Should Mike Procter be charged for insisting that the game of cricket goes on after the umpires had closed it?
Pakistan team returned to the field at the request of the ICC Match Referee, but the game did not proceed because the umpire chose to stick to the law. Now the ICC is charging Inzy for the game abandonment as Hair chose to stick to his decision which the ICC referees was happy to bend. Should not Mike Procter be also charged for insisting that the game goes on despite the fact that the umpires had closed it?
Answers:
NO.
Once the umpire removes the bail's to call an end to the game, that is the end of the game!
Yes, youre right, the match referee could have intervened but he had his tongue uo Hairs arshole.
No.
Mike Proctor, was correct, in insisting.. He should have been more forceful. He should have convinced, the field umpires, to reverse their decision, in the interest of the game. He did not do so, this casts aspersions, on him also.
From what i read, the Match Ref (Procter) was in talks with England's bosses and the Pakistan team but no-one thought to tell the umpires what was being discussed.
The umpires were in a situation which was going to end in somebody being upset at it, for all we know, Procter wasn't told that the bails had been removed.
He shouldn't be charged. He is a victim of the whole situation
good players 2 buy on championship manager 2007 that arnt 2 expensive?
such a multicultural team england has. and now a midget too! kudos to england?
Anyone got any dead certs/wires for tomorrow's racing?
How high can we (Scotland) go?
are golf balls all the same weight?
what does the star on football shirts represent?
who is the greatest canadian ice hockey player still playing today?
where is there good pike fishing in nottinghamshire/derbyshire/lincolnshire?
Do any football teams outside of europe take part in the champions league apart from Israeli teams?
Answers:
NO.
Once the umpire removes the bail's to call an end to the game, that is the end of the game!
Yes, youre right, the match referee could have intervened but he had his tongue uo Hairs arshole.
No.
Mike Proctor, was correct, in insisting.. He should have been more forceful. He should have convinced, the field umpires, to reverse their decision, in the interest of the game. He did not do so, this casts aspersions, on him also.
From what i read, the Match Ref (Procter) was in talks with England's bosses and the Pakistan team but no-one thought to tell the umpires what was being discussed.
The umpires were in a situation which was going to end in somebody being upset at it, for all we know, Procter wasn't told that the bails had been removed.
He shouldn't be charged. He is a victim of the whole situation
The answers post by the user, for information only, UKQnA.com does not guarantee the right.