Ball-Tampering Hearing

[Jono]

Particularly those chins.

 

[Burgey]

Wow- hit 50 posts today - now a school boy/ girl cricketer not a spectator. I just haven't decided which one yet.......

 

[JASON]

The legal jargon used in the Match Referee's report makes me think the ICC were keen to make it fool proof and holes free from a legal view point . Looks like most of the report must have been the work of the QC employed by the ICC (David Pannick) .(What a name -panic !! )

 

[Slow Love™]

But he did have evidence to back it up: the ball, him and Doctrove. Madugale said the condition of the ball was equally consistent with tampering or normal wear and tear, so the evidence wasn't dodgy. The fact that the case wasn't proven doesn't mean that there was no evidence to support the allegation. If Madugale had said "There is nothing to suggest that this ball has been tampered with in any way" then I would agree with you.

We can probably have fun with the diplomatic wording of Mudagalle's statement 'till the end of time, but he did also say "Given that the physical state of the ball did not justify a conclusion that a fielder had altered its condition, and neither of the umpires had seen a fielder tampering with the ball, there was no breach of Law 42.3"

His statement implies that the ball did not suggest ball tampering, and that the wear and tear is consistent with that of normal play and the ball being pitched into the rough and making contact with bats etc. So it can easily said that Hair (or both umpires, if you like) jumped to a conclusion that wasn't really supportable by the evidence he held in his hand.

We should all bear in mind that this could happen in any situation where the ball's condition was affected by normal wear and tear. What made the difference in this situation? Possibly the fact that Hair was already deeply suspicious of this team in particular.

And I agree with you that it doesn't make him a racist, although I don't think you should be judging that on the basis of rationality (ie, what would his agenda be, killing his own career, etc), because racism is usually an irrational behaviour anyway. He might have been a tad prejudicial in this case though. Certainly, if he'd seen some suspicious behaviour pertaining to the ball by a Pakistan player (or players), he should have cited it.

 

[FRAZ]

employed by the ICC (David Pannick) .(What a name -panic !! )

hehe Thats all ICC needs i.e. Panics !!

 

[Burgey]

And I agree with you that it doesn't make him a racist, although I don't think you should be judging that on the basis of rationality (ie, what would his agenda be, killing his own career, etc), because racism is usually an irrational behaviour anyway. .

Top point. Well said.

 

[social]

What did everyone expect?

Only evidence was a ball with no comparison between finished condition and that of even a few deliveries earlier.

On that basis, was always going to be inconclusive and Inzy was always going to get a minimal slap on the wrist.

 

[_TiGeR-ToWn_]

What punishment did Doctrove recieve or did he recieve nothing for his part in the ball tampering issue?

 

[haroon510]

is that a joke or something. it is really dissappointing. we have this god damat umpire whose soo baise against sub continint teams making baise decision and getting away with it. instead of being punish for that the icc is just let him get away with it while the team that has been the victim of this baise act gets the punishment. i thought hair is gone get ban or something from interntional cricket instead inzi was punished for disrupting the game.
that is what i hate about cricket the icc has never done a right decision. it was proven that pakistan didn't temper the ball and they dissrupted the game becuase the umpires were not being fair with them. now pakistan would get punish becuase they stand for thier right. icc and thier decisions are full of crap all the time

 

[sqwerty]

I haven't read any real details on this result but if it stands that Hair has got off scott free while Inzy has been busted for bringing the game into disrepute then that astounds me.

Hair should be held accountable for his actions and not get away smug comments such as "If the ICC wants me to umpir in Pakistan I will" etc

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

What did everyone expect?

Only evidence was a ball with no comparison between finished condition and that of even a few deliveries earlier.

On that basis, was always going to be inconclusive and Inzy was always going to get a minimal slap on the wrist.

Yeah exactly. It doesn't really prove that Hair and Doctrove were wrong, since their judgement was that the ball changed condition in a fashion which wasn't consistent with what was normal, and there's no "before" ball to compare the current one to.

Nor, obviously, does it prove that they were right. It merely says that without visual evidence of the actual tampering occuring, it can't be proved that it occured. We're basically at the same situation as before.

 

[sqwerty]

I haven't read any real details on this result but if it stands that Hair has got off scott free while Inzy has been busted for bringing the game into disrepute then that astounds me.

Hair should be held accountable for his actions and not get away smug comments such as "If the ICC wants me to umpire in Pakistan I will" etc

 

[Pedro Delgado]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wooJEx0AvtE&mode=related&search=


words of wisdom

I like that music

 

[honestbharani]

Can't be farked reading all those in depth analyses of the situation - as good as i'm sure they are

I've just come off three days of residential school and two straight days of 4th yr psych stats (give the girl a drink!)... so, here are my thoughts...

I understand Doctrove wanted to wait a few more overs before considering changing the ball. He wasn't sure it was ball tampering. So you cannot claim he is fully supporting Hair. Hair has no proof whatsoever. If you cannot point the finger directly at a person, then how can you say tampering was taking place? Despite any suspicions you may have?

Second, whilst Pakistan were wronged - in my view - two wrongs don't make a right. They behaved childishly when they protested. There are other avenues in which they could have been heard. Not only did they forfeit a test they looked like winning, but they deprived thousands of cricket fans of the opportunity to see the match go to its logical conclusion. These guys are professionals. They need to behave in a manner commensurate with their standing.

Hair should never umpire again. He acted on intuition, not facts.
And Inzi should be suspended for as long as the ICC sees fit.

My thoughts exactly. But I have a bigger gripe with Hair simply because he started the whole thing and had he had a bit more common sense and a little less ego, the issue could have been handled so much better. And you would expect 50 plus men to display common sense, won't you? Esp. if they are umpires at the international level. Decision making is a skill but common sense is a must, AFAIC.

 

[honestbharani]

Apologise for what? I'm not one of the people who judged Hair or Pakistan weeks ago. All I've said is that the ICC would do a political fudge whether they cheated or not because the evidence is in their possession and they can do what they like against Hair but not against Pakistan because they can politically push the ICC around. The predictable has happened and they got the decisions they wanted. This is politics, it stinks and it's full of lies.

u mean, like ur posts?

 

[honestbharani]

Pakistan could not be proven innocent in this case why the verdict is "not guilty". Even if the ICC weren't as bent as a nine bob note they couldn't have proven the innocence of Pakistan, short of the ball being in mint condition and having no marks whatsoever.

If you'd have been familiar with some of the famous whitewashes of recent times of the Blair administration in Britain you'd realise it's not hard to find an 'independent official' who isn't that independent - Blair managed to find bent judges who're on so much money you'd think they'd be uncorruptable.

"not guilty" means innocent. The burden of proof is the onus of the accusers and they have failed. Therefore, it means Pakistan are innocent. The innocent dont need to prove their innocence, only the accusers need to prove their accusations. That is how it works worldwide.

 

[honestbharani]

He got the minimum possible punishment - no point in appealing.

Nope, if they want him real bad for the CT they can appeal now and then have the ban enforced during the Windies games, when they may not need him so much.

 

[Slow Love™]

What did everyone expect?

Only evidence was a ball with no comparison between finished condition and that of even a few deliveries earlier.

On that basis, was always going to be inconclusive and Inzy was always going to get a minimal slap on the wrist.

Well, I don't think that many are surprised by the verdict, no.

But what I do think it demonstrates is that the rule that allows the charge of ball tampering to be made on the spot without any visual evidence of it occurring is now untenable. IMO correctly so, it's ridiculous, and will result in calls based more on prejudice than supportable evidence.

 

[honestbharani]

True, perception is often reality.

But, if one substituted Doctrove for Hair, would there be the same kerfuffle? He apparently supported the allegation. Whether he did so straight away or waited until later is a matter of contention. He supported Hair inthe allegation. You can't say he had to, because if he's not strong enough to go his own way, then maybe he shouldn't be umpiring.

And just because the allegation was ultimately not proven, doesn't mean they didn't have "reasonable" evidence. The referee's decision in some way supports this with the comment that the damage to the ball was "equally" consistent with tampering and normal wear and tear. There just wasn't enough evidence to convict them.

The terrible thing here is not the damage to the ball but the damage to the game. Veiled and unveiled allegations of racism and bias we can all do without. Hair is a very headstrong man and his way of doing things is not something I'm real comfortable with, but just because he makes unpalatable decisions doesn't make him a racist. An umpire just has to make his calls as he sees them, right or wrong. No one should have to do that without feeling (rightly or wrongly) that if he does so he'll be accused of being prejudiced or biased.

He got it wrong. Umpires get things wrong all the time. He went about it the wrong way and should have been more conciliatory. That may mean he shouldn't umpire. It may mean that he should work on the way he does things. It doesn't make him a racist.

I dont mind umpires getting stuff like LBW and caught behinds wrong from time to time, but this guy has often displayed a real lack of common sense on a no. of occassions now. Cricket will certainly be better without him. That is for sure.

 

[honestbharani]

What did everyone expect?

Only evidence was a ball with no comparison between finished condition and that of even a few deliveries earlier.

On that basis, was always going to be inconclusive and Inzy was always going to get a minimal slap on the wrist.

really? So there were no video clips of the ball's state a few deliveries earlier? It may not be the best tool for comparison but it certainly would give an idea. And Doctrove's match report only makes it clear that Hair acted in haste. He may/may not have had a case but the way he handled it shows why he should be dispensed with as soon as possible. And if Hair and Doctrove can say if the condition of the ball has been altered or not, so can Madugalle, Boycott and Hughes. And as things stand, it is 3-2 in favour of Pakistan. To keep trying to defend Hair on this issue is just ridiculous. He was wrong right from the start and he basically acted on a bit of impulse with possibly a bit of prejudice. And his complete lack of common sense while handling such issues means he is totally unfit to be on the elite panel.