Fit hitting the shan

Yeah too many words. Gotta go anyway, 1 AM here, need sleep.

Nath wrote:Unofficial 2 "Test" series: Australia vs Australia A. GO!

Least it is a guarenteed 5 days of play (weather permitting)

tac wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:"agree with you, however, that without evidence he shouldn't have been banned"

tac, I presume you mean some kind of "independant" witness to events. Mate, courts make convictions every day without a smoking gun tabled in evidence and make do with the credibility of the testimony of those questioned.

Yes, Mick. But read on . . . I believe that Procter must have had something to risk banning Harby.

Maybe he did, (speculation about to flow) but considered the greater good of the game or the series wasn't best served by going public with more scandal.

furriner wrote:Yeah too many words. Gotta go anyway, 1 AM here, need sleep.

Cheers furry - hope you find the land of the good sleep.

Mick Sawyer wrote:"Like in any court of law I want to know what that proof is"

But it's not a court where the beak is compelled to make a written finding furry.

He's a match referee. His charter does not extend to finally satisfying every last shred of doubt or dispute held by you, me or anyone else.

FFS this world is bogged down in litigation. Enoughhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Even in a court of law, it's usually a decision based on evidence, but not absolute proof. Not many thieves are convicted on the basis of video evidence of their act, not many murderers are caught with a smoking gun. It's about the history leading up to the event, what was seen, and the evidence given by the parties involved (and their credibility).

furriner wrote:Yeah too many words. Gotta go anyway, 1 AM here, need sleep.

You in North America?

lardbucket wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:"Like in any court of law I want to know what that proof is"

But it's not a court where the beak is compelled to make a written finding furry.

He's a match referee. His charter does not extend to finally satisfying every last shred of doubt or dispute held by you, me or anyone else.

FFS this world is bogged down in litigation. Enoughhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Even in a court of law, it's usually a decision based on evidence, but not absolute proof. Not many thieves are convicted on the basis of video evidence of their act, not many murderers are caught with a smoking gun. It's about the history leading up to the event, what was seen, and the evidence given by the parties involved (and their credibility).

Now you're channelling me - should be flattered I guess

"Mate, courts make convictions every day without a smoking gun tabled in evidence and make do with the credibility of the testimony of those questioned." [

Let them go home. They can play all the Tests they like against Bangladesh.

Mick Sawyer wrote:

furriner wrote:Yeah too many words. Gotta go anyway, 1 AM here, need sleep.

You in North America?

yeah, g'night all.

Zat wrote:Let them go home. They can play all the Tests they like against Bangladesh.

Until they have a hissy fit, and take there bats and balls home.

Mick Sawyer wrote:

lardbucket wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:"Like in any court of law I want to know what that proof is"

But it's not a court where the beak is compelled to make a written finding furry.

He's a match referee. His charter does not extend to finally satisfying every last shred of doubt or dispute held by you, me or anyone else.

FFS this world is bogged down in litigation. Enoughhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Even in a court of law, it's usually a decision based on evidence, but not absolute proof. Not many thieves are convicted on the basis of video evidence of their act, not many murderers are caught with a smoking gun. It's about the history leading up to the event, what was seen, and the evidence given by the parties involved (and their credibility).

Now you're channelling me - should be flattered I guess

"Mate, courts make convictions every day without a smoking gun tabled in evidence and make do with the credibility of the testimony of those questioned." [

That's really got me worried.

taipan wrote:Remember India pulled out of a test in SA not that long ago.

No they didn't.

doremi wrote:

taipan wrote:Remember India pulled out of a test in SA not that long ago.

No they didn't.

Um, remember when SRT was banned and it was played as an unofficial test?

doremi wrote:

taipan wrote:Remember India pulled out of a test in SA not that long ago.

No they didn't.

You sure?

taipan wrote:

doremi wrote:

taipan wrote:Remember India pulled out of a test in SA not that long ago.

No they didn't.

Um, remember when SRT was banned and it was played as an unofficial test?

They didn't pull out. They played the test.

"That's really got me worried"

You're worried? I'm frightened!

doremi wrote:

taipan wrote:

doremi wrote:

taipan wrote:Remember India pulled out of a test in SA not that long ago.

No they didn't.

Um, remember when SRT was banned and it was played as an unofficial test?

They didn't pull out. They played the test.

Not according to the ICC they didn't.

doremi wrote:

taipan wrote:

doremi wrote:

taipan wrote:Remember India pulled out of a test in SA not that long ago.

No they didn't.

Um, remember when SRT was banned and it was played as an unofficial test?

They didn't pull out. They played the test.

It was played as an unofficial test.

taipan wrote:

doremi wrote:

taipan wrote:

doremi wrote:

taipan wrote:Remember India pulled out of a test in SA not that long ago.

No they didn't.

Um, remember when SRT was banned and it was played as an unofficial test?

They didn't pull out. They played the test.

It was played as an unofficial test.

http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/in_depth/2001/india_in_south_africa/1669900.stm

It was played as an unofficial Test because the Indians refused to play under the ICC-appointed umpire/referee, wasn't it?

And refused to accept SRT's banning if my memory serves correctly

Sehwag I think

lardbucket wrote:It was played as an unofficial Test because the Indians refused to play under the ICC-appointed umpire/referee, wasn't it?

I can't imagine any country refusing to accept the ruling of a body that they apparently are essential for the survival of...

lardbucket wrote:Sehwag I think

SRT was defo one of them

taipan wrote:

lardbucket wrote:Sehwag I think

SRT was defo one of them

SRT got a suspended ban for this...

I was only giving the ball some relief after it complained of being itchy, honest...