Loud Thinking

Archive for October, 2013

The Power of words…!!!

Once there lived two neighbors Tom & Jack.

One day Jack was angry at Tom for some reason and started to spread rumors that his neighbor, Tom was a thief.

As a result, Tom was arrested.

Days later Tom was proven innocent. After being released he sued Jack for wrongly accusing him.

In the court Jack told the Judge: “They were just words, didn’t harm anyone.”

The judge told Jack: “Write all the things you said about him on a piece of paper. Cut them up and on the way home, throw the pieces of paper out. Tomorrow, come back to hear the sentence.”

Next day, the judge told Jack: “Before I tell you the judgement, you will have to go out and gather all the pieces of paper that you threw out yesterday, otherwise you will be hanged.”

Jack said: “I can’t do that! The wind spread them and I won’t know where to find them.”

The judge then replied: “The same way, simple words may destroy the honor of a man to such an extent that one is not able to fix it. If you can’t speak well of someone, rather don’t say anything.”

Moral: “Let’s all be masters of our mouths, so that we won’t be slaves of our words. “

“If you can’t figure out your purpose, figure out your passion. For your passion will lead you right into your purpose.”

“The potential of the average person is like a huge ocean unsailed, a new continent unexplored, a world of possibilities waiting to be released and channeled toward some great good.”

— Brian Tracy

PCB must immediately contact ICC, to ban cricketers dress with zippers, in all future matches including the ensuing ODI and T20 matches, scheduled in the next few days between Pakistani and South African teams; and also REPLACE THE BAISED AND APARTHEID MINDED REFEREE FOR THE UPCOMING ODI AND THE T20 SERIES MATCHES, IN THE UAE.

ICC must award the man of the series tittle to David Boon, the match referee of the series, for letting off the hook, many South African cricketers, for their innumerable actions, which brought the game of cricket to disrepute, during both the Test matches of the series.

Height of ICC’s double standards… Apartheid is also double standards.

Can Mr. David Boon, the ICC’s match referee for the Pakistan vs South Africa 2nd Test, being played at Dubai, explain his following statement reported today, by the ESPNcricinfo.

“Match referee David Boon said: “After discussions with Mr du Plessis, he has elected not to contest that charge, but I am also satisfied that this was not part of a deliberate and/or prolonged attempt to unfairly manipulate the condition of the ball, and that the imposition of a fine of 50% of his match fee is appropriate considering the circumstances.”

Now following questions must be answered by the ICC.

1. When Du Plessis elected not to contest the charge, what does it mean? Obviously he pleaded guilty and the player himself admits he was NOT innocent.

2. Then why the match referee David Boon declared him innocent and Not guilty by saying the following words “but I am also satisfied that this was not part of a deliberate and/or prolonged attempt to unfairly manipulate the condition of the ball”?

3. If the illegal act of the SA cricketer was NOT DELIBERATE AND THERE WAS NO UNFAIR MANIPULATION, then what for the poor and innocent SA player has been fined and penalised so HEAVILY, with a 50% match fee fine?

4. Here, isn’t it a case of giving the offender a safe passage and letting him scot free, in a most honourable manner?

5. Hope ICC remembers very well that during the Oval Test match, neither the Pakistani denial was accepted (there was also no TV fottage or any other evidence of any Pakistani player’s involvement in the alleged ball tampering) nor later on, when it was officially CONFIRMED that no ball tampering was done, the result of the match was awarded against Pakistan, which in any case was the innocent team.

6. Last but not the least, ICC must also recheck and confirm if the guilty Proteas player was tampering the ball with closed eyes, then please remit his heavy fine, as well, absolutely in line with the treatment meted out to the South African captain GC Smith, when he claimed an unfair catch in 1st Test at Abu Dhabi; and was allowed to go Scott free, on the excuse that his eyes were closed, although, he claimed the catch by raising his both hands and jubilantly ran directly towards the umpire.

The real truth about the LOC violations…

India too responsible for border truce violations

A TOI report published today.

NEW DELHI: The ongoing cross-border exchange of fire between Indian and Pakistan troops cannot just be blamed on the other side, and would now require a decisive political intervention to honour the 2003 ceasefire agreement.

Several dependable and saner voices in the security establishment have told TOI that the regular violation of ceasefire isn’t a one-sided affair prompted by Pakistan. Nor are most of the firings a cover for infiltration by terrorists.

The ceasefire violations along both the Line of Control (LoC) and the International Border (IB) with Pakistan is snowballing into a worrying trend, with the number of violations scaling up fast into a serious bilateral issue, threatening the ceasefire pact put in place in November, 2003. There have been around 170 verified ceasefire violations until end-September.

Sources said the present bout of violence and exchange of fire can be traced back to the killing of four Pakistanis in Machil sector on July 30. The Army claimed they were infiltrators trying to enter Indian side of Kashmir. They definitely had strayed across to the Indian side of LoC, but more than one official in the establishment has raised questions about veracity of the Army’s claim. Especially, since the quartet were in their 40s and had only a 12 bore shotgun.

Six days later, on August 5, the Pakistani troops attacked an Indian post in Poonch sector and killed five Indian soldiers. The gruesome killing only vitiated the situation along the border, and cross-border firing further scaled up.

While the two sides busy playing their cat-and-mouse game, terrorists sneaked in through areas guarded by the BSF to launch the September 26 attack on an Army unit in Samba, in which 10 people were killed. The terrorists, armed with GPS set and wire cutters, came across the border, sources admit. But this infiltration and the humiliating attack on the Army unit seems to have further expanded the ceasefire violations into the IB manned by BSF.

Along the IB too there are questions marks over the recent killing of a Pakistani civilian, who the BSF claimed was an infiltrator.

The security establishment has failed to firmly deal with any unprovoked firings, or alleged killings of innocents, resulting in local commanders having a free run on the historic ceasefire put in place between the South Asian nations. In the fog of war and local intricacies, the two nuclear nations may be letting one of their biggest confidence building measures slip away.

Several officials involved in the management of Indo-Pak border admit that now it is no more in the hands of local commanders to put an end to the firing. “It has to be a firm political order now. We cannot ignore the local sentiments. We have had casualties, the boys are angry,” says one local commander.

Even as officials admit to the local inabilities in curtailing the repeated ceasefire violations, it is also clear that in a devious way the entire situation is helping the security agencies, including the Army and the BSF, reinforce their positions in J&K.

Dubious role of the ICC elite umpires in the ball tampering saga of the Proteas cricketers

The question before everyone particularly the ICC and the match referee David Boon, is that whether the umpires changed the ball and granted 5 penalty runs to the Pakistani team, under the latest ICC Test match playing conditions coming into effect from 1st October, 2013 rule 42.1.1 or 42.1.2 ?

If rule 42.1.1 (quoted as below) was applied, then why the umpires did not allow the batsman at the wicket to choose the ball as per clearly specified law (a) and did the bowler’s end umpire inform formally the captain of the batting side of what did occur as per (d) below?

a) change the ball forthwith. The batsman at the wicket shall choose the replacement ball from a selection of six other balls of various degrees of usage (including a new ball) and of the same brand as the ball in use prior to the contravention.
Additionally the bowler’s end umpire shall:

b) award 5 penalty runs to the batting side.

c) Inform the captain of the fielding side of the reason for the action taken.

d) Inform the captain of the batting side as soon as practicable of what has occurred.

e) Together with the other umpire report the incident to the ICC Match Referee who shall take action as is appropriate against the player(s) responsible for the conduct under the ICC Code of Conduct.

However, if the rule 42.1.2 was applied quoted as below:

42.1.2 If it is not possible to do identify the player(s) responsible:

a) change the ball forthwith. The umpires shall choose the replacement ball for one of similar wear and of the same brand as the ball in use prior to the contravention.

b) the bowler’s end umpire shall issue the captain with a first and final warning, and

c) advise him that should there be any further incident by that team during the remainder of the match, steps 42.1.1 a) to e) above will be adopted, with the captain deemed under e) to be the player responsible.

Why did the bowler’s end umpire, NOT issue first and final warning as per 42.1.2 (b) to GC Smith? And if the warning was issued to the SA Captain, then why after the match AB de Villiers said the following on record, as reported by ESPNcricinfo, quoted as below:

Quote “De Villiers said there was uncertainty as to what they were being penalised for: “I don’t even know where the message came from. There were no warnings, no talk of it. I still don’t know the facts.” Unquote

As such, all the above mentioned facts must be cleared by the ICC and the match referee. It should also be explained that whether De Villiers was speaking a white lie, or did the elite ICC umpires, miserably failed in performance of their duties as per law; and gave undue benefits and advantages to the South African team, at the expense of the Pakistani team?

The question before everyone particularly the ICC and the match referee David Boon, is that whether the umpires changed the ball and granted 5 penalty runs to the Pakistani team, under the latest ICC Test match playing conditions coming into effect from 1st October, 2013 rule 42.1.1 or 42.1.2 ?

If rule 42.1.1 (quoted as below) was applied, then

why the umpires did not allow the batsman at the wicket to choose the ball as per clearly specified law (a) and did the bowler’s end umpire inform formally the captain of the batting side of what did occur as per (d) below?
a) change the ball forthwith. The batsman at the wicket shall choose the replacement ball from a selection of six other balls of various degrees of usage (including a new ball) and of the same brand as the ball in use prior to the contravention.
Additionally the bowler’s end umpire shall:
b) award 5 penalty runs to the batting side.
c) Inform the captain of the fielding side of the reason for the action taken.
d) Inform the captain of the batting side as soon as practicable of what has occurred.
e) Together with the other umpire report the incident to the ICC Match Referee who shall take action as is appropriate against the player(s) responsible for the conduct under the ICC Code of Conduct.

However, if the rule 42.1.2 was applied quoted as below:

42.1.2 If it is not possible to do identify the player(s) responsible:

a) change the ball forthwith. The umpires shall choose the replacement ball for one of similar wear and of the same brand as the ball in use prior to the contravention.
b) the bowler’s end umpire shall issue the captain with a first and final warning, and
c) advise him that should there be any further incident by that team during the remainder of the match, steps 42.1.1 a) to e) above will be adopted, with the captain deemed under e) to be the player responsible.

Why did the bowler’s end umpire, NOT issue first and final warning as per 42.1.2 (b) to GC Smith? And if the warning was issued to the SA Captain, then why after the match AB de Villiers said the following on record, as reported by ESPNcricinfo, quoted as below:

Quote “De Villiers said there was uncertainty as to what they were being penalised for: “I don’t even know where the message came from. There were no warnings, no talk of it. I still don’t know the facts.” Unquote

As such, all the above mentioned facts must be cleared by the ICC and the match referee. It should also be explained that whether De Villiers was speaking a white lie, or did the elite ICC umpires, miserably failed in performance of their duties as per law; and gave undue benefits and advantages to the South African team, at the expense of the Pakistani team?

Ball tampering and the role of the on field ICC elite umpires

The question before everyone particularly the ICC and the match referee David Boon is that
whether the umpires changed the ball and granted 5 penalty runs to the Pakistani team, under the latest ICC Test match playing conditions coming into effect from 1st October, 2013 rule 42.1.1 or 42.1.2 ?

If rule 42.1.1 (quoted as below) was applied, then

why the umpires did not allow the batsman at the wicket to choose the ball as per clearly specified law (a) and did the bowler’s end umpire inform formally the captain of the batting side of what did occur as per (d)?
a) change the ball forthwith. The batsman at the wicket shall choose the replacement ball from a selection of six other balls of various degrees of usage (including a new ball) and of the same brand as the ball in use prior to the contravention.
Additionally the bowler’s end umpire shall:
b) award 5 penalty runs to the batting side.
c) Inform the captain of the fielding side of the reason for the action taken.
d) Inform the captain of the batting side as soon as practicable of what has occurred.
e) Together with the other umpire report the incident to the ICC Match Referee who shall take action as is appropriate against the player(s) responsible for the conduct under the ICC Code of Conduct.

However, if the rule 42.1.2 was applied quoted as below:

42.1.2 If it is not possible to do identify the player(s) responsible:
a) change the ball forthwith. The umpires shall choose the replacement ball for one of similar wear and of the same brand as the ball in use prior to the contravention.
Additionally the bowler’s end umpire shall:
b) award 5 penalty runs to the batting side.
c) Inform the captain of the fielding side of the reason for the action taken.
d) Inform the captain of the batting side as soon as practicable of what has occurred.
e) Together with the other umpire report the incident to the ICC Match Referee who shall take action as is appropriate against the player(s) responsible for the conduct under the ICC Code of Conduct.

Why did the bowler’s end umpire, NOT issue first and final warning as per 42.1.2 (b) to GC Smith? And if the warning was issued to the SA Captain, then why after the match AB de Villiers said the following on record, as reported by ESPNcricinfo, quoted as below:

Quote “De Villiers said there was uncertainty as to what they were being penalised for: “I don’t even know where the message came from. There were no warnings, no talk of it. I still don’t know the facts.” Unquote

As such, all the above mentioned facts must be cleared by the ICC and the match referee. It should also be explained that whether De Villiers was speaking a white lie, or did the elite ICC umpires, miserably failed in performance of their duties, as per law; and gave undue benefits and advantages to the South African team, at the expense of the Pakistani team?