Cricket Controversies

[nikku12982]

England vs Pakistan

WHOSE FAULT WAS IT?
Inzy or Daryl Hair

[aqeel_phool]

absolutely daryl was faulty. he always do things against asians. i don't like him.

[nik_for_you]

i dont know the whole story.. what happened?

[the deconstructionist]

Both were wrong, Hair for not having enough proof and Pakis to have walked out.

[eagle_y2j]

Pakistan should obey rules of cricket

[danantha]

it should be daryl because he doent have any evidence against pak except the tampered ball. he should not do this he is always against asians. he is a freek

[iMav]

the hair comes up with a proof that 1 of the pakis tampered with the ball ..... then hair is right .... if cant then looking at his past record with pakistan and lanka and india .... icc should have no hair

[paul_007]

the hair comes up with a proof that 1 of the pakis tampered with the ball ..... then hair is right .... if cant then looking at his past record with pakistan and lanka and india .... icc should have no hair


absolutely agree with u

[nikku12982]

first david shepherd had a problem with pakistan

and now that arrogant daryl hair? i hope he should get retired and

consult with a doctor ,he is too old to be an umpire

he think only australians can win the match by hard work
others always cheat .i think he also had a problem with muralitharan that he hasnt right action.

first sri lanka then pakistan now who knows india would be next

[iMav]

who knows india would be next .... if i am not wrong he had problems with bhajji's action

[hanwant]

I think Inzamam was at fault here, he should have informaed Daryl Hair that pakistan will be going for a protest during the tea session and they will be registering a protest againt the ball temparing issue. This could have solved the whole issue, as its allowed by the law of ICC that a team can register its protest by delaying the match, by not coming onto the field for a certain period of time.
As umpires are ICC officials..they have rights to forfeit the match if they think so.

[iMav]

what should he inform if they dont come out hair will know that they are protesting ..... however if u mean inzy should hav given hair a dhamki that they will not play ..... then what good wud it do the situation wud hav remained the same in either case.....

[hanwant]

Go and read ICC laws:

Extracts from ICC law:

Level 2
The Offences set out at 2.1 to 2.11 below are Level 2 Offences. The Penalty for a Level 2 Offence shall be a fine of the equivalent of between 50% of the Player or Official’s match fee up to their full match fee and/or a 1 Test Match or 2 ODI Match ban

2.9 Changing the condition of the ball in breach of Law 42.3 as read with Standard Test Match and ODI Playing Conditions clause 42.1 (this supplements and does not replace the provisions of the Laws of Cricket and Standard Test Match and ODI Playing Conditions).

12. In the event of a Player or Team Official being alleged to have breached the Rules of Conduct during a Tour in circumstances where, pursuant to Section D 11, the matter falls to be determined by the ICC Chief Referee or the relevant Player or Team Official’s Home Board, the ICC Chief Referee or that Home Board, as the case may be, shall be entitled, in their absolute discretion, to request the Referee to determine the matter in accordance with the procedures set forth in this Code of Conduct.

[iMav]

^^ what i am saying is that even if inzy told the match ref that we are not gonna play coz hair has been biased and is accusing of something we have not done ..... there was no chance that hair would have reversed his desicion and wud not have re-tracked on his judgement that the pakis had tampered with the ball .... the deadlock wud have happened in any case ....