Legglancer
State Regular
Stupid simplistic statement !open365 said:
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Ball-Tampering Hearing
- Thread starter silentstriker
- Start date
Fusion
Global Moderator
Here's a more "reasonable" thought process than yours:open365 said:
In his judgment Madugalle said: "The umpires would do everything possible to try to defuse tensions in the dressing-room by explaining that a team is entitled to raise any grievance through the ICC but that it is not in their interests, or in the interests of the game, for the team to interrupt play."
And he continued: "The umpires and other officials should do everything possible to ensure the resumption of play. And they should not return to the field of play and then declare the match to be forfeited unless and until they are absolutely sure that the team is refusing to play the rest of the match. All other options should first be exhausted, involving discussions with the team captains and management.
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/pakistan/content/current/story/260902.html
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Most English papers seem to be pro-Pakistan:
Legglancer
State Regular
Richard Boock: Advice to test cricket - get a Hair cut
Saturday September 30, 2006
It's looking like Hair today gone tomorrow for the world's most controversial cricket umpire.
Darrell Hair, once ranked as one of the game's best officials, has suffered such a comprehensive loss of credibility this week that it's hard to imagine him resurrecting his international career.
Never far from headlines during his reign, Hair was yesterday told he was wrong to accuse Pakistan of ball-tampering in last month's eventually forfeited fourth test against England, because the charge couldn't possibly be proved.
To make matters worse for him, Inzamam ul-Haq's suspension for four ODIs for refusing to play was the smallest allowed under ICC regulations, suggesting that all sympathy - if any - lay with the defendant.
Given Pakistan, India, and Sri Lanka have all expressed reservations about Hair's impartiality, he cannot stand in Australian games because of ICC rules and he has refused on principle to officiate in Zimbabwe, it appears that his future is looking increasingly grim.
It might be that, under employment law, the ICC must allow Hair to serve the balance of his existing contract, but it would be no surprise if it washed its hands of him at the first opportunity.
His accusation of ball-tampering (in effect, cheating) has been shown to be such a drastic error of judgment that it calls into question the matter of his competence, and whether he's had it in for Pakistan all along.
But whatever the motives, his actions have embarrassed world cricket, made a laughing stock of the umpiring profession, and driven another wedge into the shaky relationship between the ICC's white and non-white members.
There are also a few sobering points arising from the minutes.
The first is that Hair should never again be referred to as one of the best umpires in the world. He has disqualified himself from that entitlement as surely as President George Bush has ruined his chances of being called a peacenik.
It's not good enough to claim that Hair is a good umpire because he makes his fair share of correct lbw and bat-pad decisions. Not when he makes a pig's ear of the most serious and far-reaching ones.
When you combine Ovalgate with Hair's decision to ignore ICC protocol and call Muttiah Muralitharan for throwing in 1995, it becomes clear that he is far from a team player.
Another pending issue is the power given to umpires.
They obviously should be stripped of the right to make an accusation of ball-tampering without any evidence of the offending.
To deem, as Hair did, that a ball has been tampered with, and then expect everyone to support your decision despite a lack of evidence, is naiveat best and arrogant and biased at worst.
Whatever happens now, it seems certain Hair will remain a liability to world cricket as long as he continues to wear the white coat and offer his own unique brand of adjudication.
For the sake of everyone - the ICC, the players, the member nations and the umpiring recruitment officers - it would be better if he faded quietly into the background and directed his energies into some other pastime.
Solitaire appeals as the most appropriate.
Author
• More by Richard Boock
• Email Richard Boock
Saturday September 30, 2006
It's looking like Hair today gone tomorrow for the world's most controversial cricket umpire.
Darrell Hair, once ranked as one of the game's best officials, has suffered such a comprehensive loss of credibility this week that it's hard to imagine him resurrecting his international career.
Never far from headlines during his reign, Hair was yesterday told he was wrong to accuse Pakistan of ball-tampering in last month's eventually forfeited fourth test against England, because the charge couldn't possibly be proved.
To make matters worse for him, Inzamam ul-Haq's suspension for four ODIs for refusing to play was the smallest allowed under ICC regulations, suggesting that all sympathy - if any - lay with the defendant.
Given Pakistan, India, and Sri Lanka have all expressed reservations about Hair's impartiality, he cannot stand in Australian games because of ICC rules and he has refused on principle to officiate in Zimbabwe, it appears that his future is looking increasingly grim.
It might be that, under employment law, the ICC must allow Hair to serve the balance of his existing contract, but it would be no surprise if it washed its hands of him at the first opportunity.
His accusation of ball-tampering (in effect, cheating) has been shown to be such a drastic error of judgment that it calls into question the matter of his competence, and whether he's had it in for Pakistan all along.
But whatever the motives, his actions have embarrassed world cricket, made a laughing stock of the umpiring profession, and driven another wedge into the shaky relationship between the ICC's white and non-white members.
There are also a few sobering points arising from the minutes.
The first is that Hair should never again be referred to as one of the best umpires in the world. He has disqualified himself from that entitlement as surely as President George Bush has ruined his chances of being called a peacenik.
It's not good enough to claim that Hair is a good umpire because he makes his fair share of correct lbw and bat-pad decisions. Not when he makes a pig's ear of the most serious and far-reaching ones.
When you combine Ovalgate with Hair's decision to ignore ICC protocol and call Muttiah Muralitharan for throwing in 1995, it becomes clear that he is far from a team player.
Another pending issue is the power given to umpires.
They obviously should be stripped of the right to make an accusation of ball-tampering without any evidence of the offending.
To deem, as Hair did, that a ball has been tampered with, and then expect everyone to support your decision despite a lack of evidence, is naiveat best and arrogant and biased at worst.
Whatever happens now, it seems certain Hair will remain a liability to world cricket as long as he continues to wear the white coat and offer his own unique brand of adjudication.
For the sake of everyone - the ICC, the players, the member nations and the umpiring recruitment officers - it would be better if he faded quietly into the background and directed his energies into some other pastime.
Solitaire appeals as the most appropriate.
Author
• More by Richard Boock
• Email Richard Boock
Legglancer
State Regular
You're bad for cricket - Pakistan
By Paul Kent in London
September 30, 2006 12:00
UMPIRE Darrell Hair's bitter fallout with Pakistan cricket is set to escalate despite the great lengths the Aussie umpire went to downplay tensions between the two camps following this week's hearing.
Pakistan Cricket Board chairman Shahryar Khan confirmed Pakistan will now pursue a bringing the game into disrepute charge against Hair, the same charge that left Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-haq with a four-match suspension.
The ICC dodged a potential firestorm late Thursday after the ICC's chief referee Ranjan Madugalle delivered a mixed verdict after The Oval debacle, clearing Inzamam of ball tampering but suspending him for four matches for bringing the game into disrepute when he took his team from the field, leading to the first forfeit in Test history.
It was Inzamam's 11th disciplinary hearing.
The Australian umpire, who turns 54 tomorrow, is battling to save his career, as revealed in The Daily Telegraph yesterday.
His future also suffered a further blow when the International Cricket Council stood him down from next month's ICC Champion's Trophy in India for safety fears.
But the malicious bringing the game into disrepute charge pursued by Pakistan is the biggest threat to Hair's career.
"We have already written to the ICC asking them to investigate Mr Hair's conduct in this Test match with regard to disrepute, and it is for the ICC to decide if this is to be investigated," Khan said.
"It was a time bomb waiting to go off and it went off. There is no hope of reconciliation."
Khan said somebody had to be held responsible for the incident that has created worldwide headlines and led to the first forfeited Test match in cricket history.
"Who is responsible for this?" he said.
"It is for the ICC to decide.
"It wasn't us that caused this to be investigated.
"Who is it going to be?"
Khan said Pakistan had no interest in healing the damaging rift between Hair and Pakistan cricket.
"There is no question of a reconciliation in that sense," he said.
But a buoyant Hair was either in denial of the seriousness of feeling against him or oblivious to it.
"When I do meet up with Inzamam I will be the first to shake his hand and I want that to happen," Hair said.
He held an often rambling 45-minute interview in which – while he said he was happy to remain and answer questions – he continually referred to the ICC's code of conduct that prevented him from answering questions.
For his part, Khan continually alluded to an unpassable problem with Hair but refused to detail its exact nature.
"I would simply say Pakistan would have a problem with his attitude," he said.
It appeared Khan was indicating Hair was a racist – something the Pakistani camp has implied in the past without details, and a suspicion that grew when Khan confirmed that Pakistan will lobby the ICC to ban Hair from umpiring all future Pakistan matches.
By Paul Kent in London
September 30, 2006 12:00
UMPIRE Darrell Hair's bitter fallout with Pakistan cricket is set to escalate despite the great lengths the Aussie umpire went to downplay tensions between the two camps following this week's hearing.
Pakistan Cricket Board chairman Shahryar Khan confirmed Pakistan will now pursue a bringing the game into disrepute charge against Hair, the same charge that left Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-haq with a four-match suspension.
The ICC dodged a potential firestorm late Thursday after the ICC's chief referee Ranjan Madugalle delivered a mixed verdict after The Oval debacle, clearing Inzamam of ball tampering but suspending him for four matches for bringing the game into disrepute when he took his team from the field, leading to the first forfeit in Test history.
It was Inzamam's 11th disciplinary hearing.
The Australian umpire, who turns 54 tomorrow, is battling to save his career, as revealed in The Daily Telegraph yesterday.
His future also suffered a further blow when the International Cricket Council stood him down from next month's ICC Champion's Trophy in India for safety fears.
But the malicious bringing the game into disrepute charge pursued by Pakistan is the biggest threat to Hair's career.
"We have already written to the ICC asking them to investigate Mr Hair's conduct in this Test match with regard to disrepute, and it is for the ICC to decide if this is to be investigated," Khan said.
"It was a time bomb waiting to go off and it went off. There is no hope of reconciliation."
Khan said somebody had to be held responsible for the incident that has created worldwide headlines and led to the first forfeited Test match in cricket history.
"Who is responsible for this?" he said.
"It is for the ICC to decide.
"It wasn't us that caused this to be investigated.
"Who is it going to be?"
Khan said Pakistan had no interest in healing the damaging rift between Hair and Pakistan cricket.
"There is no question of a reconciliation in that sense," he said.
But a buoyant Hair was either in denial of the seriousness of feeling against him or oblivious to it.
"When I do meet up with Inzamam I will be the first to shake his hand and I want that to happen," Hair said.
He held an often rambling 45-minute interview in which – while he said he was happy to remain and answer questions – he continually referred to the ICC's code of conduct that prevented him from answering questions.
For his part, Khan continually alluded to an unpassable problem with Hair but refused to detail its exact nature.
"I would simply say Pakistan would have a problem with his attitude," he said.
It appeared Khan was indicating Hair was a racist – something the Pakistani camp has implied in the past without details, and a suspicion that grew when Khan confirmed that Pakistan will lobby the ICC to ban Hair from umpiring all future Pakistan matches.
Legglancer
State Regular
Cricket, not above politics!
By
Fri, 29 Sep 2006, 10:28:00
Email this article
Printer friendly page
Access News Photos
THE International Cricket Council (ICC), the global governing body of the game, cleared Pakistan cricket captain Inzamam-ul Huq of ball tampering charges Thursday after a two-day disciplinary hearing in London. But he has been put under a ban for four one-day internationals on charge of 'bringing the game into disrepute over his side's refusal to play in protest against putting the slur during last month's fourth and final Test against England at The Oval. What a surprise it is to see that the ICC is conspicuous in maintaining silence about taking any step or action against the wrong-doer, Darrell Hair, who now appears to be solely responsible for turning The Oval Test into a fiasco and should be charged with 'bringing the game into disrepute'.
The Test between England and Pakistan was sensationally abandoned after an ugly row over ball tampering charges brought by Australian umpire Darrell Hair against the Pakistan team. Pakistan forfeited the match, which still had a day to run, as a consequence. Not only that, Darrell Hair also went for five penalty runs to be added to England's total. The ICC cleared Inzamam-ul Huq of the ball tampering charges centering round which the whole mess was created and now it is the turn to punish the real culprit if he fails to take his stand with evidence in favour of his wrong deed or action. Why the ICC has failed to carry out a thorough investigation into the highly controversial Test for which Pakistan ended up forfeiting the match.
The ICC's conspicuous silence about Hair's wrongdoings that wrecked international cricket creates suspicion in many minds about the future of the game as well as the game's global governing body's role. Australian Hair cannot be favoured out of the way at the cost of the game, otherwise why he has not been held publicly responsible for 'bringing the game into disrepute'. The sinister move now appears to be a part of what can be called a conspiracy. London's The Daily Telegraph, on that occasion, had broadly hinted in one of its reports headlined 'ENGLAND TRIGGERED BALL ROW' that 'ball-tampering row was triggered by a visit by Duncan Fletcher, England's coach, to Mike Procter, the match referee, before the start of the fourth day's play.
Hair is known for his apparent bias against players from the Subcontinent as he charged Sri Lankan off-spinner Muttiah Muralitharan for 'chucking' in Melbourne in 1995-96. The ICC could not effectively handle the international event in the recent past when Australia and New Zealand declined to go and play in Zimbabwe toeing England's line purely on political grounds. Australia's Hair being a distant cousin cannot be spared or touched for committing irreparable damage done deliberately to the image of a country and its team for simply playing good cricket. Defying the set rules, an obsessed Hair did not feel the necessity of even telling the Pakistan captain of his decision to change the ball. Cricket lovers demand fair play and justice to be done. Bangladesh has already extended their full support to Pakistan in the ongoing cricket fiasco fuelled by controversial umpire Darrell Hair. Let good sense prevail on the ICC for the sake of cricket, at least. Darrell's demand of half a million dollars for an early retirement should be considered seriously.
© Copyright 2003 by The New Nation
Powered by eBiz Web Services
By
Fri, 29 Sep 2006, 10:28:00
Email this article
Printer friendly page
Access News Photos
THE International Cricket Council (ICC), the global governing body of the game, cleared Pakistan cricket captain Inzamam-ul Huq of ball tampering charges Thursday after a two-day disciplinary hearing in London. But he has been put under a ban for four one-day internationals on charge of 'bringing the game into disrepute over his side's refusal to play in protest against putting the slur during last month's fourth and final Test against England at The Oval. What a surprise it is to see that the ICC is conspicuous in maintaining silence about taking any step or action against the wrong-doer, Darrell Hair, who now appears to be solely responsible for turning The Oval Test into a fiasco and should be charged with 'bringing the game into disrepute'.
The Test between England and Pakistan was sensationally abandoned after an ugly row over ball tampering charges brought by Australian umpire Darrell Hair against the Pakistan team. Pakistan forfeited the match, which still had a day to run, as a consequence. Not only that, Darrell Hair also went for five penalty runs to be added to England's total. The ICC cleared Inzamam-ul Huq of the ball tampering charges centering round which the whole mess was created and now it is the turn to punish the real culprit if he fails to take his stand with evidence in favour of his wrong deed or action. Why the ICC has failed to carry out a thorough investigation into the highly controversial Test for which Pakistan ended up forfeiting the match.
The ICC's conspicuous silence about Hair's wrongdoings that wrecked international cricket creates suspicion in many minds about the future of the game as well as the game's global governing body's role. Australian Hair cannot be favoured out of the way at the cost of the game, otherwise why he has not been held publicly responsible for 'bringing the game into disrepute'. The sinister move now appears to be a part of what can be called a conspiracy. London's The Daily Telegraph, on that occasion, had broadly hinted in one of its reports headlined 'ENGLAND TRIGGERED BALL ROW' that 'ball-tampering row was triggered by a visit by Duncan Fletcher, England's coach, to Mike Procter, the match referee, before the start of the fourth day's play.
Hair is known for his apparent bias against players from the Subcontinent as he charged Sri Lankan off-spinner Muttiah Muralitharan for 'chucking' in Melbourne in 1995-96. The ICC could not effectively handle the international event in the recent past when Australia and New Zealand declined to go and play in Zimbabwe toeing England's line purely on political grounds. Australia's Hair being a distant cousin cannot be spared or touched for committing irreparable damage done deliberately to the image of a country and its team for simply playing good cricket. Defying the set rules, an obsessed Hair did not feel the necessity of even telling the Pakistan captain of his decision to change the ball. Cricket lovers demand fair play and justice to be done. Bangladesh has already extended their full support to Pakistan in the ongoing cricket fiasco fuelled by controversial umpire Darrell Hair. Let good sense prevail on the ICC for the sake of cricket, at least. Darrell's demand of half a million dollars for an early retirement should be considered seriously.
© Copyright 2003 by The New Nation
Powered by eBiz Web Services
Legglancer
State Regular
Hits will keep on coming
Ron Reed
September 30, 2006 12:00am
UMPIRE Darrell Hair has emerged as a bigger loser than Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq in the wash-up to the ball-tampering row.
Hair wasn't charged with anything and wasn't suspended as such, but he will, nevertheless, miss the Champions Trophy in India.
The ICC says this is for security reasons, but the fact remains that Pakistan and India made it clear they did not want him there and, one way or the other, have got their way.
And Hair's already badly damaged credibility took another big hit when ICC chief referee Ranjan Madugalle dismissed the ball-tampering charge against Inzamam, saying there was no evidence to support it.
In other words, he has found the Pakistanis not guilty of cheating, which will be more important to them than the issue of failing to get on with the match in the face of such an accusation.
If Hair, backed up by fellow umpire Billy Doctrove, had not made the ball-tampering allegation, the rest of the drama would never have happened. So the Pakistanis can feel vindicated.
Inzamam will serve a short ban of four one-day internationals, but no Test matches.
Given the offence occurred in a Test match, that seems strange, but it is easy to interpret it as another signal from Madugalle that the Pakistanis are the one who have his sympathy in this unedifying affair, and not Hair.
Hair's future is anyone's guess, but it doesn't look good, to say the least.
While he had plenty of strong moral support, especially from Australia, for making a risky call on a matter of ethics, he lost ground with his ill-considered attempt to prise a hefty payout from the ICC in return for walking away from the game.
There is no doubt he has lost more ground still.
The powerful Asian bloc is unlikely to leave it there, and will not rest until he is gone altogether.
It's a pity. He is a very good umpire who has continually demonstrated the courage of his convictions and the game should not be discarding such people lightly.
Ron Reed
September 30, 2006 12:00am
UMPIRE Darrell Hair has emerged as a bigger loser than Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq in the wash-up to the ball-tampering row.
Hair wasn't charged with anything and wasn't suspended as such, but he will, nevertheless, miss the Champions Trophy in India.
The ICC says this is for security reasons, but the fact remains that Pakistan and India made it clear they did not want him there and, one way or the other, have got their way.
And Hair's already badly damaged credibility took another big hit when ICC chief referee Ranjan Madugalle dismissed the ball-tampering charge against Inzamam, saying there was no evidence to support it.
In other words, he has found the Pakistanis not guilty of cheating, which will be more important to them than the issue of failing to get on with the match in the face of such an accusation.
If Hair, backed up by fellow umpire Billy Doctrove, had not made the ball-tampering allegation, the rest of the drama would never have happened. So the Pakistanis can feel vindicated.
Inzamam will serve a short ban of four one-day internationals, but no Test matches.
Given the offence occurred in a Test match, that seems strange, but it is easy to interpret it as another signal from Madugalle that the Pakistanis are the one who have his sympathy in this unedifying affair, and not Hair.
Hair's future is anyone's guess, but it doesn't look good, to say the least.
While he had plenty of strong moral support, especially from Australia, for making a risky call on a matter of ethics, he lost ground with his ill-considered attempt to prise a hefty payout from the ICC in return for walking away from the game.
There is no doubt he has lost more ground still.
The powerful Asian bloc is unlikely to leave it there, and will not rest until he is gone altogether.
It's a pity. He is a very good umpire who has continually demonstrated the courage of his convictions and the game should not be discarding such people lightly.
Legglancer
State Regular
Pakistan pursues HairPaul Kent in London
September 30, 2006 12:00am
UMPIRE Darrell Hair's bitter fallout with Pakistan cricket is set to escalate despite the great lengths the Aussie umpire went to to downplay tensions between the two camps following Thursday's hearing.
Pakistan Cricket Board chairman Shahryar Khan confirmed Pakistan would now pursue a charge of bringing the game into disrepute against Hair, the same charge that left Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-haq with a four-match suspension.
The Australian umpire, who turns 54 tomorrow, is battling to save his career.
His future suffered a further blow when the International Cricket Council stood him down from next month's ICC Champions Trophy in India for safety fears.
But it is the malicious bringing-the-game-into-disrepute charge pursued by Pakistan that most threatens Hair's career.
"We have already written to the ICC asking them to investigate Mr Hair's conduct in this Test match with regard to disrepute," Khan said.
"It was a time bomb waiting to go off and it went off. There is no hope of reconciliation."
Khan said somebody had to be held responsible for the incident that resulted in the first forfeited Test in history.
"Who is responsible for this?" he said. "It is for the ICC to decide.
"It wasn't us that caused this to be investigated. Who is it going to be?"
Khan said Pakistan had no interest in healing the rift between Hair and Pakistan cricket. "There is no question of a reconciliation," he said.
A buoyant Hair was either in denial of the seriousness of feeling against him or oblivious to it, saying in an often rambling 45-minute interview at The Oval yesterday: "When I do meet up with Inzamam I will be the first to shake his hand and I want that to happen."
Although he said he was happy to answer questions, he continually referred to the ICC's code of conduct that prevented him from doing so.
Meanwhile, Khan alluded to having a problem with Hair but refused to detail its exact nature, although indications are he was indicating Hair was a racist, suggestions the Pakistani camp has made in the past.
Hair insisted that he plans to continue umpiring but faces exile given the ICC's decision to stand him down from next month's Champions Trophy.
The ICC dodged a potential firestorm after its chief referee Ranjan Madugalle delivered a mixed verdict, clearing Inzamam of ball tampering but suspending him for four matches for bringing the game into disrepute.
September 30, 2006 12:00am
UMPIRE Darrell Hair's bitter fallout with Pakistan cricket is set to escalate despite the great lengths the Aussie umpire went to to downplay tensions between the two camps following Thursday's hearing.
Pakistan Cricket Board chairman Shahryar Khan confirmed Pakistan would now pursue a charge of bringing the game into disrepute against Hair, the same charge that left Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-haq with a four-match suspension.
The Australian umpire, who turns 54 tomorrow, is battling to save his career.
His future suffered a further blow when the International Cricket Council stood him down from next month's ICC Champions Trophy in India for safety fears.
But it is the malicious bringing-the-game-into-disrepute charge pursued by Pakistan that most threatens Hair's career.
"We have already written to the ICC asking them to investigate Mr Hair's conduct in this Test match with regard to disrepute," Khan said.
"It was a time bomb waiting to go off and it went off. There is no hope of reconciliation."
Khan said somebody had to be held responsible for the incident that resulted in the first forfeited Test in history.
"Who is responsible for this?" he said. "It is for the ICC to decide.
"It wasn't us that caused this to be investigated. Who is it going to be?"
Khan said Pakistan had no interest in healing the rift between Hair and Pakistan cricket. "There is no question of a reconciliation," he said.
A buoyant Hair was either in denial of the seriousness of feeling against him or oblivious to it, saying in an often rambling 45-minute interview at The Oval yesterday: "When I do meet up with Inzamam I will be the first to shake his hand and I want that to happen."
Although he said he was happy to answer questions, he continually referred to the ICC's code of conduct that prevented him from doing so.
Meanwhile, Khan alluded to having a problem with Hair but refused to detail its exact nature, although indications are he was indicating Hair was a racist, suggestions the Pakistani camp has made in the past.
Hair insisted that he plans to continue umpiring but faces exile given the ICC's decision to stand him down from next month's Champions Trophy.
The ICC dodged a potential firestorm after its chief referee Ranjan Madugalle delivered a mixed verdict, clearing Inzamam of ball tampering but suspending him for four matches for bringing the game into disrepute.
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cricinfo
"If, as the umpires told us, the ball was in an acceptable condition after the 52nd over, it is, in my view, highly unlikely that the condition of the ball could have been changed so substantially thereafter by human action within a short period of play without some suspicious conduct by a fielder being noticed by an umpire, television camera, or third party."
He then virtually rejects the umpires' decision saying the "the physical state of the ball did not justify a conclusion that a fielder had altered its condition," and that he "would have expected the umpires to draw Mr ul-Haq's attention to the marks and to tell him that they intended to keep a close eye on the ball after each over."
The subtext of the verdict can be read as thus: Hair acted on a mere suspicion; he acted in haste (his fellow umpire wanted to wait); he could have avoided the crisis had he chosen the diplomatic route; and since there was the equal possibility of the ball being damaged naturally, the umpires were wrong in penalising Pakistan. Madugalle makes it a point to say it was not his case that the umpires were "perverse" or had "acted in bad faith", but it is a damning judgment nevertheless.
Any first year lawyer could pull these arguments to pieces so it'll be interesting to see whether Hair appeals.
Originally Posted by Cricinfo
"If, as the umpires told us, the ball was in an acceptable condition after the 52nd over, it is, in my view, highly unlikely that the condition of the ball could have been changed so substantially thereafter by human action within a short period of play without some suspicious conduct by a fielder being noticed by an umpire, television camera, or third party."
He then virtually rejects the umpires' decision saying the "the physical state of the ball did not justify a conclusion that a fielder had altered its condition," and that he "would have expected the umpires to draw Mr ul-Haq's attention to the marks and to tell him that they intended to keep a close eye on the ball after each over."
The subtext of the verdict can be read as thus: Hair acted on a mere suspicion; he acted in haste (his fellow umpire wanted to wait); he could have avoided the crisis had he chosen the diplomatic route; and since there was the equal possibility of the ball being damaged naturally, the umpires were wrong in penalising Pakistan. Madugalle makes it a point to say it was not his case that the umpires were "perverse" or had "acted in bad faith", but it is a damning judgment nevertheless.
Any first year lawyer could pull these arguments to pieces so it'll be interesting to see whether Hair appeals.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
The time for Hair to appeal is over, right? I thought you only had 24 hours.
open365
International Vice-Captain
How was that stupid?Legglancer said:
I don't see what else Hair should have done in the situation, he told them he'd be waiting to play or w/e and then went onto the field, and they never came down, i don't know about you, but that constitutes a forfeited match imo.
Legglancer
State Regular
I didSanz said:
Legglancer
State Regular
Pakistan who have just been spitefully wrongly charged with Cheating were willing to resume play as were England ..... Malcom Speed And Proctor was advising that play should resume .... But HRM Hair did not feel like starting play as it would hurt his BIG EGO .....open365 said:
Let me quote Madugalle :-
In his judgment Madugalle said: "The umpires would do everything possible to try to defuse tensions in the dressing-room by explaining that a team is entitled to raise any grievance through the ICC but that it is not in their interests, or in the interests of the game, for the team to interrupt play."
And he continued: "The umpires and other officials should do everything possible to ensure the resumption of play. And they should not return to the field of play and then declare the match to be forfeited unless and until they are absolutely sure that the team is refusing to play the rest of the match. All other options should first be exhausted, involving discussions with the team captains and management.
Last edited:
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
open365 said:
1) He should have done as the icc match referee ruled in the first place
and assuming he didn't
2) when both sides decided to come out to play, he should have went out too. he is there to facilitate a match, and if both sides want to play, he shouldn't stand in the way. Spirit above the letter.
Not that Inzy was right either, and he should have been banned like he was for even coming out late, but once he came out, the umpires needed to put the spirit above the letter and get on with play.
Again, it wasn't like England were refusing at that point. Both sides wanted to resume it, so they should have.