGATIONS

Is that wishful thinking or do you have inside information as the rest of us still have no idea what made the umpires decide that the ball had been tampered with or what was said to the Pakistani captain and management prior to the decision to forfeit the game.
 
Apparently Hair offered to quit Umpiring in return for $1/2 mil!... :eek:
 
Ian J said:
Is that wishful thinking or do you have inside information as the rest of us still have no idea what made the umpires decide that the ball had been tampered with or what was said to the Pakistani captain and management prior to the decision to forfeit the game.

Thats exactly my point...NOTHING WAS SAID in which case the match was NOT LEGALLY FORFEITED UNDER THE LAW (under the conditions explained previously).

The correct statment would be, the match was ASSUMED forfeited under the eyes of the Umpires ONLY.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom