From: 9063iyerm@vms.csd.mu.edu (Murali Iyer)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Conrad Bullock biased?!? No way, Jose!!\
Date: 30 Dec 1992 15:37:05 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 9063iyerm@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.csd.mu.edu

In article <1992Dec30.115526.29274@actrix.gen.nz>, conrad@actrix.gen.nz (Conrad Bullock) writes:
>
>Well, I was watching the game, and nobody (commentators or the crowd)
>noticed the 'outburst' - or at least it didn't become an obvious issue
>at the time - the first I knew was when I heard about the suspension
>on the news.

This seems to happen on a number of occasions, when the spectator at the ground
misses quite a bit of the goings on because he cannot get as close as a TV
camera to the action in middle. When I used to be at the ground watching a
game, I would see a certain incident in a particular way, but would be
corrected later in the evening by my Dad who sat at home and watched the same
game on the TV. Boy would I be mad to be contradicted by a person who was not
even at the ground!! I wish I had those times again, so that I could tell my
Dad that he was right all along. :--( 

>The bowler (and all the Pakistani players) appealed. The square leg
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This feature of the Pakistan cricket team has been caught on celluloid so
often, that if even one player does not appeal, then the umpire can safely say
"not out"!! :--) 

>umpire called no-ball (No ball because the ball passed above the
>shoulder height (when standing) of the batsman). The bowler looked
>incredulous. This is when the incident apparently took place - comments
>were directed at the umpire, rather than the usual disappointment
>swearing under the breath.

>At this stage Crowe apparently spoke to Javed Miandad, and Javed 
>Miandad spoke to his bowler.

I am surprised that Crowe had to come to the umpire's defense. Despite the
fact that Crowe is the hometeam captain, isn't it the umpire's lookout to
prevent use of offensive language on the field? Just curious, no side-taking
here.

>
>I was confused by the whole thing - Did Aaqib Javed not realise it had
>been noballed? Was he pissed off at the apparent catch not being given,
>or was it the no-ball call? If it was the no-ball call, why was his
>anger directed at the umpire behind the wickets - not the square leg
>umpire?
>
>After the match, the umpire made a report to the match referee,
>Australian Peter Burge. After a hearing, with evidence from both sides,
>Aaqib Javed was suspended for one game - the 3rd ODI (Played earlier
>today, Pak 139 all out, NZ 140/4, NZ win the series 2-1), and is
>eligible to rejoin the tem for the test in Hamilton, Jan 2-6.
>

>I didn't think Jones was out, but then I'm posting from a .nz address,
>so I am obviously biased.

Why this jab, Conrad? :--) Though I did notice a few netters staying off the
net because of the "jingoism that rules the netwaves on rsc", I did not realise
it was so bad. If your address (.nz) makes you biased in favour of New Zealand,
then my name should make me biased in favour of India (if people can recognize
my name as Indian). Though I will never have any doubt about whom I support
when India is involved in a game, I don't think I have to defend my words all
the time, saying I am not biased. I would like to think that my posts on rsc
speak for themselves, rather than my own proclamations from time to time. 

Now, on to my favorite pastime - DIGRESSION. I saw the recent issue of
Sportstar in which the Kirsten-Kapil-Wessels issue has been dealt with in
greater detail than we have so far seen. I know I should not be beating a dead
horse, but I thought I'll share a few bits of info. 

Kirsten was caught out of the crease by Kapil three times before the actual
running out, according to the report. Once, Kapil warned Kirsten. Next time,
warning again. Third time, Kapil took the bails off to make his point but did
not appeal. Fourth time, Kapil appealed and the umpire lifted one finger.
Kirsten gave Kapil two fingers, and Kapil bared his teeth and showed his three
fingers saying that he warned Kirsten thrice. The report says, I reproduce, 
"Kepler Wessels suddenly lost his cool and he said something from the other
end. Wessels then made his feelings known when he struck Kapil with his bat
during the course of turning for a second run a little later. It was developing
into a rugby game....".

Lloyd declined to rule on the controversy because he was not provided with the
actual footage of the incident. He was not inclined to face Wessels' attorney,
the report says, by ruling in the absence of evidence. The fine on Kirsten is
said to be a pittance when compared to the fees they get for the games. 

Also, the report goes on to rue the fact that in England when Pakistan was
playing England, the series was not adjudicated with the commitment and honesty
shown by Lloyd here in RSA. If there had been someone like Lloyd, perhaps the
people would have had access to truth in accusations on the Pak fast bowlers.
Instead, what was seen was the dilly-dallying and vague claims. Here, I am
quoting from memory and not actually reproducing the reports. 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket