I hope Rafa doesn't defend Masch

[Spy Bee]

Stu have you got me on ignore you little pygmy fucker? :whistle:

[Stu Monty]

He can only justify it as an isolated incident Stu. You can't just pick that one incident for your argument and forget the context of the whole game.

 

Rashidy!

 

Read Dirk's post from the fifa website about persistantly infringing the laws.

 

Referees should be alert at all times to players who persistently infringe

the Laws. In particular, they must be aware that even if a player commits

a number of different offences, he must still be cautioned for persistently infringing the Laws.

 

So Bennett can justify the caution.

 

Oh, and Bell clearly drops the ball too, you can stop the frame where his hand is open with the ball on the floor. You big smiley 'tard. Can you feel the love tonight?

[Spy Bee]

Yes Stu, but that is still taking the treatment of Mascherano in isolation you stunted fuckstick. If every other player in the game had been treated as Mascherano (and more to the point Torres) was then there would have been a Hallmark load of cards.

 

I'm going to the pub for some Warstiener.

[isr]

Some of the things leveled at Hair are just daft though. Like the clip above. Personally I think it's out, but even if it's not you can't call it cheating.

 

(apologies in advance for taking this thread a little off-topic)

 

Adam,

 

Its interesting that out of that particular series, you pick the one bad decision where you could make a case for the umpire (in that case, he should have referred the decision to the 3rd umpire, but no big deal).

 

Umpires make mistakes all the time. The type of decisions I'm talking about are not your run-of-the-mill mistakes. Its the mind-boggling, what-was-he-thinking, its-not-even-in-the-rules decisions that he keeps making against his pet bogey teams. For example:

 

- giving a batsman out when taking avoiding action against a fielders throw directly at him. The rules SPECIFICIALLY cater for this eventuality, yet Hair (whom his supporters all claim has the best understanding of crickets arcane rules of any umpire) chose to ignore this, and give him out.

 

- penalising a batsman for running on the wicket, err, when he didn't do so. The only umpire in the history of Test cricket to actually disallow a run and do this (to my knowledge). And he compounds that error by incorrectly giving that same batsman out the same over.

 

- giving a bowler official warnings for running on the wicket (3 and you're banned for the innings) in his VERY FIRST over. I've played cricket (to a pretty decent level), and watched Test cricket around the world for 20+ years. I have never, ever seen any umpire, in any situation, do something like this. And this was a leg spinner for God's sake (hardly someone who would badly scuff up the surface).

 

- refusing to give a West Indian batsman out, after Saqlain Mustaq BOWLED him. Not LBW, not caught behind. Actually knocked the bails off. Even the keepers gloves were nowhere near the stumps. Even the batsman was nonplussed at that one (99 World Cup game, in Swansea v West Indies).

 

I could go on and on about the ratio of bad LBW/caught behind decisions he regularly gives against his pet teams (eg: the match before the infamous Oval Test, he managed to avoid giving 4 clear caught behinds on the 1st morning - a match where Pakistan should have been out of sight by the end of the 1st innings). Thing is - you can always argue over such line decisions. Its the sheer incomprehensible stuff (just some of which I've highlighted above, and I haven't even touched on the Oval issue) which defies explanation.

 

When he continuously does stuff like that against one team, over a number of years, while somehow avoiding similar issues against other teams - what do you want us to think? Give us a little credit. Its a little much when Englishmen and Aussies keep telling us to take it on the chin, and yet whenever they get the brunt of one bad umpire in just one game - all hell breaks loose in the media and elsewhere. We're not stupid. Sometimes bigotry and bias is hard to conclusively prove in print, but you know it when you see it.

 

Hair was the only umpire with the bollocks for calling Murali for chucking too, even though everyone who knows cricket knows he chucks.

 

Including those who saw Murali bowl with a STEEL BRACE on his arm, restricting his elbow flexion to within the permissable range of motion - and he still spun the ball at right angles?

 

And, by the way - when Murali switched to bowling leg breaks - Hair STILL called him (even though Murali's leg breaks, which he rarely bowls anymore, have NEVER been an issue for anyone). Proving that Hair's actions were premeditated.

 

Which brings us neatly back to Bennett :)

[Spy Bee]

Think Bell arguably had ball between thumb and hand. I've held them like that.

 

 

I'll get back to you on the cricket. I have never understood why Hair is hated so much by The Pakistanis, but then I have never taken the time to read about it.

 

I'll have a look after the pub or tomorrow.

[Spy Bee]

Including those who saw Murali bowl with a STEEL BRACE on his arm, restricting his elbow flexion to within the permissable range of motion - and he still spun the ball at right angles?

Hairs actions would have to be premeditated to a degree. But I still think he was right. He may have turned the ball wearing a brace, but it's not a scientific test as it doesn't replicate match conditions. They even changed the rules to accommodate the cheating fucker.

[isr]

Isr - You think if you run up to the referee and as "What's happening?" for every decision in a game then it's not dissent? Because if it's not breaking the rules then you can do it for every decision. Is that your intepretation?

 

The rule is showing dissent in word or action. You can say "well done" to a ref and get booked if he thinks it's sarcasm. Given that Bennett obvious thought he was showing dissent through words and actions how do the rules back up your stance?

 

 

Stu, like I said in my original post, I honestly did not notice the continuing (err) "interactions" between Masch and SB. Perhaps this was something which Sky highlighted after the game (our Setanta coverage didn't). So I don't know what to make of this.

 

If it was as bad as you say, why wasn't it more noticeable? And if it was that bad, why didn't SB just say make a point of telling Masch "oi, shut it. I'm the ref. Any more lip and you're off!". Just pull Masch over, call over the captain, wave your arms around, lay down the law, and make your point.

 

Thats how you deal with niggling, but persistant issues.

 

Refs - even the incompetent ones - make a point of pulling players up in high profile, high pressure games and telling them to calm down, after a hard 50-50 challenge or some such.

 

And no matter how lippy a player might be - you can't send him off if he justs asks you why you booked a player who had just been a victim of a foul (Torres got the free kick, remember). Its a valid question.

 

 

Tha validity of Mascherano's dismissal stands alone as a question. It isn't impacted by the fact that other players should have been dealt with too.

 

Actually, no. I strongly disagree. If the same official, with clear mind and foresight, decides to throw the book at one team, and IN THE SAME GAME decides to REPEATEDLY let the other team off scott-free for exactly the same issue - then you cannot just take the first incident in isolation. Its a mockery.

 

That official is then just using the laws as a smokescreen for his own bias (which is why the Darryl Hair comparison came to my mind).

[isr]

Hairs actions would have to be premeditated to a degree. But I still think he was right. He may have turned the ball wearing a brace, but it's not a scientific test as it doesn't replicate match conditions. They even changed the rules to accommodate the cheating fucker.

 

Adam, come on dude ;)

 

Don't you know why the ICC changed the rules? They actually commissioned a study to try to get to the bottom of the sudden rash of throwing allegations (not just Murali, players from all countries were in the dock, including Englands Kirtley). You know what they found?

 

Every single bowler - barring a couple of anatomical wierdos (like Sarwan, of the WI) - actually "threw" the ball. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Including McGrath, Warne etc. Every single one.

 

Here's the problem. The laws of cricket with respect to throwing were formulated when the judges were just using their naked eye. When you use slow-motion video to analyse, you realise that its practically impossible to bowl without some elbow flexion.

 

So then, the issue becomes, how much elbow flexion is acceptable? Did you know that McGrath was reputed to have a HIGHER DEGREE of elbow flexion than Murali?

 

The one person who nailed Murali's problem on the nail was Alan Border (another Aussie). As he said, its Murali's amazing wrist mobility which is the problem. Here's a scientific rationale backing it up. Much of what we THINK we see, is actually our brain filling in the gaps and fleshing out the limited data our eyes actually send. Murali's wrist mobility is bloody wierd. When we see it, our brain actually fills in a more plausible interpretation - its his elbows that are flexing.

 

Thats why, if you look at Murali's action from an angle where his wrist mobility is not so evident - he doesn't look like he's throwing.

 

The whole science begin optical illusions is a real eye-opener.

 

(groan - I'll get my coat ...)

[Rashid]

Hair is a cunt... and the only cunt in history to have THREE Teams send official letters to the ICC begging for him not to officiate them. Sri Lanka, India and Pakistan... get the pattern?

[Captain]

Well, well, this argument sure as hell picked up some speed!

[RedKnight]

I just look forward to Rooney, Cole, Terry and Ronaldo all being sent off for doing the same thing.

[drewy]

BBC SPORT | Football | PFA chief demands ref no-go zones

 

That smug look on his face says it all, he's enjoying that.

 

Anyway enough already, I'm done falling out with people over this prick.

[Rashid]

The look on his face said.. "this is for you Fergie.. and the 70,000 in bred behind me.."

[theRedHorse]

then at the weekend, Argentine midfielder Mascherano was given his marching orders for questioning referee Bennett, who had seconds earlier booked Fernando Torres for a similar outburst.

 

Outburst... the fuck?

 

 

I said it before i understand Javiers sending off.

 

What I don't understand is How Torres gets fouled 3 times in the space of 3 seconds, gets given a free kick and then about 2 seconds later gets a Yellow card.

 

Amazing. Really.

[zigackly]

Being scrupulously fair, Torres gave a gesture of dissent when he turned away from the ref, making the "yapping" gesture with his hand. It was a petty booking from Bennett but fairer than Mascherano's.

[theRedHorse]

YouTube - manu vs liverpool- mascherano red card? was it?

[theRedHorse]

Being scrupulously fair, Torres gave a gesture of dissent when he turned away from the ref, making the "yapping" gesture with his hand. It was a petty booking from Bennett but fairer than Mascherano's.

 

Just a bit... :whatever:

 

and I disagree that it was fairer. Mascherano was continuously having a go at the ref. Torres had just basically got battered, and had a right to ask the ref what the fuck was up...

[zigackly]

Torres had just basically got battered, and had a right to ask the ref what the fuck was up...

 

He didn't book him for that. Fucksake, you posted the video, have a look.

[theRedHorse]

He didn't book him for that. Fucksake, you posted the video, have a look.

 

Are you taking the piss?

 

Yes I saw the video. Torres gets kicked 6 times in the space of 3 seconds. the next thing the cameras show are Torres asking the Ref something (almost like "why are you telling me off") and Bennet essentially telling him off for something (after being kicked 6 times don't forget) and then essentially to fuck off and Torres then does a hand gesture, (which means what exactly? "you chat shit"?) and then Torres is booked.

 

If thats a worthy booking considering that Its Torres thats just been KICKED 6 TIMES IN 3 SECS, I fucking despair.

[zigackly]

Look I'm in no mood for an argument with you, particularly as I think his booking was undeserved. I just said he did actually make a gesture of dissent before his booking so it was more justifiable by the ref. Neither booking was deserved, ok?

[theRedHorse]

Look I'm in no mood for an argument with you, particularly as I think his booking was undeserved. I just said he did actually make a gesture of dissent before his booking so it was more justifiable by the ref. Neither booking was deserved, ok?

 

You know that...

 

 

 

:whistle:

[Spy Bee]

AdamS = Pissed

Red Horse = Mong

[Mr Grumpy]

It was amazing to hear Andy Gray defend JM though. MAde me drop my bacon sarnie!

what did he say?

[Mr Grumpy]

fuck all of this..

torres got carded first, it was his fault.

[philyhamann]

YouTube - MascheRANTO