Re: Hair unlikely to Umpire in matches involving Pakistan

by filosofee Fri 21 Mar 2008, 22:45

JKLever wrote: In answer to Filo so we don't rehash a 60 page thread....

It's quite simple, JKL, don't keep asking me questions, do some research for yourself. That'll keep the thread to your preferred length!

by JKLever Fri 21 Mar 2008, 22:48

filosofee wrote:
JKLever wrote: In answer to Filo so we don't rehash a 60 page thread....

It's quite simple, JKL, don't keep asking me questions, do some research for yourself. That'll keep the thread to your preferred length!

I'm not asking you any questions love. Just waiting to hear anything that is substantiated as fact before you get to call me ignorant.

by filosofee Fri 21 Mar 2008, 22:55

JKLever wrote:
I'm not asking you any questions love. Just waiting to hear anything that is substantiated as fact before you get to call me ignorant.

Why wait, are you incapable of searching for yourself?

Ah! because you've been termed "ignorant" your backs up. Dude, you seemed unaware that Holder had acted as a neutral umpire, that there had been a gap of ten years between his officiating in Tests.

by LeFromage Fri 21 Mar 2008, 23:02

You can read this entire non-issue in all it's unsubstantiated glory on this thread.

https://flamingbails.forumotion.com/the-flaming-bails-cricket-forum-f1/hair-v-icc-employment-tribunal-london-oct-1st-to-9th-t512.htm

by JKLever Fri 21 Mar 2008, 23:03

filosofee wrote:
Why wait, are you incapable of searching for yourself?

Um, why do I search for 'facts'? It's you calling me ignorant yet you have nothing in the way of fact to back it up. I know i'm not ignorant

Dude, you seemed unaware that Holder had acted as a neutral umpire

Which has nothing to do with proving he was removed by the TCCB after the 1991 test. At all...

by filosofee Fri 21 Mar 2008, 23:09

JKLever wrote:
filosofee wrote:
Why wait, are you incapable of searching for yourself?

Um, why do I search for 'facts'? It's you calling me ignorant yet you have nothing in the way of fact to back it up. I know i'm not ignorant

Dude, you seemed unaware that Holder had acted as a neutral umpire

Which has nothing to do with proving he was removed by the TCCB after the 1991 test. At all...

Pleased that you think you're not ignorant! Very Happy

My point stands: we can argue until Heather Mills becomes a media darling, we still won't see each other's perspective.

by JKLever Fri 21 Mar 2008, 23:13

filosofee wrote:
My point stands: we can argue until Heather Mills becomes a media darling, we still won't see each other's perspective.

Quite. Except I can prove mine and you can't.

Darling.

by filosofee Fri 21 Mar 2008, 23:18

JKLever wrote:
filosofee wrote:
My point stands: we can argue until Heather Mills becomes a media darling, we still won't see each other's perspective.

Quite. Except I can prove mine and you can't.

Darling.

I've proved my point "we can argue until Heather Mills becomes a media darling, we still won't see each other's perspective" Very Happy

ps JKL, letting you get away with "love" and "darling" because you look like Jason-Transporter-Statham, though only have your word!

by Basil Sat 22 Mar 2008, 08:23

filosofee wrote:
JKLever wrote:
I'm not asking you any questions love. Just waiting to hear anything that is substantiated as fact before you get to call me ignorant.

Why wait, are you incapable of searching for yourself?

Ah! because you've been termed "ignorant" your backs up. Dude, you seemed unaware that Holder had acted as a neutral umpire, that there had been a gap of ten years between his officiating in Tests.

So, Filosofee - it's ok for you to come on here and parade baseless rumours as fact, but others have to go away and carry out research?

Some might call that hypocrisy of the highest order.

by tac Sat 22 Mar 2008, 08:47

filosofee wrote:
JKLever wrote:

He and Ian Botham played against West Indies at The Oval in 1991 when the ball was changed while England were bowling because of an umpire's suspicions of illegal tampering

I've still to see this officially stated as fact that it happened, but at least you've provided a link at last for something i'd never even heard of before in the 15 years inbetween that test and the oval test in 2006.

Do we have other sources that this event took place other than this journo?

Astonishing, JKL! You remind me of "if a man says something ridiculous and no woman hears it, is he still wrong?"

Cricket lacks transparency, occasionally. For instance, why is Porter, Elliott, and Hurrion's report of a study conducted during the 2004 Champions Trophy not available? ICC say ""We do not think it would be correct to release the figures publicly without the prior consent of the individual bowlers and the researchers themselves. This consent has not been obtained." - Not obtained from whom? The bowlers? Doubt the researchers would want their findings concealed.

Anyway, I'm sure you're capable of searching for yourself further details for that 1991 Test.

Actually, the reason it is not released is that the testing procedure (2-D via the use of super slo mo) would be held to ridicule. The ICC want to claim that all bowlers chuck so they can support the changes to throwing laws made solely for Murali's benefit. If the evidence they claim is shown to be nothing more than a couple of pictures measured with a ruler and protractor, then all hell will break lose. How farkin silly are you, filosofee?

by filosofee Sat 22 Mar 2008, 09:47

Basil wrote: So, Filosofee - it's ok for you to come on here and parade baseless rumours as fact, but others have to go away and carry out research?

Some might call that hypocrisy of the highest order.

Basil, thanks for your comment. No one has to go away and carry out research. However, if evidence is desired it is incumbent to seek it rather than continually demand it.

Fact: John Holder stood in the Oval Test 1991 along with MJ Kitchen

Fact: John Holder was dropped from standing in further Tests for ten years, despite his deployment as one of the first neutral umpires - that suggests he was trusted, respected and a pretty fair umpire, wouldn't you say?

Fact: MJ Kitchen served no similar gap in Test match officiating

How is it that no one has sued TMS commentators or Peter Wilby for stating "at The Oval in 1991 when the ball was changed while England were bowling because of an umpire's suspicions of illegal tampering if it were "baseless rumours"?

TMS explicitly stated that it was John Holder who was dropped for doing his job in 1991 - haven't heard of anyone suing them for this statement, perhaps because it is true?

It is not as if an England player has not been accused of ball tampering, only three years after that Oval test: "Michael Atherton was accused of using dirt from his trouser pocket in a Test against South Africa in 1994."

both quotes from here:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2006/12/28/the_day_the_sky_fell_in.html

The double standard is conveyed by those accusing India and Pakistan of "selecting umpires". England did not tour Pakistan for a while after the 1987 Shakoor incident. Pakistan honoured their tours to England, despite their feeling that, sometimes, umpires weren't that fair. Indeed, in 2006, Pakistan complained about Hair before the Oval test.

The hypocrisy is, raging that Hair was unfairly treated while being a 'good' umpire, and getting all hot under the collar at the Sub-continental teams, yet completely refusing to see that, perhaps, umpire John Holder was unfairly removed from the Test panel of umpires for ten years, for doing his job in 1991.

India and Pakistan are right to bring biased umpiring to the fore, they have had enough of it. But, both Hair and Bucknor should stand in matches involving those teams, a) because there's a dearth of decent umpires and b) at least Hair has acknowledged his former attitude caused stress to himself and others:

So I won't say my whole attitude to umpiring has changed but I think I have picked up a few things that are going to be very helpful to me in the future.

"Probably just ... having a broader understanding of what everybody else is thinking and the old communication issue of making sure that what you say and what you want is understood by the other people. I've always been a little bit ... stand-offish in that I've always preferred to let them play the game themselves and only get involved when things go overboard but maybe there's a case to be made for a little bit more work in that area."

from: http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/343247.html

by filosofee Sat 22 Mar 2008, 09:51

tac wrote: Actually, the reason it is not released is that the testing procedure (2-D via the use of super slo mo) would be held to ridicule. The ICC want to claim that all bowlers chuck so they can support the changes to throwing laws made solely for Murali's benefit. If the evidence they claim is shown to be nothing more than a couple of pictures measured with a ruler and protractor, then all hell will break lose. How farkin silly are you, filosofee?

"If"!

by tac Sat 22 Mar 2008, 09:54

filosofee wrote:
tac wrote: Actually, the reason it is not released is that the testing procedure (2-D via the use of super slo mo) would be held to ridicule. The ICC want to claim that all bowlers chuck so they can support the changes to throwing laws made solely for Murali's benefit. If the evidence they claim is shown to be nothing more than a couple of pictures measured with a ruler and protractor, then all hell will break lose. How farkin silly are you, filosofee?

"If"!

So why not show it? You are basing a huge conspiracy theory on one comment on a blog . . . so surely the lack of evidence for the claims that McGrath et al all chuck should strike you as odd? The ICC has stated that they used super slo mo in the test, so how else can they measure straightening than by measuring the angles of the arm . . . soemthing they wouldn't accept for Murali?

by doremi Mon 24 Mar 2008, 22:06

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Quite a few forummers on here and some of the Pakistani players. Some ~~Indian~~ South African and Sri Lankan players too if I remember.

by Sponsored content