Official Alleged Pakistan ball Tampering - Daryl Hair Thread

[dA Crow]

Looks like the umpires are not happy with the way the Pakistani's have "looked" after the ball. Batsmen choose new ball and England get 5 bonus runs... This could get ugly...

From Cricinfo..

So the game of cat and mouse continues. Though who is playing which role? It's not entirely apparent.

But first there's a conference between the umpires. It looks like there's a problem with the ball, it seems to have got a bit damp, so out comes the fourth official with a box of spares. Inzy isn't very happy about this, because the ball was just beginning to find some reverse swing

Five penalty runs! Oho, trouble here. Umpire Hair taps his shoulder to signal the extra runs. "A massive incident," speculates Nasser Hussain. The quarter seam seems to have been raised, and the batsmen are having a look now.

55.6 Umar Gul to Collingwood, no run, full and swinging. A mistimed drive dribbles out to extra cover

[Dipper]

They've just, according to TMS, become the first Test side to be docked 5 runs for 'changing the condition of the ball'.

Doesn't help Cook who was out to a reverse swinging full pitcher.

The ball was immediately replaced.

Gul was taken out of the attack.

Same old Pakistan.

[RoosterLad]

cheating pakis

give them a ban

[crownie]

They've just, according to TMS, become the first Test side to be docked 5 runs for 'changing the condition of the ball'.

Doesn't help Cook who was out to a reverse swinging full pitcher.

The ball was immediately replaced.

Gul was taken out of the attack.

Same old Pakistan.

Michael Atherton Board :rolleyes:

[Freo Big Fella]

Michael Atherton Board :rolleyes:

I think it says a lot about Athers that even when he was blantantly trying to cheat he couldn't do it right.:)

[usalion]

I think it says a lot about Athers that even when he was blantantly trying to cheat he couldn't do it right.:)

Too true- pity Shakoor Rana died a couple years back....wonder what Gatting has to say on the subject

[Dipper]

Michael Atherton Board :rolleyes:

rollyeyes at dawn is it?

Mate you've have to be extremely biased to think that Atherton's isolated incident is on a par with Pakistan's serial offending.

They've still got the ball from a Test in 92 at Lord's where they did all sorts to it but the whole thing was hushed up due to the diabolical relations between the two countries & the thought that any action could see an end to Tests between us.

That's before we get into bent umpires, match fixing etc.

[usalion]

Ball-tampering row at Oval Test

Umpires Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove examine the ball
Controversy reigned on the fourth day of The Oval Test when Pakistan were penalised for tampering with the ball.
England were awarded five runs and the ball was replaced after the umpires Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove decided the ball had been altered artificially.

The incident happened after Umar Gul had started to get the ball to reverse swing and dismissed Alastair Cook.

England were on 230-3 at the time play was stopped and television replays showed the ball was scuffed.

Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq looked unhappy at the umpires' decision and coach Bob Woolmer immediately approached match referee Mike Procter about it.

Fourth umpire Trevor Jesty ran onto the pitch with a box of replacement balls and batsmen Kevin Pietersen and Paul Collingwood were allowed to select another ball.

Frequent inspections of the ball are now undertaken by the on-field officials in Test cricket but there were no obvious signs of any Pakistan fielder altering the ball's condition.

[Dipper]

Too true- pity Shakoor Rana died a couple years back....wonder what Gatting has to say on the subject

Shakoor Rana may be the famous one, but Shakeel Khan was the bloke who started it all, he was the umpire in the first Test of that series.

Dunno if it's possible to get the footage from that Test anywhere but if you ever saw it you'd probably die laughing, of the 20 england dismissals in that Test I reckon as a conservative estimate about 12 of them clearly weren't out & in reality it was probably a couple more.

Quite a few people were given out & genuinely didn't know why, it seemed like out caught wk not hitting the ball was a newly trialled mode of dismissal for that game.

Qasim & Qadir the spinners were bowling in tandem & basically as an England batsman you knew that you couldn't let the ball hit your pads under any circumstances otherwise you'd be given out LBW & if you played a shot & missed you'd be out caught, that's what sowed the seeds for what happened in the 2nd Test, where let's remember England were in a position to win the game but lost a whole day's play whilst the umpire refused to continue without an apology & Pakistan subsequently saved the game.

[usalion]

Interesting that the Sky cameras have apparently picked up nothing untoward

Lots more scrutiny today

You're right, Dipper- the umpiring was shocking in that 1987 series- I think it was one of the reasons cricket moved to the neutral umpiring. The lbw calls on the subcontinent were generally shocking, but Pakistan was particularly rough.

I think there is some footage up on youtube, but can't be bothered to search- remember seeing something on the series.

[Grimwood]

Well the umpires have to pull out some proof here. I don't think anyone will be happy if they mess around like they did in 92'.

[YOTC]

England should be deducted 5 runs from the 2nd test in last years ashes for ball tampering........YES WE WON! :D

and yes browney, i was joking....

[usalion]

Browney doesn't understand humour

[YOTC]

Browney doesn't understand humour
I know, i had to clear it up so he didn't start going on another one of his little crys.....

[usalion]

Well the umpires have to pull out some proof here. I don't think anyone will be happy if they mess around like they did in 92'.


Quite a different situation, though- in 92, England had just refused to tour Pakistan because of the 1987 incidents- the feelings were very strong at that point. Tension not quite as high right now- although it is rising a bit with the action of the umpires.

There needs to be an explanation at the end of play today, if not earlier. Proctor as match referee can consult Dusty and Billy at tea.

[Cooldude]

While it's easy to pin Pakistan due to their prior history with ball tampering, it's best not to judge until we get all the facts. Coz at the moment, no one outside of the umpires, the Pakistan team out there fielding and the two batsmen at the time, know what has been done to the ball. No video footage to back anything up either

If the umps don't have any clear evidence, they'd be in deep ****, but you'd think they do since they've made such a big call

[Romeo]

Hair will be in the hot seat - must provide the evidence. And as I mentioned in another thread, according to Gatting none of the sub-continent countries want Hair as an umpire. Partly due to the Murali incident one imagines but they seem to be suspicious of him.

[LarryLong]

They've just, according to TMS, become the first Test side to be docked 5 runs for 'changing the condition of the ball'.

Doesn't help Cook who was out to a reverse swinging full pitcher.

The ball was immediately replaced.

Gul was taken out of the attack.

Same old Pakistan.

Gee, wish they'd had that rule in place during the last ashes series. :eek: :)

Seriously, I'd hope they have some evidence beyond a reverse swinging delivery and a slightly scuffed ball.

[usalion]

The Pakistanis are also set to cop it, one would think. Not defending Hair, because we know little about what he did, but you don't refuse to play. Forget their comments about "a short protest"- if the umpires tell you to be on the field, you go on the field- worry about the protests at the right time- maybe verbal or written at tea, and meet with the match referee after the end of play for the day.

Only group off the hook are the English, who did do an excellent job batting today.

This test is a black eye for cricket- the ICC need to be decisive in their actions.

[dA Crow]

Pakistan's refusal to return after tea was paramount to a forfeit. They have offically lost the test

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/engvpak/content/story/257072.html

[TigerFan]

brilliant call by Darrell Hair

love him or hate him, he makes the hard calls, and it looks like correct procedure was followed in this case

[skilts]

brilliant call by Darrell Hair

love him or hate him, he makes the hard calls, and it looks like correct procedure was followed in this case

Quite so. A concern might be though, that he did get it so correct. It could be implied that the actions he took were pre-meditated. However, I'm not even sure if that's a problem, that they were pre-meditated.

I just think there's more history to this than is immediately apparent.

[silky-smooth]

While it's easy to pin Pakistan due to their prior history with ball tampering, it's best not to judge until we get all the facts.
Exactly.

Farcical that Pakistan refused to come out after tea and ultimately forfeited the Test because of it. Yeah, they may have been hurting because of the five-run penalty (and accusation implied by it), but regardless of whether they did or didn't tamper with the ball, they had to be more mature about it.

[TigerFan]

Quite so. A concern might be though, that he did get it so correct. It could be implied that the actions he took were pre-meditated. However, I'm not even sure if that's a problem, that they were pre-meditated.

I just think there's more history to this than is immediately apparent.

as far as I'm concerned, Darrell Hair took the action he did because they refused to leave the changerooms, not because of the ball-tampering

it's not as if the Pakistanis stormed off and refused to come back out after being accused of ball-tampering. they played out the session, failed to come back out for 20 mins after the tea break and the umpires correctly adjudged it to be a refusal to play

it's not Darrell Hair's (or any other umpire's) role to be a diplomat, everybody knows the rules (or should know the rules), the Pakistan hierarchy knew exactly what they were doing and they really have only themselves to blame for what transpired

[crownie]

Exactly.

Farcical that Pakistan refused to come out after tea and ultimately forfeited the Test because of it. Yeah, they may have been hurting because of the five-run penalty (and accusation implied by it), but regardless of whether they did or didn't tamper with the ball, they had to be more mature about it.

i do have sympathy with the Paki's for probaly being unfairly targeted but they did dig their own hole by refusing to come out.

[Sir_Adrian84]

This site has some video of it:
http://video2.foxsports.com.au/video.php?cat=314&id=106

[skilts]

as far as I'm concerned, Darrell Hair took the action he did because they refused to leave the changerooms, not because of the ball-tampering

it's not as if the Pakistanis stormed off and refused to come back out after being accused of ball-tampering. they played out the session, failed to come back out for 20 mins after the tea break and the umpires correctly adjudged it to be a refusal to play

it's not Darrell Hair's (or any other umpire's) role to be a diplomat, everybody knows the rules (or should know the rules), the Pakistan hierarchy knew exactly what they were doing and they really have only themselves to blame for what transpired

Yeh, sorry, I didn't explain myself very well. What I meant was that the exactly correct way that Hair dealt with the ball-tempering seemed unusual. Unusual in that there was no hesitation about how to do it. I give him credit for accuracy, but I think a lot of umpires would have had difficulty in knowing the call for a 5 run penalty to the batting team, for instance. In all the years I've been watching, playing and umpiring cricket, I never seen the signal used. I'm not sure how many times a ball has been changed as a result of ball-tampering either.

What I'm trying to say is that Hair seemed to have thought about this issue and how to deal with it, prior to the call he made yesterday. I've no problem with him doing that, I'd just be interested to know if what I'm saying was the case.

As regards the forfeiture of the match, as distasteful as this may be, the umpires were left with no choice in the matter, once the Pakistani team refused to resume play.

Edit: Also of interest would be to have heard the conversation between the 2 umpires. The other umpire seemed to readily accept what was happening.

[Cooldude]

it's not Darrell Hair's (or any other umpire's) role to be a diplomat

Disagree, it's exactly what he is paid to do

He, along with another umpire, the third umpire, the fourth umpire and the match referee, were paid to run an international Test Match. They did it poorly, since a match was needlessly called off because of their total lack of professionalism in managing both the England and Pakistan teams, and more importantly, the crowd/paying public's interests.

Not many people would be happy with this, Surrey CCC certainly wouldn't, as it cost them one day of Test Cricket gate revenue (Since all the fourth/fifth day tickets should be refunded if common sense prevails)

The total lack of statements from the umpires for pinning a team for something as big as ball tampering is also an absolute amateurish mistake.

[Skeppersap]

Disagree, it's exactly what he is paid to do

He, along with another umpire, the third umpire, the fourth umpire and the match referee, were paid to run an international Test Match. They did it poorly, since a match was needlessly called off because of their total lack of professionalism in managing both the England and Pakistan teams, and more importantly, the crowd/paying public's interests.

Not many people would be happy with this, Surrey CCC certainly wouldn't, as it cost them one day of Test Cricket gate revenue (Since all the fourth/fifth day tickets should be refunded if common sense prevails)

The total lack of statements from the umpires for pinning a team for something as big as ball tampering is also an absolute amateurish mistake.

100% incorrect!!!!!

Umpires are there to apply the laws according to the laws of cricket, which they did 100%.

They are not there to be diplomats.....the ICC and national ricket boards are there to do that.

[starz]

I was up watching the game and about to go to bed when it all happened, i ended up staying awake and watching for another hour or so. Amazing scenes.

Facts:
The ball was 55 overs old and had been smashed to all parts, sixes, fours the whole bit.
Hair then points to an area of the ball, not the seem, without pointing out any fielder or specific incident he suddenly makes an assumption that 'evil Pakistan are cheating again'.
I thought what Beefy was saying was exactly right.
Pakistan stood their moral ground which they were well entitled to do.

Hair not only hijacked the game but thinks he is bigger than the sport itself.

His attitude is this: 'You Pakistanis are probably cheating, therefore you are.'

If it was any 'western' country in the field there is no way Hair would have taken this action.

Then what happened with the players and umpires walking on and off the ground was farcical. And the game being awarded to England was equally farcical.

The only get out clause for Hair here, is if he can say he has actually seen a Pakistani player tampering with the ball which he would have noted in his book, then he has to name the player and give full details of when exactly it occured etc.

We all know that won't happen.

Hair is 100% to blame for this whole situation and 100% at fault.
Unless he can prove otherwise, which i would rate a 200/1 shot, thus the 100%.

[Cooldude]

100% incorrect!!!!!

Umpires are there to apply the laws according to the laws of cricket, which they did 100%.

They are not there to be diplomats.....the ICC and national ricket boards are there to do that.

That's a bunch of rubbish

It only started descending into an absolute farce when board members of various boards had to intervene by going into the Pakistan dressing room for negotiations

Board members are board members, they are not involved in the match in any shape or form. They should not be the ones trying to sort out situations that occurred during a match. In fact they should never be in the dressing rooms at all, they should always stay in their corporate boxes sipping at their glasses of beer in their crystal glasses.

It's an absolute load of bull****, it's the umpires' and the match referee job to run the Test Match, if you think they're just there to apply the laws of the game then you're being naive and wrong. They should've been the ones going in the dressing rooms for negotiations

Also, if reports are true that Darryl Hair never gave Pakistan a clear explanation or evidence on when he saw what they did to the ball and how, or what they did to the ball, he's in deep ****.

[crudbucket]

I was up watching the game and about to go to bed when it all happened, i ended up staying awake and watching for another hour or so. Amazing scenes.

Facts:
The ball was 55 overs old and had been smashed to all parts, sixes, fours the whole bit.
Hair then points to an area of the ball, not the seem, without pointing out any fielder or specific incident he suddenly makes an assumption that 'evil Pakistan are cheating again'.
I thought what Beefy was saying was exactly right.
Pakistan stood their moral ground which they were well entitled to do.

Hair not only hijacked the game but thinks he is bigger than the sport itself.

His attitude is this: 'You Pakistanis are probably cheating, therefore you are.'

If it was any 'western' country in the field there is no way Hair would have taken this action.

Then what happened with the players and umpires walking on and off the ground was farcical. And the game being awarded to England was equally farcical.

The only get out clause for Hair here, is if he can say he has actually seen a Pakistani player tampering with the ball which he would have noted in his book, then he has to name the player and give full details of when exactly it occured etc.

We all know that won't happen.

Hair is 100% to blame for this whole situation and 100% at fault.
Unless he can prove otherwise, which i would rate a 200/1 shot, thus the 100%.

Took a bit longer than I thought, but we finally have "big bad Daryl the racist" ....yawn.

[YOTC]

I was up watching the game and about to go to bed when it all happened, i ended up staying awake and watching for another hour or so. Amazing scenes.

Facts:
The ball was 55 overs old and had been smashed to all parts, sixes, fours the whole bit.
Hair then points to an area of the ball, not the seem, without pointing out any fielder or specific incident he suddenly makes an assumption that 'evil Pakistan are cheating again'.
I thought what Beefy was saying was exactly right.
Pakistan stood their moral ground which they were well entitled to do.

Hair not only hijacked the game but thinks he is bigger than the sport itself.

His attitude is this: 'You Pakistanis are probably cheating, therefore you are.'

If it was any 'western' country in the field there is no way Hair would have taken this action.

Then what happened with the players and umpires walking on and off the ground was farcical. And the game being awarded to England was equally farcical.

The only get out clause for Hair here, is if he can say he has actually seen a Pakistani player tampering with the ball which he would have noted in his book, then he has to name the player and give full details of when exactly it occured etc.

We all know that won't happen.

Hair is 100% to blame for this whole situation and 100% at fault.
Unless he can prove otherwise, which i would rate a 200/1 shot, thus the 100%.
Don't go editing your post when you are wrong......This isn't the punting board :D

[TigerFan]

Yeh, sorry, I didn't explain myself very well. What I meant was that the exactly correct way that Hair dealt with the ball-tempering seemed unusual. Unusual in that there was no hesitation about how to do it. I give him credit for accuracy, but I think a lot of umpires would have had difficulty in knowing the call for a 5 run penalty to the batting team, for instance. In all the years I've been watching, playing and umpiring cricket, I never seen the signal used. I'm not sure how many times a ball has been changed as a result of ball-tampering either.

What I'm trying to say is that Hair seemed to have thought about this issue and how to deal with it, prior to the call he made yesterday. I've no problem with him doing that, I'd just be interested to know if what I'm saying was the case.

As regards the forfeiture of the match, as distasteful as this may be, the umpires were left with no choice in the matter, once the Pakistani team refused to resume play.

Edit: Also of interest would be to have heard the conversation between the 2 umpires. The other umpire seemed to readily accept what was happening.

I guess it will all come out over the next couple of days, but I reckon there may have been an issue before the umpires came together in the 55th over of the second innings.

think about it, Hair knew the correct procedure (although you'd expect an experienced umpire like Hair to know what he's doing in pretty much any situation) and the other umpire appeared to know exactly what was going on and readily accepted it. I reckon there might have been a suspicion during the first innings and the straw that broke the camel's back came later in the test.

Disagree, it's exactly what he is paid to do

He, along with another umpire, the third umpire, the fourth umpire and the match referee, were paid to run an international Test Match. They did it poorly, since a match was needlessly called off because of their total lack of professionalism in managing both the England and Pakistan teams, and more importantly, the crowd/paying public's interests.

Not many people would be happy with this, Surrey CCC certainly wouldn't, as it cost them one day of Test Cricket gate revenue (Since all the fourth/fifth day tickets should be refunded if common sense prevails)

The total lack of statements from the umpires for pinning a team for something as big as ball tampering is also an absolute amateurish mistake.

That's a bunch of rubbish

It only started descending into an absolute farce when board members of various boards had to intervene by going into the Pakistan dressing room for negotiations

Board members are board members, they are not involved in the match in any shape or form. They should not be the ones trying to sort out situations that occurred during a match. In fact they should never be in the dressing rooms at all, they should always stay in their corporate boxes sipping at their glasses of beer in their crystal glasses.

It's an absolute load of bull****, it's the umpires' and the match referee job to run the Test Match, if you think they're just there to apply the laws of the game then you're being naive and wrong. They should've been the ones going in the dressing rooms for negotiations

Also, if reports are true that Darryl Hair never gave Pakistan a clear explanation or evidence on when he saw what they did to the ball and how, or what they did to the ball, he's in deep ****.

the game was called off because Pakistan refused to come out and play, nothing else. the umpires aren't there to negotiate a peace settlement with a bloody cricket team, they're there to umpire a game of cricket between two teams. if one team elects not to participate, then that is their choice, and Darrell Hair acted accordingly

I feel sorry for the patrons, I feel sorry for the ground administrators, and I feel sorry for cricket fans in general, but the Pakistan team is solely to blame for this match being called off.

either way, there are no winners out of this.

[dmc333]

Darrell Hair wrote an autobiography, says it all really.

[Cooldude]

the game was called off because Pakistan refused to come out and play, nothing else. the umpires aren't there to negotiate a peace settlement with a bloody cricket team, they're there to umpire a game of cricket between two teams. if one team elects not to participate, then that is their choice, and Darrell Hair acted accordingly

I feel sorry for the patrons, I feel sorry for the ground administrators, and I feel sorry for cricket fans in general, but the Pakistan team is solely to blame for this match being called off.

either way, there are no winners out of this.

Pakistan team was at fault, we all acknowledge that

But to call off a simple game of cricket just because a team was playing the handbags, when there are 2+ days left to play, when there's a law in the book anyway that allows that lost time to be made up for the remainder of the Test Match, is a mistake

Darryl Hair might've followed the laws in offering the forfeit, but there was also a law that would've allowed him to continue on with the match when the Pakistan team changed their minds. He refused, due to his own stubborness

The fans are first, they're the ones who provide the game with the revenue along with the TV viewers and the TV rights money ICC profits from so much. Because of one umpire and one cricket team, those important customers were the victims. If anyone thinks Darryl Hair did the right thing just because he followed the laws, they're being extremely naive. He did the wrong thing by not following common sense, which is that if the match is given an opportunity to continue on, it has to.

[eddiesmith]

That's a bunch of rubbish

It only started descending into an absolute farce when board members of various boards had to intervene by going into the Pakistan dressing room for negotiations

Board members are board members, they are not involved in the match in any shape or form. They should not be the ones trying to sort out situations that occurred during a match. In fact they should never be in the dressing rooms at all, they should always stay in their corporate boxes sipping at their glasses of beer in their crystal glasses.

It's an absolute load of bull****, it's the umpires' and the match referee job to run the Test Match, if you think they're just there to apply the laws of the game then you're being naive and wrong. They should've been the ones going in the dressing rooms for negotiations

Also, if reports are true that Darryl Hair never gave Pakistan a clear explanation or evidence on when he saw what they did to the ball and how, or what they did to the ball, he's in deep ****.
Darryl Hair went to the Pakistan rooms after the first effort to start failed and said are you coming out or are you forfeiting, the Pakis refused to answer so he went back out to the field with English batsman, waited 5 minutes and then called it off. The Pakistan players refused to talk so what else could he do?

Oh and to those asking why he wouldnt explain to the Pakistan players about the ball tampering, did you ever think he is not supposed to just like an umpire is not supposed to discuss a report with a player or official in footy, it would all come out in the hearing with the match referee, now due to the Pakistanis joke of a protest we have to wait longer, if they didnt protest the ball tampering allegations likely would have been resolved last night instead it was spent sorting out the newest problem

Hair did nothing wrong and he is experience enough to not do something without any proof and he is under no obligation to say what happened or make a statement before the investigation and hearing are concluded

But I guess calling Hair a racist and cheat is the easy way out

[eddiesmith]

Pakistan team was at fault, we all acknowledge that

But to call off a simple game of cricket just because a team was playing the handbags, when there are 2+ days left to play, when there's a law in the book anyway that allows that lost time to be made up for the remainder of the Test Match, is a mistake

Darryl Hair might've followed the laws in offering the forfeit, but there was also a law that would've allowed him to continue on with the match when the Pakistan team changed their minds. He refused, due to his own stubborness

The fans are first, they're the ones who provide the game with the revenue along with the TV viewers and the TV rights money ICC profits from so much. Because of one umpire and one cricket team, those important customers were the victims. If anyone thinks Darryl Hair did the right thing just because he followed the laws, they're being extremely naive. He did the wrong thing by not following common sense, which is that if the match is given an opportunity to continue on, it has to.
2+ days? Umm, try 4 sessions

[Sir_Adrian84]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,20201590-23212,00.html

[Drummond]

Jones was banned, time to ban Khan...

[Freo Big Fella]

Here we go, the standard idiots coming out of the woodwork to cover up dodgy play from subcontinent sides.

It'll be Ranatunga next.

[Cooldude]

Rameez Raja in the Sky commentry box yesterady was woeful, saying Inzy was well within his rights to protest......

[starz]

Darryl Hair went to the Pakistan rooms after the first effort to start failed and said are you coming out or are you forfeiting, the Pakis refused to answer so he went back out to the field with English batsman, waited 5 minutes and then called it off. The Pakistan players refused to talk so what else could he do?

Oh and to those asking why he wouldnt explain to the Pakistan players about the ball tampering, did you ever think he is not supposed to just like an umpire is not supposed to discuss a report with a player or official in footy, it would all come out in the hearing with the match referee, now due to the Pakistanis joke of a protest we have to wait longer, if they didnt protest the ball tampering allegations likely would have been resolved last night instead it was spent sorting out the newest problem

Hair did nothing wrong and he is experience enough to not do something without any proof and he is under no obligation to say what happened or make a statement before the investigation and hearing are concluded

But I guess calling Hair a racist and cheat is the easy way out
Lie.
He never went into the Pakistani dressing room. You obviously didn't watch it, did you?

[just maybe]

Hair is a fat fool. He is an embarrassment to the game and this latest saga should lead to his sacking.

[eddiesmith]

Lie.
He never went into the Pakistani dressing room.
So where did he speak to Inzi and co then? Because he definately asked Inzi if they were coming out or not and they refused to answer after the first effort to start after Tea or are you claiming that report which is said everywhere is wrong?

[YOTC]

I would hardly call Hair "mini"

[starz]

So where did he speak to Inzi and co then? Because he definately asked Inzi if they were coming out or not and they refused to answer after the first effort to start after Tea or are you claiming that report which is said everywhere is wrong?
There was no communication between the umpires and the Pakistan team, thus the farce.
If you watched it, you would understand it.
Please show me where a report says Darryl Hair went into the Pakistan dressing room and asked them what they were doing 'after the first effort'.

[eddiesmith]

There was no communication between the umpires and the Pakistan team, thus the farce.
If you watched it, you would understand it.
Please show me where a report says Darryl Hair went into the Pakistan dressing room and asked them what they were doing 'after the first effort'.
Report on baggygreen

After waiting in the middle of the pitch for twenty minutes, the umpires went to the Pakistan dressing-room to ask whether or not Inzamam-ul-Haq would lead out his team or not before they went out, took the bails off and left, thus awarding the Test to England.


Bob Woolmer told Cricinfo that after Pakistan refused to come out after the tea break, both umpires, after waiting on the field, went to the Pakistan dressing room to ask whether or not they would continue to play. Inzamam countered by asking the umpires why they had changed the ball, which led to the Pakistan team protesting.


"We are not here to answer that question," Hair was reported to have said, and when Inzamam didn't provide any reply to their initial query, they walked back out again. By the time Pakistan were eventually led out onto the field by Inzamam, the umpires had already walked on, knocked the bails off and gone back inside, refusing to come out again.

[spell_check]

Something I recall reading on BigFooty in that in cases like this, someone will eventually make a Nazi reference... :rolleyes:

[starz]

This article isn't accurate.

Firstly, the umpires were not out there for 20 minutes, more like 5 to 10.

The umpires did not go into the Pakistan dressing room at any stage. Think about it, why would they have gone out and the Pakistan team stay in the dressing room. The cameras were fixed on the dressing rooms and the umpires didn't go anywhere near them. An official from the England team eventually went in and talked them into coming out, when they did, the umpires refused to go out.
There was no communication between the parties or to the media.

[eddiesmith]

This article isn't accurate.

Firstly, the umpires were not out there for 20 minutes, more like 5 to 10.

The umpires did not go into the Pakistan dressing room at any stage. Think about it, why would they have gone out and the Pakistan team stay in the dressing room. The cameras were fixed on the dressing rooms and the umpires didn't go anywhere near them. An official from the England team eventually went in and talked them into coming out, when they did, the umpires refused to go out.
There was no communication between the parties or to the media.
So you are calling Bob Woolmer a liar? Why would he claim the umpires went in there if they didnt?

Oh and you dont think the umpires/players have inside areas where they can enter/exit the change rooms? :rolleyes:

[Dipper]

Disagree, it's exactly what he is paid to do

He, along with another umpire, the third umpire, the fourth umpire and the match referee, were paid to run an international Test Match. They did it poorly, since a match was needlessly called off because of their total lack of professionalism in managing both the England and Pakistan teams, and more importantly, the crowd/paying public's interests.



you're pretty much in the Geoffrey boycott camp, he said that Hair is an unbending character who does it all by the book rather than engaging with the players.

There was a lot said about how rather than just declaring that he believed the ball was tampered with that he should have had a wrod with Inzy about it & kept an eye on the ball but for me I don't think you should do that otherwise you give people the chance of getting away with it.You'd have to think that he was looking at the ball regularly & then suddenly he saw something had changed, having said that even I'm doubtful that it was tampered with or at least it'll be impossible to prove.

But then again do umpires need proof, ie seeing something or asking the TV people if there's any footage or do they go with their experience of what they think a ball should look like.

Funny thing is CMJ said, 'oh before we say it's just Pakistan again let's remember that Surrey were found guilty of ball tampering last season' & I thought yeah but everyone was pretty sure that it was Mohammed Akram who was the guilty party.:D

[starz]

Like i said, unless Darryl Hair can prove Pakistan have tampered with the ball and at what point they tampered with it, aswell as name the player and the whole deal, then there will be hell to pay.

[eddiesmith]

Like i said, unless Darryl Hair can prove Pakistan have tampered with the ball and at what point they tampered with it, aswell as name the player and the whole deal, then there will be hell to pay.
No matter the outcome of the ball tampering the Pakistanis should be in alot more trouble than Inzi getting a fine and missing 2 meaningless ODIs

[starz]

No matter the outcome of the ball tampering the Pakistanis should be in alot more trouble than Inzi getting a fine and missing 2 meaningless ODIs
Pakistan were called cheats, they had every right to stand their moral ground.
Plain and simple.

That's exactly what Beefy and Rameez Raja and Nasser Hussain were saying at the time aswell.

[Romeo]

I heard Chappelli on the radio tonight and he thought that Hair didn't exercise commonsense but also feels that the ICC rules are flawed. But what he did add was that Hair might have found the ball damaged but there is evidently no direct evidence of him seeing the Pakistanis actually tampering with the ball and television cameras certainly didn't pick up anything untoward. Chappelli also said that if the ball is getting bashed around a bit it can often be damaged so it's a bit dangerous to assume that the ball changing from its original condition is necessarily as a result of ball tampering.

[just maybe]

I heard Chappelli on the radio tonight and he thought that Hair didn't exercise commonsense but also feels that the ICC rules are flawed. But what he did add was that Hair might have found the ball damaged but there is evidently no direct evidence of him seeing the Pakistanis actually tampering with the ball and television cameras certainly didn't pick up anything untoward. Chappelli also said that if the ball is getting bashed around a bit it can often be damaged so it's a bit dangerous to assume that the ball changing from its original condition is necessarily as a result of ball tampering.

Especally after *name censored to prevent spontaneous orgasm* was biffing it into the hoardings and onto the roof.

[eddiesmith]

Pakistan were called cheats, they had every right to stand their moral ground.
Plain and simple.

That's exactly what Beefy and Rameez Raja and Nasser Hussain were saying at the time aswell.
There are a number of ways to protest against being called cheats but for their first action to be the childish way they chose should be punished

[just maybe]

Darryl Hair went to the Pakistan rooms after the first effort to start failed and said are you coming out or are you forfeiting, the Pakis refused to answer so he went back out to the field with English batsman, waited 5 minutes and then called it off. The Pakistan players refused to talk so what else could he do?

Refused to talk? No. He wouldn't answer their questions.


Oh and to those asking why he wouldnt explain to the Pakistan players about the ball tampering, did you ever think he is not supposed to just like an umpire is not supposed to discuss a report with a player or official in footy, it would all come out in the hearing with the match referee, now due to the Pakistanis joke of a protest we have to wait longer, if they didnt protest the ball tampering allegations likely would have been resolved last night instead it was spent sorting out the newest problem


Cricket is not footy. Hair should have justified his decision, yet still hasn't.


Hair did nothing wrong and he is experience enough to not do something without any proof and he is under no obligation to say what happened or make a statement before the investigation and hearing are concluded


He has done everything wrong. He has made a mockery of the game.


But I guess calling Hair a racist and cheat is the easy way out

He may be those things. But he is definitely in the wrong.

[eddiesmith]

Refused to talk? No. He wouldn't answer their questions.



Cricket is not footy. Hair should have justified his decision, yet still hasn't.



He has done everything wrong. He has made a mockery of the game.



He may be those things. But he is definitely in the wrong.
They wouldnt answer his simple question about whether they would continue, he is under no obligation to explain the ball tampering untill it goes to a hearing. The Pakis could have waited for the hearing but instead their stupid, immature actions have put that off for god only knows how long now

The most stupid thing is if the Pakis were not such immature little ****s we would have heard Hairs version by now as they would have had a hearing last night but now we have to wait. Pakistan have delayed things greatly and they would know by now what his reasonings were more than likely but now we all must wait

Fact is an umpire does not have to explain any of his decisions to the players, he answers to the match referee not the players

[mark73]

Pakistan at it again.Gee who would have thought. :rolleyes:

[Moo]

There are a number of ways to protest against being called cheats but for their first action to be the childish way they chose should be punished


Wrong or right ...the umpires decision is still the umpires decision.

They should have come out, played hard and let their board take up the issue on their behalf.

[eddiesmith]

Pakistan at it again.Gee who would have thought. :rolleyes:
Now come on, dont you listen, they have done nothing wrong its all Darryl Hairs fault :rolleyes:

[just maybe]

They wouldnt answer his simple question about whether they would continue, he is under no obligation to explain the ball tampering untill it goes to a hearing. The Pakis could have waited for the hearing but instead their stupid, immature actions have put that off for god only knows how long now

They were standing on the moral high ground they undoubtedly had, Hair refused to explain himself as he should have done.


The most stupid thing is if the Pakis were not such immature little ****s we would have heard Hairs version by now as they would have had a hearing last night but now we have to wait. Pakistan have delayed things greatly and they would know by now what his reasonings were more than likely but now we all must wait


The only immature sh*t is Hair. If we was interested in conducting a genuine cricket match, he would be swallowing his pride and explaining himself. He didn't. This is his fault.


Fact is an umpire does not have to explain any of his decisions to the players, he answers to the match referee not the players

The culture is for an umpire to explain his decisions. It is a huge part of cricket. The fact that Hair wouldn't and ended the cricket match over his refusal is unacceptable.

[eddiesmith]

Especally after *name censored to prevent spontaneous orgasm* was biffing it into the hoardings and onto the roof.
You might want to check your facts on that one as I heard he hit 0 sixes with the old ball and only starting smashing them when the ball was changed

[just maybe]

You might want to check your facts on that one as I heard he hit 0 sixes with the old ball and only starting smashing them when the ball was changed

'I heard'?

:rolleyes:

He was smashing them before the ball change - I admit he didnt hit any sixes before the change, but he was clobbering the ball more before the change than after.

[Browney2006]

Seriousely people talking about the amount of 6's hit really have nothing to do with it. I mean a player could belt a four harder than a six...

[Grimwood]

One four was struck (52.6) between Cook's dismissal (51.5) and when the ball was changed (55.6).

[eddiesmith]

'I heard'?

:rolleyes:

He was smashing them before the ball change - I admit he didnt hit any sixes before the change, but he was clobbering the ball more before the change than after.
But there is a lot less likely to be any serious damage that looks like players scratching the ball if the ball hasnt been leaving the ground, the whole argument by some is it could have happened on the stands but that would usually only be likely if they were hitting sixes

Besides I am sure Hair with all his experience knows the difference between the regular wear and tear of a cricket ball and being purposely damaged also he must have seen something change in the 4 overs since Cooks dismissal to warrant changing it then and not when they had it when Cook went out

[davey_magik]

Does anyone know if he actually has evidence the ball has been tampered with?

[just maybe]

But there is a lot less likely to be any serious damage that looks like players scratching the ball if the ball hasnt been leaving the ground, the whole argument by some is it could have happened on the stands but that would usually only be likely if they were hitting sixes

Rubbish. The ball cannoning into the fence off a Pietersen four has the potential to do plenty of damage. Concrete gutters? Advertising hoardings?

Jesus, eddie...


Besides I am sure Hair with all his experience knows the difference between the regular wear and tear of a cricket ball and being purposely damaged also he must have seen something change in the 4 overs since Cooks dismissal to warrant changing it then and not when they had it when Cook went out

That's biased speculation. The fact remains, Hair could not explain himself, still has not, and there is zero video evidence of tampering from twenty-six cameras.

[Grimwood]

Does anyone know if he actually has evidence the ball has been tampered with?

He certainly hasn't presented any.

[just maybe]

He certainly hasn't presented any.

No evidence from twenty-six video cameras.

Hair is looking worse and worse.

[eddiesmith]

He certainly hasn't presented any.
He hasnt had to yet and the Pakis stupidity has delayed the hearing into it

Dont see why when they have processes everyone expects him to come out and give a statement beforehand

[just maybe]

He hasnt had to yet and the Pakis stupidity has delayed the hearing into it

Dont see why when they have processes everyone expects him to come out and give a statement beforehand

Because he let his ego get the better of himself, refused to explain his decision when it clearly needed explaining, and effectively accused the Pakistanis of cheating.

[eddiesmith]

Rubbish. The ball cannoning into the fence off a Pietersen four has the potential to do plenty of damage. Concrete gutters? Advertising hoardings?

Jesus, eddie...



That's biased speculation. The fact remains, Hair could not explain himself, still has not, and there is zero video evidence of tampering from twenty-six cameras.
So if its so common why havent umpires had problems with a balls condition beforehand?

[eddiesmith]

Because he let his ego get the better of himself, refused to explain his decision when it clearly needed explaining, and effectively accused the Pakistanis of cheating.
So what was he supposed to do, let them to continue to use a ball he felt had been tampered and wait untill the end of the game before doing anything?

[Romeo]

Rubbish. The ball cannoning into the fence off a Pietersen four has the potential to do plenty of damage. Concrete gutters? Advertising hoardings?

Jesus, eddie...



That's biased speculation. The fact remains, Hair could not explain himself, still has not, and there is zero video evidence of tampering from twenty-six cameras.

Agree, perhaps if an umpire is concerned about the apparent changed condition of the ball they could note it down for later reference but if there is no direct evidence of tampering it's surely a bit presumptuous to penalise a team 5 runs and by implication accuse them of cheating.

And KP was going at a fair old strike-rate and hitting a number of boundaries so the ball would certainly be GRADUALLY altering in appearance compared with the more sedate scoring rate earlier on. As for the reverse swing, as mentioned by others there was a lot of this in last year's Ashes so obviously the pitches and balls in England are conducive to this.

[Cooldude]

Do you need to hit a six in order to damage the ball? That seems to be the logic eddie's going on

[Browney2006]

Seriousely people talking about the amount of 6's hit really have nothing to do with it. I mean a player could belt a four harder than a six...
Thats what i said

[Cooldude]

He certainly hasn't presented any.

Don't tell me the ICC still hasn't make a statement regarding the ball tampering case

If they don't present any details regarding why the umpires came to that decision, then they would be the ones who are primarily at fault

Darryl Hair has always been hasty with his decisions, no warnings, no communication between players, everything is his way and it's final. It's a dictatorship style that he has always used. Every now and again that will backfire on him.

The most disappointing aspect of this debacle is the ****poor communication and attempts to understanding between the players and the officials. If they've talked like a bunch of civilised people instead of having the holier-than-thou attitude, this unnecessary farce would've never came close to occurring.

[Romeo]

It could be argued that Pakistan did the wrong thing by taking their bat and ball and 'sooking' and not accepting the umps' decision but it's a serious thing to be accused of cheating. Perhaps they believed that by returning to the field it was implying they accepted guilt.

According to Inzi it was a matter of honour.

A matter of honour, says Inzamam
Exclusive by Andrew Miller
August 21, 2006

Inzamam-ul-Haq sticks by his stance, saying it's a matter of honour © Getty Images
Inzamam-ul-Haq has confirmed that the Pakistani stance on their forfeited Test at The Oval is a matter of honour, after the match ball was changed by Umpire Darrell Hair midway through the afternoon session.
"This game is about more than winning and losing," he told Cricinfo, "it's about respect and countries come first. If someone says to me you are a cheat and Pakistan is doing wrong things, my first priority is to my country."

Play was held up for 45 minutes after tea, following Pakistan's initial refusal to take the field, but Inzamam insisted: "We were ready to play. The main issue was not whether we were going onto the field, it was whether the ball had been tampered with or not.

"We had lodged our protest and after that we came [down] to the ground as normal as if we are playing. But then the umpires were not coming. It is up to them, and we await the referee's hearing committee."

It is not the first time that Pakistan has crossed swords with the controversial figure Hair, and Inzamam was unequivocal in his stance. "This allegation is mean," he said. "He's not saying what his allegation is, he's just saying your guy is cheating. In my personal opinion, TV will show if anyone is tampering.
"It's very simple," he continued. "There are 26 cameras there [from Sky Sports] and nobody's picked anything. This hearing will not take place in the [referee's] room, it's on the front of the media, everything is on the media."
Inzamam ran through the chain of events in his on-pitch confrontation with the umpires. "They did not warn me," he said, "and then they gave five [penalty] runs. [Hair] did not talk to me, he wasn't telling me when he's changed the ball, he didn't ask me 'can we change the ball?'"
The discussion continued when Hair went up to the Pakistan dressing-room to ask if they would be taking the field. "Personally I asked him: 'why did you change the ball?'", said Inzamam, adding that Hair responded that the ball had been tampered with, but then refused to show Inzamam the ball when he was asked, saying that it was in the referee's room.
"I said it is in my rights to see the ball," he added, "to show that the ball is doing nothing. I wanted to say it's ok, the condition of the ball has not changed, but Hair says 'It's my decision.'"
When asked if Pakistan felt persecuted by Hair, Inzamam responded: "Yes definitely. It's not once [with Hair], it's lots of times, we've already sent a letter before this to the ICC, asking that he does not umpire in Pakistan games. But still he is doing it. The controversy is always there.
"It's a big disappointment for me and my team and especially for cricket, the way this game was going. But I don't think we could carry on like this. If someone like this says "cheat" then this game is not on.
"There is definitely no problem with the England team," he confirmed, after last night's joint statement had confirmed that both teams had been willing to resume the game. "We know people were coming to watch today and we are sorry the game is not on," he added. "But we are sticking on to our decision because it's not the right thing that is going on."
In Inzamam's opinion, at this moment in time the five-match one-day series is not under threat.
Andrew Miller is UK editor of Cricinfo
© Cricinfo

[Cooldude]

Honour my ass, if they ARE innocent they could've got on with winning the match (Which they were clear favourites of doing) then do the "clearing my honour" bull**** at the end of the game.

They were blatantly acting like a bunch of highschool girls

[eddiesmith]

Well due to sorting out the Pakis forfeiture they havent had much chance to deal with the ball tampering

[eddiesmith]

No the logic some are using is the damage occured when it smashed into the concrete and steel barriers in the crowd

[skipper kelly]

Geez. Players have been tampering with the ball since WG graced the field.

[Romeo]

So what was he supposed to do, let them to continue to use a ball he felt had been tampered and wait untill the end of the game before doing anything?

Why not change the ball - deem it to be 'out of shape'. How many times do we have changes of the ball due to that phenomenon? Then the umpire can make a note for reference after play. The captain of the offending team then has to answer for the 'changed condition' of the ball. But there is no 5 run penalty or implication of guilt at the time. That stops the umpire from being judge, jury and executioner. I believe it is why we've rejected the send off rule in the AFL in case the umpire gets it wrong and a team is unfairly penalised.

[Grimwood]

Don't tell me the ICC still hasn't make a statement regarding the ball tampering case

If they don't present any details regarding why the umpires came to that decision, then they would be the ones who are primarily at fault

Darryl Hair has always been hasty with his decisions, no warnings, no communication between players, everything is his way and it's final. It's a dictatorship style that he has always used. Every now and again that will backfire on him.

The most disappointing aspect of this debacle is the ****poor communication and attempts to understanding between the players and the officials. If they've talked like a bunch of civilised people instead of having the holier-than-thou attitude, this unnecessary farce would've never came close to occurring.

As far as I know the ICC headquarters are empty today due to a national holiday in Dubai in hounor of one of the prophets. Presumably they've realised that some action is neccesary though as they've said they will make some kind of statement "later today".

[Cooldude]

As far as I know the ICC headquarters are empty today.

Empty, filled, it's the same, they do sweet FA either way :D

[Romeo]

Botham blames the ICC saying that appointing Hair to a Pakistan match given the volatile history between the two was always going to be volcanic.

[Browney2006]

This will be a massive test for the ICC, if they **** this up then they will those the little credibilty they have left, and wont be taken seriousely ever again, now is there time to prove they arnt ****, so they are taking there sweet time.

[Romeo]

You have to laugh, it was always going to happen. They take their cricket very seriously in the sub-continent. Remember the Greg Chappell effigies being burnt? And a loss often sees televisions going flying out of windows for Pakistan and Indian fans. But on a more serious note, this has the potential to divide the 'black' and 'white' world of cricket.

Students torch Hair images
21/08/2006 13:02 - [/URL] (javascript:void(0))http://www.news24.com/News24v2/Images/tsp.gifhttp://www.news24.com/News24v2/Images/tsp.gifhttp://www.news24.com/Images/Photos/2006082112510221_hair220.jpgPakistani supporters burn a placard bearing pictures of Australian umpire Darrel Hair during a protest to condemn his decision regarding ball tampering. (Anjum Naveed, AP)http://www.news24.com/News24v2/Images/tsp.gif[URL="http://www.news24.com/News24/Sport/Cricket/0,,2-9-839_1986080,00.html"] (http://www.news24.com/News24/Sport/Cricket/0,,2-9-839_1986131,00.html#)
(http://www.news24.com/News24/Sport/Cricket/0,,2-9-839_1986106,00.html)
(http://www.news24.com/News24/Sport/Cricket/0,,2-9-839_1985952,00.html)
(http://www.news24.com/News24/Sport/Cricket/0,,2-9-839_1986002,00.html)
http://www.news24.com/News24v2/Images/tsp.gifhttp://www.news24.com/News24v2/Images/tsp.gif



Islamabad - Dozens of Pakistani students on Monday burned pictures of Australian umpire Darrell Hair as anger grew at the ball-tampering row that wrecked the fourth Test against England.
Around 50 teenagers from local schools gathered at a cricket ground in the capital Islamabad chanting "We want justice from ICC (International Cricket Council)" and "Shame, shame", an AFP photographer said.
Some carried placards with the slogan "Darrell Hair is Mini-Hitler", apparently quoting comments made in a newspaper on Monday by former Pakistani cricket legend Imran Khan.
Wearing cricket whites and caps, they torched two newspaper pictures of Hair - who penalised Pakistan five runs over the tampering allegations and then replaced the ball.
"The students wanted to express their sentiments against Hair's decision," Islamabad Cricket Association President Shakil Sheikh told AFP.
"Hair took the decision in a hasty manner. He ignored the process of consultation and took the bails off within minutes."
Newspapers and former players in this cricket-loving country have slammed Hair's decision, which prompted Pakistan to refuse to return to the pitch after tea.
After five hours of talks on Sunday night Pakistan were deemed to have forfeited the game, handing England a 3-0 victory in the four match series. Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq has defended his team's decision to protest, telling a local television station that his country's pride was at stake and saying Pakistan did not want to play in any more matches with Hair.

[eddiesmith]

BTW can I ask one question, sure he is the most senior umpire but why is Hair the only umpire being bagged by anyone?

[dogs105]

BTW can I ask one question, sure he is the most senior umpire but why is Hair the only umpire being bagged by anyone?

I'm not sure, but it seems that everyone, everywhere is doing it:

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/

[CrazyQ]

Good on Inzi.

I wouldnt let my team run out and be umpired by a total lunatic.

[CrazyQ]

Jones was banned, time to ban Khan...
There was a difference.

[skilts]

It's not Hair's fault he hasn't explained his actions. To do so is not part of his job description.

For those on here who think he's an egotistical, pig-headed pedant, there is much to recommend about your view.

There is another point of view. The accusation is that the Pakistanis interfered with the condition of the ball, with a view to influencing the outcome of the game. From what I saw on the TV, it apppeared the controversy started because a 56-over-old ball swung 8-9 inches in the final couple of metres of its trajectory, struck an English batsman in front of his stumps, causing him to be given out LBW. As a result of this occurence, Hair had the ball thrown to him by the fielding team. Hair examines the ball minutely. Apparently he finds something amiss with the surface of the ball. Calls Inzimam over, and soon after the men with replacement balls appear.

Is it possible that the extraordinary, out-of-the-blue dismissal caused Hair to think there was something not Kocher going on? His sense of fair play was offended and being a man of integrity, with only the interest of cricket at-heart, he had no option but to take the course he did.

There's yet another possibility. He and the umpiring fraternity have been p1ssed off with ball-tampering in Test Cricket for quite a while. It's a personal insult to the umpire to think you can get away with cheating, because the umpires will be too weak to do anything. Make no mistake, as evidenced by the freak dismissal, fiddling with the condition of the ball is cheating.

This was a game with nothing hingeing on it. If I were Hair and I saw cheating at all forms of cricket as anathema, I'd choose just such a game to make a statement. He left the decision about how the rest of the game was conducted up to the teams basically. For him to have been involved in any dialogue about his decision, with any of the players, would only have inflamed the situation further.

He could have handled it better. I've umpired with people like Hair. They bring a punitive aspect to the game. They get bees under their bonnets about certain issues. Their sense of self-importance and a misunderstanding of their required contribution to the game sometimes cause unreal confusion in them.

[eddiesmith]

The ball was actually changed about 5-6 overs after the Cook dismissal, its entirely possible he saw the dismissal, saw something wrong with the ball then when he reinspected it 5 overs later the problem had gotten worse possibly showing someone still working on it

One interesting thing that hasnt been spoken about much, why was Gul taken out of the attack immediately after the ball was changed?

[dogs105]

The ball was actually changed about 5-6 overs after the Cook dismissal, its entirely possible he saw the dismissal, saw something wrong with the ball then when he reinspected it 5 overs later the problem had gotten worse possibly showing someone still working on it

One interesting thing that hasnt been spoken about much, why was Gul taken out of the attack immediately after the ball was changed?

Are the players supposed to hand the ball to the umpire after every over? Or is that just in ODIs?

[eddiesmith]

Do they do it in ODIs? I had never noticed that

No only after a wicket or at a break in play or if the umpire requests it or if they want the ball changed, other than that no they dont have to, however if they want to do anything but shine the ball they must do so in front of the umpire