<ramapriya.d@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1156246051.801315.156540@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...> eusebius wrote:> >
But I see some nuances in this situation, which don't exculpate
completely both sides.>
Sorry but I completely exculpate the umps. They made a call being in> the position they were, simple as that. Even if that decision is proven> wrong today, it changes nothing. Bad calls shouldn't ideally be made> but if done, cricketers don't yet have the liberty to pack up and> leave.>
There was a day-night ODI in NZ some years ago where I recall Flintoff> being given out caught behind off Andre Adams. I recall for the reason> that it ranks as one of the more questionable decisions that I've had> the misfortune of seeing. And had Eng done a Pak at that point, you'd> still have found nuances that wouldn't have exculpated either Eng or> the umps completely.
Although it was probably very dark at the time, it was in fact a Test match.
What's to question about the decision? Ok, so one could probably squeeze a box of replacement balls (either in similar condition to the match ball, or brand new) between the edge of Flintoff's bat and the ball, and the bowler was already walking back to his mark, having not appealed, but apart from that I thought it a sound call.
Like I stated elsewhere, a lot of why the matter came to a pass at the> Oval was because of the history involving Eng and Pak, allegations of> tampering, etc. Had this happened to, say, NZ, I doubt they'd have> forfeited quite like that. They'd have been startled but forfeiture> wouldn't have generally been an option.
Without wishing to stray too far into areas I know little about, it seems the implications behind being accused of ball-tampering are rather different to the current Pakistan captain when compared with the average New Zealander. I read much about 'cheating' and it being a matter of honour etc. to the Pakistan team, whereas a New Zealand team would probably consider themselves to have been accused of merely breaking a rule.
"Andrew Dunford" <adunford@artifax.net> wrote in message news:4l28d1Fdu7uvU1@individual.net...>
<ramapriya.d@gmail.com> wrote in message> news:1156246051.801315.156540@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...>> eusebius wrote:>> >
But I see some nuances in this situation, which don't exculpate> completely both sides.>>
Sorry but I completely exculpate the umps. They made a call being in>> the position they were, simple as that. Even if that decision is proven>> wrong today, it changes nothing. Bad calls shouldn't ideally be made>> but if done, cricketers don't yet have the liberty to pack up and>> leave.>>
There was a day-night ODI in NZ some years ago where I recall Flintoff>> being given out caught behind off Andre Adams. I recall for the reason>> that it ranks as one of the more questionable decisions that I've had>> the misfortune of seeing. And had Eng done a Pak at that point, you'd>> still have found nuances that wouldn't have exculpated either Eng or>> the umps completely.>
Although it was probably very dark at the time, it was in fact a Test > match.>
What's to question about the decision? Ok, so one could probably squeeze a> box of replacement balls (either in similar condition to the match ball, > or> brand new) between the edge of Flintoff's bat and the ball, and the bowler> was already walking back to his mark, having not appealed, but apart from> that I thought it a sound call.>
Like I stated elsewhere, a lot of why the matter came to a pass at the>> Oval was because of the history involving Eng and Pak, allegations of>> tampering, etc. Had this happened to, say, NZ, I doubt they'd have>> forfeited quite like that. They'd have been startled but forfeiture>> wouldn't have generally been an option.>
Without wishing to stray too far into areas I know little about, it seems> the implications behind being accused of ball-tampering are rather > different> to the current Pakistan captain when compared with the average New> Zealander. I read much about 'cheating' and it being a matter of honour> etc. to the Pakistan team, whereas a New Zealand team would probably> consider themselves to have been accused of merely breaking a rule.
and unlucky to be caught as would most Aussie teams>
