digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Ball row plunges Test into chaos - Breaking News

news.bbc.co.uk — Pakistan fail to come out after tea as England battle to wipe out their big lead in the fourth Test.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • NachoBusiness, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20See. Americans could never respect a sport where major controversies center around tea time...
    • roastedbagel, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5I respect the sport of Cricket, however it's way too mellow for my liking. The only time I care to read up on it, is when drama such as this unfolds.
    • phucku2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Mr Bagel: You obviously don't fully appreciate cricket. The fact that it's slow and sedate is its charm. It's best taken in on warm, lazy Saturday or Sunday afternoons, possibly with beer, definitely with your mates so you have someone to take the piss out of.
    • ghm101, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13For the unwashed and uncultured here is a simple explanation of this delightful game:

      Cricket is played by two teams for one innings each or sometimes by two teams for two innings each.

      First the two captains go out to decide which team will be in.

      Then the first two batsmen from the team that is in go out to be in and the team that is out stays out. This is the beginning of the First Innings.

      The idea is for the team that is out to get the team that is in out and the team that is in to stay in and not get out. When a batsman from the team that is in gets out then another batsman from the team that is in goes out to be in and the team that is out tries to get the new batsman, who is now in, out. This continues till 10 of the batsmen of the team that is in are out.

      The eleventh batsmen of the team that is in is not out but can't stay in on his own so has to go out. That is the end of the First Innings for the first team who have been in. Now the team that is in goes out and the team that has been out comes in for their First innings.

      So the team that is now out tries to get the team that is now in out because now the team that was in is out and the team that was out is now in and the team that is now out tries to get the team that is now in out. This continues till all the batsmen of that team that is now in have been in and gotten out except for the one batsman who is in and not out. That is the end of the First Innings for the second team.

      Sometimes both teams have a second innings of being in and out and other times one innings of being in and out is the end of the game.

      After anything from one to five days with both teams having been in and out, and sometimes in and out twice, the winner is declared as being the team that got the most runs when they were in before getting out. Well sometimes it can be a draw because .. and this might be difficult to understand .. the team that was out couldn't get the team that was in all out and the second team to go in didn't get all out but didn't get enough runs before those batsmen who have been in got out without the whole team being in and out.

      So there you have it
    • wheelsofsteel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I always thought that americans could get into cricket. It's a sport full of stats and the pace allows for through analysis of strategy and playing style.

      Any sport that is so important that you have to get an army helicopter to dry the pitch has to be good http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/photo_galleries/4892780.stm (picture 3).
    • munderwood, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3@ghm101: well done. Did your mum hold up the teatowel while you copied all the words off it?
    • ghm101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@munderwood

      You insult me sir, I will have you know I am actually 105 years old and first wrote this out on a napin at the 1921 test at lords.

      Respect your elders!!!
    • cwcheang, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@ghm101, 2nd post

      are you serious?
    • Diggerr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I'd have credited the source of that (very nice) explanation, which seems to be a user named Wizard of Oz on a forum in a different site:
      http://www.wordwizard.com/ch_forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=18609
    • kepper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@ghm101:
      Wait a minute.. WAIT A MINUTE... that sounds an awful lot like baseball!
    • ghm101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Diggerr - The explanation is off a teatowel – I first read it originally sometime in the late 80’s. the Wizard of Oz you mention is just where I cut and pasted it from, but he would have had HIS mum hold up the teatowel so he could type it out.

      @cwcheang - No, of course not, …… I am actually 106 and wrote the “Who’s on first “sketch for Abbot and Costello. In the cricketing world the “team that is in" is about as famous and been around that long.

      @kepper - in baseball - you do the right thing and hit the ball - you get sent off!!! WTF - In cricket you get to stay and play a bit longer
      @munderwood – get off my lawn!!!!

      :)
  • mikewilsonuk, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3Hardly "breaking news" as it happened on Sunday.
    • DanAtkinson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12It was breaking news 20 hours ago, when it was submitted!
    • ghm101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Surely by its inherent nature the word "news" describes the "new" so all news is new, therefor expression "breaking news" is just a redundancy
  • DanAtkinson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5For the sake of pleasing the folks who like Cricket (not me by the way), here's a further BBC link to the consequences of yesterdays fun:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/5269906.stm
  • gurgle, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4front page in 19 diggs??

    shows how being dugg by digg heavyweights (people with a large number of frontpage stories) makes a massive difference..
  • gabeN, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Am I the only one to whom the title and description make absolutely no sense whatsoever??? Honestly, I had to read the comments to infer it was about cricket, the only reason I know what cricket is, is that I listen to BBC World News on occasion...
    • iFelix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Time we had a cricket category methinks then...
  • daelight, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Agreed about the title. To call this even a 'sport' is being too nice. 129 years? This game deserves a swift kick in the er, balls.
  • dfunct, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3[quote]1728: Who'll be next to refuse to carry on? Maybe I'll sack this live report off too - throw my keyboard down and return to the BBC dressing-room. Only joking - the drama is incredible. I wouldn't do that to you.[/quote]

    Haha that just makes the entire thing!
  • iFelix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Follow up article
    http://digg.com/other_sports/International_Cricket_Council_action_expected_on_Oval_Test
  • Neme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Breaking news on digg really fails.
  • whiffen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This is big news in the UK. BBC radio has been having one of those "CNN moment".... "Crisis at The Oval"...It's been non- stop commentary and talks of "national shame"...
  • madhouseradio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hwaret?
  • riverside71, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1how do stories with so few diggs make it to the front page.. i'd never know.. looks like there's more to just the "Apple" keyword to it..
  • riteshks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ roastedbagel and @NachoBusiness
    You probably have never heard of One Day international, and 20-20 cricket?

    And probably you have no idea, what it means when in a semifinal match ends in a tie, on the last ball of the match, because one of the best player got run out ! :) I cant explain it better, but if you know what goes through a sports fans mind during such encounters : http://eap.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/WORLD_CUPS/WC99/SCORECARDS/FINALS/AUS_RSA_WC99_ODI-SEMI2_17JUN1999_CI_MR.html

    Or for simple calculations - the same two teams playing again, The first team scores unprecedented, world record breaking, moral-shattering 434, AND, the team chasing it beats that score by four runs with a ball to spare.

    Or you probably never knew that there are five day matches have been decided with 1 run difference.
    I guess there is no other sport with so much uncertainty and unpredictability as cricket and thats the beauty of it.
  • chewtoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I just want to know what a "pint pot snake" is...
    FTA: "Those same fans are amusing themselves by constructing the longest pint-pot snake of the summer so far. It's a monster - at least three anacondas in length."

    If it's what I think it is, it's the best reason to love Cricket (and I'm saying that as an American).
  • Ash123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wow great to see Cricket! on Digg! Unfortunately, i have to side with the pakistanis on this issue... that umpire Darrell Hare has been accused of racially motivated misconduct in the past and i think its about time someone took a stand. Even though the Pakistanis would have won that match, they forfeited just to stick it up the umpires ass.
  • Premalshah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i think this was a bad day for the cricket histroy that the result of the match was declared without playing the remaining days.
    but i think what the captain of the pakistan did was right becaus always the asian players are targeted by the umpires. How can the umpire take decision without asking the captain.
    one example of it was the Great batsman Mr. Sachin Tendulkar when he was banned to play 2 test by putting on him wrong claim.
    so ICC should also issue some guidelines for the umpire that before taking any decision take the conset of the both the captain.
  • ibis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The rule book very clearly states that if one team refuses to play then they forfeit the game. When Pakistan didn't come out ofter the break the umpires went and asked them if they were refusing to play, they said they were, hence they forfeit. There is absolutely nothing else the umpires could have done that was within the laws.

    If the Pakistanis had a problem with the initial ball tampering claim they should have brought it up with the match referee at the end of the days play, not been childish about it.
  • nocountries, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2the idea that Pakistan would tamper with the ball when so far ahead in a match which counted for nothing, as England had already won the series, is dubious to say the least.
    If it wasn't Hair, the match would no doubt have resumed and a protest lodged later.
    But this man has so much history with Pakistan, and particularly the captain.
    I think we have to see this in a wider context of the demonisation of Muslims.
    This extract from Inzamam's interview is instructive as to Hair's attitude.

    "The first I knew of this issue was when Darrell Hair decided to change the ball. He didn't mention a bowler who was at fault ... and he didn't mention any evidence, only that he was changing the ball.

    "At first he refused to show me the ball and said I would have to ask the match referee for a look at it.

    "I argued that it was my right to see it and he relented. It looked like a normal 56-over-old ball which had visited the boundary a few times."
  • jollybravo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Inzamam did absolultet right
    darrel Hair charged whole team of cheating without any proof
    with 26 CAMERAS on field
    none was able to give any pic or clip sugegstiong Pakis cheated
    how the hell can that Fat stupid Umpire charegd Pakistan team
    it was simply humilating
    with millions of people watching
    if Pakistan ahd continued play it would have meant that they actually did cheated and tempred the balll
    Taking such strong stand made it clear to whole world that PAkistansi did not cheat at all
  • jollybravo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Geoffrey Boycott
    Former England batsman and TMS commentator writing in the Daily Telegraph


    The ICC must be blind or stupid not to have realised that there is history between Darrell Hair, the umpire who accused them of changing the nature of the ball, and Pakistan.

    There were mutterings after the Headingley Test that Pakistan didn't like Hair's attitude.

    Pakistan regard Hair as an officious umpire and they don't like his style of man-management.

    It should have been obvious to the ICC that appointing him to this series created a situation like a volcano waiting to erupt


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/5270038.stm
  • jollybravo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Nasser Hussain
    Former England captain writing in the Daily Mail

    " Did Darrell Hair actually see a member of the Pakistan team tampering with a cricket ball? Has he got proof?

    If he hasn't then he has made a massive mistake.

    If I had been accused of cheating in this way then, as long as I was sure of our innocence, I would have done exactly the same thing as Pakistan.

    I wouldn't have come out after tea, either.

    People have said that Pakistan should have waited until the close of play and then gone down the right channels, but they wouldn't have seen it that way.

    To Pakistan, if they had carried on playing, they would have been admitting their guilt. "


    Rameez Raja
    Former Pakistan batsman and TMS commentator writing in The Nation newspaper

    " The star of the show was definitely umpire Darrell Hair, but as a villain of the piece.

    His arbitrary and insensitive style of judgment here at The Oval sparked an absolutely needless controversy that has put the Test match in serious jeopardy and brought infamy to the game. ""

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/5270038.stm
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.