The Biggest Disgrace?

[BoyBrumby]

Leave the thing about stain on a guys character. I am not talking about that. I just wanted to say that BAll tampering is a big issue and teams would make a lot of it if it was used against them.

This incident was more about being accused of something they are convinced they did not do and are convicted without any proof or reason. That would be enough to rile anyone up. Obviously he would be riled that the words of his team did not count for anything and that they were penalised and made to change the ball. It does seem like the decision was taken more because of the reputation of the team than anything else.

That's what I struggle to understand. If the reputation of the team is so important why continue to select players who have been caught indulging in sharp practices of one form or another?

As for being riled up, I could more accept that as a defence if Inzi had taken the team off as soon as the ball was changed and the penalty imposed. However Pakistan played on (&, if memory serves, dismissed Pietersen 4 shy of 100), so one must assume a certain amount of deliberation went into the protest.

 

[zaremba]

Then if there was no TV evidence to support the claim why the decision was not overturned and and the Pakistani team clean? It did not happen, and it means the umpires kept their judgement even though they cannot prove it.

You really are miles wide of the mark.

It was overturned, the Pakistan team was cleared, and the umpires didn't keep "their" judgment

 

[Cruxdude]

That's what I struggle to understand. If the reputation of the team is so important why continue to select players who have been caught indulging in sharp practices of one form or another?

As for being riled up, I could more accept that as a defence if Inzi had taken the team off as soon as the ball was changed and the penalty imposed. However Pakistan played on (&, if memory serves, dismissed Pietersen 4 shy of 100), so one must assume a certain amount of deliberation went into the protest.

Your argument doesn't hold water. Just because they did something once doesn't mean that you could convict them again without proof.

The decision was taken in a pretty high handed manner. If the same umpire had filed a report with the ref and Inzi had been fined or suspended do you think this would have resulted. It was because of Hair not paying heed to their words that he did this. I don't see this happening with a team like Australia.

And what is wrong with deliberation about the protest? It only means that he didn't take the decision at the heat of the moment. He went back thought about it and decided that he needed to protest it.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Your argument doesn't hold water. Just because they did something once doesn't mean that you could convict them again without proof.

The decision was taken in a pretty high handed manner. If the same umpire had filed a report with the ref and Inzi had been fined or suspended do you think this would have resulted. It was because of Hair not paying heed to their words that he did this. I don't see this happening with a team like Australia.

And what is wrong with deliberation about the protest? It only means that he didn't take the decision at the heat of the moment. He went back thought about it and decided that he needed to protest it.

This is just going round in circles. The proof, such as it was, was the condition of the ball. That Hair & Doctrove acted in a high-handed manner is beyond dispute, but Pakistan's response was utterly disproportionate given their seemingly conflicting stance on the subject. At the end of the day it was a 5-run penalty; the same penalty as given for a ball striking a disguarded helmet. The "national disgrace" argument doesn't wash because Pakistan continued to select the players I've mentioned previously.

 

[Cruxdude]

This is just going round in circles. The proof, such as it was, was the condition of the ball. That Hair & Doctrove acted in a high-handed manner is beyond dispute, but Pakistan's response was utterly disproportionate given their seemingly conflicting stance on the subject. At the end of the day it was a 5-run penalty; the same penalty as given for a ball striking a disguarded helmet. The "national disgrace" argument doesn't wash because Pakistan continued to select the players I've mentioned previously.

Ya it is. I will just make one last post about what I feel. I don't think the 5 run penalty mattered to anyone. It was just the fact that their words weren't taken into account by Hair that made him feel that they were being discriminated because of their chequered past and being labelled.

 

[wisden18]

As I see it there were two problems at the Oval. I think it is fair to say (and I know this from when I've been umpiring) that there may be one umpire who is slightly more proactive than another, indeed I don't think anyone is saying that it was Doctrove who suggested that the two of them should take action regarding the ball (but nor did he say they shouldn't).

I don't have a problem with how they acted in awarding the 5 penalty runs, allowing the batsman at the crease to choose a replacement ball (interestingly this was part of the ICC Playing Regulations for Test Matches, and was a modification to the Law; interesting, as the regulation didn't mention anything about the umpires not being able to act during play, or having to have video evidence!).

The problems of that day I think were caused by how they handled the actual refusal to play by Pakistan. Firstly, when the two umpires (as they are required to do under the laws) went to tell each team that their failure to take to the field of play after the interval could be deemed a refusal to play, my understanding is, that Doctrove went to the England dressing room, and Hair to the Pakistan one. Quite why they didn't both go to each dressing room, or Hair go to England and Doctrove to Pakistan's I do not know!

Secondly, the laws don't specify how long the umpires should wait between deeming an action a refusal to play and then awarding the match. This is where they rushed it, just a tad, and also where I think the ECB, PCB and ICC came out looking pretty bad. The umpires took about 10-15 mins after going to the dressing rooms before returning to the field of play along with the England batsman and awarding the match (due to Pakistan continuing in their refusal to play). After they'd done that it was irrelevant what happened next (and seeing images of the Chairman of the two Boards trying to come to some sort of a deal to get the match started again was pretty painful to watch); the match was over.

I think the new guidelines the ICC have in place now following are more than adequate, and I do find it rather odd that the umpires acted so quickly in awarding the match, and to the best of my knowledge without any consultation with the match referee.

 

[zaremba]

As I see it there were two problems at the Oval. I think it is fair to say (and I know this from when I've been umpiring) that there may be one umpire who is slightly more proactive than another, indeed I don't think anyone is saying that it was Doctrove who suggested that the two of them should take action regarding the ball (but nor did he say they shouldn't).

I don't have a problem with how they acted in awarding the 5 penalty runs, allowing the batsman at the crease to choose a replacement ball (interestingly this was part of the ICC Playing Regulations for Test Matches, and was a modification to the Law; interesting, as the regulation didn't mention anything about the umpires not being able to act during play, or having to have video evidence!).

The problems of that day I think were caused by how they handled the actual refusal to play by Pakistan. Firstly, when the two umpires (as they are required to do under the laws) went to tell each team that their failure to take to the field of play after the interval could be deemed a refusal to play, my understanding is, that Doctrove went to the England dressing room, and Hair to the Pakistan one. Quite why they didn't both go to each dressing room, or Hair go to England and Doctrove to Pakistan's I do not know!

Secondly, the laws don't specify how long the umpires should wait between deeming an action a refusal to play and then awarding the match. This is where they rushed it, just a tad, and also where I think the ECB, PCB and ICC came out looking pretty bad. The umpires took about 10-15 mins after going to the dressing rooms before returning to the field of play along with the England batsman and awarding the match (due to Pakistan continuing in their refusal to play). After they'd done that it was irrelevant what happened next (and seeing images of the Chairman of the two Boards trying to come to some sort of a deal to get the match started again was pretty painful to watch); the match was over.

I think the new guidelines the ICC have in place now following are more than adequate, and I do find it rather odd that the umpires acted so quickly in awarding the match, and to the best of my knowledge without any consultation with the match referee.

Quality post. One of the interesting points you make is that Billy went to England's dressing room and Darrell to Pakistan's - what's just as puzzling as their decision not to go in together is the fact that they decided it was best for Darrell to exercise his particular diplomacy skills towards the Pakistan team - seems a somewhat incendiary decision.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It was a pretty sorry episode for all concerned (except the blameless English players perhaps, and for that august group to emerge from anything in credit is a welcome reversal of the natural order of things) and I would imagine non-cricket fans must've almost literally been popping ribs with laughter that how such a piddling penalty let all hell loose.

There's no doubt in my mind that Hair and Doctrove displayed at best an staggering naivety and at worst an appalling arrogance in imposing the penalty without having seen any tampering, but Pakistan's attempt to hold the game to ransom with their non-appearance and the peremptory decision this amounted to forfeiture were damning derelictions of everyone's duty to the most important group involved in the whole sorry mess: the paying punters.

I seem to have drifted someway from my original point, which IIRC, was that Hair's actions didn't make him fair game for accusations of racism and, honestly, did not intend to debate the rights and wrongs of "Ovalgate", but it is one of those topics that does rather drawn lines and suckers one in.

 

[four_or_six]

It was a pretty sorry episode for all concerned (except the blameless English players perhaps, and for that august group to emerge from anything in credit is a welcome reversal of the natural order of things) and I would imagine non-cricket fans must've almost literally been popping ribs with laughter that how such a piddling penalty let all hell loose.

There's no doubt in my mind that Hair and Doctrove displayed at best an staggering naivety and at worst an appalling arrogance in imposing the penalty without having seen any tampering, but Pakistan's attempt to hold the game to ransom with their non-appearance and the peremptory decision this amounted to forfeiture were damning derelictions of everyone's duty to the most important group involved in the whole sorry mess: the paying punters.

I seem to have drifted someway from my original point, which IIRC, was that Hair's actions didn't make him fair game for accusations of racism and, honestly, did not intend to debate the rights and wrongs of "Ovalgate", but it is one of those topics that does rather drawn lines and suckers one in.

Feel worst for Chris Read, tbh. Had a decent first innings, and had scored reasonably well in the match before, and the abandonment cost him the chance to keep Geraint Jones out of the team for the next test, which was the Ashes series.

 

[Burgey]

Quality post. One of the interesting points you make is that Billy went to England's dressing room and Darrell to Pakistan's - what's just as puzzling as their decision not to go in together is the fact that they decided it was best for Darrell to exercise his particular diplomacy skills towards the Pakistan team - seems a somewhat incendiary decision.

Hair was no doubt worried that Doctrove's decision to award the 5 penalty runs might have counted against him

 

[Migara]

Don't be pathetic.

Ha . . there it is. Light years wide of the point. Decision is sill there in the books as it is. What ever rubbish you post does not help unless that five run penalty is removed from the scorebook.

 

[Migara]

There's no doubt in my mind that Hair and Doctrove displayed at best an staggering naivety and at worst an appalling arrogance in imposing the penalty without having seen any tampering, but Pakistan's attempt to hold the game to ransom with their non-appearance and the peremptory decision this amounted to forfeiture were damning derelictions of everyone's duty to the most important group involved in the whole sorry mess: the paying punters.

This part I am happy to agree with you. Both parties were very naive. If Ranatunga was there instead of Inzamam he would have protested while being on the field.Had Inzamam used his brain a bit more "Oval gate" would have been ending heavily in favor of them.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Ha . . there it is. Light years wide of the point. Decision is sill there in the books as it is. What ever rubbish you post does not help unless that five run penalty is removed from the scorebook.

So you are just a troll, then.

Sorry to have watsed everyone's time on the cretin.

 

[four_or_six]

Ha . . there it is. Light years wide of the point. Decision is sill there in the books as it is. What ever rubbish you post does not help unless that five run penalty is removed from the scorebook.

The scorebook is a record of what happened. Nothing should be taken out of the scorebook, irrespective of whether any decision is correct or not, it happened so it's recorded.

 

[Migara]

So you are just a troll, then.

Sorry to have watsed everyone's time on the cretin.

Calling me a cretin is going too far. I also can put my verbal splendor in to practice.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Calling me a cretin is going too far.

Agreed. Giving cretins a bad name.

 

[Migara]

Agreed. Giving cretins a bad name.

I don't care conversation with eunuchoid apes.

 

[Jamee999]

Cut out the insults please, guys

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Cut out the insults please, guys

Spoilsport. They're the best bits.

 

[Pratters]

So you are just a troll, then.

Sorry to have watsed everyone's time on the cretin.

Won't insult Migara and call him a troll of course but I was wondering why you were wasting so much time with him.