[PICTURE] AB de Villiers upset after umpires queried state of match ball during 2nd ODI

[MenInG]

So what happened there?

 

[Haroon786]

Looks like South Africa cheating again.

Hope they don't choke in the Champions Trophy.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

Whose zipper was it this time

 

[Hasan123]

Looks like Fafs zipper didn't work this time

 

[Sherlock]

Tbf, if I was in AB's position I'd be pretty peeved too. They basically suggested SA cheated [I know they have previous but...] so I'd have asked them to show proof they'd scratched the ball, or shut rescind their decision and apologise.

Seeing as though the ball was going all over the park, and so sign of reverse swing at all, that was very poor by the umpires.

 

[Sherlock]

View attachment 74310

So what happened there?

Was watching this and it was either Nasser or Bumble that said the umpires told AB they ball needed to be changed, and when AB asked why the umpires suggested the ball was pretty beaten up and it wasn't in the same condition a ball before.

 

[MenInG]

AB de Villiers hit out at the umpires for implying his team were ball tampering during their defeat to England.

De Villiers became embroiled in a row with the officials after they queried the condition of the ball in the 32nd over of the England innings.

After a lengthy discussion with the South Africa captain, the umpires decided not to change the ball. Under ball tampering protocols the umpires are first required to speak to the captain on the field if the ball deteriorates beyond expected wear and tear.

Ultimately, if the umpires suspect ball tampering, the ball will be changed and the captain reported to the match referee. This time the umpires backed away from taking action as De Villiers argued his team’s cause. It is only six months ago that South Africa’s Test captain, Faf du Plessis, was fined his match fee for changing the condition of the ball in a Test match in Australia.

“The umpires felt the condition of the ball changed in a way making me feel we are responsible as a team and I was quite upset about that,” said De Villiers. “I honestly told the umpires we had nothing to do with the condition of the ball except for the fact Maharajah bowled five overs on the trot and the ball scuffs up when the spinner bowls a few overs. One ball looked new still, the other one a bit scuffed up. I was pretty upset that we were held responsible for that.

“Yes I did feel that [South Africa were accused of ball tampering]. I think it was just a bad Kookaboora ball on the day. That happens sometimes. The leather comes off badly-manufactured balls. That was my feeling, unfortunately the umpires did not agree. Nothing happened. Generally there is a warning or fine but that did not happen so that tells me they think we were innocent in this case. I think.”

A series win for England gives them the option of resting Ben Stokes at Lord’s on Monday with the all-rounder set to have further scans on his injured left knee.

The injury only bothers him in his bowling stride and he feels no pain when batting and fielding. But with his injury record, England have to be careful, especially with the Champions Trophy only a few days away.

“We are constantly monitoring him and will manage him as best we can,” said Eoin Morgan, the captain. “It is a strange injury. It aggravates in his bowling stride and is ok batting but we want Ben Stokes the all-rounder. Unless he is injured or a risk then I think he will play [on Monday].”

Ben Stokes
Ben Stokes continues to have knee problems CREDIT: REX FEATURES
Stokes has only bowled five overs in two one-day internationals and at the end when they had to defend only seven off the last six balls it was his Durham colleague Mark Wood who took the job of bowling the pressure over.

For England to win with two batsmen well set at the crease was a remarkable performance. “We needed wickets. That is what we talked about,” said Morgan. “To have won it without doing that is an unbelievable effort. Those are the sort of games you really want to win, you learn a more from these games. The Champions Trophy is bound to be tight so this preparation is ideal.”

Morgan confirmed Chris Woakes was rested as a precaution after feeling tightness in his thigh.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/...in-ab-de-villiers-hits-umpires-implying-team/

 

[Convict]

Tbf, if I was in AB's position I'd be pretty peeved too. They basically suggested SA cheated [I know they have previous but...] so I'd have asked them to show proof they'd scratched the ball, or shut rescind their decision and apologise.

Seeing as though the ball was going all over the park, and so sign of reverse swing at all, that was very poor by the umpires.

Maybe if South Africa didn't have such bad a prior record the umpires wouldn't look so closely.

 

[Arham_PakFan]

They were accused and penalised previously so they cannot blame the umpires for being more careful.

 

[Sherlock]

Maybe if South Africa didn't have such bad a prior record the umpires wouldn't look so closely.

Well maybe it'll help if they weren't suspected of the crime before any evidence kinda was available. Just like with any other juridical process.

 

[HitWicket]

Well maybe it'll help if they weren't suspected of the crime before any evidence kinda was available. Just like with any other juridical process.

What do you want the umpires to do, call a break in the game and set up a quick court hearing to determine if the ball should be replaced or not?

 

[Sherlock]

What do you want the umpires to do, call a break in the game and set up a quick court hearing to determine if the ball should be replaced or not?

They shouldn't be changing the ball and implying anything if they don't have actual proof. It's not so hard to understand.

 

[Convict]

Well maybe it'll help if they weren't suspected of the crime before any evidence kinda was available. Just like with any other juridical process.

Evidence was that the ball needed to be replaced.

No charges were laid for it so no need for an juridical process.

If the ball isn't up to scratch it should be replaced.

 

[Sherlock]

Evidence was that the ball needed to be replaced.

No charges were laid for it so no need for an juridical process.

If the ball isn't up to scratch it should be replaced.

Evidence isn't that the ball needed to be changed, that's not evidence.

If the ball isn't up to "scratch" change it, yeah correct, but they said the ball was different a ball before therefore suggesting it had been tampered with - as per the commentators.

 

[Convict]

Evidence isn't that the ball needed to be changed, that's not evidence.

If the ball isn't up to "scratch" change it, yeah correct, but they said the ball was different a ball before therefore suggesting it had been tampered with - as per the commentators.

It is standard procedure to bring it up with the fielding captain if they observe that change with the ball.

 

[Sherlock]

It is standard procedure to bring it up with the fielding captain if they observe that change with the ball.

That's right, but the interpretation was they tampered with it hence why it was being changed.

Now that's being painted as a guilty subject before any evidence is shown.

If they stated the ball needed to be changed because it was too damaged or out of shape then you wouldn't get anyone complaining. They inferred it was the SA players that change the condition.

 

[HitWicket]

That's right, but the interpretation was they tampered with it hence why it was being changed.

Now that's being painted as a guilty subject before any evidence is shown.

If they stated the ball needed to be changed because it was too damaged or out of shape then you wouldn't get anyone complaining. They inferred it was the SA players that change the condition.

How did they suggest it was the SA players that changed the condition?

 

[Sherlock]

How did they suggest it was the SA players that changed the condition?

Read the above posts.

 

[HitWicket]

Read the above posts.

I still don't see anywhere where the umpires directly suggested it was tampering and not just the ball getting roughed up or disfigured from something like the ball getting smashed into the concrete stands or something like that.

 

[Convict]

Read the above posts.

Given the umpires did not report de Villiers to the match referee like they would have if they thought he had been tampering perhaps he was just too sensitive?

 

[Sherlock]

I still don't see anywhere where the umpires directly suggested it was tampering and not just the ball getting roughed up or disfigured from something like the ball getting smashed into the concrete stands or something like that.

They suggested the ball wasn't as damaged as it was 1 ball before.

 

[Sherlock]

Given the umpires did not report de Villiers to the match referee like they would have if they thought he had been tampering perhaps he was just too sensitive?

Or maybe he was right to protest and the umpires got too giddy?

 

[Cricfan4eva]

They suggested the ball wasn't as damaged as it was 1 ball before.

Commentator's opinion matters nothing in this case, as they are just opinions not facts.

Umpires changed the ball because it was in a much worse conditions or changed condition than a ball before. Obviously they will do so by informing the onfield captain.

Its a non-issue. Neither was he penalised, nor was he called in by referee but for him to go out of his way to show his disgust or assume that umpires suggested SA tampered is just AB being too sensitive, or maybe he's just acting like any guilty person would

 

[Sherlock]

Commentator's opinion matters nothing in this case, as they are just opinions not facts.

Umpires changed the ball because it was in a much worse conditions or changed condition than a ball before. Obviously they will do so by informing the onfield captain.

Its a non-issue. Neither was he penalised, nor was he called in by referee but for him to go out of his way to show his disgust or assume that umpires suggested SA tampered is just AB being too sensitive, or maybe he's just acting like any guilty person would

That's not exactly how a guilty person reacts, more-so a much maligned captain that has had this subject to deal with before. I'd like to see how people will react when someone accuses them of doing something they didn't do...I doubt they'll laugh and joke around/totally ignore it, like some here think AB should be doing.

 

[Gilly]

The umpires have to notify the fielding captain if they have problems with the ball, if ABDV had of not been so sensitive about the issue it would not have even drawn a comment from the commies.

They did not accuse anyone of anything but noticed that the ball condition had changed and according to the laws of the game they had to notify the captain. All ABDV had to do was acknowledge that he had been notified and moved on, no problems.

 

[Jabo]

Were they not ball tampering against Australia earlier this year?

 

[Bilal7]

Ban AB for the Pakistan vs South Africa match. This is outrageous.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

That's not exactly how a guilty person reacts, more-so a much maligned captain that has had this subject to deal with before. I'd like to see how people will react when someone accuses them of doing something they didn't do...I doubt they'll laugh and joke around/totally ignore it, like some here think AB should be doing.

Erm.. but AB wasn't accused was he?

 

[Sherlock]

Erm.. but AB wasn't accused was he?

The idea of the ball being changed, and being so bad that it needed changing immediately, while also claiming the ball was fine the ball before pretty much points the finger at the bowling side.

If it's out of shape they take their instruments out etc. Instead what we saw was the umpires came together and were pointing at specific parts of the ball and called for a change.

This is AB's quote about the incident.

"The umpires felt the condition of the ball changed," de Villiers said, "in a way, making me feel that we are responsible. I was quite upset about that. I don't know what else I can say, I was pretty upset."