Just Not Cricket
There is an article about the latest cricket controversy in today’s International Herald Tribune. It concerns an incident of ‘ball-tampering’ by a Pakistani bowler in an England/Pakistan match that led to a forfeited match, diplomatic row and subsequent banishment of all other less important world affairs (such as the situation in Lebanon) to the back pages of the British newspapers. The article indicates in its title that cheating in cricket does not happen – a fact that any follower of the game knows not to be true. It may “not be cricket” but it does happen and there have been notable incidents in recent years involving players gambling on the outcome of the game (as in betting against their own side) and various drug and sex scandals (the reality of cricket far belies its staid reputation). For anyone interested in researching the laws of cricket, there is a multitude of sources. The enty in Wikipedia looks as good a place to start as any.
Actually, the dispute has had major coverage in the Sydney Morning Herald and the BBC. It was the fact that the Pakistani team failed to abide by the umpires’ ruling that was the most serious concern – i.e. it’s not whether it happened or not, but that the adjudication process was not respected.
That said, the Australian cricket umpire Darrell Hair and his West Indian colleague did an appalling job of explaining what had happened and what the decision represented. It’s a bit like association football referees before the yellow and red card systems were implemented.
This was the first forfeited test in 129 years, and 1,814 matches.
Oh! Thank goodness that sort of thing doesn’t take over the media with OUR sports teams! ;-)
Yes, but were there any steroids involved?
Lock that account. It’s obvious Dick Pound has stolen Mark’s password.
Howzat. Steven just nudged the googly to silly mid-on.
It’s obviously Nick’s fault. When the topic starts with Cricket, things are bound to go south. I just put the masonry touches on rock bottom. :-)
Well this just gets juicier. Occasionally you’ll find a legal case where an email inadvertently explodes a case. Sometimes you’ll find a case where conduct renders an individual virtually unemployable.
But to have a case where an email does that is remarkable.
Umpire Darrell Hair offered to quit in exchange for $500,000 (£266,000), the International Cricket Council has said. The Australian, 53, made his offer in an e-mail to the game’s governing body after Sunday’s ball-tampering row which ended the fourth Test at The Oval.
And here are the juicy emails:
http://www.abc.net.au/sport/features/2006/s1724805.htm
Thanks to the Beeb for the lead: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/5286690.stm