Print

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

[hastalavistababy]

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/englandpakistan2006/story/0,,1855579,00.html#article_continue



cricket fan

"I think they should have finished the Test match. Pakistan have been badly hurt but the people who have to suffer are the fans. I would have tried to keep it going for the sake of public, they have paid the money. After the match you all get round the table and thrash this out."
Dickie Bird Former Test umpire

"Darrell applied the letter of the law. No one can say that he didn't go through the proper procedure."
David Constant England's most experienced current umpire

"The umpires applied the laws as they are set down."
Chris Kelly Umpires and Matches Operations Manager, ECB

"If the fielding side refuses to take the field there is not much the umpires can do. We have to follow the laws and playing conditions as they are written down. Darrell Hair I know calls the game the way he sees it without fear or favour."
Simon Taufel Leading ICC umpire who stood in first two England-Pakistan Tests

"The ICC might have been more understanding. It might have been they had the wrong man with Hair there. Because of his previous run-in with Pakistan it might have added a little difficulty. The idea of neutral umpires was meant to stop this."
Mike Gatting Former England captain

"Did Darrell Hair actually see a member of the Pakistan team tampering with the cricket ball? Has he got proof? If he hasn't then he has made a massive mistake. If I had been accused of cheating in this way then, as long as I was sure of our innocence, I would have done exactly the same as Pakistan."
Nasser Hussain Former England captain

"If Darrell Hair doesn't have proof of ball tampering he's on very thin ice. This is not an lbw or a caught behind decision."
Tom Cartwright Former England all-rounder and Wales National Coach

"We didn't cheat, the judge and jury made their decision before we were given a chance to state our case."
Bob Woolmer Pakistan coach

"The umpires are to blame for this. They handled it very unfairly from the Pakistan point of view. No proof of ball- tampering was given - just because the ball is scuffed it doesn't mean it has been tampered with. Remember the Sri Lanka team walked off when he [Darrell Hair] was umpiring. Certain umpires court controversies. But I didn't agree with Pakistan not coming out after tea. What was the point of that?"
Imran Khan Former Pakistan captain

"The pride of an entire people has been tarnished by his [Hair's] ludicrous and highly insensitive decision."
Rameez Raja Former Pakistan batsman

[Cernunnos]

Clearly Hair followed the letter of the Law, and not the spirit of the Law.
I know that Hair would probably never dare do this with a Western bloc nation.
But I disagree that removing Hair through brute force would solve the problem.

The best way to react to this kind of thing is for an Indian/Asian umpire to do the
same when a Simon Jones gets extra reverse swing. Pay back in the same coin.
The sad reality is no Indian umpire would have the marbles to do what Hair did.
I mean how many Indian umpires/match referees are there anyway? I don't condone
Shakoor Rana type payback, which is clearly outside the letter of the Law, but follow
the letter of the Law just like Hair did.

As for Pakistan, while I can sympathize, but these rhetorical statements coming from them
that it's an insult to their honor is just a load of crock. When Afridi was caught red-handed
scuffing the pitch (as bad a crime as ball tampering, if not worse), the Pakistan board hardly
did much. I would have expected the PCB to have handed a ban on him if they were really
serious about clamping down on cheating from their players. But the PCB just let him off with
a warning. Remember, it was Cricket Australia who banned Warne (and not ICC). The ECB
had fined Atherton on top of the ICC fine.

[suraj]

Clearly Hair followed the letter of the Law, and not the spirit of the Law.
I know that Hair would probably never dare do this with a Western bloc nation.
But I disagree that removing Hair through brute force would solve the problem.

The best way to react to this kind of thing is for an Indian/Asian umpire to do the
same when a Simon Jones gets extra reverse swing. Pay back in the same coin.
The sad reality is no Indian umpire would have the marbles to do what Hair did.
I mean how many Indian umpires/match referees are there anyway? I don't condone
Shakoor Rana type payback, which is clearly outside the letter of the Law, but follow
the letter of the Law just like Hair did.

As for Pakistan, while I can sympathize, but these rhetorical statements coming from them
that it's an insult to their honor is just a load of crock. When Afridi was caught red-handed
scuffing the pitch (as bad a crime as ball tampering, if not worse), the Pakistan board hardly
did much. I would have expected the PCB to have handed a ban on him if they were really
serious about clamping down on cheating from their players. But the PCB just let him off with
a warning. Remember, it was Cricket Australia who banned Warne (and not ICC). The ECB
had fined Atherton on top of the ICC fine.

Good points

The problem is that if an Asian umpire ever did something like this, right or wrong he will be crucified by the white nations; the next comments will be oh the quality is lacking, they need better training etc etc.

[dhruvdeepak]

As for Pakistan, while I can sympathize, but these rhetorical statements coming from them
that it's an insult to their honor is just a load of crock. When Afridi was caught red-handed
scuffing the pitch (as bad a crime as ball tampering, if not worse), the Pakistan board hardly
did much. I would have expected the PCB to have handed a ban on him if they were really
serious about clamping down on cheating from their players.

well they did nearly force him into retirement 
great points

[gouravk]

Well Afridi was banned wasnt he ?

[CLR James]

Clearly Hair followed the letter of the Law, and not the spirit of the Law.
I know that Hair would probably never dare do this with a Western bloc nation.
But I disagree that removing Hair through brute force would solve the problem.

The best way to react to this kind of thing is for an Indian/Asian umpire to do the
same when a Simon Jones gets extra reverse swing. Pay back in the same coin.
The sad reality is no Indian umpire would have the marbles to do what Hair did.
I mean how many Indian umpires/match referees are there anyway? I don't condone
Shakoor Rana type payback, which is clearly outside the letter of the Law, but follow
the letter of the Law just like Hair did.

As for Pakistan, while I can sympathize, but these rhetorical statements coming from them
that it's an insult to their honor is just a load of crock. When Afridi was caught red-handed
scuffing the pitch (as bad a crime as ball tampering, if not worse), the Pakistan board hardly
did much. I would have expected the PCB to have handed a ban on him if they were really
serious about clamping down on cheating from their players. But the PCB just let him off with
a warning. Remember, it was Cricket Australia who banned Warne (and not ICC). The ECB
had fined Atherton on top of the ICC fine.

Very good points Cernu. I think Imran was right when he said that the Pakistani team should have protested when the ball was changed, taking it up with the match referee or whoever. Not coming out into the field after the break made the team legally culpable for granting a walk over. It was, in the circumstances, childish.

Also, could anyone clarify the exact law in terms of ball changing?

1. Can the umpire change the ball only if he feels that it has been tampered with?

OR

2. Can he change it if it simply goes out of shape (wear and tear, running into hoardings etc.), without active human agency behind it?

I think the second is true. If it is, the Pakistani team should have waited tilll the end of the match to fight it out, after Hair mentioned the T word in his report. Even if Hair verbally told the Pakistanis that they have been ball tampering, it would be like an unrecorded sledge within the field, without any legal status whatsoever. Moreover, since he was the umpire, Hair was under no compulsion to give any explanation for his actions at all. It is like an umpire giving 15 LBW decisions against you in the match. If that happens, you have no choice but to walk. The matter can be taken up at the Board level or the ICC level only after the fact, with TV, video evidence etc. Hence, if Hair changes ball, you protest immediately (run to the match referee) or bear it till he writes the reason in his post-match report. You look like a fool if he actually writes "I changed the ball because it simply went out of shape."

Inzt thinks with his heart (putting it mildly). He was out played in the legal game. The timing was all wrong.

[MockTurtle]

Very good points Cernu. I think Imran was right when he said that the Pakistani team should have protested when the ball was changed, taking it up with the match referee or whoever. Not coming out into the field after the break made the team legally culpable for granting a walk over. It was, in the circumstances, childish.

Also, could anyone clarify the exact law in terms of ball changing?

1. Can the umpire change the ball only if he feels that it has been tampered with?

OR

2. Can he change it if it simply goes out of shape (wear and tear, running into hoardings etc.), without active human agency behind it?

I think the second is true. If it is, the Pakistani team should have waited tilll the end of the match to fight it out, after Hair mentioned the T word in his report. Even if Hair verbally told the Pakistanis that they have been ball tampering, it would be like an unrecorded sledge within the field, without any legal status whatsoever. Moreover, since he was the umpire, Hair was under no compulsion to give any explanation for his actions at all. It is like an umpire giving 15 LBW decisions against you in the match. If that happens, you have no choice but to walk. The matter can be taken up at the Board level or the ICC level only after the fact, with TV, video evidence etc. Hence, if Hair changes ball, you protest immediately (run to the match referee) or bear it till he writes the reason in his post-match report. You look like a fool if he actually writes "I changed the ball because it simply went out of shape."

Inzt thinks with his heart (putting it mildly). He was out played in the legal game. The timing was all wrong.

well, in this case, did he not award 5 penalty runs to England, thereby confirming that he believed the ball has been tampered with? so it is not an unrecorded accusation.

[CLR James]

Ah that evaded my attention Mock. Thanks for pointing that out! There was no doubt in my mind about Hair's intentions however.

[Cernunnos]

Also, could anyone clarify the exact law in terms of ball changing?

1. Can the umpire change the ball only if he feels that it has been tampered with?

OR

2. Can he change it if it simply goes out of shape (wear and tear, running into hoardings etc.), without active human agency behind it?

It can be changed under both circumstances. In case 1, the batsmen get to choose the ball they want to face.

[Cernunnos]

Well Afridi was banned wasnt he ?

Banned by the ICC - just for 2 games. Nothing from the PCB. In the examples I gave, the individual boards took action on their own.

Remember, he was cheating big time.

[CLR James]

Applause pending Cernu! Great work!