-
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
Legglancer
State Regular
Will he keep bobbing up like a bad hair day?
By R Mohan
Darrell Hair has put the ICC in a pickle. Having charged the Pakistani captain with ball tampering on the flimsy evidence of a biased umpire’s suspicions, the ICC would now have to do a lot to wriggle out of the Hair fallout. And to think the man is unrepentant after causing a second major upheaval in 10 years.
More than unrepentant, the Australian, now domiciled in England, was bullish to the extent of being ****y. “I’m a bloody good umpire”, he averred even as the world was watching the drama unfold at the Madugalle hearing at which the man stood exposed as a holy book-thumping zealot more than an international sports official.
Courage may be a career commodity in the armed forces. What may be expected in umpires in a genteel game like cricket are humane qualities. They are there for the smooth conduct of the game, not to be obstacles in the path of high strung international cricketers who are doing their best to win matches for their countries. The problem with umpires like Hair is they like to play God. In unilateral action, he wished to clean up the game of chucking, ball tampering and such other evils that may have overtaken it in the modern era.
With voices of support emanating from Down Under where they must believe he is an emerging cult hero, Hair might have begun to believe he was developing a halo. Inzamam and the Pakistan Cricket Board may have a strong case against Hair and the ICC. Knowing what lawyers did to Allan Lamb in libel action brought about by Imran Khan in the wake of the original ball tampering scandal in the 1990s, they might be tempted to sue for millions of pounds. There is no better legal system to take libel action than British jurisprudence.
The Pakistan captain has taken it well though, allowing his religious beliefs and his essential goodness to guide him to the extent of his forgiving Hair. Court dramas are basically not good for the game that suffered enough in the aftermath of Hair’s predetermined course of action in pouncing on the Pakistanis for tampering.
The problem is the ICC, regardless of what they say for public consumption, will not let go of Hair who will keep bobbin up like a bad hair day. They will probably sneak him into the World Cup on the pretext that everything is forgotten and that he has been forgiven. But umpiring is not a simple matter of getting most LBWs and caught behind wicket decisions right.
There is much more to keeping an international game going than ‘bloody’ good umpiring calls, which Hair in his hubris may not have understood, not in the Muttiah Muralitharan throwing episode, not in the ball tampering charge at the Oval, not in the manner he has been accustomed to behave in when umpiring games involving Asians. Akram has accused him of calling Pakistanis ‘monkeys’ at a game 10 years ago and Hair has not repudiated that.
Strangely, even before the inquiry into the Oval shindig had been held, the ‘bloody’ good umpire from Down Under had declared that he would be standing in the Champions Trophy. That should have earned him a prize not for courage but for cussedness. The ICC that rapped the Pakistanis for talking in public before the trial did not rein in its own employee.
The legal eagles, with the likes of Geoffrey Boycott going out to bat for them, got up a very good defence to deal a knockout blow that Madugalle upheld. To date, no action has been taken against an umpire who made a ruling on flimsy evidence. That is how principled the ICC can be when it comes to dealing with one of its favourite sons. Catch a cricketer so much as displaying one logo a centimeter too long and the long arm of the ICC would be cracking its whip on him with fines, suspensions.
There have been too many holes in the manner in which the so-called elite umpiring system has been run by a section of the ICC. The Hair imbroglio is a rare instance in which it got its comeuppance. And it was not Asian money and clout that swung the verdict this time as much as the blatant unfairness of one man’s actions being exposed cruelly by expert witnesses and the forensic examination of the ball in question.
There are Hair jokes on ball tampering that cannot be reproduced in a family newspaper. The strong feelings one man has triggered around the cricket world are real. Pray what will the ICC do with him now? Given its track record, it will probably hand him a medal and more assignments rather than a golden handshake he wanted at a phenomenal price of half a million dollars.
By R Mohan
Darrell Hair has put the ICC in a pickle. Having charged the Pakistani captain with ball tampering on the flimsy evidence of a biased umpire’s suspicions, the ICC would now have to do a lot to wriggle out of the Hair fallout. And to think the man is unrepentant after causing a second major upheaval in 10 years.
More than unrepentant, the Australian, now domiciled in England, was bullish to the extent of being ****y. “I’m a bloody good umpire”, he averred even as the world was watching the drama unfold at the Madugalle hearing at which the man stood exposed as a holy book-thumping zealot more than an international sports official.
Courage may be a career commodity in the armed forces. What may be expected in umpires in a genteel game like cricket are humane qualities. They are there for the smooth conduct of the game, not to be obstacles in the path of high strung international cricketers who are doing their best to win matches for their countries. The problem with umpires like Hair is they like to play God. In unilateral action, he wished to clean up the game of chucking, ball tampering and such other evils that may have overtaken it in the modern era.
With voices of support emanating from Down Under where they must believe he is an emerging cult hero, Hair might have begun to believe he was developing a halo. Inzamam and the Pakistan Cricket Board may have a strong case against Hair and the ICC. Knowing what lawyers did to Allan Lamb in libel action brought about by Imran Khan in the wake of the original ball tampering scandal in the 1990s, they might be tempted to sue for millions of pounds. There is no better legal system to take libel action than British jurisprudence.
The Pakistan captain has taken it well though, allowing his religious beliefs and his essential goodness to guide him to the extent of his forgiving Hair. Court dramas are basically not good for the game that suffered enough in the aftermath of Hair’s predetermined course of action in pouncing on the Pakistanis for tampering.
The problem is the ICC, regardless of what they say for public consumption, will not let go of Hair who will keep bobbin up like a bad hair day. They will probably sneak him into the World Cup on the pretext that everything is forgotten and that he has been forgiven. But umpiring is not a simple matter of getting most LBWs and caught behind wicket decisions right.
There is much more to keeping an international game going than ‘bloody’ good umpiring calls, which Hair in his hubris may not have understood, not in the Muttiah Muralitharan throwing episode, not in the ball tampering charge at the Oval, not in the manner he has been accustomed to behave in when umpiring games involving Asians. Akram has accused him of calling Pakistanis ‘monkeys’ at a game 10 years ago and Hair has not repudiated that.
Strangely, even before the inquiry into the Oval shindig had been held, the ‘bloody’ good umpire from Down Under had declared that he would be standing in the Champions Trophy. That should have earned him a prize not for courage but for cussedness. The ICC that rapped the Pakistanis for talking in public before the trial did not rein in its own employee.
The legal eagles, with the likes of Geoffrey Boycott going out to bat for them, got up a very good defence to deal a knockout blow that Madugalle upheld. To date, no action has been taken against an umpire who made a ruling on flimsy evidence. That is how principled the ICC can be when it comes to dealing with one of its favourite sons. Catch a cricketer so much as displaying one logo a centimeter too long and the long arm of the ICC would be cracking its whip on him with fines, suspensions.
There have been too many holes in the manner in which the so-called elite umpiring system has been run by a section of the ICC. The Hair imbroglio is a rare instance in which it got its comeuppance. And it was not Asian money and clout that swung the verdict this time as much as the blatant unfairness of one man’s actions being exposed cruelly by expert witnesses and the forensic examination of the ball in question.
There are Hair jokes on ball tampering that cannot be reproduced in a family newspaper. The strong feelings one man has triggered around the cricket world are real. Pray what will the ICC do with him now? Given its track record, it will probably hand him a medal and more assignments rather than a golden handshake he wanted at a phenomenal price of half a million dollars.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Gee, what a balanced article.........
Not.
" a biased umpire’s suspicions" - evidence re. bias? None supplied by author.
"the man stood exposed as a holy book-thumping zealot more than an international sports official" - which is presumably why Doctrove suppotred him at the hearing.
"What may be expected in umpires in a genteel game like cricket are humane qualities. They are there for the smooth conduct of the game, not to be obstacles in the path of high strung international cricketers who are doing their best to win matches for their countries" - non sequitur there - it's a genteel game where umpires are supposed to be humane, yet it's suposedly played by highly strung players.
"With voices of support emanating from Down Under where they must believe he is an emerging cult hero, Hair might have begun to believe he was developing a halo." There's been no such elevation here. Most people think he didn't handle the situation as well as he could, but that doesn't warrant a good old effigy burning.
"The problem with umpires like Hair is they like to play God" - umpires play God every time they make a decision.
"The Pakistan captain has taken it well though, allowing his religious beliefs and his essential goodness to guide him to the extent of his forgiving Hair" - and refusing to take the field of play when required by the laws of cricket. Whoever said Inzi isn't a good bloke? That's hardly the issue. The quality of mercy is not strained - forgiveness isn't limited to those who hold a religious belief of any sort, but if a man who thinks he's been wronged is big enough to forgive the person who's wronged him, then fair play.
"Hair’s predetermined course of action in pouncing on the Pakistanis for tampering." Evidence of this pre-determination? No one raised it at the hearing, funnily enough. Probably because there wasn't any.
"And it was not Asian money and clout that swung the verdict this time as much as the blatant unfairness of one man’s actions being exposed cruelly by expert witnesses and the forensic examination of the ball in question". The how come Madugalle said the ball's condition was "equally" consistent with tampering and nornal wear and tear? That's hardly an agenda or actions being "cruelly exposed".
"not in the Muttiah Muralitharan throwing episode" - at that time, there was no system for referral of actions. The only way to do something about it then was to call someone. Now you can't do it. I don't know which system is worse - calling someone and publicly humiliating them or having the embarrasment of watching someone like Blessing Mahwire being able to complete his spell in a ODI when it is blatantly obvious his action was illegal and even the commentators just sat there speechless.
"Akram has accused him of calling Pakistanis ‘monkeys’ at a game 10 years ago and Hair has not repudiated that." Well, if he said that it's bloody appalling and he ought to have been repudiated at the time. Was that allegation ever raised officially or has it only surfaced since the Oval fiasco?
No problem with the criticism of the ICC - we all know what they are like.
I see Doctrove has been left out of the Champions Trophy. Maybe it wasn't "one man's actions" after all?
Not.
" a biased umpire’s suspicions" - evidence re. bias? None supplied by author.
"the man stood exposed as a holy book-thumping zealot more than an international sports official" - which is presumably why Doctrove suppotred him at the hearing.
"What may be expected in umpires in a genteel game like cricket are humane qualities. They are there for the smooth conduct of the game, not to be obstacles in the path of high strung international cricketers who are doing their best to win matches for their countries" - non sequitur there - it's a genteel game where umpires are supposed to be humane, yet it's suposedly played by highly strung players.
"With voices of support emanating from Down Under where they must believe he is an emerging cult hero, Hair might have begun to believe he was developing a halo." There's been no such elevation here. Most people think he didn't handle the situation as well as he could, but that doesn't warrant a good old effigy burning.
"The problem with umpires like Hair is they like to play God" - umpires play God every time they make a decision.
"The Pakistan captain has taken it well though, allowing his religious beliefs and his essential goodness to guide him to the extent of his forgiving Hair" - and refusing to take the field of play when required by the laws of cricket. Whoever said Inzi isn't a good bloke? That's hardly the issue. The quality of mercy is not strained - forgiveness isn't limited to those who hold a religious belief of any sort, but if a man who thinks he's been wronged is big enough to forgive the person who's wronged him, then fair play.
"Hair’s predetermined course of action in pouncing on the Pakistanis for tampering." Evidence of this pre-determination? No one raised it at the hearing, funnily enough. Probably because there wasn't any.
"And it was not Asian money and clout that swung the verdict this time as much as the blatant unfairness of one man’s actions being exposed cruelly by expert witnesses and the forensic examination of the ball in question". The how come Madugalle said the ball's condition was "equally" consistent with tampering and nornal wear and tear? That's hardly an agenda or actions being "cruelly exposed".
"not in the Muttiah Muralitharan throwing episode" - at that time, there was no system for referral of actions. The only way to do something about it then was to call someone. Now you can't do it. I don't know which system is worse - calling someone and publicly humiliating them or having the embarrasment of watching someone like Blessing Mahwire being able to complete his spell in a ODI when it is blatantly obvious his action was illegal and even the commentators just sat there speechless.
"Akram has accused him of calling Pakistanis ‘monkeys’ at a game 10 years ago and Hair has not repudiated that." Well, if he said that it's bloody appalling and he ought to have been repudiated at the time. Was that allegation ever raised officially or has it only surfaced since the Oval fiasco?
No problem with the criticism of the ICC - we all know what they are like.
I see Doctrove has been left out of the Champions Trophy. Maybe it wasn't "one man's actions" after all?
Last edited:
haroon510
International 12th Man
agree with u but instead what icc is saying hereLegglancer said:
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/current/story/261382.html
bunch of bs all i know is that icc has never done any good decision in the history of cricket.
Complicated
School Boy/Girl Cricketer
This I think is the more interesting discussion. What are the effect going to be on future ball tampering incidents? Will umpires be afraid to claim that a team has ball tampered? Has Pakistan insulated themselves against future claims? And will the ICC change the law, either opening up ball tampering or closing it completely. It's clear the current situation is a problem.social said:
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
The best thing is to just replace the ball if u think it has been tampered with but only induce the fine (and PLEASE, something bigger than the 5 runs) if there is SOLID evidence. In other words, it may mean that most of the time the guys tampering with the ball MAY get away with it, but the ball can still be changed and with the increase in the no. of cameras and all, it wont be easy to anyone to tamper with the ball without being known, at least at the international level. I believe there is always one camera that FOLLOWS the ball in every telecast.Complicated said:
And Social, why do u need to take such a gloomy view of these things? AFAIC, if what I said above does become the rule, it is a much better one than the current thing. Ball tampering is a SERIOUS offence and has to be treated as such.
Legglancer
State Regular
agree completely !pasag said:
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Well, wait till the BCCI gets a veto vote, like they had a while ago.
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Experience teaches us that decisions of this type are far more likely to be politically expedient than "just" (which, btw, is why I was able to accurately forecast the outcome of the hearing a month ago - didnt need to be Einstein to do that).honestbharani said:
Unfortunately, by pandering to the interests of one disaffected member, the ICC has potentially seriously compromised the authority of umpires and done absolutely nothing to dissuade others from following a similar course of action.
As for ball tampering, yes it is a serious offence.
However, simply changing the ball can actually serve as an advantage to the fielding team and provides little disincentive to the perpetrator.
