Whilst he's right that it's a judgement that's been made on the condition of the ball (and I think the rule is silly where any umpire can do what he wants), I think that the lack of video evidence DOES PROVE that no Pakistani fielder scuffed the ball, and that the scuffing was natural from impact with the boundary. His reasoning is very silly for a person so high up in cricketing hierarchy, as he doesnt appear to understand that we all know that Hair can give a judgement that the ball has been tampered with and can legally award 5 runs to the opposing team. What Pakistan are saying is not that this penalty cannot be given, but that he made a premeditated judgement on the basis of some weak evidence. What the lack of video evidence goes to show is that there was no Pakistani player who changed the condition of the ball - you can then go onto say that the ball itself shows signs of wear but the lack of video evidence of a Pakistani player interfering with the ball is sign that the wear was naturally induced from impacts during the match. It's sad that such people have had or have so much power.
If that was the case then they (match referee and other) should have handled
the ball with gloved hands. Million saw the live footage showing match referee Mike Proctor tossing the ball to another gentleman in the referee box in a very careless manner.
What the hell was that Mr. Reid, care to comment ? you pighead biased brick !
Let's assume for a moment for every English player bought an autographed copy of Imran Khan's book last year, just before the winter series of Ashes, and after going through the practical method several times, they themselves transformed that hideous age-old crime into a form of art through their own bare hands. Would it be reasonable to hold these culprits, the likes of Simon Jones, responsible on the second-hand evidence of ball-tampering? After all, they just acted on the advice that Imran handed out and are passing it from one generation to the next. Let's give all a mighty red-carpet treatment, why don't we?
Isnt it interesting that most former English players have sided with Pakistan also most English media has supported Pakistan. Now that English have somewhat learnt the skill of reverse swing its not all that a crime for them but a skill whereas sorry asses like aussies and kiwis are still moaning just because they havent got a clue about it. I personally think the flux of Pakistani bowlers playing in English county like Azhar,Akram,Naveed,Asif with England national team players had a hand in them learning this skill. Also having a reverse swinging ball is one thing and controlling that ball is another.....trust me a reverse swinging ball in hands of a bowler who doesnt know how to control it goes against the balling side. Fortunately in Pakistan the tennis ball with tape wrapped around it and the slightest of tears in the tape is enough to swing that ball in air...so we learn it very early...while tennis ball cricket or tape ball cricket is not all that popular anywhere else...therefore its only pakistan that produces the bowlers who can reverse swing the ball.
I dont think that there are any proper procedures in place and the reason i say that is the statement from the match referee from South Africa's game in 1997 where he blames Woolmer of tempering says that he took the ball home with him because it was lying around there.....
That’s wrong. One can not be found guilty on circumstantial evidence. Some physical evidence is always necessary.
Lets assume for a moment that whatever Reid is saying is true, then at the spot decision laina chehyee tha. You can not do that now when the evidence (ball) has been through so many hands and i doubt that its in EXACTLY the same condition as it was in 56th over of that day.
I think it makes a lot of sense. For Mr Reid at least. For him, lack of evidence on anything is not the least bit concerning. If the fielder is brown chamri, he is guilty. If he is white chamri, he is innocent. Why should this simple logic be muddied with talks about evidence etc.
Why worry about such silly things as evidence Mr. Reid ? Just ban him anyway and be done with that. While you are at it, can you also get rid of the PCBers who will accept such a ban as well
ye apni maan main se niklay thay to in ko pata tha ke kis kis nain *potential *ball tampering karni hai aur kon kon in ka *potential *baap ho sakta hai.
Saroo...
So is it conceivable that the ball presented at the hearing may be in a different condition to how it was on the day...as it could have been tampered with afterwards...did Darryl Hair give the ball bacl straight away?
I would assume that unless a conspiracy of unprecedented levels were planned its difficult for Hair to do anything afterwards.........When he called for the change he replaced the old ball and i would assume that he gave it to the fourth umpire to give to the Match referee Mike Procter.Also i think that Hair's subsequent actions have given Inzi's lawyers so much amunation that ICC will be looking to burry the matter quitely.
