Ball-Tampering Hearing

[silentstriker]

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

If both teams agree to resume play, the umpires should use common sense and resume play.

 

[social]

IMO, Hair's biggest mistake was not in calling Pakistan for tampering or in declaring a forfeit - it was in taking it upon himself to visit the Pak dressing room twice to call them onto the field. Talk about a red rag to a bull!

Unfortunately, this is another example of where Doctrove needs to be held accountable as well - anyone with an ounce of common sense would've stepped in here.

 

[Fusion]

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?"

BOTH teams were ready to play. And it's not like the whole day had already passed. If England are ready to play, and they are the ones most negatively impacted with the resumption of the game, then why the hell did Hair not budge? The spectators wouldn't have minded resumption of play either. Even Proctor tried convincing Hair to resume play. So it all came down to Hair's gigantic EGO. He wouldn't resume the game because he felt it was an insult to him. Since when did the umpire become bigger than the game?

 

[C_C]

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.

False.
Infact, if the accusation was made in a retaliatory sense, it is virtually garanteed to be dismissed, because it is 'not even physical harm'.

 

[social]

BOTH teams were ready to play. And it's not like the whole day had already passed. If England are ready to play, and they are the ones most negatively impacted with the resumption of the game, then why the hell did Hair not budge? The spectators wouldn't have minded resumption of play either. Even Proctor tried convincing Hair to resume play. So it all came down to Hair's gigantic EGO. He wouldn't resume the game because he felt it was an insult to him. Since when did the umpire become bigger than the game?

Came down to rules - nothing more or less

 

[social]

False.
Infact, if the accusation was made in a retaliatory sense, it is virtually garanteed to be dismissed, because it is 'not even physical harm'.

Nonsense

I accuse u

U hit me

You've still committed assault whether or not my accusation is proven correct or not.

 

[C_C]

Nonsense

I accuse u

U hit me

You've still committed assault whether or not my accusation is proven correct or not.

Yes.
And i am telling you that out here, if my cause for hitting you/accusing you was not the central case but you initiating it was (as is analogous to this case), the secondary charges are dropped most of the time if the primary one isnt proven. And if it involves 'words' thrown in 'anger/retaliation' and not physical harm, it is virtually garanteed to go without penalty.

 

[Fusion]

Came down to rules - nothing more or less

Oh please! You mean to tell me that Hair wouldn't continue the game strictly because of rules and his personal emotions/feelings had nothing to do with it? How stupid do you think I am? Any good umpire would've continued the game once both teams were ready to play. Dickie Bird stated he would've. Plenty of other ex-players (including Holding, Botham, Hussain, Imran etc) said they would've as well. It's not about just following the rules, it's also about common sense. Hair wouldn't resume play because of his ego, plain and simple.

 

[SJS]

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.

I am not refering to the fact that he chose to end the game when he did. I have said often enough, Inzy or Pakistan cant complain that they were deemed to have forfeited the game.

I am concerned that Hair decided that Pakistan HAD tampered with the ball (I dont know if they had or hadnt and have no view on the matter) when he had no real evidence to be so SURE of it.

He should surely have discussed with Inzy as suggested by someone else that I am concerned about the condition of the ball and I am going to change it. I would like you to know that I am seriously concerned and please let your players know the same.

Then he should have changed the ball (not allowing the batsmen to select one or awarding five penalty runs) the way he would have changed it if it had gone out of shape.

Inzy would have got yhe mesage as would any players (IN CASE SOMETHING WAS AFOOT) without it being a clear accusation.

By behaving the way he did he should have known there would be a reaction and it could be messy..

THAT he should have gone ahead and forced the issue (though the other umpire was not too sure this was the right thing to do at the outset) shows that he will 'stamp' his authority come what may. Thats what makes me call his attitude 'cop-like' and thats what makes me feel he will ignore the consequences even when all he has to go buy is his 'hunch' (for want of a better word).

He doesnt have to forsake his authority for the sake of being diplomatic but he should be 'wise' enough to be able to think out the consequences of his actions.

He either doesnt have the capacity to do so OR doesnt care.

Thats why I say he doesnt seem to think he is there to "run" the game. And a game doesnt run if it is brought to a grinding halt on mere suspicion and conjecture.

 

[FRAZ]

Only in cricket could a team prepare their defence of a rule-breach by turning round and saying: "Well, it's a silly rule anyway."
haha Pakistan right ?

 

[social]

Oh please! You mean to tell me that Hair wouldn't continue the game strictly because of rules and his personal emotions/feelings had nothing to do with it? How stupid do you think I am? Any good umpire would've continued the game once both teams were ready to play. Dickie Bird stated he would've. Plenty of other ex-players (including Holding, Botham, Hussain, Imran etc) said they would've as well. It's not about just following the rules, it's also about common sense. Hair wouldn't resume play because of his ego, plain and simple.

He wouldnt resume the game because stumps had been called - finished, the end, they'd forfeited, 3-0, let's go to the pub

Just because they chose to grace the field when the covers were about to go on doesnt change that

 

[social]

Yes.
And i am telling you that out here, if my cause for hitting you/accusing you was not the central case but you initiating it was (as is analogous to this case), the secondary charges are dropped most of the time if the primary one isnt proven. And if it involves 'words' thrown in 'anger/retaliation' and not physical harm, it is virtually garanteed to go without penalty.

Why do u think Pakistan arent appealing?

Deal done before the hearing or they realise Inzy got off light - your choice

 

[Fusion]

He wouldnt resume the game because stumps had been called - finished, the end, they'd forfeited, 3-0, let's go to the pub

Just because they chose to grace the field when the covers were about to go on doesnt change that

He wouldn't resume the game because of his ego. As I've already pointed out, a legendary umpire and some legendary players have stated they would've resumed the game. Because that would've been the reasonable thing to do. Instead, Hair chose to continue the confrontational approach. That's just another example of why he's a bad umpire and cricket would be better off without him.

 

[Fusion]

It's also worth noting that there was confusion regarding when the forfiet was announced. The Pakistani team has claimed that they didn't hear about it till the next day. Even Proctor didn't realize the game had been forfieted, and he's the freaking match referee! Here's a quote from Hughes' article in The Telegraph:

The match referee, Mike Procter, also revealed that during the post-tea protests by the Pakistanis he was so caught up behind the scenes in feverish attempts to restore play that he did not see the umpires remove the bails. "The first I knew the match had been awarded to England was when Darrell was having a shower in the umpire's room," he said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2006/09/29/schugh29.xml

 

[silentstriker]

"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.

Wow.

 

[Fusion]

Wow.

Pretty much every independent person who has seen the ball has made the same conclusion: the ball was not tampered with and Hair was guessing (incorrectly). Just goto the cricinfo surfer section and read the columns there. It shocks me that even after this hearing there are people who refuse to criticize Hair and maintain he has done nothing wrong!

 

[open365]

I am not refering to the fact that he chose to end the game when he did. I have said often enough, Inzy or Pakistan cant complain that they were deemed to have forfeited the game.

I am concerned that Hair decided that Pakistan HAD tampered with the ball (I dont know if they had or hadnt and have no view on the matter) when he had no real evidence to be so SURE of it.

He should surely have discussed with Inzy as suggested by someone else that I am concerned about the condition of the ball and I am going to change it. I would like you to know that I am seriously concerned and please let your players know the same.

Then he should have changed the ball (not allowing the batsmen to select one or awarding five penalty runs) the way he would have changed it if it had gone out of shape.

Inzy would have got yhe mesage as would any players (IN CASE SOMETHING WAS AFOOT) without it being a clear accusation.
.

I've about this course of action and i think i may have even been worse than what Hair did.

Let's say it gets out that Hair told inzamam he was concerned about the condition of the ball, in my opinion, this would constitute Hair saying they cheated because i don't think you would warn someone unless you were very sure the ball was being tampered with, and i think a lot of supporters would have thought this aswell.

Think what would happen now, the view would be ''Hair is a racist, if he thought we were cheating he would have changed the ball and gave a 5 run penalty, what he did shows he wanted to imply the team were cheating but didn't have the evidence and didn't want to get himself fired'

 

[Jono]

It shocks me that even after this hearing there are people who refuse to criticize Hair and maintain he has done nothing wrong!

Does it really shock you though?

People stick to their guns all the time, and it was predictable there weren't going to be many "whoops, I was wrong here" posts from those who were certain Pakistan were guilty of tampering.

I think those that were upset about Pakistan's actions after the incident obviously don't need to.

 

[open365]

He wouldn't resume the game because of his ego. As I've already pointed out, a legendary umpire and some legendary players have stated they would've resumed the game. Because that would've been the reasonable thing to do. Instead, Hair chose to continue the confrontational approach. That's just another example of why he's a bad umpire and cricket would be better off without him.

The most reasonable thing to do would have been for the Pakistanis to appear on the field of play when they were supposed to.

 

[Fusion]

Does it really shock you though?

People stick to their guns all the time, and it was predictable there weren't going to be many "whoops, I was wrong here" posts from those who were certain Pakistan were guilty of tampering.

I think those that were upset about Pakistan's actions after the incident obviously don't need to.

It shocks me in a sense that I expected people to focus on Pakistan refusing to come out more so than defending Hair's actions. IMO, after this hearing it's painfully obvious that Hair's actions were wrong. He accused Pakistan of cheating based on a guess, not evidence. Plenty of people have disputed his judgment on the tampering of the ball. He then proceeded to act in an obnoxious way and only escalated the tense situation. So yeah, I did not expect people to still come to his defense so vigorously, as if he was/is incapable of being wrong and making mistakes!