So Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq has been cleared of ball tampering but banned for four one-day matches for bringing cricket into disrepute. What a load of b-ll-cks. Either he was guilty ... or he was not guilty. This blog is vehemently anti-nambi-pambiness in any shape or form and this is one of the more gratuitous examples of it. Add this one to the Pope's little about face on Islam and a store of treasured idiocy is slowly amassing.
Friday, September 29, 2006
[cricket] nambi-pambiness in it's worst form
So Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq has been cleared of ball tampering but banned for four one-day matches for bringing cricket into disrepute. What a load of b-ll-cks. Either he was guilty ... or he was not guilty. This blog is vehemently anti-nambi-pambiness in any shape or form and this is one of the more gratuitous examples of it. Add this one to the Pope's little about face on Islam and a store of treasured idiocy is slowly amassing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Reading the full text of the decision on Cricinfo, the decision seems to be reasonable.
Given that the physical state of the ball did not justify a conclusion that a fielder had altered its condition, and neither of the umpires had seen a fielder tampering with the ball, there was no breach of Law 42.3.
So the burden of proof was not there, but he and his team did pout in a way derogatory to the spirit of cricket, so slap on the wrist.
Matter closed fairly elegantly.
Post a Comment