Ball-Tampering Hearing

[C_C]

Insignificant point in the eyes of most, but a finding that there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt does not equate to a find of 'innocent'. It just means that the benefit of the doubt goes to the accused. Ask OJ Simpson.

That said, Hair should have had enough nous to realise he'd need to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt his allegations, and should have arranged to have things documented better. I reckon if he felt it was going on, talk to Inzi, say he's concerned, but not yet making an allegation, and start getting the ball photographed after every couple of overs, to document whether any 'improvements' are being made. Although it's possible that IF altering had occurred, by then it might not have needed any further improvement. But at least you'd either put a stop to the behaviour or put yourself in a position to sustain your allegation.

As i said, the only reason Hair could've come to his concluion is if he were either hopelessly incompetent or hopelessly biassed. Either way, decieding between the two is largely academic- i am just glad that he is gonna be gone soon.

 

[Matt79]

As i said, the only reason Hair could've come to his concluion is if he were either hopelessly incompetent or hopelessly biassed. Either way, decieding between the two is largely academic- i am just glad that he is gonna be gone soon.

I disagree, I think he just has a very definite conception of the rules and his role in applying them, coupled with an unfortunate manner that seems to rub people, particularly of different cultures, the wrong way. And it looks like its going to cost him dearly. And there's not necessary anything wrong with the fact that it will do so. But I will say that the ICC certainly would have known all this when they put him on the panel, which they didn't have to do, so it's a lowly act for them to sanction him for being himself.

I'm yet to be satisfied that he's either incompetent in the technical application of the rules (getting on with people, making friends and influencing people are a separate skill set which he clearly lacks), or that he's racist. I think, if it is demonstrable that he's had disproportionate issues with teams from the sub-continent, its a result of cultural differences in communication norms and professional standards. I think that with no malice or bias on his part, Hair acts in the manner he feels is appropriate, and is probably continually surprised that he gets such negative reactions, and showing some insensitivity probably decides that its the other parties problem, not his. I'll agree he's insensitive, but I don't think that he acts differently towards people of different races - Aussies, Kiwis and Poms probably just find themselves less offended by his brand of insensitivity.

I'm not trying to act as an apologist for him - I just do not think, based on what I've read and seen about the guy that he's a racist.

 

[Johnners]

I disagree, I think he just has a very definite conception of the rules and his role in applying them, coupled with an unfortunate manner that seems to rub people, particularly of different cultures, the wrong way. And it looks like its going to cost him dearly. And there's not necessary anything wrong with the fact that it will do so. But I will say that the ICC certainly would have known all this when they put him on the panel, which they didn't have to do, so it's a lowly act for them to sanction him for being himself.

I'm yet to be satisfied that he's either incompetent in the technical application of the rules (getting on with people, making friends and influencing people are a separate skill set which he clearly lacks), or that he's racist. I think, if it is demonstrable that he's had disproportionate issues with teams from the sub-continent, its a result of cultural differences in communication norms and professional standards. I think that with no malice or bias on his part, Hair acts in the manner he feels is appropriate, and is probably continually surprised that he gets such negative reactions, and showing some insensitivity probably decides that its the other parties problem, not his. I'll agree he's insensitive, but I don't think that he acts differently towards people of different races - Aussies, Kiwis and Poms probably just find themselves less offended by his brand of insensitivity.

Spot on IMO.

It's the sort of nature that those of us from Australia etc. brush off as it's common to come accross those sort of people. I honestly don't think has any malice towards any particular race.

Whilst he may seem incompetent etc. IMO there's an element of courage in it all as well, but as is so often the case with courage comes stupidity/stubborness. In this case, i think the later overran common sense unfortunately for Hair, and it seems likely it may cost him his umpiring career.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Hey genius, being found "not guilty" means by definition that you're innocent of the charges!!! That's what "being found not guilty" has meant for centuries. But of course since in this case the "innocent" party was Pakistan, you want to change the definition itself. Pathetic.

Not guilty means there's insufficient evidence for someone to be proven guilty of the charge. It does not equate to being found innocent. Being found innocent is when for example someone is charged with murder and they're found to have an iron clad alibi which meant they couldn't possibly have done the murder (such as they were on CW rabidly defending Pakistan when the crime was committed) - they'd be found innocent in this situation. There's a distinct difference.

 

[Rob T]

'I forgive Hair' - Inzamam

Inzamam-ul-Haq insisted on his return to Pakistan that he would not seek legal action against Darrell Hair after being cleared of ball tampering charges by the ICC. "Our religion Islam teaches us to forgive and forget, so I forgive Hair and will not take any action against him," Inzamam told AFP on his return.

Inzamam said he had nothing in his heart against Hair. "It will take time to forget what happened at The Oval but my heart is clear as always, and since we have been cleared of the more serious charge of ball tampering I think we should bury the matter," he said.

Imran Khan and other ex-players had urged Inzamam to seek an apology and take the Australian to court for defamation but Inzamam justified the decision not to appeal against the ban. "The penalty imposed is the minimum in level III so it would neither be reduced nor would it be lifted if I had appealed. So I see no reason to take the matter any further."

Earlier, Inzamam stood by his decision to protest at The Oval last month, when his team was judged to have forfeited the fourth Test, even though his punishment means he will miss the Champions Trophy.

Inzamam was cleared of ball-tampering at an ICC hearing on Thursday, but found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute over his side's refusal to continue play against England. He will therefore be unable to lead his country into next month's Champions Trophy, with Younis Khan taking control of the team in his absence.

"I knew I was going to be in trouble when I made the protest," Inzamam told Bigstarcricket.com. "It was not a decision I took easily, because nobody wants to prevent the spectators from watching the cricket - both at the ground and on television."

Even so - and despite the fact Pakistan became the first team in Test history to forfeit a Test match - Inzamam does not believe he did the wrong thing. "Although I regret the public were deprived of watching cricket, I don't regret making the decision to stay off the field - because there are certain things more important than winning and losing or the rule book."

"I felt the respect and integrity of my country had been brought into question, so the support the country has given me in this issue has been comforting. It told me that we were right to do what we did."

Inzamam believes his decision - which meant England won the series 3-0 - helped to focus attention on what he saw as an unfair ruling. "If we had just carried on with the game, the world would not have sat up and taken notice of how we had been accused of something we were not guilty of."

"We felt we had to stand up and protest. Ultimately, I understand the ICC's decision to ban me. I did what I felt was right - and so did they."

During the press conferences held after the hearing at The Oval Shaharyar Khan, the PCB chairman, stressed how he felt 'a slur' against Pakistan as a country had been lifted following ICC's ruling. However, he confirmed that Pakistan are not happy with the current law on how penalty runs are awarded in a case of ball tampering.

Meanwhile, Inzamam said he was heartened by the support he received from well-wishers: "I had a call on my mobile literally every minute after the hearing and I appreciate everyone's good wishes."

 

[social]

So ? Madugalle himself is well versed and experienced in the conditions expected of a ball to make an independent judgement on the issue once all the facts are provided.



Most certainly relevant if your very credibility is being challenged.



Playing cricket, familiarity with the ball - to a far far greater depth than Hair i would imagine. If one of the most accomplished batsmen of all time and an international bowler of significant career states otherwise, an umpire's conclusions on the ball can most definately be challenged.
This is not a question of whether an umpire CAN be challenged- it is a question of whether the umpire DID or DID NOT bollox up.

1. The only "facts" Madugalle was presented with was a ball, no knowledge of its' condition even 1 delivery earlier and the word of 2 people infinitely more qualified than he. He chose to make a quantum leap into territory with nothing to support his finding.

2. Nonsense - everyone agrees that the umpires abided by the laws, peoples' feelings are secondary.

3. Nonsense, an umpire examines the ball literally hundreds of times during the day and tens of thousands of times during a career and were in the thick of the action.

Hughes was a medium paced county trundler and had about as much expertise with reverse swing as me

Boycott was a batsman who saw the ball from 22 yards and occasionally in the field

Neither was on the ground and their testimony is therefore worth sweet zip-all

4. No comments on Afridi's admission or numerous previous warnings? I thought not

 

[Scaly piscine]

'I forgive Hair' - Inzamam

Inzamam-ul-Haq insisted on his return to Pakistan that he would not seek legal action against Darrell Hair after being cleared of ball tampering charges by the ICC. "Our religion Islam teaches us to forgive and forget, so I forgive Hair and will not take any action against him," Inzamam told AFP on his return.

Inzamam said he had nothing in his heart against Hair. "It will take time to forget what happened at The Oval but my heart is clear as always, and since we have been cleared of the more serious charge of ball tampering I think we should bury the matter," he said.

Imran Khan and other ex-players had urged Inzamam to seek an apology and take the Australian to court for defamation but Inzamam justified the decision not to appeal against the ban. "The penalty imposed is the minimum in level III so it would neither be reduced nor would it be lifted if I had appealed. So I see no reason to take the matter any further."

Earlier, Inzamam stood by his decision to protest at The Oval last month, when his team was judged to have forfeited the fourth Test, even though his punishment means he will miss the Champions Trophy.

Inzamam was cleared of ball-tampering at an ICC hearing on Thursday, but found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute over his side's refusal to continue play against England. He will therefore be unable to lead his country into next month's Champions Trophy, with Younis Khan taking control of the team in his absence.

"I knew I was going to be in trouble when I made the protest," Inzamam told Bigstarcricket.com. "It was not a decision I took easily, because nobody wants to prevent the spectators from watching the cricket - both at the ground and on television."

Even so - and despite the fact Pakistan became the first team in Test history to forfeit a Test match - Inzamam does not believe he did the wrong thing. "Although I regret the public were deprived of watching cricket, I don't regret making the decision to stay off the field - because there are certain things more important than winning and losing or the rule book."

"I felt the respect and integrity of my country had been brought into question, so the support the country has given me in this issue has been comforting. It told me that we were right to do what we did."

Inzamam believes his decision - which meant England won the series 3-0 - helped to focus attention on what he saw as an unfair ruling. "If we had just carried on with the game, the world would not have sat up and taken notice of how we had been accused of something we were not guilty of."

"We felt we had to stand up and protest. Ultimately, I understand the ICC's decision to ban me. I did what I felt was right - and so did they."

During the press conferences held after the hearing at The Oval Shaharyar Khan, the PCB chairman, stressed how he felt 'a slur' against Pakistan as a country had been lifted following ICC's ruling. However, he confirmed that Pakistan are not happy with the current law on how penalty runs are awarded in a case of ball tampering.

Meanwhile, Inzamam said he was heartened by the support he received from well-wishers: "I had a call on my mobile literally every minute after the hearing and I appreciate everyone's good wishes."

Hmm... Inzi in coherent political-speak shocker. A bit late on the moral high ground stuff tho.

 

[IndianByHeart]

Not guilty means there's insufficient evidence for someone to be proven guilty of the charge. It does not equate to being found innocent. Being found innocent is when for example someone is charged with murder and they're found to have an iron clad alibi which meant they couldn't possibly have done the murder (such as they were on CW rabidly defending Pakistan when the crime was committed) - they'd be found innocent in this situation. There's a distinct difference.

A person is considered INNOCENT untill proven guilty of an offence.To most people Mudugalles' statement were clear, that there was no evidence that shows that the ball was ever tempered and as such noone can be accused of being a cheat.

Forget evidence , there wasn't even a case of Hair making the notorious judgement on some observation on the field, the guy did a guess work and made a fool of himself, he himself has said that he might have made a mistake but it was all in good intention!!


I was sure about one thing though, the people who have been hysterically accusing Inzi of tampering on CW would continue with the whine even when he would be come out clean.Not much can be done if someone refuse to get educated!

 

[C_C]

1. The only "facts" Madugalle was presented with was a ball, no knowledge of its' condition even 1 delivery earlier and the word of 2 people infinitely more qualified than he. He chose to make a quantum leap into territory with nothing to support his finding.

Why you force me to spell it out for you, which leads to you promptly disappearing for a few days, i dont know. But here goes:

Madugalle *has* knowledge of ball's deterioration and he *has* a knowledge about how fast a ball should deteriorate. This is relative analysis, something, i am no doubt, you are completely ignorant about.

2. Nonsense - everyone agrees that the umpires abided by the laws, peoples' feelings are secondary.

I am sorry, the only one talking nonsense here is you. Umpires are NOT above the law of cricket itself. They are adjudicators and adjudicator must, therefore, be answerable for their own performance. It is THAT performance itself that is under the microscope here.
Whether he had the right to make a call or not is irrelevant to this issue, as him exercising his laws are not under contest here. However, his judgement is most certainly under the micrscope and therefore, your smokescreen needs to be quite significantly more robust if you choose to engage in such circular reasoning.

3. Nonsense, an umpire examines the ball literally hundreds of times during the day and tens of thousands of times during a career and were in the thick of the action.

And they still are NOT the ones playing the game- they are observers observing if you are carrying out the rules properly or not. As such, a bowler or a batsman are FAR more of an authority than umpires in aspects pertaining to the bat and/or the ball of the game. For both professions spend significantly more time in far more personal contact with the bat or the ball than the umpire. Hair -or any other umpire- can be overruled on this by the accounts of former players of significant repute.

Hughes was a medium paced county trundler and had about as much expertise with reverse swing as me

Regardless. Your usage of words are deliberately obfuscating the issue-leading me to question your intent and evident bias as well (gee..like that wouldnt be expected ). Medui pace country trundler or not, he is far more qualified to talk about the state of the ball and the natural/unnatural aspect of it than an umpire.

Neither was on the ground and their testimony is therefore worth sweet zip-all

They dont have to be present on ground to make their judgement on the object of the controversy-the ball. The ball itself reveals whether it has been tampered with or not and on that score, Hair is pathetically outgunned.

4. No comments on Afridi's admission or numerous previous warnings? I thought not

Previous warnings are irrelevant. This is not a personal case- you are profiling an entire flipping nation here when you try to draw a line of connectivity while ignoring the fact that different coach,player,manager, etc. mean there is no continuity. As such, you fail to establish any patternistic behaviour in this regard.

And Afridi's comments- i havnt read them yet and since you are quite given to cooking up facts outta thin air or trying to twist them so banally- i wait to see something on it before i comment any further on it.

Deal with the facts here : Hair has a distinct pattern of behaviour against teams of certain demographics( on which, i shall provide concrete data soon), his pathetic judgement on this matter has been proven to be in error numerous times in the past and he has been proven wrong yet again in this case, by a far more scientific approach to this problem than simple 'he says-she says' stuff. The same Hair who tried to extort money from his employer and get paid off for 2-3 years worth of work he was uninclined to complete. As i said, this latest incident provides only two possible conclusions from the evidence presented and judged - a)Hair is biassed b) Hair is hopelessly incompetent.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Not much can be done if someone refuse to get educated!

Indeed...

 

[marc71178]

And Afridi's comments- i havnt read them yet and since you are quite given to cooking up facts outta thin air or trying to twist them so banally- i wait to see something on it before i comment any further on it.

I assume these are the ones from an interview earlier this year when he talked about the team tampering.

It came to light immediately after the incident IIRC.

 

[IndianByHeart]

Hmm... Inzi in coherent political-speak shocker. A bit late on the moral high ground stuff tho.

Better late than never!!

Even Hair seems to be softening up a bit, said later than he would like to meet Inzi.

 

[Dasa]

social, do you think the Pakistani team tampered with the ball?

 

[IndianByHeart]

1. The only "facts" Madugalle was presented with was a ball, no knowledge of its' condition even 1 delivery earlier and the word of 2 people infinitely more qualified than he. He chose to make a quantum leap into territory with nothing to support his finding.

Thats the only facts that COULD HAVE BEEN presented to Mudagalle or any refree for the hearing for there was not much in the case atall. As for the witness, i think if inplace of Boycott and Hughes, there were ex-bolwers as witness in say Holding and Ambrose, i'm pretty sure they would have come up with more or less the same stuff as what Boycott and Hughes came up with.

In any case the ball will be open for view to everyone, not that it will change the opinion of some of hair's frantic supporters.

 

[GIMH]

Hey genius, being found "not guilty" means by definition that you're innocent of the charges!!! That's what "being found not guilty" has meant for centuries. But of course since in this case the "innocent" party was Pakistan, you want to change the definition itself. Pathetic.

Er, no, incorrect. Not guilty = not found guilty because there is no evidence to prove you did it. It does not mean you have been found innocent. Otherwise the verdicts would be Guilty and Innocent, rather than Guilty or Not Guilty.

 

[social]

Why you force me to spell it out for you, which leads to you promptly disappearing for a few days, i dont know. But here goes:

Madugalle *has* knowledge of ball's deterioration and he *has* a knowledge about how fast a ball should deteriorate. This is relative analysis, something, i am no doubt, you are completely ignorant about.



I am sorry, the only one talking nonsense here is you. Umpires are NOT above the law of cricket itself. They are adjudicators and adjudicator must, therefore, be answerable for their own performance. It is THAT performance itself that is under the microscope here.
Whether he had the right to make a call or not is irrelevant to this issue, as him exercising his laws are not under contest here. However, his judgement is most certainly under the micrscope and therefore, your smokescreen needs to be quite significantly more robust if you choose to engage in such circular reasoning.



And they still are NOT the ones playing the game- they are observers observing if you are carrying out the rules properly or not. As such, a bowler or a batsman are FAR more of an authority than umpires in aspects pertaining to the bat and/or the ball of the game. For both professions spend significantly more time in far more personal contact with the bat or the ball than the umpire. Hair -or any other umpire- can be overruled on this by the accounts of former players of significant repute.



Regardless. Your usage of words are deliberately obfuscating the issue-leading me to question your intent and evident bias as well (gee..like that wouldnt be expected ). Medui pace country trundler or not, he is far more qualified to talk about the state of the ball and the natural/unnatural aspect of it than an umpire.



They dont have to be present on ground to make their judgement on the object of the controversy-the ball. The ball itself reveals whether it has been tampered with or not and on that score, Hair is pathetically outgunned.



Previous warnings are irrelevant. This is not a personal case- you are profiling an entire flipping nation here when you try to draw a line of connectivity while ignoring the fact that different coach,player,manager, etc. mean there is no continuity. As such, you fail to establish any patternistic behaviour in this regard.

And Afridi's comments- i havnt read them yet and since you are quite given to cooking up facts outta thin air or trying to twist them so banally- i wait to see something on it before i comment any further on it.

Deal with the facts here : Hair has a distinct pattern of behaviour against teams of certain demographics( on which, i shall provide concrete data soon), his pathetic judgement on this matter has been proven to be in error numerous times in the past and he has been proven wrong yet again in this case, by a far more scientific approach to this problem than simple 'he says-she says' stuff. The same Hair who tried to extort money from his employer and get paid off for 2-3 years worth of work he was uninclined to complete. As i said, this latest incident provides only two possible conclusions from the evidence presented and judged - a)Hair is biassed b) Hair is hopelessly incompetent.

Geez u talk nonsense

Madugalle had absolutely no knowledge of what caused the ball to deteriorate or at what rate it deteriorated because he was x000 kms away at the time. Therefore, unlike the umpires' in question, his opinion is uniformed speculation at best.

Unfortunately, the umpires made a decision in accordance with the law and in full knowledge that the team in question had been warned on numerous previous occasions - therefore no more leniency

Hughes and Boycott have more knowledge than the umpires - are you serious? It's the umpires job to study the condition of the ball and they do it for umpteen thousand deliveries and hours during their careers

As for Afridi see http://www.timesnow.tv/articleshow/1913784.cms

Now I'll go away for another couple of days whilst u concoct another white supremacy conspiracy theory

 

[Craig]

I can't be bothered reading all the posts as I don't have the time to.

But I can only think Hair thought he saw something and thus acted, and of course we are not out there so how do we know? Anyway IMO he had set himself up for this because of what has happened and therefore a lack of evidence as shown. So in some aspects I think he had set himself up for this so it could be argued he is at fault, but I don't agree with Imran Khan's comment's afterwards who went and sprouted the race card. I find it rather hypocrticial because he was hardly a saint on the field as well.

 

[social]

social, do you think the Pakistani team tampered with the ball?

They'd be the exception to the rule if they didnt in my experience.

Even Bob Woolmer made the comment that virtually every team he played with did so.

Unfortunately, some do it more obviously than others whilst virtually all umpires let it pass

 

[Scaly piscine]

Thats the only facts that COULD HAVE BEEN presented to Mudagalle or any refree for the hearing for there was not much in the case atall. As for the witness, i think if inplace of Boycott and Hughes, there were ex-bolwers as witness in say Holding and Ambrose, i'm pretty sure they would have come up with more or less the same stuff as what Boycott and Hughes came up with.

In any case the ball will be open for view to everyone, not that it will change the opinion of some of hair's frantic supporters.

How do we know it's the right ball tho?

 

[silentstriker]

Not guilty means there's insufficient evidence for someone to be proven guilty of the charge. It does not equate to being found innocent. Being found innocent is when for example someone is charged with murder and they're found to have an iron clad alibi which meant they couldn't possibly have done the murder (such as they were on CW rabidly defending Pakistan when the crime was committed) - they'd be found innocent in this situation. There's a distinct difference.

No there isn't. In a court of law, you are never 'found innocent'. You are always found 'not guilty'.