Opinions on the ball tampering debate

[elsec]

What do we all think?

over zealousness from Umpire Hare

or

'about time too' (Mike Gatting & Indian CB)

[cowcorner]

I think the moral high ground taken by their president was a bit false given their past activities.

And the fact he kept blaming Pietersen's sixes which actually took place after the ball had been changed.

Good on Hair and DoctorLucozade for have faith in their convictions and staying off. May have ruined it for the audience but silly boycotts have no place in sport.

[leopard]

my point is..........when cook got out ball was in umpires hands...till next man was in .....nothing was done ...15 minutes later suddenly things change....thats bit dodgy.....

i am interested to know your reaction if same thing had happened to england in pakistan.......then all such so called "silly" things would have been right......

by any streach of imagination u just cant judje someone what had happened in the past......if that is the case even england could be blamed for what arterton did(dirt incident)long time ago.........pride and honour is same for every one mr cowcorner

as far as history goes mr hair s history is more than sugestive of bias........
we have witnessed lot of such dodgy things in the past..

some examples.........in an triangular tournament ...mcgrath gets just verbal warning for lots of words to bats man which was clearly swearing from the video evidence....in the same tournament ganguly gets 3 match ban for similar offence

three indians got 1 test suspended ban for excessive appealing ...i donot remember any non subcontinental team getting anything more than warning.......

when world didnt know what revese swing was ...wasim and waquar were called cheats......wen simon jones and freddie did the same thing during last ashes they were hailed
just

before lokking at others past and passing light comments think for sometime mate

[cowcorner]

The only incident that took place was on Saturday so it'd be far better for commentators (media and otherwise) to refer only to that rather than other historical evidence.

Instead of saying Hair has previous it'd be better to concentrate on the fact that there was no evidence on Saturday and stop turning into a big circus. That way if there was nothing proved (not the innocence proved) then the other stuff could be referred to in term of Hair's 'hidden agenda'. At any time were any of the things he's dpne against sub-continent teams no valid. Running on the pitch, scuffing the wicket etc were all fairly obvious. Just cos the 3rd umpire gives Inzy out doesn't make in Hair's fault when he'd be watching the non strikers end.

Atherton was guilty regardless of what he or others said but again that's not the issue of the day. It just clouds the facts by going back over old ground. My opinion going back to Atherton was he should have been fined / dropped but i'm not in charge.

When Cook was out Hair took the ball to Billy at that point but you couldn't see what went on. He may well have spent the next 15 mins observing (as he's supposed to do) for 'further' activity.

The fact he's not allowed to come out and speak and say what went on is a big issue in all sports because it creates intrigue. If the ICC came out and said chronologically what went on then everyone can make their own mind up. He can't come out and say what he saw but all the players can deny wrong. Its a bit like the American sprinters saying they don't take drugs but when they get caught they're hardly vocal in denials are they. They just keep quiet. I've not heard Inzy or anyone else on the Tv saying they didn't do it only other speaking for them.