Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[inoc]

prfsr

it is not only in the law (law 42 (3) (d) (iv) as posted earlier) but just plain decency to tell the captain of the side before accusing them of a seroius charge as cheating. DH not only did not do that he even refused to show the ball to inzi.
this is high handed behaviour in my opinion and inzi has a right to feel insulted on behalf of his country.

[ruchir]

My take on this issue:

Hair's conduct:
If Hair thought that the cricket ball had suffered abnormal wear and tear, he should have simply changed the ball after showing the ball to Inzy (highlighting the affected portion). This would not have resulted in any heartburn. Inzy would have seen that ball has detiriorated in its condition and would have agreed to the change. Game would have continued.

BUT, Hair chose to award 5 penalty runs to ENg, thereby indicating that he thought that someone from PAK side had tampered with the ball. This, to me, was compeltely wrong if he had not seen it with his own eyes, or if it had not been brought to his notice by 3rd or 4th umpire or the match refree. They could have seen it on TV and told to him via walkie-talkie that "someone did something to the ball, please inspect it". On finding scratches or whatever, he could have changed the ball and noted it as ball-tampering.

But he chose to note the changed condition of the ball as "due to tampering" without having proper proof or information to that effect. This is what resulted in extreeme heartburn for Inzy and PAK side. They were being called cheats without any proper proof. They were being punished without proper evidence or trial. It is simply against natural justice. Everyone is considered innocent untill proven guilty. So should have been the PAK team. But Hair chose to do the opposite thing. Since Hair was accusing PAK team of tampering, the burden of providing the proof lies squarely and entirely on his shoulder; and maybe on ICC's too.

If Hair or ICC is not able to provide concrete and irrefutable proof that someone from PAK team tampered with the ball, the most prudent action would be for Hair to retire immediately OR for ICC to chuck him out of the elite panel. Reason: Hair commited the highest crime of punishing a team without proper proof. This is nothing but gross and delibrate negligence on his part. As I sid before, he could have very well changed the ball without proclaiming ball-tampering and then after day's play, would have asked for video playback to get any proof of tampering. [[case study: ICC changed the no-ball rule because it thought umpires could not be 100% sure of bent elbow and hence it wanted the video replays to be watched for a guarantee that elbow was really bent]]

Inzy's action:
I feel Inzy was right in forfeiting the game. This was not a simpler charge like No-balling a bowler. In that case, there is no aspersion cast on bowler's or team's character or motives. But in a case like ball-tampering, the officials are straight-away casting doubts on the character of PAK team. On their motives. And if PAK team feels that they have done nothing wrong, they have full right to protest.

The main aim of this protest was to bring the incident in everyone's eyes. The throw it out in the open and make it a burning topic. Had Inzy protested after the day's play, it's effect would have been dilluted. At least, now everyone is talking about it and ICC will have to decide one way or the other. Press is covering this incident with extreeme interest because of it's blatentnes.

I would have prefered if Inzy had left field immediately after Hair awarded 5 runs to ENG. But, even though Inzy protested a little late, it was better than protesting after day's play.

Many feel that the protest was not right. I say that protest is the only way to make our side of the story known to the establishment. If PAK tells ICC that Hair was unfair, but does so in a very meek and slient way, ICC will simply sit over the complaint until every one forgets about it. But if PAK compaints in a very loud and brash manner, ICC will have to take immediate and quick action on the complaint. Also, ICC will try to fix the issue keeping future in mind as other nations will also complain in a similar manner. This is something ICC will not want to happen.

ICC:
ICC can not exist on its own. It exists because it's member nations play cricket and from that it earns money. To say that it is not right for PAK to tell ICC that they will not play under Hair anymore, is wrong. As an earning member for ICC, PAK has every right to be treated in a fair manner. If PAK feels that ICC or any of it's appointed official is not doing a good job, then it has every right to demand firing of that official OR demand that that official be not connected to PAK in any way. If ICC could exist on it's own, it did not require it's members to pay for it's existence, then we could say that ICC can do what it wants. But in current scenario, ICC is not setup to rule the cricket establishments of cricket playing nations. It is setup to administer the game in cricket playing nations under a pre-agreed set of rules. Every member expects that the officials (whose salary member nations are earning) do their job properly and without bias. If not, then as a earning member, it can ask for their firing or their disassociation.

[inoc]

well put ruchir

my position is the same on the hair and inzy story and i had not thought of the icc situation but reading your viewpoint i totally agree with you.
applause

[prfsr]

By and large a sensible take on the issue.
-P
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engvpak/content/current/story/257361.html

It's Hair's word against Pakistan's

Osman Samiuddin

August 21, 2006

Not much clarity has yet emerged from the stinking carcass of the match on any of the many grave issues involved. One thing though is becoming clear and it is a time-honoured truism; like the tango, it takes more than one. Where we are now is the result of not just one party, but all three: the umpires (and there were two), the ICC and Pakistan.

The bare facts are this; a Test match has been forfeited for the first time in the history of international cricket and Pakistan once again stands accused of ball tampering. It is tempting, as the feedback from our readers reveals, to accuse the umpires of bias, but by doing so, we run the risk of judging both by their past history. If we are to do that then we must also acknowledge that, historically, Pakistani bowlers have also been previously found guilty of ball tampering. To do either is wrong and the decision must be assessed in isolation.

Now the situation becomes muddy. Players (not only Pakistani) have been accused of ball tampering in the past, found guilty and faced some form of punitive action. Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Shoaib Akhtar, Waqar Younis and even, some time back, Michael Atherton [though technically in his case he was penalised for carrying dirt in his pocket] make for an illustrious list. On each occasion, there has been, along with the umpire's word, video evidence from TV cameras to back up the allegation. As of now, Sky TV reiterates that none of their 26 cameras have picked up anything in this Test. But video evidence is not required (whether or not that is correct is another thing entirely) in such matters, so by law, the umpires acted correctly.

To complicate matters further, Cricinfo has learnt that no individual has been identified and no specific incident highlighted in the umpires' report. Pakistan have also strenuously denied the charge. Pakistan officials who have seen the ball are adamant that there are no signs that the ball has been tampered; the very fact that they were willing to protest means they took serious offence to the charge. Essentially, that means that if no video evidence emerges, it boils down to Hair's word against Pakistan's, based on the state of a 55-overs-old battered ball. It is the worst possible situation, for neither will it definitively exonerate Pakistan nor will it vindicate either umpire.

What could have been done? Could the umpires have handled the incident with greater sensitivity? Right or wrong, Pakistan's history with ball tampering is more troubled than that of other countries. Others have been penalised but no nation has been hounded and vilified as Pakistan has. The issue is touchier with them, especially in England, where the sub-context of 1992 further complicates matters. Both umpires acted in accordance with the law but given the gravity of what they were implying, could they not have, for instance, pulled the captain aside and had a word with him?

It is not unknown for umpires to have done this. They are custodians of the game, not policemen, for cricketers are not criminals. But because of their officiousness and rigidity, allegations, murmurs, rumours and speculation that has taunted and haunted Pakistan's bowlers for over a decade - and which had died down - will once again resurface. And unless they can prove unequivocally that there was tampering so too will accusations from the subcontinent of bias. In neutral umpires, worse charges are difficult to imagine.

Subsequently, Pakistan's response and the ICC's handling of the critical period after tea were farcical. Pakistan's protest initially, in my opinion, was justified. Inzamam-ul-Haq is the only survivor of the fractious 1992 tour as well as the match-fixing crisis, both of which sullied Pakistan's name. Having worked with as much dignity and grace as is possible in Pakistan cricket, to pull Pakistan out of their on and off-field troubles, to be told that his team has cheated is not an insult to be taken lightly. If he felt strongly enough to protest, I for one believe, he was fully justified.

Thereafter, though, it gets murkier. Shaharyar Khan initially said on television that the protest was meant to last a few minutes, a token delay before they came back. Umpires and batsmen were out on the field at 4.40pm (BST) and stayed for a few minutes before returning.

Presumably, as both Bob Woolmer and Shaharyar Khan have confirmed, this was to ask what Pakistan's intentions were. When Inzamam responded by asking why the ball had been changed, Hair is reported to have said "I am not here to answer that." After asking again whether Pakistan will play and receiving no answer, the umpires walked out. Soon after, they went out and took the bails off, clear in their minds - and again according to the letter of the law they were correct - that the game had been forfeited. Only about half an hour later did Pakistan come out to play, which raises difficult questions both of Pakistan and the ICC.

For one, Pakistan's protest wasn't of a "few minutes." They came out at 5.30pm, a delay of 50 minutes. Is it a pedantic point? No, because it suggests apparent confusion in Pakistan's intentions - if it was to be a few minutes why did they not come out when the umpires came to them? If the intention was to come out, why weren't the umpires told as such? In an already complex situation, this is perplexing. Inzamam said to a TV channel that they only decided to play after ECB officials and the ICC match referee convinced him to do it for the good of the game, which suggests the protest was to be longer than what his chairman suggested. Had they refused to come out full stop and forfeited the Test, they would have found sympathizers; instead there is now an inconsistency in their stance which needs to be explained.

Enter the ICC. Pakistan only changed their mind at the behest of ECB officials and Mike Proctor. What this reveals of the ICC's communication skills nobody knows; presuming that the decision to forfeit the match had been taken by the umpires when they took off the bails at 5.00pm, did the match referee not speak to them before he negotiated with Pakistan a return to play? Apparently not, and it appears that for half an hour, only the umpires knew the result of the Test match. The crowds didn't know, viewers didn't, Pakistan didn't, the ICC didn't; and this of a result destined to be one of the most controversial in the history of the game.

And when that happens, then you know something has gone seriously, immeasurably wrong.

Osman Samiuddin is Pakistan editor of Cricinfo

[ruchir]

well put ruchir

my position is the same on the hair and inzy story and i had not thought of the icc situation but reading your viewpoint i totally agree with you.
applause

Sorry for the delay, INOC, but thanks for the applause.

[prfsr]

I must admit I am bemused by the inference of cheating, insult on the team etc. You guys do remember that SRT and RD had both been punished for the same charge, right? And India did not protest by stopping the series midway! So why the great support for Pak in this matter?

As for the seriousness of the charges, clearly this is not a serious charge -- it carries a 5-run penalty. FIVE RUNS!!! That's it. The same as what happens if the ball strikes a helmet parked behind the wicketkeeper! No suspensions, no fines, nothing (at least until further investigation). What next, a noball will become a slur on the bowler for trying to take unfair advantage?

-P

[dextrous]

I must admit I am bemused by the inference of cheating, insult on the team etc. You guys do remember that SRT and RD had both been punished for the same charge, right? And India did not protest by stopping the series midway! So why the great support for Pak in this matter?

As for the seriousness of the charges, clearly this is not a serious charge -- it carries a 5-run penalty. FIVE RUNS!!! That's it. The same as what happens if the ball strikes a helmet parked behind the wicketkeeper! No suspensions, no fines, nothing (at least until further investigation). What next, a noball will become a slur on the bowler for trying to take unfair advantage?

-P

Who was it in South Africa that stopped the series...hmm...me thinks India!

And it's not about five runs.

5 runs is the signifier->what's signified? CHEATING!

[ramshorns]

I agree at that point it was just more than 5 runs.  That 5 runs may be nothing in the context of the game but the charges of cheating is what this is all about atleast according to Inzy.

[ruchir]

I must admit I am bemused by the inference of cheating, insult on the team etc. You guys do remember that SRT and RD had both been punished for the same charge, right? And India did not protest by stopping the series midway! So why the great support for Pak in this matter?

I think there is a difference between SRT/RD incident and this one.

For SRT/RD:
1. There was video proof available.
2. Specific individual had been charged.
3. In both cases, umpires on field were unaware of the incidents. The action of players were conveyed to them after they had happened and THEN action was taken.
4. In both cases BCCI was very severly critisized for not making enough noise against these referees.

For PAK:
1. The accusation was made without visual proof.
2. No specific individual has been charged.
3. One umpire made the decision based on ball's condition, without acquiring visual proof of tampering.
4. PAK team and board is making enough noise over the incedent.

PAK is not stopping the series mid-way. This is the last test match. They are already saying they will play the ODI series like normal. The support for PAK is because they have been accused without proof and a punishment (finding guilty of ball tampering, 5 runs) has been given without any basis.

As for the seriousness of the charges, clearly this is not a serious charge -- it carries a 5-run penalty. FIVE RUNS!!! That's it. The same as what happens if the ball strikes a helmet parked behind the wicketkeeper! No suspensions, no fines, nothing (at least until further investigation). What next, a noball will become a slur on the bowler for trying to take unfair advantage?

It does not matter how many runs are charged as penalty. What matters is - Is the penalty given in a proper and just way? So what if the runs are 5 or 6 or 10? Even if it is 1 run, if it is given away in an unjust manner, it should be protested against.

By equating ball-tampering to "behind keeper helmet" and "no-ball" issue, you are trivalising it. Accusing someone of ball tampering means you are calling that person a CHEAT and casting doubt on his character. That is not the case in ball the helmet behind keeper or a no-ball. On top of that, accusing someone without any proof what-so-ever is even worse as an offence.

Let me say this. You are working in your office. Your boss comes to you and says that you have stolen your co-worker's stationary. He does not give you any proof of you stealing it but demands an apology letter as punishment. What will you do?

Will you take the accusation lying down? Will you give the apology letter? Will you not protest this accusation on you and let it pass?

[prfsr]

Dex,
I knew someone would bring that up IMO it was a different story. And also, with so many people suspended it was hard for India to field XI people, no?

Don't agree about the cheating part, necessarily. Did RD and SRT cheat, according to you?

Already I see Inzy issuing statements saying that it was an insult to his country. The next will be region, religion, who knows what else?

Anyway, tell me this. Suppose you were umpiring this match, and you notice that the ball had strange marks. Would you not change the ball? Especially if it was swinging unusually in your view? Or would you start an investigation to find out who did it before you changed the ball. The 5-run penalty is allowed by the rules. I believe an honest umpire needs to give it to the batting team if he believes that the ball was altered.

By supporting the walkout, you are setting a precedent. Say the Indian team all appeal for a catch, the umpire turns it down. Is he saying that the team is lying and therefore cheating? Would the team be justified in walking out? What are the acceptable reasons for walking out?

Finally, suppose a bowler runs into the danger area and the umpire warns him. In effect that warning is for an unfair play. Should the player assume that the umpire is accusing him of "cheating" and feel insulted? Where does it all end?

-P

[dextrous]

Dex,
I knew someone would bring that up IMO it was a different story. And also, with so many people suspended it was hard for India to field XI people, no?

Don't agree about the cheating part, necessarily. Did RD and SRT cheat, according to you?

Already I see Inzy issuing statements saying that it was an insult to his country. The next will be region, religion, who knows what else?

Anyway, tell me this. Suppose you were umpiring this match, and you notice that the ball had strange marks. Would you not change the ball? Especially if it was swinging unusually in your view?

By supporting the walkout, you are setting a precedent. Say the Indian team all appeal for a catch, the umpire turns it down. Is he saying that the team is lying and therefore cheating? Would the team be justified in walking out? What are the acceptable reasons for walking out?

Finally, suppose a bowler runs into the danger area and the umpire warns him. In effect that warning is for an unfair play. Should the player assume that the umpire is accusing him of "cheating" and feel insulted? Where does it all end?

-P

P,
The problem is not that the ball was out of shape, but how Hair reacted to it. If he felt there was a problem, he should have consulted/informed Inzy (as much is in the rule book). Again, when he called Murali, he has no business doing so as the rules back then only allowed him to report him. With that being the case, Hair has time and again acted on his on will. Ball tampering and throwing are probably two of the biggest issues right now--esp. for Asian teams. If proper procedure had been followed, things would be less dramatic now. Now, Pakistan walking out, whether or not its good, that's another debate altogether and we will have to debate whether civil disobedience is good or not. But, there also Hair didn't call the match on the spot. And if finally everything was sorted, the match referee was willing--Hair wouldnt let the action re-start. That to me is absolutely unacceptable and utterly against the spirit of the game. Here he could've swallowed his pride and let things commence, the referee could've slapped Inzy with a ban, whatever.

[prfsr]

I guess we need to wait a few days to see what transpires. It appears that I am the only one on the fence about this. The rest have decided that Hair is guilty.

Anyway, I entered this discussion when Mock said punishing Inzy with suspensions (for forfeiting the game) was unfair. My basic point was that if you break rules, you get a punishment, irrespective of whether you knew the rules, were protesting etc. *hiji got arrested many many times because he broke the law in protest of some injustice. Nowhere did he say that the arrests were unfair.

At the end of the day, you follow the rules that are established. If you do not like the rules, try and change them at the appropriate foum. AFAIK, the rules do not say that the umpires should hold a trial on TV and convince the viewers that rules were broken. However, he does have to defend himself at the post-match review proceedings. Let's let that happen and let the rules be enforced. After that, we can always ban Hair for his mistakes. Let's not, however, talk about the money and the power in South Asia and other irrelevant things, since the same powerful bodies agreed to the same set of rules.
Even as children playing gully cricket against another mohalla, we did not leave midway when we did not agree with something. Even when we owned the bat and ball That, I am afraid, is the spirit of the game.

-P  

[LosingNow]

I guess we need to wait a few days to see what transpires. It appears that I am the only one on the fence about this. The rest have decided that Hair is guilty.

Anyway, I entered this discussion when Mock said punishing Inzy with suspensions (for forfeiting the game) was unfair. My basic point was that if you break rules, you get a punishment, irrespective of whether you knew the rules, were protesting etc. *hiji got arrested many many times because he broke the law in protest of some injustice. Nowhere did he say that the arrests were unfair.

At the end of the day, you follow the rules that are established. If you do not like the rules, try and change them at the appropriate foum. AFAIK, the rules do not say that the umpires should hold a trial on TV and convince the viewers that rules were broken. However, he does have to defend himself at the post-match review proceedings. Let's let that happen and let the rules be enforced. After that, we can always ban Hair for his mistakes. Let's not, however, talk about the money and the power in South Asia and other irrelevant things, since the same powerful bodies agreed to the same set of rules.
Even as children playing gully cricket against another mohalla, we did not leave midway when we did not agree with something. Even when we owned the bat and ball That, I am afraid, is the spirit of the game.

-P  

I agree with most of what you say, P.
Except, I am not sure if Hair is that "clean"..

I think procedurally & technically, one cannot argue that he did not do things by the book and unlike others, I believe, there is a reason there are things in the book and one needs to live by the book - both in letter and spirit. No two ways about it. You want to change the rule ..follow the procedure and do it. The field of play is not the place to change/discuss/negotiate rules. This protest-baji, statement making, civil disobedience stuff is more drama than anything else.

Umpires on the field are the final decision makers (in any professional sport) and a decision made on the field by the umpire (they may use instant replay to help them, as in NFL) is never overruled while the game is going on. period. For the integrity of the game - which means enforcement of rules, which may involve subjective decision making - the authority of the umpire on the field is unchallengeable. Like it or not..that is the truth.

Given that it is such an important role. the key is for the ICC to put the right people in such positions. I think that is where the ICC failed. While I think teams should NOT have a say in who can/cannot umpire their games (because it will lead to a free for all and in some sense, unfairness), the ICC should look at more than technical skills when selecting and appointing umpires. If ICC did that, Hair (despite his technical competence) would not have umpired this game.

BTW, a technical question .. Once a decision is made by the umpire, how can an umpire reverse the decision..if it is based on rules. By following rules, Hair awarded the game to England as a forfeit. Now where are the rules in the rule book, that he would have to follow..assuming even if he wanted to .. to reverse the decision! There is no such procedure to reverse a forfiet decision in ICC rules and regulations. So once his decision is made..it is technically irreversible!!

Also, ICC following an agreed-to procedure by charging Inzy in this case. So when Pak was "protesting", they should have known that their actions will have consequences. If they got caught in the heat of the moment and did not think this through - they should not complain.

[suraj]

I guess we need to wait a few days to see what transpires. It appears that I am the only one on the fence about this. The rest have decided that Hair is guilty.

Anyway, I entered this discussion when Mock said punishing Inzy with suspensions (for forfeiting the game) was unfair. My basic point was that if you break rules, you get a punishment, irrespective of whether you knew the rules, were protesting etc. *hiji got arrested many many times because he broke the law in protest of some injustice. Nowhere did he say that the arrests were unfair.

At the end of the day, you follow the rules that are established. If you do not like the rules, try and change them at the appropriate foum. AFAIK, the rules do not say that the umpires should hold a trial on TV and convince the viewers that rules were broken. However, he does have to defend himself at the post-match review proceedings. Let's let that happen and let the rules be enforced. After that, we can always ban Hair for his mistakes. Let's not, however, talk about the money and the power in South Asia and other irrelevant things, since the same powerful bodies agreed to the same set of rules.
Even as children playing gully cricket against another mohalla, we did not leave midway when we did not agree with something. Even when we owned the bat and ball That, I am afraid, is the spirit of the game.

-P  

Pfsr,

Thank god every person in the world does not worhip rules the way you do otherwise things that are wrong will never change. I mean, come on *hiji getting arrested as an old frail man asking for his countrymen to be treated fairly should not be considered unfair because the beeping British rules said so!! That is absurd.

So that way Rosa parks wud have been fairly treated is she was arrested and whipped for not giving her seat to a white man because thats wht the rules said at that time. The negro league in baseball should have never attempted to pplay with the main stram because thats wht the rules said at that time.

Do you know that the state of Alabama constitution still has an ancient law that every citizen has to take atleast one bath a day or they can be arrested- more than half te state should be in prison for breaking that law

So these ppl should wait till a committee sits down, changes the rules and then proclaim their right to do the right thing. The world is not that black and white and that is why there requirements for presenting evidence when accusations are made.

[LosingNow]

Pfsr,

Thank god every person in the world does not worhip rules the way you do otherwise things that are wrong will never change. I mean, come on *hiji getting arrested as an old frail man asking for his countrymen to be treated fairly should not be considered unfair because the beeping British rules said so!! That is absurd.

So that way Rosa parks wud have been fairly treated is she was arrested and whipped for not giving her seat to a white man because thats wht the rules said at that time. The negro league in baseball should have never attempted to pplay with the main stram because thats wht the rules said at that time.

Do you know that the state of Alabama constitution still has an ancient law that every citizen has to take atleast one bath a day or they can be arrested- more than half te state should be in prison for breaking that law

So these ppl should wait till a committee sits down, changes the rules and then proclaim their right to do the right thing. The world is not that black and white and that is why there requirements for presenting evidence when accusations are made.

Suraj: To paraphrase Thakur from Sholay, "Sport aur real-life main shayad yahi farak hai"!!

[pieterSAN]

Thank god every person in the world does not worhip rules the way you do otherwise things that are wrong will never change. I mean, come on *hiji getting arrested as an old frail man asking for his countrymen to be treated fairly should not be considered unfair because the beeping British rules said so!! That is absurd.

So that way Rosa parks wud have been fairly treated is she was arrested and whipped for not giving her seat to a white man because thats wht the rules said at that time. The negro league in baseball should have never attempted to pplay with the main stram because thats wht the rules said at that time.

While your argument is valid, it misses the point slightly. The problem here is not that the rules are oppressive but the manner in which Hair has implemented the law.

Do you know that the state of Alabama constitution still has an ancient law that every citizen has to take atleast one bath a day or they can be arrested- more than half te state should be in prison for breaking that law

how do they define a bath? Is a shower legally equivalent to a bath?

[inoc]

losingnow

technically an umpires decision can be changed

many a time a batsman has been called back by the fielding team after he has been given out by the umpire. here the umpire admits a mistake and allows the batsman to carry on.

it could easily have been done in this situation after say mike procter spoke to the pakistani team and realised they were going to come back and asked for a restart. something like that is rumoured to have happenned behind the scenes till 10pm british time, but Hair apparently refused to restart thr match today and they had to announce forfeiture after 10pm yesterday. (ICC obviously couldnt restart the match without Hair which would be like admitting guilt.)

[LosingNow]

losingnow

technically an umpires decision can be changed

many a time a batsman has been called back by the fielding team after he has been given out by the umpire. here the umpire admits a mistake and allows the batsman to carry on.

There is a procedure for that. The fielding team "withdraws the appeal". See the process below..

--Law 27 (Appeals)
8. Withdrawal of an appeal
The captain of the fielding side may withdraw an appeal only with the consent of the umpire within whose jurisdiction the appeal falls and before the outgoing batsman has left the field of play. If such consent is given the umpire concerned shall, if applicable, revoke his decision and recall the batsman.

9. Umpire's decision: An umpire may alter his decision provided that such alteration is made promptly. This apart, an umpire's decision, once made, is final.

--
There is no process for "withdrawing a forfiet"

[inoc]

losingnow

that is why i said 'technically'

i agree with you that as the law stands once he has made the decision of forfeiture, it is final. however, if the persons concerned like the match referree intervened, i believe the match could have been saved and the technical problem of not being able to reverse the decision wouldnt have posed a problem.

there are no processes for withdrawing a forfeiture probably because it has never happened before. laws are changed when adverse situations arise within the laws of the game (underarm incident).
teams have walked out often for lengthy periods before but a forfeiture has never happened probably because the umpires concerned have taken into account the extraordinary situation and waited for its resolution before putting an end to the game.

[LosingNow]

losingnow

there are no processes for withdrawing a forfeiture probably because it has never happened before. laws are changed when adverse situations arise within the laws of the game (underarm incident).
teams have walked out often for lengthy periods before but a forfeiture has never happened probably because the umpires concerned have taken into account the extraordinary situation and waited for its resolution before putting an end to the game.

Yep! So the contribution of this incident will be " a procedure to withdraw a forfeit"

[MockTurtle]

I guess we need to wait a few days to see what transpires. It appears that I am the only one on the fence about this. The rest have decided that Hair is guilty.

Anyway, I entered this discussion when Mock said punishing Inzy with suspensions (for forfeiting the game) was unfair. My basic point was that if you break rules, you get a punishment, irrespective of whether you knew the rules, were protesting etc. *hiji got arrested many many times because he broke the law in protest of some injustice. Nowhere did he say that the arrests were unfair.

At the end of the day, you follow the rules that are established. If you do not like the rules, try and change them at the appropriate foum. AFAIK, the rules do not say that the umpires should hold a trial on TV and convince the viewers that rules were broken. However, he does have to defend himself at the post-match review proceedings. Let's let that happen and let the rules be enforced. After that, we can always ban Hair for his mistakes. Let's not, however, talk about the money and the power in South Asia and other irrelevant things, since the same powerful bodies agreed to the same set of rules.
Even as children playing gully cricket against another mohalla, we did not leave midway when we did not agree with something. Even when we owned the bat and ball That, I am afraid, is the spirit of the game.

-P  

Prfsr,

I did not say that it was "unfair" but was more commenting on the irony of it all.

I did mention earlier that Inzy did not play smart and by breaking a rule, he has left himself open to punishment. And why would Hair/ICC "deviate" from the law in this situation? I agree with you that laws are there for a reason but at times, applying the law to a letter does come across absurd. I think the concerned parties should also use some common sense when appropriate. It is a game we are playing and the laws are there to ensure "fair play".

This was an iffy situation and instead of trying to diffuse it, officials have made it into a further mess. And with these charges against Inzy, the ball-tampering can be buried under the carpet with a cloud of doubt forever hanging over the pakistani team. Life will go on with Hair tucking into his wombat stew, ICC feeling smug and throwing a bash at Dubai to celebrate how well they exercised the laws and did not allow a "player rise above the law" and us fans feeling elated to have such a well-oiled machinery running world cricket.

As to Hair's original charges, let's see what the proof is.

[inoc]

LN
 

more importantly for umpires to show restraint when applicable. people like to watch cricket not umpires.

[MockTurtle]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8303-2322829,00.html


Hair today, gone tomorrow — at least we hope so for sake of game
Simon Barnes

Our correspondent on how a series that had exemplified all that is good about cricket, was ended by one man’s vanity 
 
SO NOW we know it. Officials are more important than players, laws are more important than people, one man’s vanity is more important than the pleasure of millions, principles are more important than common sense, intransigence is better than decency, vindictiveness is better than compromise, trouble is much more fun than peaceful co-operation and a fat man’s dignity is more important than mutual understanding between nations.
These are all conclusions we can draw from umpire Darrell Hair’s disruption and destruction of the fourth Test between England and Pakistan at the Brit Oval.

The question of whether or not Pakistan were guilty of tampering with the ball is no longer relevant. The point at issue is how a single man’s pigheadedness was allowed to disrupt the fun of millions, to give cricket a terrible, gaping wound and to add to the tensions between Muslims and white Westerners at this, of all moments in history.

Hair decided that Pakistan had tampered with the ball and meted out the punishment for this crime. This is a serious accusation in cricket and he knew that it would cause a huge amount of trouble. But then trouble is what Hair attracts. If this had not been the case, the way to compromise would have been open. As it is, the rejection of compromise has done far more to damage cricket than any amount of ball-tampering could.

The Pakistan players were hugely upset by Hair’s judgment and by his punishment, the award of five penalty runs to England and the changing of the ball to one of the England batsmen’s liking. Pakistan played on until tea, but clearly, when the players got together in the dressing-room, the anger and resentment came out.

All the same, after a long while of parleying between various parties, Pakistan were, belatedly, prepared to carry on. England, equally, were prepared to play. The two cricket boards were also happy for the game to continue. In fact, the only person who wanted the game to stay stopped was Hair. In his mind, he had called the game’s conclusion and awarded victory to England, with the agreement of his increasingly hapless sidekick, Billy Doctrove. Therefore, the game was ended: Thus Spake Darrell. To continue would have been a direct insult to Hair.

Hair will argue that he was just standing up for the laws of cricket, that he was not foolish but brave, a voice crying in the wilderness against the too- often ignored crime of ball- tampering, just as he insisted on making a public fuss about Muttiah Muralitharan’s bowling action when there were ways of furthering the whole matter without melodrama. But melodrama is what Hair attracts.

He will also argue that he was standing up for the laws of cricket when he stopped the match and refused to restart it. If you read the laws, you will find that he is right. If you park on a double yellow line for two minutes outside the chemist to get some urgent medication for your dying wife, the policeman who fines you is also acting according to the law. He is also acting without humanity and common sense.

Hair’s philosophical stance is that the most important issue in cricket is the authority of the umpire. There are those of us who believe that there are other, wider issues that carry a greater weight. There are more important issues in society than the authority of policemen. In truth, this stance of Hair is not principle but pout.

It seems as if Hair sees himself as a man with a mission: his opposition to Muralitharan was ill-timed, but not half so ill-timed as this warfare on Pakistani sensibilities.

Hair might — just — have some kind of right on his side after he made his judgment on the matter of ball-tampering. There are no pictures to support him, though. Did he see someone working on the ball? Did he make his decision from the mere look of the ball? Big matters to decide on a guess. But if — if — he was correct in his view, he was right to make the judgment.

But he forfeited all claim to any favourable review of his day at the office on Sunday when he refused to allow the game to carry on. His belief that umpiring decisions are more important than cricketing action, is a heresy. It was, in truth, idiotic to appoint him as an umpire in this series. England and Pakistan have a history of trouble, Hair has a history of trouble. And trouble between Muslim countries and Britain is precisely what is to be avoided right now.

So thank whatever god you worship that the players have done so well in this series. They have duelled without quarter and without acrimony. They have played cricket as cricket is meant to be played — fiercely, uncompromisingly, decently, to the limits of individual ability, but without rancour, resentment and sulks. The rancour, resentment and sulks have been left to the umpires and so has the trouble. The first decision for the ICC to make is that Hair never stands in another international match.

This series has showed us that white Westerners and Muslims can get on in sporting opposition, or, for that matter, on the same team. The shame of it all was that one man’s overweening vanity had to spoil it.
 
 
 

[inoc]

mock

i agree with most of the article. infact i have been using similar arguments in this thread but totally disagree with his assumption that it will have anything to do with relations with muslims.

[MockTurtle]

mock

i agree with most of the article. infact i have been using similar arguments in this thread but totally disagree with his assumption that it will have anything to do with relations with muslims.

i also find the reference to "muslims" getting along with "westerners" in rather poor taste and not necessary.

[LosingNow]

How about "Izzat" and "monkeys"?
---
Attack on Inzy's 'izzat' was the final straw
By Mihir Bose


(Filed: 21/08/2006)


At the heart of the crisis that hit the Oval Test are two simple factors. The first and overriding one is that the relationship between the Pakistan cricket team and the Australian umpire Darrell Hair has completely broken down. Indeed Hair is the 21st century equivalent of David Constant, the English umpire through the 1980s who so infuriated Pakistan that it led their captain at the time, Imran Khan, to call for neutral officials.

The other is that Hair's action in deciding that the Pakistanis had tampered with the ball, though without naming a player who might have been responsible, meant that for the Pakistan captain, Inzamam-ul-Huq, it was not merely a questionable decision but a slur on the entire team and therefore the whole nation.

As far as Inzaman was concerned, what Hair was doing was to call into question his own, and Pakistan's, izzat.

Izzat is an Urdu word that can be translated as 'honour', but it means much more than that, and izzat is a much prized comodity in the subcontinent. It is something that Inzamam, a quiet, deeply religious man, values highly.

Inzamam is one of those Pakistanis who passionately believes that a man can lose everything he has, including his life - but not his izzat. For him, the manner in which Hair took the decision as much as the decision itself meant that Inzamam's personal izzat, and that of his beloved Pakistan, had been besmirched.
It was in order to assert that he and his team were still honourable that the Pakistanis decided that they would delay their entry on to the field after tea for a few minutes to signify their protest and reclaim some virtue.

Unfortunately, this protest backfired.

Hair took it as a sign that the Pakistanis were threatening not to play. He came off the field and, going to the Pakistani dressing room, told Inzamam that if his team did not take the field as the umpires walked out again they would forfeit the match.

While this was entirely correct according to the rules of the game, the manner in which Hair delivered the ultimatum further infuriated the Pakistanis. Still recovering from being seen as men without honour, they felt further humiliated, and for some time stood shocked in their dressing room wondering what was going on.

As they did so, Hair and Billy Doctrove walked out on to the field of play - followed by the England batsmen - and then decided the Pakistanis were not coming and so took off the bails. It was only after they had returned to the pavilion that a still bewildered Inzamam started to lead his team out, only to find that the umpires had walked off and were not coming back.

In the Pakistanis' eyes, if Hair's initial decision was a slur on their nation, then his subsequent warning that they would forfeit the match was hugely insensitive.

All this would not have mattered had Hair got on with the Pakistanis. Imran used to say, comparing Constant with Dickie Bird, that Bird also made mistakes but unlike Constant did not rub the players up the wrong way. Players accepted his decisions even when they did not like them because they liked the man.

Not so with Hair. Pakistan and Hair have a history going back several years.

A story common in Pakistan cricket is that back in the mid-1990s, on a tour of Australia, Hair lectured the then Pakistan captain and told him: "I hope you people will not in this series carry on appealing like monkeys."

This may be an apocryphal story, but it is one that is widely believed in Pakistani cricket and, of course, has racial overtones.
Things worsened during last winter's tour of Pakistan by England, which Hair also umpired and where some of his decisions did not please the Pakistanis. They made their feelings about the matter very clear.

So the Pakistanis were most surprised when they found that Hair was to umpire in this series.

His appointment raises questions about the choice of umpires made by the cricket department of the ICC headed by former South Africa wicketkeeper David Richardson. Some Pakistanis are all too ready to see a conspiracy here. This may be fanciful, but it exposes the curious nature of inter-national cricket, where the ICC have nothing like the power that Fifa have in world football. They appoint umpires and match referees but the match is basically between the two countries and while the match referee can sanction players, it is the umpires that are supreme and whose authority cannot be questioned.

The ICC are powerless, and this match may expose that cruelly.
 

[LosingNow]

Zaheer Abbas should have known!!
---
Here's the Sunny side to 'forfeitures'

PRADEEP VIJAYAKAR

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

MUMBAI: Cricket legend Sunil Gavaskar recollects two instances when a Test came close to being forfeited, one involving the Indian team he led.

When his memory was tickled about those incidents on Monday, Gavaskar said: "When I asked Chetan Chauhan to come off the field after I was given out lbw to a Dennis Lillee delivery in the Melbourne Test in 1980, we would have forfeited the match. Thanks to Shahid Durani, our manager, Chetan was told to go back and get on with the game."

By a coincidence Chetan Chauhan was also in town and the two Indian openers were to meet for dinner. "We will no doubt discuss the incident all over again in the light of the Oval fiasco," said Gavaskar.

The other incident was in Bangalore when Pakistan walked off the field in 1983 when more than 10 overs were remaining. In a Test where seven hours play had been lost owing to the rain, Pakistan had made 288 in reply to India's 275. In the second innings India ended up with 176 for no wicket with Gavaskar making 103 and Anshuman Gaekwad 66.

Under the laws then, if a Test was meandering towards a draw on the last day the game could be called off with consent of both captains after the first few mandatory overs.

Skipper Kapil Dev wanted India to continue as Gavaskar was heading for his 28th Test century but Pakistan were not willing. They walked off the field.

Umpire Madhav Gothoskar went to the Pakistan dressing room and told them in no uncertain words that if they did not come out and get on with the game, they would incur forfeiture of the match - the very first match of the series.

Recalled Gavaskar: "Zaheer Abbas was the skipper then and he was the manager of the Pakistani side at the Oval on Sunday. He should have been aware of the ramifications if he had remembered the 1983 incident."  

[MockTurtle]

more of blah, blah and BLAH!

but that said, i grudgingly admire the aussies for the united stand they take when it comes to defending a fellow countryman.


Umpire Hair lauded as a hero in Australia
Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:07 AM BST

SYDNEY, Aug 22 (Reuters) - Umpire Darrell Hair has been hailed a hero in Australia for his role in the ball tampering row which led to Pakistan forfeiting the fourth test against England.

While Hair has been branded a racist in parts of Asia and derided as an attention seeker by sections of the British media, he has been praised by Australians for standing by his convictions.

Former test captain Steve Waugh and Simon Taufel, the International Cricket Council's umpire of the year, both said they supported Hair's decision to abandon the match after Pakistan captain Inzamam ul-Haq's team refused to resume playing.

"I definitely agree with that -- if they don't go back on the field the test is over," Waugh told the Daily Telegraph."


"If the fielding side refuses to take the field, there is not much the umpires can do," Taufel told the Sydney Morning Herald.

"Umpires have to follow the laws … as they are written, so it's hard to fault the umpires in this case."

The Australian media also sided with Hair, saying he should be applauded for taking a tough stand against the scourge of ball tampering.

Robert Craddock, writing for the Daily Telegraph, said he had been told by an English umpire last year that ball tampering was now rife in the English county competition but other umpires were afraid to speak up because of the repercussions for their own careers.

"Darrell Hair is prepared to poke his nose into grubby corners of the cricket world where most of his fellow umpires refuse to go," Craddock wrote. "He knows a 'tampered' ball when he sees one." Phil Wilkins, writing for the Sydney Morning Herald, said Hair was being unfairly portrayed as the culprit when all he did was follow the game's rules.

"Hair is a man of the strictest principle, an official absolutely true to the game, an umpire of the fairest, most unswerving practices," Wilkins wrote.

"He has always been a man of the strongest fibre and for that he is being castigated ferociously."

LATER DROPPED

Hair was condemned by the Asian cricket community a decade ago when he no-balled Sri Lanka spinner Muttiah Muralitharan for throwing and was later dropped from the ICC's panel of elite umpires.


The ICC's decision to subsequently bend the rules so Muralitharan could continue bowling without fear of being called for throwing remains a highly contentious issue in Australia.

"If there were a few more Hairs available to stand in matches around the world then cricket would be in less of a mess than it is right now," Patrick Smith wrote in The Australian.

"If other umpires had been as strong as Hair then bowling would not have been corrupted in the manner it is now."

Hair now faces an uncertain future in the sport with the powerful Asian bloc united in their criticism of him but The Australian's chief cricket correspondent Malcolm Conn said the ICC would be wrong to bow to pressure and abandon him.

"Cricket is once again on the verge of disgracing itself by failing to support an umpire who has the courage to uphold the laws of the game," Conn wrote.

"Hair should be considered a hero for his courage, despite being subjected to death threats in the past.

"The spirit of cricket is central to the well-being of the game and Inzamam crushed that spirit by refusing to play. Only half a decade after the match-fixing scandal that tore at the very fabric of cricket, this is another low blow the game cannot afford."

[suraj]

This is so sad

Waugh was my hero but his stances like these make me sick

Wish SG had brought more repute to the game by making him stand in the sun for a whole day before the toss

[MockTurtle]

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2006/s1720565.htm

ICC gives full support to Darrell Hair

AM - Tuesday, 22 August , 2006  08:46:00
Reporter: Peter Lloyd

TONY EASTLEY: The Head of the International Cricket Council, Australian Malcolm Speed, says umpire Darrell Hair has "the full support" of the ICC.

Mr Speed is concerned that the row over ball tampering has got out of control.

Malcolm Speed has issued a plea to Pakistan to accept the next umpire's decision, when two charges for ball tampering and bringing the game into disrepute are brought against Pakistan skipper Inzamam ul-Haq in London on Friday.

South Asia Correspondent Peter Lloyd spoke by telephone to Malcolm Speed at the ICC's headquarters in Dubai.

MALCOLM SPEED: It's disappointing that it's blown up into a major international incident. I'm disappointed about that, but perhaps I'm not surprised.

PETER LLOYD: Okay, when you say ball tampering, exactly what's wrong with this ball?

MALCOLM SPEED: Peter, I don't want to speculate about that. There is a process in place. I think it's inappropriate that I talk about what is wrong with the ball. I haven't seen it, so I think we just need to leave that evidence to unfold on Friday.

PETER LLOYD: Are you satisfied though that there's sufficient grounds for laying these charges?

MALCOLM SPEED: It's not a matter of whether I'm satisfied - the umpires have this power. I don't second guess their decisions.

The match referee, in this case the chief referee, will make that decision.

PETER LLOYD: But surely you're curious, you must've asked what's wrong with it?

MALCOLM SPEED: I'm curious, but again, it's not appropriate that I speculate about that.

That will be dealt with in the hearing, the proper process that will be followed on Friday.

PETER LLOYD: But potentially what you're looking at here is a case where it will be the umpire's word against the players'.

MALCOLM SPEED: That's part of it. There'll be some physical evidence there no doubt.

PETER LLOYD: But what I'm getting at, I guess, is that this is in a sense, subjective. There's not an exact science about determining ball tampering.

MALCOLM SPEED: No, there's not and you'll find that with most umpiring decisions, in nearly all of the sports that you cover on ABC radio, umpiring isn't an exact science.

PETER LLOYD: When will the public have a chance to have a look at this cricket ball?

MALCOLM SPEED: I expect on Friday. I don't know that, but no, the ball is in safe keeping. It's with the match referee.

PETER LLOYD: Pakistan is already saying they don't want Darrell Hair umpiring any future matches, would you agree to that demand?

MALCOLM SPEED: No.

PETER LLOYD: So Darrell Hair has your confidence at this point?

MALCOLM SPEED: Yes, Darrell Hair is one of the eight ICC elite umpires on the ICC panel. He's generally regarded as one of the top umpires in the world.

He's in the top two or three umpires in the world, so yes, he's a very well-regarded umpire.

PETER LLOYD: And he has a future with the ICC?

MALCOLM SPEED: This has been obviously a very distressing incident for Darrell, it's been a very distressing time for him. He has the full support of ICC.

PETER LLOYD: Have you spoken to Darrell Hair? Have you been able to gauge his feelings, his reaction to this furore?

MALCOLM SPEED: Yes, I spoke to him last night, Peter. I certainly understand from him why he's done what he has done.

He has the full support of ICC.

PETER LLOYD: But this seems to really be elevating above your garden variety dispute between teams.

I mean, the Pakistanis are shaping this as an issue about their national pride and identity and they're talking about the fairness of cricket.

They've certainly escalated the level of rhetoric here. I mean, how much are you concerned about this getting a little out of control?

MALCOLM SPEED: I think it has got out of control. I'm disappointed at that. I think there's been an over-reaction to something that could've been dealt with very simply by a referee's hearing last night.

PETER LLOYD: What would you say to the Pakistanis about the hearing on Friday? I mean, would you urge them to accept the outcome of that process?

MALCOLM SPEED: Yes. That's part of the nature of cricket, that cricketers grow up knowing that they accept the umpire's decision.

TONY EASTLEY: The head of the ICC, Malcolm Speed, talking to our South Asia Correspondent, Peter Lloyd there.

And the ICC says it's prepared to consider Pakistan's request for an independent inquiry into the incident. 

[sudzz]

Hair is being villified and made out to be a villian -probably true as well (I dont agree but maybe if all of you say so it could be true).

But to say that he has a bias against Asian cricket is rather strange, I cant recall of too many incidents againsts Indian's (maybe bad decisions yes -giving LBW's when the ball was missing the stumps etc or not giving them as well) but has he ever called any Indian for chucking (cant remember maybe he did I dont know) has any Indian other than Vivek Razdan in Pakistan ever been called for tampering the ball? I dont think so.

But why is it that SL and Pak (strangely not BD) always have a grouse against umpires who call their bowlers and at the same time they have the biggest collection of bowlers with strangest of action.

The list is very very long even in the current team Sami/Gul etc have had their action scrutinised, Chuckther and Chuklitharan have been condoned not because their actions are clear but for other reasons....Malinga is dubious, Shoaib Malik is dubious, Upul Chandana is strange, Afridi is strange, the list from these two countries is endless.

In addition Pak has been admittedly involved with some think that was not normal (I for one dont believe that what Truman/Miller/Lindwall/Lillie/Thomson/Tyson/Willis etc could not do could have been done by Waqar or Akram without some sort of external help)

So if Hair called it and even if it was without proof he had his rights to do so and he could have handled it differently by telling Inzi about it.

Finally if Pak was so sure about their claim why then did Woolmer one of the most respected coaches not come out in their defence very very solidly-He did so even when Hansie was identified and admitted to match fixing so I find it strange that he has not stepped up to the plate now.

Why then is Hair the villian of the piece just because he had the balls to call the ball funky?

[MockTurtle]

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/englandpakistan2006/story/0,,1855559,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1

Woolmer warns Pakistan may pull out of tour if Inzamam is banned

Lawrence Booth
Tuesday August 22, 2006
The Guardian


Pakistan's coach, Bob Woolmer, said last night that his team would consider pulling out of their tour of England if the captain, Inzamam-ul-Haq, is found guilty of ball-tampering and bringing the game into disrepute by an ICC hearing in London on Friday. If they do so, the Pakistan Cricket Board would risk a fine of $2m (£1.1m) and a possible suspension by the International Cricket Council.
On another day of high drama following the abandonment of the fourth Test at The Oval on Sunday, the former England batsman Woolmer said: "I would think the one-day series may well be in serious jeopardy if he is found guilty and banned for eight games. If the punishment is postponed it may be different, but certainly after these events the players are right behind our captain. "Much will depend on Friday's ruling, but if there is a ban there will be more problems."

Inzamam also hinted of serious consequences if the hearing produced guilty verdicts. "It would be difficult for the players to play on if we are labelled cheats," he said.
But, under powers approved by the ICC executive board in March 2004, Pakistan could find themselves facing financial ruin if the threat to head home is carried out. The case against Inzamam will be presided over by the ICC's most senior match referee, the Sri Lankan Ranjan Madugalle, who, crucially, has been approved by the Pakistan Cricket Board as well as by the England and Wales Cricket Board. Inzamam stands accused on two counts, both of them because of his role as the Pakistan captain.

The first is a breach at level two of the Code of Conduct which relates to changing the condition of the ball, and which carries a potential fine of 50 to 100% of his match fee and/or a ban of one Test or two one-day internationals. The second is a breach at level three which relates to conduct that brings the player or the game into disrepute, and could result in a ban of two to four Tests or four to eight one-day internationals.

An appeal would inevitably follow a guilty verdict and, assuming the Pakistan touring party has not left Britain, Inzamam could play up until the moment the appeal is heard. But there is a very real chance that he will miss some or all of the five-match one-day series which begins with a day-night match at Sophia Gardens in Cardiff a week tomorrow.

Meanwhile, the chairman of the PCB, Shahriyar Khan, yesterday threw down the gauntlet to the ICC by calling on the game's governing body to produce the ball at the centre of the cheating scandal which brought a premature and dramatic end to the fourth and final Test.

The Pakistan team continued to protest their innocence yesterday after they were penalised five runs by the umpires Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove. And, in what can be interpreted either as brinkmanship or a plausible declaration of innocence, Khan called on cricket's administrators to let the public make up their own minds about what took place two days ago. "The ball is with the match referee [Mike Procter]a" he said. "But we have said that, please, display it to the television and to the public and the press."

Inzamam claimed that there was "nothing wrong" with the ball. "It looked like a normal, 56-over ball which had visited the boundary a few times," he said.

During Pakistan's tour of England in 1992, the ball was changed during a one-day international at Lord's amid allegations that the change had taken place because of tampering by the Pakistani bowlers. But subsequent attempts to track down the ball proved fruitless and it is believed to remain under lock and key.

The issue nevertheless has reopened old and painful scars. "My boys felt there had been a slur on the Pakistan team and a slur on Pakistan itself," said Khan. "We had worked very hard to get out of this syndrome of ball-tampering."

Pakistan have asked the ICC to prevent Hair from officiating in any more of their matches, and Khan spoke in passionate terms yesterday about the breakdown in relations between his team and one of the game's most experienced umpires. "Our case is that it is not the fact that Darrell Hair is a bad umpire," he said. "Our team has a problem with his attitude on the field. That attitude has upset our team more than once. If ICC is sensitive to us, it will take due cognisance of what is said. We have not raised this issue with any other umpire."

As the pressure on Hair intensified, Khan revealed some of the details of the frantic meeting that had taken place on Sunday evening as officials from both sides tried to salvage a Test that the umpires had already decided had been forfeited by Pakistan, who had already lost the series. "The match referee Mike Procter spoke to Malcolm Speed [the ICC chief executive] twice on the phone to say that we had reached an impasse," he said. "Speed then spoke to the umpires but they remained intransigent. It was a grievous blow to the spirit of cricket."

[k-slice]

sudz
great post. that is strange that both teams have a plethora of chuckers and hair doesnt seem to like that. though to be fair i think that somewhere along the line Hair made it personal grouses against these teams. inzamam asked for an answer and was refused. in this case, although history would suggest otherwise, i dont think that ball was really tampered with.

[sudzz]

sudz
great post. that is strange that both teams have a plethora of chuckers and hair doesnt seem to like that. though to be fair i think that somewhere along the line Hair made it personal grouses against these teams. inzamam asked for an answer and was refused. in this case, although history would suggest otherwise, i dont think that ball was really tampered with.

K-Slice if it was personal grouse against a individual or a set of individuals then Hair over two matches had umpteen number of opportunities to do them in.

I feel a personal grouse is what that blind Bucknor did to Rahul Dravid with that cough lozenge incident, Hair is applying the letter of the law to T. Also as has been pointed out he was not obliged to explain the decision to Inzi he had to inform him and even that he did not that I guess was wrong.

I again state that Hair called the Pak team's bluff -they Iam sure against better counsel thought that if they staged a protest at least the ECB if not anyone else would plead with them to go on and when that did not happen S*H*I*T hit the fan and Pak now wants to come out of it smelling like roses.

[keep-it-cool]

Ok ... lets take each ruling separately here and figure out the options ... and let us go in reverse order

1) UMPIRES AWARDING A FORFEIT TO ENGLAND (we all seem to be blaming Hair, but Doctrove was also surely involved in this) - Fair Enough. Pakistan declined to play .. were off the field for a long time .. as per the rules, they forfeit the match. In line with rules and spirit of the game

2) REFUSING TO CONTINUE WHEN BOTH TEAMS AGREED TO PLAY - This was a pity. Okay, the match was already forfeited. But with both teams willing to play, I just fail to understand the whole issue. I understand from one of the posts above that even for a playing captain to revoke an appeal, he needs the umpire's consent. Fine. But that is the entire point - if everyone concerned want to play, if the paying public want to see a game of cricket, why is one person not so willing to continue. This is where, Hair in my opinion, came out as someone most inflexible. It may be within the rules, but clearly this was an ocassion where the so called "spirit of cricket" could have been won out. Sadly, it did not.

3) CHANGING THE BALL - again, fair enough. The umpires felt the ball was damaged. They changed the ball. Of course, one expects them to have the courtesy to explain to the fielding captain why the ball is being changed - apparently (if one were to take Inzy's word) they did not. Now, I am not sure what the rules say on this one, but clearly it is in the way they handle these softer issues that a good umpire / referee is different from more ordinary ones

4) AWARDING RUNS FOR BALL TAMPERING - this is really shocking. In all of the ball tampering cases that we have seen before this, the process that has been followed was to report events to the match referee, who then looks at the evidence and awards a penalty. Now, here we do not know whether the umpires had any evidence at all. A scuffed up or damaged ball is only evidence of the fact that the ball is damaged. It is not evidence that any Pakistani player was responsible for the act. Without any such evidence, penalising a team on the field is just not on. Again, I do not know what the exact rule says - maybe an umpire sighting an offence (even if cameras do not catch it) is enough to impose a penalty. But, this is where the umpires again erred in the way they let the issue get out of hand. Some more tact could have easily led to a completely different course for this entire issue.

I am sure, Hair being an umpire is playing by the rules. I see no way he is going to fall on the wrong side of this, if one just looks at the rules. But, he appears to be someone totally devoid of tact and an ability to handle complex situations. In fact, he just seems to add to the complexity. And this is as big a negative as imperfect knowledge of the rules, when it comes to deciding whether one deserves to be a leading umpire.

[Libran]

sudz
great post. that is strange that both teams have a plethora of chuckers and hair doesnt seem to like that. though to be fair i think that somewhere along the line Hair made it personal grouses against these teams. inzamam asked for an answer and was refused. in this case, although history would suggest otherwise, i dont think that ball was really tampered with.

  k-slice...To bump this argument up...Does this apply to Aussies in general.....they carry too many grouses and just cannot let go 

[k-slice]

well i wouldnt generalize to that extent. but were you to say 99% i might agree 100%!!

[keep-it-cool]

Mock,

I actually think what Pak did created the maximum effect - not sure whether Inzy meant it this way - but a protest after the match would probably have just got lost with nothing much coming out of it. We all know that the ICC generally does nothing, hoping that the issues die a natural death .. and with so much cricket being played, that's what happens. The last time I remember the ICC being put under this kind of pressure was when BCCI and the Indian cricket team decided to field VS in a test match despite the ban imposed by Denness - now, we can all argue about whether the ban was merited or not, but it definitely did force the ICC to do something about it, and Denness did not remain a match refree for long after that.

A match being forfeited is short term pain for Pakistan, but I think now the glare is well and truly on Hair and the ICC - just as it was immediately after Muralidharan was called and Ranatunga led his team off the field.

well, i think that by not strictly adhering to the rules, Inzy has given the umpires, referee and the ICC a convenient excuse to turn a large share of the blame against him which is what seems to be happening.

True

[keep-it-cool]

*on the muralidharan chucking incident .. this one i am not entirely sure about, so would welcome anyone throwing more light ... the right course of action would have been to bring the issue to the notice of the ICC rather than a high profile no-balling .. and talking of precedents, did Murali not have enough precedents of bowling without being called in international cricket

Nope, when Hair no-balled Murali, the laws allowed Umpires to no-ball bowlers who straightened their arm. Murali's incident, Chuckter, Lee etc. forced ICC to ammend the laws and disallow Umps from no-balling bowlers for chucking suspicion.

thanx .. i read something to the effect that he had to refer in one of the posts here ...

[Libran]

well i wouldnt generalize to that extent. but were you to say 99% i might agree 100%!!

Re-wording...

Does this apply to 99% of the Aussies .....they carry too many grouses and just cannot let go

And I presume that the 1% would be the ones who are in prison and don't give a damn anyways