Guest alex Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Well most cricketing umpires are pretty low IQ - who was that old Yorkshire twerp who used to give the light when it was as sunny as the Sahara in July?? 182115[/snapback] Divvent diss Dickie Bird! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Well most cricketing umpires are pretty low IQ - who was that old Yorkshire twerp who used to give the light when it was as sunny as the Sahara in July?? 182115[/snapback] Dicky Bird? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3205 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Well most cricketing umpires are pretty low IQ - who was that old Yorkshire twerp who used to give the light when it was as sunny as the Sahara in July?? 182115[/snapback] Dicky Bird? 182123[/snapback] Don't you dare mock Dickie Byrd. He is a legend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Pakistan should have come out 5 minutes late to make a point (yes, I know the rule is supposed to be 2 minutes but I think it would have been ignored) but the mistake they made was sitting in there for nearly an hour before deciding to come out. Also, they were given a second chance, the umpires went back in and then came back out 15 minutes later before declaring the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Not a dry eye in the house when old Dicky hung up his stumps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Pakistan should have come out 5 minutes late to make a point (yes, I know the rule is supposed to be 2 minutes but I think it would have been ignored) but the mistake they made was sitting in there for nearly an hour before deciding to come out. Also, they were given a second chance, the umpires went back in and then came back out 15 minutes later before declaring the game. 182127[/snapback] True, I meant they could have handled it better initially. Pakistan overdid the protest though. Hair's contract is nearly up btw (iirc) so that won't be renewed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 They reckon Hair is going to retire anyway. Well, he is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob toonpants 3604 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 They reckon Hair is going to retire anyway. Well, he is now. 182147[/snapback] Hair today, gone tomorrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 1 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 The Umpires were within the rules Pakistan should have complained to the match ref at tea and continued playing - bythrowing their toys out of th epram they forfeited the game - you can't have people walking off just cos they don't like the ref's decisions - CHrist we'd have no football at all if that idea got around 182106[/snapback] It would have set a dangerous precedent had Pakistan got away with their protest, i.e. future teams could waste time in a match situation as a 'protest'. Still don't think the Umpires handled it particularly well though. 182112[/snapback] I agree. I still think Pakistan have the right to see any evidence of ball tampering, and considering Hair's record, if they felt they couldn't continue with what they saw as clearly biased umpiring then good for them. But they should have either stayed off the pitch or come out. Sulking around for half an hour, then coming out just makes them look like petulant children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34508 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Luke, I get the impression you think there's some truth in the belief that Hair's a bit of a racist. I know it's completely out of order, but he just looks like one to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanTheMan 0 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Hair's coming towards the end of his career anyway, so I wouldn't be surprised if he retired. The younger umpires like Dar, Taufel and Bowden have effectively replaced him anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 1 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Luke, I get the impression you think there's some truth in the belief that Hair's a bit of a racist. I know it's completely out of order, but he just looks like one to me. 182173[/snapback] Well, it's not the first time he's been accused of it. And somehow I can't imagine this happening to us. He may be a racist, he may not. But if the Pakistanis believe that he is, and that as such he is being biased against them, can you blame them for not wanting to carry on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 1 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Hair's coming towards the end of his career anyway, so I wouldn't be surprised if he retired. The younger umpires like Dar, Taufel and Bowden have effectively replaced him anyway. 182183[/snapback] How have they effectively replaced him if he's still standing in tests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Hair's coming towards the end of his career anyway, so I wouldn't be surprised if he retired. The younger umpires like Dar, Taufel and Bowden have effectively replaced him anyway. 182183[/snapback] How have they effectively replaced him if he's still standing in tests? 182185[/snapback] They've ineffectively replaced him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 1 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 They haven't replaced him at all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 They haven't replaced him at all! 182195[/snapback] Well, that about as ineffective as it gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 They haven't replaced him at all! 182195[/snapback] Well, that about as ineffective as it gets. 182202[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanTheMan 0 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Hair's coming towards the end of his career anyway, so I wouldn't be surprised if he retired. The younger umpires like Dar, Taufel and Bowden have effectively replaced him anyway. 182183[/snapback] How have they effectively replaced him if he's still standing in tests? 182185[/snapback] Hair recieves far fewer appointments than the younger umpires. I was making more of a generational point really, that the older umpires (Orchard, Shepherd,Venkat) have been replaced by the much younger ones. Bucknor and Hair are the only ones really left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Wasn't Hair the only umpire who had the balls (no pun intended) to repeatedly 'no-ball' Murali when everyone (apart from the Sri Lankan's) were more than a litlle dubious regarding his action? Someone made the point that Pakistan had no reason to tamper with the ball. On the contrary, they had every reason to; England were getting closer and closer to overhauling the total required and things were just not going their (Pakistan) way. So, what do they do? Alter the ball. Devil's advocate here, but that was a valid reason for them to do it - if indeed they did. We need to see the ball! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanTheMan 0 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Wasn't Hair the only umpire who had the balls (no pun intended) to repeatedly 'no-ball' Murali when everyone (apart from the Sri Lankan's) were more than a litlle dubious regarding his action? 182252[/snapback] Yep. Apparently he no balled him from both the bowlers end and the strikers end which seems rather unfair! He's never one to shirk a decision mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Oh, and when the 5 runs were awarded, Pakistan didn't seem to make much of the charge against them; which seemed strange to me. ONLY when the news came through that no tv evidence was available as proof did they start to kick up a stink. Surely I'm not the only one who noticed this?? We need to see the fuckin' ball!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aimaad22 3472 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Oh, and when the 5 runs were awarded, Pakistan didn't seem to make much of the charge against them; which seemed strange to me. ONLY when the news came through that no tv evidence was available as proof did they start to kick up a stink. Surely I'm not the only one who noticed this?? We need to see the fuckin' ball!! 182268[/snapback] Im sure Inzi would have first wanted to talk to each and everyone of his players before making a decision like that. He had to make sure noone actually messed with the ball, then take action. Tea was close, he waited for it instead of calling a conference in the middle of the pitch. I do agree with you people that Pakistan could have handled this better, either dont come out at all or get on with it straight away. But Hair's action's were way out of order, accusing without any evidence. Im glad the people like Atherton, Hussain and Botham are seeing the sense in it. The stuff about Pakistan having a criminal history in the game is not exactly false, we've caused our fair share of controversies but you cant just think that the current players would do the same thing past ones did, moreover base such an accusation on it. By the way its not like you lot have a clean history, with the famous 'bodyline' series and atherton carrying dirt in his pockets and all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Oh, and when the 5 runs were awarded, Pakistan didn't seem to make much of the charge against them; which seemed strange to me. ONLY when the news came through that no tv evidence was available as proof did they start to kick up a stink. Surely I'm not the only one who noticed this?? We need to see the fuckin' ball!! 182268[/snapback] Im sure Inzi would have first wanted to talk to each and everyone of his players before making a decision like that. He had to make sure noone actually messed with the ball, then take action. Tea was close, he waited for it instead of calling a conference in the middle of the pitch. I do agree with you people that Pakistan could have handled this better, either dont come out at all or get on with it straight away. But Hair's action's were way out of order, accusing without any evidence. Im glad the people like Atherton, Hussain and Botham are seeing the sense in it. The stuff about Pakistan having a criminal history in the game is not exactly false, we've caused our fair share of controversies but you cant just think that the current players would do the same thing past ones did, moreover base such an accusation on it. By the way its not like you lot have a clean history, with the famous 'bodyline' series and atherton carrying dirt in his pockets and all 182345[/snapback] You're right aimaad, we (England) have no reason to claim any moral high ground. Ahterton was caught red-handed and he was by no means the first to tamper with the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 England have distanced themselves from it though, and Pakistan have already said they have no problem with the England team. It's the idiot of the umpire at fault, not either team (unless of course they did cheat ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26394 Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now