Ball-Tampering Hearing

[SJS]

I am not one bit surprised by what has been found that a) there wasnt solid evidence for Hair to presume that Pakistan were cheating and b) that Inzy was wrong in carrying his protest as far as he did. What has surprised me is the action taken against both.

Both Inzy and Hair have been let off mildly.

If the adjudicator can decide that Hair was WRONG in forming the opinion that he did, then we must assume it means Hair exceeded his authority in pronouncing the Pakistani team as 'cheats' which is what it amounts to. This is far too serious a matter to end with just a statement that Hair was wrong. What action is proposed to be taken against Hair?

Even the fact that he is not officiating in the Champions trophy is covered by ICC's own reason for the same "security and safety" concerns.

Doesnt Hair deserve a strong indictment and a form of punishment?

Similarly Inzy has been let off lightly (and his reaction leaves no one in doubt that he as well as PCB think so) with the minimum sentence for the level three offense that his actions have been judged to involve. Let me clarify here that I am not convinced by the 'logic' of the protestations that Inzy's wrong was because of Hair's 'wrong' and therefore not really wrong in a way.

ICC has acted diplomatically and managed to 'resolve' this ugly matter in a manner that will gloss over the serious issues involved.

I am not sure this is a great way to handle such crisis. Hair's 'pronouncement' of 'cheating' for the Pak team without any solid evidence and Inzy's forfeiture of a match in a huff are both unprecedented behaviours and one would expect that deterrent action would be taken.

This is a personal opinion and I know many here would differ which is fine.

 

[Craig]

'Reports' of that on the BBC

Nice to see Blair get rid of some of that industrial strength whitewash he's been stockpiling and will no longer lead in the near future.

Excuse my ignorance but what the hell does Blair have anything to do with it?

 

[nightprowler10]

I am not one bit surprised by what has been found that a) there wasnt solid evidence for Hair to presume that Pakistan were cheating and b) that Inzy was wrong in carrying his protest as far as he did. What has surprised me is the action taken against both.

Both Inzy and Hair have been let off mildly.

If the adjudicator can decide that Hair was WRONG in forming the opinion that he did, then we must assume it means Hair exceeded his authority in pronouncing the Pakistani team as 'cheats' which is what it amounts to. This is far too serious a matter to end with just a statement that Hair was wrong. What action is proposed to be taken against Hair?

Even the fact that he is not officiating in the Champions trophy is covered by ICC's own reason for the same "security and safety" concerns.

Doesnt Hair deserve a strong indictment and a form of punishment?

Similarly Inzy has been let off lightly (and his reaction leaves no one in doubt that he as well as PCB think so) with the minimum sentence for the level three offense that his actions have been judged to involve. Let me clarify here that I am not convinced by the 'logic' of the protestations that Inzy's wrong was because of Hair's 'wrong' and therefore not really wrong in a way.

ICC has acted diplomatically and managed to 'resolve' this ugly matter in a manner that will gloss over the serious issues involved.

I am not sure this is a great way to handle such crisis. Hair's 'pronouncement' of 'cheating' for the Pak team without any solid evidence and Inzy's forfeiture of a match in a huff are both unprecedented behaviours and one would expect that deterrent action would be taken.

This is a personal opinion and I know many here would differ which is fine.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Excuse my ignorance but what the hell does Blair have anything to do with it?

He has a toe in every cesspool.

 

[honestbharani]

I'm very disappointed in the verdict today. Not because I think Madugalle got the verdict wrong - its seems clear no that there isn't the level of evidence required to sustain the charge that Inzi & team were cheating.

I'm disappointed because I had been prepared to accord Hair quite a bit of respect,and the benefit of the doubt. The verdict has therefore disappointed me because it seems some of that faith was misplaced.

I feel bad for Hair because he clearly felt that his job was to officiate the rules, in a black and white manner, before any othe consideration. While he might be pig-headed about this sometimes, I think he honestly does his best to do so. What he has shown that he doesn't understand is the level of both sensitivity and evidence you need when you level a charge of cheating.

He was failed by the system with the Murali incident - there was no system in place for Hair to act on what he saw as a infringement of the rules but to no-ball Muttiah in a match, based only on his own vision. Thankfully that situation has been addressed.

Here he let himself down by not making sure he properly documented evidence of what he felt was occuring before making an accusation, and by not handling the situation with any tact or common-sense.

I had hoped he would have definite evidence, given how bluntly he acted. Alas that was not the case, and therefore his credibilty, and by extension the standing of all umpires is damaged. How severely remains to be seen.

He let himself down in this instance because his ego is the size of his tummy and his common sense the size of his brain. Even if the condn of the ball had been changed, all he needed to do was to have a word with Inzy and just replace the ball and have a closer watch on the players.

 

[SJS]

.... all he needed to do was to have a word with Inzy and just replace the ball and have a closer watch on the players.

An umpire's job is to ensure that "the game goes on" without anyone breaking the laws. A policeman's job is to ensure that the game of anyone suspected of breaking the laws "is put to an end"

Hair's problem is he is wearing the uniform of the former and behaves like the latter.

 

[social]

He let himself down in this instance because his ego is the size of his tummy and his common sense the size of his brain. Even if the condn of the ball had been changed, all he needed to do was to have a word with Inzy and B]just replace the ball[/B] and have a closer watch on the players.

Under what provision?

It wasnt out of shape

It hadnt passed it's use by date

Either it was tampered with or it wasnt

Not tampered - do nothing

Tampered - act as they did.

Inzy's potential reaction is irrelevant.

 

[social]

An umpire's job is to ensure that "the game goes on" without anyone breaking the laws. A policeman's job is to ensure that the game of anyone suspected of breaking the laws "is put to an end"

Hair's problem is he is wearing the uniform of the former and behaves like the latter.

Where is it written that an umpire's job is to ensure the game must go on.

In any event, they gave the Pakistanis more than enough latitude - the fact that they chose not to take it is neither here nor there from the rule book's perspective.

 

[Dasa]

Where is it written that an umpire's job is to ensure the game must go on.

In any event, they gave the Pakistanis more than enough latitude - the fact that they chose not to take it is neither here nor there from the rule book's perspective.

How?

 

[social]

Actually, by legal standards, Inzy got the rough end of the stick.
For in legal precedence, if the main charge is thrown out (as was the case againt Inzy), the secondary charge are almost invariably dropped completely.
If you punch a cop because he beat your hiney to a pulp and the court found him wrong for laying the beatdown on you, your act of hitting a cop would almost invariably draw zero penalty.

2 different charges

Guy accuses u of something

U do something in retaliation

The fact that the accusation is subsequently proven to be without merit does not alleviate the responsibility for your response.

 

[social]

How?

Technically the game was over when the Pakistanis failed to appear after tea, let alone 50 minutes and 2 warnings later.

Every kid knows that he has 3 minutes to replace the outgoing batsman at the crease and that if his team fails to take the field, they forfeit.

Inzy lost the plot, pushed the envelope too far, and his team lost

There's been so much crap written and/or spoken about how the umpires should've stayed on the field (or even returned the following day) to ensure the game went on.

One team was ready to play, the other wasn't - unfortunately, that's the end of the story

 

[honestbharani]

Where is it written that an umpire's job is to ensure the game must go on.

In any event, they gave the Pakistanis more than enough latitude - the fact that they chose not to take it is neither here nor there from the rule book's perspective.

It isn't written because it is THAT basic. Unless you KNOW that someone cheated and can prove it, u cant just assume something and penalize people for that. It wasn't the five runs that irked Pakistan, it was the idea that they were being branded "cheaters". If Hair couldn't understand these things, then all the more reason why he should be dropped from the panel. Just because the ball is out of shape doesn't mean it has been tampered with. That is wat all this boils down to. Even Doctrove was obviously not in agreement to acting so hastily at first. The least he could have done is taken Doctrove's advice. Perhaps Doctrove then shut up once Hair insisted because Hair was the senior guy there.

 

[honestbharani]

2 different charges

Guy accuses u of something

U do something in retaliation

The fact that the accusation is subsequently proven to be without merit does not alleviate the responsibility for your response.

Nope, but it does liquify the charges somewhat, doesn't it? Baseless allegations can at times be enough provocation for people to act rashly and those can be considered to be mitigating circumstances and therefore the penalty can be brought down to more lenient levels than normal. That is what I think has happened in this case.

 

[honestbharani]

Technically the game was over when the Pakistanis failed to appear after tea, let alone 50 minutes and 2 warnings later.

Every kid knows that he has 3 minutes to replace the outgoing batsman at the crease and that if his team fails to take the field, they forfeit.

Inzy lost the plot, pushed the envelope too far, and his team lost

There's been so much crap written and/or spoken about how the umpires should've stayed on the field (or even returned the following day) to ensure the game went on.

One team was ready to play, the other wasn't - unfortunately, that's the end of the story

One team wasn't ready to play because of the rash actions of one of the umpires and in such circumstances, a bit of mediation is necessary to get the game gng again, which is what Procter (I guess) and the ECB did. The umpire didn't have to be so full abt himself and say NO when the other team was ready to play again. ONce again he forgets that his basic responsibility is to ensure that the game goes on smoothly and the spectators get their money's worth, not to make sure that every little law written a couple of centuries ago is exactly adhered to, to the letter.

 

[social]

One team wasn't ready to play because of the rash actions of one of the umpires and in such circumstances, a bit of mediation is necessary to get the game gng again, which is what Procter (I guess) and the ECB did. The umpire didn't have to be so full abt himself and say NO when the other team was ready to play again. ONce again he forgets that his basic responsibility is to ensure that the game goes on smoothly and the spectators get their money's worth, not to make sure that every little law written a couple of centuries ago is exactly adhered to, to the letter.

Seriously, how long did they have to stay out there?

For arguments sake, let's say the umps decided to come back the following morning and Pakistan bowled Eng out - Eng would have had every right to feel even more aggrieved than Pakistan did because it would then be proven without a shadow of a doubt that the rule book was only be applied to one team.

 

[social]

One team wasn't ready to play because of the rash actions of one of the umpires and in such circumstances, a bit of mediation is necessary to get the game gng again, which is what Procter (I guess) and the ECB did. The umpire didn't have to be so full abt himself and say NO when the other team was ready to play again. ONce again he forgets that his basic responsibility is to ensure that the game goes on smoothly and the spectators get their money's worth, not to make sure that every little law written a couple of centuries ago is exactly adhered to, to the letter.

One team wasnt ready to play because the captain lost control of his emotions.

Blame Hair for his call but dont blame him because a captain wants different rules to apply to his side

 

[honestbharani]

Seriously, how long did they have to stay out there?

For arguments sake, let's say the umps decided to come back the following morning and Pakistan bowled Eng out - Eng would have had every right to feel even more aggrieved than Pakistan did because it would then be proven without a shadow of a doubt that the rule book was only be applied to one team.

look, I have never had a problem with INzy being banned for not continuing the game. That is all fair and all. Waht I think Hair should have done is, allowed the game to continue and then report INzy for the incident. The spectators would have had the game, Inzy would have still faced the charges for wat he did after tea on the fourth day and at least the first ever forfeit wouldn't have happened. The fact that Inzy was gonna be banned for his offence and that the charges of ball tampering weren't gonna be proven were all something we have expected. I just think it would have been better had the game continued and then these hearings taken place.

 

[honestbharani]

One team wasnt ready to play because the captain lost control of his emotions.

Blame Hair for his call but dont blame him because a captain wants different rules to apply to his side

I never did. For a long time now I have said Pakistan handled it horribly. But to be honest, social, I think Inzy is just the man who is taking the blame. I think the fault lies higher up in the PCB hierarchy. But as captain, Inzy obviously has to face the music.

 

[social]

I never did. For a long time now I have said Pakistan handled it horribly. But to be honest, social, I think Inzy is just the man who is taking the blame. I think the fault lies higher up in the PCB hierarchy. But as captain, Inzy obviously has to face the music.

If that's the case, then there will be real problems between he and Woolmer in the future as the latter basically dumped the whole blame for the forfeit in Inzy's lap

In reality, Inzy, Zaheer (who has already gone) and Woolmer are all equally to blame IMO - most senior people in the dressing room and the buck has to stop with them.

 

[social]

look, I have never had a problem with INzy being banned for not continuing the game. That is all fair and all. Waht I think Hair should have done is, allowed the game to continue and then report INzy for the incident. The spectators would have had the game, Inzy would have still faced the charges for wat he did after tea on the fourth day and at least the first ever forfeit wouldn't have happened. The fact that Inzy was gonna be banned for his offence and that the charges of ball tampering weren't gonna be proven were all something we have expected. I just think it would have been better had the game continued and then these hearings taken place.

I think everyone would agree that the best thing was for the game to go on - I just dont think the umps had any real altenative. They'd waited fifty minutes, gone to the dressing rooms a couple of times and received no indication that the situation was changing.

The fact that the Pakistanis appeared some time after stumps were drawn was, to me, a case of "****, what have we done?"