pakistan on strike!!!

[ChezGiven 0]

I know fuck all about cricket so two questions.

 

1. Why use a 50 year old fucking ball?

 

2. Why do they have an English umpire when England are playing? Surely they could find a neutral one.

182377[/snapback]

 

 

Good questions and nice sig btw.

[DanTheMan 0]

I know fuck all about cricket so two questions.

 

1. Why use a 50 year old fucking ball?

 

2. Why do they have an English umpire when England are playing? Surely they could find a neutral one.

182377[/snapback]

 

If I'm being whooshed apologies, but I'm a helpful bloke.

 

1. It was 50 overs old, not 50 years. Which is about 300 balls.

 

2. The umpires were Australian and from the West Indies.

 

*prepares to be whooshed*

[Shearergol 0]

I know fuck all about cricket so two questions.

 

1. Why use a 50 year old fucking ball?

 

2. Why do they have an English umpire when England are playing? Surely they could find a neutral one.

182377[/snapback]

 

If I'm being whooshed apologies, but I'm a helpful bloke.

 

1. It was 50 overs old, not 50 years. Which is about 300 balls.

 

2. The umpires were Australian and from the West Indies.

 

*prepares to be whooshed*

182381[/snapback]

 

 

Key point:

 

I know fuck all about cricket

 

[Craig 6287]

Hair took this all out of context. If he had an inkling something was amiss, he should have had a quiet word with the captain and told him the ensure it was put to an end.

 

The very fact that no individual player has been implicated by the officials tends to suggest that Hair presumed that tampering was going on rather than having conclusive evidence - dangerous ground tbh. If he can't prove it, the Pakistani captain should sue his arse for deformation of character.

 

That being said, he's been a complete tit for not continuing the match. For one they were winning FFS and has, as a result, ended up with a secondary charge for which he undoubtedly be found guilty and be banned for.

 

I firmly believe that there isn't enough evidence to prove the primary charge of ball tampering and if there was, we'd have seen it on TV replays by now...

[ewerk 26189]

I know fuck all about cricket so two questions.

 

1. Why use a 50 year old fucking ball?

 

2. Why do they have an English umpire when England are playing? Surely they could find a neutral one.

182377[/snapback]

 

If I'm being whooshed apologies, but I'm a helpful bloke.

 

1. It was 50 overs old, not 50 years. Which is about 300 balls.

 

2. The umpires were Australian and from the West Indies.

 

*prepares to be whooshed*

182381[/snapback]

 

 

Um, yeah... whoosh.