|
fatbury
|
 |
« Reply #60 on: Sunday, August 20, 2006, 17:18:16 » |
|
should have completed the game then made their protest ... ban them all .. and give England the match and the series
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
hansgruber
 Offline
Posts: 1606
|
|
« Reply #61 on: Sunday, August 20, 2006, 17:18:38 » |
|
honour's one thing, stopping a test match with 20,000 paying spectators in the ground (and more tomorrow) because you don't agree with a decision is farcical. Fine them!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
hansgruber
Offline
Posts: 1606
|
|
« Reply #62 on: Sunday, August 20, 2006, 17:23:42 » |
|
will the bookies pay out on an England win?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sonic youth
|
|
« Reply #63 on: Sunday, August 20, 2006, 18:03:13 » |
|
should have completed the game then made their protest ... ban them all .. and give England the match and the series you don't do things in halves do you fatters :? there's no proof of pakistan cheating and i think they're perfectly within their rights to make a protest. the problem seems to be an utter lack of communication between everyone. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
hansgruber
Offline
Posts: 1606
|
|
« Reply #64 on: Sunday, August 20, 2006, 18:06:28 » |
|
they're perfectly within their rights to make a protest
agreed. But refusing to play is not a protest, and according to the rules of the game they should be made to forfeit |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Boeta
Offline
Posts: 3902
|
|
« Reply #65 on: Sunday, August 20, 2006, 18:07:27 » |
|
honour's one thing, stopping a test match with 20,000 paying spectators in the ground (and more tomorrow) because you don't agree with a decision is farcical. Fine them! a fair point if it was another country but pakistan still has the stigma of ball tampering hanging over it and therefore to be accused of it when they believe they did nothing wrong has huge implications |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sonic youth
|
|
« Reply #66 on: Sunday, August 20, 2006, 18:08:21 » |
|
i don't think they were refusing to play, just delayed coming on after tea to make a point. daryl hair effectively ended the day's play by taking off the bails and it all got rather more confusing as a result.
the game should be forfeited though...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
hansgruber
Offline
Posts: 1606
|
|
« Reply #67 on: Sunday, August 20, 2006, 18:13:02 » |
|
If they were delaying they should have just said "we're delaying" and everyone could have just got on with it. I think they've only changed to saying they were delaying because then the game shouldn't be forfeited.
Daryl Hair is a legend anyway - he was the one who kept no-balling the chucker (Murali)!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
hansgruber
Offline
Posts: 1606
|
|
« Reply #68 on: Sunday, August 20, 2006, 18:18:39 » |
|
No smoke without fire. Check out their history:
In 2000 Waqar received a one-match ban for ball tampering following a one-day international against South Africa in Sri Lanka while Azhar Mahmood was fined for "abetting" the infringment in the same match.
The Pakistan fast bowler Shoaib Akhtar, ruled out of the current series with because of an ankle injury, received a reprimand in November 2002 for the same offence after a Test match against Zimbabwe in Harare.
And the following year, in May, Shoaib was given a two-match ban for ball tampering after a one-day international against New Zealand in Dambulla.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Spud
|
|
« Reply #69 on: Sunday, August 20, 2006, 18:53:26 » |
|
i don't think they were refusing to play, just delayed coming on after tea to make a point. daryl hair effectively ended the day's play by taking off the bails and it all got rather more confusing as a result.
the game should be forfeited though... The bails can be put back on though Youthster. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
hansgruber
Offline
Posts: 1606
|
|
« Reply #70 on: Sunday, August 20, 2006, 18:55:28 » |
|
The bails can be put back on
aaaaaaah. That's definitely an 'aaaaaah' situation. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Spud
|
|
« Reply #71 on: Sunday, August 20, 2006, 18:56:58 » |
|
Just thought id point that out to him as he was saying that they couldnt carry on playing as the Convict had removed the bails.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
hansgruber
Offline
Posts: 1606
|
|
« Reply #72 on: Sunday, August 20, 2006, 19:01:38 » |
|
I know. I thought it was quite deep.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sonic youth
|
|
« Reply #73 on: Sunday, August 20, 2006, 19:03:48 » |
|
Just thought id point that out to him as he was saying that they couldnt carry on playing as the Convict had removed the bails. i didn't say they couldn't spudster  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
hansgruber
Offline
Posts: 1606
|
|
« Reply #74 on: Sunday, August 20, 2006, 19:04:44 » |
|
unless he's burnt them to make the second Ashes
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
