I say ban BBC too by sending in your protest and each sender should include this curse.
Idealy they (BBC) should have acted more responsibly but because it is Pakistan and not Asutrilaia on the line, they(BBC) think they can get away with it. Fu***kg arrogant stiff collar lifeless piece of Shyt
Re: Good Damn You BBC - have some shame
BBC showing their true colors, thats all.
At the 6 pm BBC news in North america, the newscaster began by noting how pakistan was accused of cheating by the umpires, and then went onto saying that both PCB and ECB, after an emergency meeting agreed that the umpires were right. What the hell? No one agreed to anyting. Pakistan were forced to forfeit.
Re: Good Damn You BBC - have some shame
And they keep placing special emphasis on how Gul's delivery to Cook reverse swung remarkably. Shut the f*ck up BBC reporters, you guys were reversing it after 15 overs last year. You don't know what happened then, do you?
Re: Good Damn You BBC - have some shame
BBC niggas r bunch of arseholes.. kutte.
Re: Good Damn You BBC - have some shame
The 3 joint group ,meeting in unisome agreement was about forfieting the match and its award to England as per ICC (shty) rules. But neither PCB nor ECB agreed on THE ACTUAL INCIDENT and ACCUSATION,it is still undicided, if media understands it otherwise, then I’m further assured that I’m lliving in a lunatic society of biased/racist/hateful bunch of IDIOTS.
If India-Pakistan diplomacy can work via cricket power, this same power should be used to show/expose the true colors of otherwise friendly ‘gora’ attitude. DAMN YOU HAIR and YOUR KIND ICC !!! 
Re: Good Damn You BBC - have some shame
**Jonathan Agnew column **
While I do have some sympathy for Pakistan, staging a sit-in was not the right way to register their protest.
They clearly feel most aggrieved at having been found guilty of ball-tampering without being able to defend themselves.
But a better, more sensible approach would surely have been to issue a strong denial at tea time, in which they also promised to appeal, and got on with the game.
There is a tried and tested system for appealing to the match referee in these circumstances, and this takes place at the close of play.
Instead, what they tried to do was effectively blackmail the officials into overturning the umpires’ decision.
This could have set a very dangerous precedent.
But my sympathy for their situation is founded on the implementation of the law which leaves a team in Pakistan’s position with no opportunity immediately to defend itself against an allegation of cheating.
The penalty is imposed by the on-field umpires, and as long as they are as sure as they can be that the ball has been tampered with, they can act without any consultation with the captain of the fielding team.
Ball-tampering is notoriously difficult to prove.
In this case, there is no evidence from television cameras to support the umpires, and it is very hard to tell the difference between an innocent scuff mark, or deliberate skulduggery.
**However, the umpires are trained to detect the difference where possible, and Pakistan’s claim that the ball had been damaged by being hit to the boundary - and for six - is not entirely credible. **
The ball in question had not been hit for four during the previous three overs, and was never hit for six.
SOURCE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/england/5269492.stm
What about this SOB on BBC
What does he mean by tried and tested system under these circumstances??? How often teams have to face this situation where an umpire will accuse them of ball tampering without any evidence.
He said that ball tampering is difficult to prove, so does that mean that anyone can just accuse a team primarily because he is racist prick and doesn’t like south asians.
The dopehead said that the ball was never hit for a boundary during the 3 overs. Well FYI, pietersen did hit Kaneria for 4 in 53rd over (Cook was dismissed in 52nd over. Here is the cricinfo proof
52.6****Danish Kaneria to Pietersen, FOUR, outside off at last, and an almighty smear - albeit a controlled one - cracks the ball through the covers. Lovely intelligent play from KP
ullu ka patha :mad:
Re: Good Damn You BBC - have some shame
^Da [EMAIL="B@st@rd"]B@st@rd is implying that Pakistan did cheat.
Re: Good Damn You BBC - have some shame
Basically, he has no idea wot da hell he'z talkin abt .. simply a dumbF*ck.
Re: Good Damn You BBC - have some shame
^ , And what more, Was there an attempt by umpire Hair or Dock to show an indication of their actions prior to whta they did ???
NO ! It was like “I’m the supreme power to do what I did” attitude,
translating into 'disrespect and shamful indication of " I pronounce you GUILTY of the offence,while I go in my corner to think about some evidence to shut you up" my boss ICC will back me up anyways"
What a shamful attitude.
Re: Good Damn You BBC - have some shame
I think Jonathan Agnew explained it best.
While fingers can be raised on Hair conduct( I do think He is racist), reaction by Pakistani team in the middle of the game was not appropriate.
Whatever be intention of Hair, he can always hide behind the Laws. Where as Pakistani team clearly broke law and both umpire's were right to call of the game. As per the Cricket rules the are perfectly fine.
One cannot allow this kind of arm twisting by any team. Pakistani team clearly tried to do this by not showing up on the ground. Best way could have been to carry on the gamewhen umpires came over to call them on the ground and fight it out with ICC by its appeal system and may be clearly say that next time If Hair is on the ground we will not play. Get investigation setup on his conduct. But refusing to go back to ground was too much crap.
Re: Good Damn You BBC - have some shame
^ It was just not the matter of this particular decision. There is a history between Hair and Pakistan which is worse than the one between Bucknor and India.
What happened today was something which took years in making.
FYI, PCB has appealed against Hair several times in the past. The result of which was his continous appointment during Pakistan matches.
Re: Good Damn You BBC - have some shame
While fingers can be raised on Hair conduct( I do think He is racist), reaction by Pakistani team in the middle of the game was not appropriate.
Whatever be intention of Hair, he can always hide behind the Laws. Where as Pakistani team clearly broke law and both umpire's were right to call of the game. As per the Cricket rules the are perfectly fine.
One cannot allow this kind of arm twisting by any team. Pakistani team clearly tried to do this by not showing up on the ground. Best way could have been to carry on the gamewhen umpires came over to call them on the ground and fight it out with ICC by its appeal system and may be clearly say that next time If Hair is on the ground we will not play. Get investigation setup on his conduct. But refusing to go back to ground was too much crap.
If i recall correctly, many captains have taken their teams off the field, this is by no means the first time a team has stopped play in protest.
Clive Lloyd
Javaid Miandad
Bishan Singh Bedi
Ranatunga
are the ones that come to my mind. May be some more knowledgeable person can share more instances.
Re: Good Damn You BBC - have some shame
Clive Lloyd Javaid Miandad Bishan Singh Bedi Ranatunga
are the ones that come to my mind. May be some more knowledgeable person can share more instances.
add imran khan to that list
Re: Good Damn You BBC - have some shame
There is a tried and tested system for appealing to the match referee in these circumstances, and this takes place at the close of play.
Instead, what they tried to do was effectively blackmail the officials into overturning the umpires' decision.
The penalty is imposed by the on-field umpires, and as long as they are as sure as they can be that the ball has been tampered with, they can act without any consultation with the captain of the fielding team.
Blackmail? WHAT IN MOTHER NATURE IS HE TALKING ABOUT? Sympathy for Pakistan, my butt! Low-lifes such as these just don't grow out of that phase ever, do they? Playing a International-level cricket match is like walking in a circus with these ignorant clowns. If one fails to ride in a particular go-cart, that innocent can expect a box full of sympathies from this garbage Agnews of the world. Nobody expects sincere 'sympathies' or kind words from these two-faced pigs.
To top this disaster off, Hair had the audacity, HE HAD THE AUDACITY to run back home with his sheepish tail between his legs without as much as providing a reasonable and logical explanation of the ball tampering. I will not tolerate the mud that he has left us, the entire nation, in.
Tell, what exact laws are we refering to, for the sake of us being on the same page? Read the reports in which Hair officiated the entire series and particularly the moment where he walked upto the Pakistan dressing room full of himself and asked in his piggy voice to either come back out or forfeit the match. Read the article and watch the clip where Hair utterly refused to even consult Inzamam on the matter of changing the ball. Shouldn't the fielding captain be the least bit informed of the current proceedings? Did Hair not break the law by taking first flight to the holy land of Australia without ever turning up? Pakistan have been staging open protests in the end-of-the-match ICC reports against this pig, especially the time since last home series, clearly explaining their stance on the position that they do not want him umpiring in anything that remotely resembles Pakistan in the future. I suppose they broke that law, too, having spoken against the god and the person who is rated as a higher authority, larger than the context of the game itself.
The rest of what you have mentioned and other members, I agree with. Pakistan should have immediately left the field as soon as this incident happened. Needless to say, if it was any other captain besides Inzamam, the matter would not have escalated to this greater height as it has now.
Re: Good Damn You BBC - have some shame
To top this disaster off, Hair had the audacity, HE HAD THE AUDACITY to run back home with his sheepish tail between his legs without as much as providing a reasonable and logical explanation of the ball tampering. I will not tolerate the mud that he has left us, the entire nation, in. Tell, what exact laws are we refering to, for the sake of us being on the same page? Read the reports in which Hair officiated the entire series and particularly the moment where he walked upto the Pakistan dressing room full of himself and asked in his piggy voice to either come back out or forfeit the match. Read the article and watch the clip where Hair utterly refused to even consult Inzamam on the matter of changing the ball. Shouldn't the fielding captain be the least bit informed of the current proceedings? Did Hair not break the law by taking first flight to the holy land of Australia without ever turning up? Pakistan have been staging open protests in the end-of-the-match ICC reports against this pig, especially the time since last home series, clearly explaining their stance on the position that they do not want him umpiring in anything that remotely resembles Pakistan in the future. I suppose they broke that law, too, having spoken against the god and the person who is rated as a higher authority, larger than the context of the game itself.
The rest of what you have mentioned and other members, I agree with. Pakistan should have immediately left the field as soon as this incident happened. Needless to say, if it was any other captain besides Inzamam, the matter would not have escalated to this greater height as it has now.
This law
***Law 21, regarding the result of a match, which states, "A match shall be lost by a side which in the opinion of the umpires refuses to play." A further subsection adds, "If an umpire considers that an action by any player or players might constitute a refusal by either side to play then the umpires together shall ascertain the cause of the action. If they then decide together that this action does constitute a refusal to play by one side, they shall so inform the captain of that side. If the captain persists in the action the umpires shall award the match in accordance with above."
***I think he was nice enough to go and ask if Pakistani Team wanted to come back to field. Umpire didnot have too.
Another law,
***Law 42.3 states that in "the event of any fielder changing the condition of the ball unfairly ... the umpires shall award five penalty runs to the batting side." The Law explains that it is "unfair for anyone to rub the ball on the ground for any reason, interfere with any of the seams on the surface of the ball, use any implement, or take any other action whatsoever which is likely to alter the condition of the ball."
***We can definitly talk about whether ball was really tempered with and it may be true that it is racially motivated. But Upmires can always say that I saw it and camera is not all the time on ball.
Now coming back to Hair and his previous record. Pakistan team could have definitly refused to sign off on Itinary and ask for replacement. That was the time to show balls. But once you are signed off and specially when you are in the middle of the test match you cannot walk out. Pakistani team took Desi brikmanship too far . To the point of no return. If any one looks at it from non partial angle, He will always accuse Hair of incompetency but action of Pakistani team will also be called un-sportive and dumb. Take out your team affiliation and look at it. May be you will also see the Wisdom of argument.
Re: Good Damn You BBC - have some shame
The Umpire did have to. The law you mention states that
Most media reports about it so far that I’ve seen have placed the bulk of the blame on the umpire with very little blame coming pakistan’s way. Care to back up the claim that “anyone” looking from an impartial angle will call pakistani team unsportive? I can very easily defeat your point that “anyone” looking impartially will call pakistan unsportive by citing a number of commentaries squarely blaming Hair.
Whatever your trying to argue, its a very inaccurate choice of words.
And just incase your sticking to your statement you can perhaps mail these gentlemen (ian botham, geoff boycott amongst others) about the partiality of their reporting.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/sport2006/08/21/scboyc21.xml
http://blogs.cricinfo.com/surfer/archives/2006/08/the_oval_debacl.php
Re: Good Damn You BBC - have some shame
Dude ,
There is no one supporting Hair. Ofcourse Hair acted stupid and this is what all the report and cricitc say. What I am trying to say here is that reaction of Pakistani team was inapproriate and they over reacted. Once Pakistani team refused to come to the field then both umpires were right to call off the game and rightly so. If it was reversed it will send precedence of arm twisiting umpires. You dont want Indian team to leave ground in the middle of the game because something they dont like and then ask BCCI to deal with it.
There are better ways to solve this problem.
Re: Good Damn You BBC - have some shame
Did Pakistan ove-react? That's arguable. Is anyone whining about why England got the win? I doubt it. No one is arguing over whether Hair should have called off the game or not. His "other" decision, on the contrary, is at the heart of this issue (and I believe is the only discussionable point of the entire drama that took place this afternoon). I, for one, do not care about the official result. The only matter for me is that ball tempering call. Unless that decision is retracted, everything else does not matter at all.
Re: Good Damn You BBC - have some shame
I have taken my team affiliation out of the context a million times in the past at the first available opportunity whenever I have felt that they have done something so terribly wrong that their actions deserved what they did when they did. I have trashed my country many a times for reasons that are wide-known, but I have also stood besides them at every corner and at every front, wanting to get the best out of their skills and the level of qualifications that they have mastered in throughout their professional careers.
Law 42.3 states that in "the event of any fielder changing the condition of the ball unfairly ... the umpires shall award five penalty runs to the batting side." The Law explains that it is "unfair for anyone to rub the ball on the ground for any reason, interfere with any of the seams on the surface of the ball, use any implement, or take any other action whatsoever which is likely to alter the condition of the ball."
Indeed. Let's take a look at the entire set of Law 42, including the sections from where one can see the picture as a whole -
Law 42.3 - The match ball – changing its condition
(a) Any fielder may
(i) polish the ball provided that no artificial substance is used and that
such polishing wastes no time.
(ii) remove mud from the ball under the supervision of the umpire.
(iii) dry a wet ball on a towel.
Would it be fairly reasonable to come to the conclusion that Asif, who by all means was held as a scapegoat standing merely inches away from that Hair, was merely shining the ball and nothing else? Why are we looked as extremists when the entire cricketing world does the exact thing and in the precise same manner? Polishing and drying the ball and removing the sticky substances have been done for centuries and they aren't now considered as ball tempering all of a sudden, are they? The likes of Simon Jones were reverse-swinging the ball from the get-go last winter in the Ashes. I wonder if the rest of his team-mates had anything up their sleeves or were they simply practicing what they were taught during their domestic years.
(b) It is unfair for anyone to rub the ball on the ground for any reason,
interfere with any of the seams or the surface of the ball, use any implement,
or take any other action whatsoever which is likely to alter the condition of the ball,
except as permitted in (a) above.
I did not see Asif rubbing the ball on the ground and neither did he take any foreign object out of his pocket, something similar to a metal plate, which would instantly deteriote the condition of the ball.
(c) The umpires shall make frequent and irregular inspections of the ball.
(d) In the event of any fielder changing the condition of the ball unfairly,
as set out in (b) above, the umpires after consultation shall
(i) change the ball forthwith. It shall be for the umpires to decide on the
replacement ball, which shall, in their opinion, have had wear comparable with
that which the previous ball had received immediately prior to the contravention.
(ii) inform the batsmen that the ball has been changed.
(iii) award 5 penalty runs to the batting side.
(iv) inform the captain of the fielding side that the reason for
the action was the unfair interference with the ball.
(v) inform the captain of the batting side as soon as
practicable of what has occurred.
If I am not mistaken, Darrell Hair changed the ball without the official word or notice to Inzamam, hence the reason why the latter approached Hair and specifically asked to see the condition of the ball. Please do correct if the above information is wrong.
(vi) report the occurrence as soon as possible to the Executive of the
fielding side and any Governing Body responsible for the match, who shall take
such action as is considered appropriate against the captain and team concerned.
(e) If there is any further instance of unfairly changing the
condition of the ball in that innings, the umpires after
consultation shall
(i) repeat the procedure in (d)(i), (ii) and (iii) above.
(ii) inform the captain of the fielding side of the reason for the
action taken and direct him to take off forthwith the bowler
who delivered the immediately preceding ball. The bowler
thus taken off shall not be allowed to bowl again in that
innings.
(iii) inform the captain of the batting side as soon as
practicable of what has occurred.
(iv) report this further occurrence as soon as possible to the
Executive of the fielding side and any Governing Body
responsible for the match, who shall take such action as is
considered appropriate against the captain and team
concerned.
Sabi has mentioned in his couple of posts today, which I completely agree with, is the fact that such a thing, the decision to stay in the pavilion was absolutely needed since we all know that Pakistan have, at several instances in the past, lodged concerns in the end-of-the-match reports which are sent directly to the ICC on the incompetent nonsense behavior by this pig who continues to take his frustrations out on us, robbing our dignity and national pride whenever possible. You don't have to even look at today's incident to draw your own conclusion. Countless incorrect decisions have went against our country when this pig was at the helm of adjudicating. Bucknor has had issues with Sachin in the past, which was simply that, a one-on-one issue. In this case, we are comparing apples vs. oranges. Hair has been after the entire Pakistan team and not against one specific person such as Danish or Salman. He has sucked the blood out of every single one of us, and I, for one, will not sit quiet behind the curtains and watch the gutless Shaharyaar come up with his own version of politically correct statements just so he can fill his pockets with an extra two lousy dollars. This is not tolerable by any means.
Pakistan were innocently staging a light 20-minute protest. They even signaled from their dressing room that such is the case, and when Hair informed in his lowly tone that they have to take either decision, he did not even wait and walked off the field.
Tell, if the ball tampering issue was put in place today and we substitute India in place of Pakistan, would you honestly have liked it? Place yourself in our shoes, wouldn't you have had the exact same feelings, perhaps a bit stronger and firmer, which would indicate that India should be the first one to leave the field immediately after the 'blame-game' incident? Would you have prefered the end of the day to stage your protest on behalf of your nation? Regardless of whether the team is Indian or Pakistan, the matter of honor and self-respect of the nation is the foremost priority is at hand. Screw the end-result, when you have a leech who have been on Pakistan's back ever since the existence of dinosaurs, we will take every action possible. Granted, this was not the best of the lot and had it been Imran Khan, Hair would have lost his sleep by now, but it was what it was, and I fully endorse it.
Re: Good Damn You BBC - have some shame
So did pakistan cheat or not?