Ball-Tampering Hearing

[social]

With that said, I still feel Hair's reaction was out of line and not in conjuction with the 'spirit' of the game. However, with that said, I've been doing a lot of thinking and I am now on the side of most Australian/English posters on this board, in that Pakistan should not have ceased playing the match.

Thinking with a clear head, even though the umpire might be racist, and his actions inappropriate, you should have enough respect for the game and finish it. Then you can refuse to play for that umpire in the future, and do whatever you need to.

So, my earlier emotional defence of Pakistan was in error, I think. I still understand why they did it, because I felt the same way at the time....but thinking with a clear head, its obvious to me that the integrity and respect for the game should come first.

Respect to you mate - if Hair is found to have had ulterior motives in making the decision that he did, then kick him as far out of the game as you like but you still cannot have the players taking the laws into their own hands.

 

[Legglancer]

Darrell Hair's Lack of Judgment
By ICF Staff - August 25 2006

The stunning demands for money from controversial Aussie umpire Darrell Hair to the ICC, leaked to media by the administrative body, have led to an impossible situation for the embattled official.

Darrell Hair has claimed that his bizarre demand for a half-million dollars in exchange for stepping down as an ICC umpire came at a time of high stress for him, and that he "revoked" those demands two days later.

Guess what, Mr. Hair? You have just admitted that you lack the one quality necessary in any umpire: good judgment at times of stress.

On the field, an umpire has a split second to get his decision right. Hair says that he needed two days to get it right.

Besides which, he hardly "revoked" his demand, based on published transcripts of his email to the ICC. What he reportedly said was: "It appears from overnight developments that the issue of racism has arisen and from advice I have just received, the sum indicated in my release offer is being revised. Therefore the offer is withdrawn until I have had the chance to take further advice. Hope to get back to you within the next 24 hours." In other words, he was revising the amount of money he expected to be paid by the ICC, and in the context of this email, presumably upwards.

Demands for huge amounts of money to leave quietly, a demand to keep those demands confidential, and Darrell Hair's reputation as a very enthusiastic betting man have raised the specter of corruption and even fixing -- a matter in which the ICC is understandably sensitive.

Current consensus is that Hair was holding the ICC to ransom, and allowing him to go unpunished would set an unacceptable precedent.

ICC CEO Malcolm Speed for his part has said that he told Hair there was no guarantee that he would not be sacked, suspended, or charged.

Hair has responded that he had no malicious intent and that he "intends to continue umpiring." He also wants the Code of Conduct hearing against Inzamam to take place as soon as possible. Wishful thinking, Mr. Hair.

These developments will unavoidably cast doubt over his credibility in any statement he makes at the ICC hearing against Inzamam, potentially making a mockery of it.

Even if Hair now leaves quietly and without a penny to show for it, the ICC must bear responsibility for appointing a man with a known controversial past in their umpiring panel. They must accept there are several others like him in both the umpire and referee panel. Names such as Chris Broad, Steve Bucknor, Mike Procter and Billy Bowden come to mind -- perhaps even the much-disliked Malcolm Speed himself.

It is time to clean up the ICC and restore credibility to the great game.

 

[marc71178]

Respect to you mate - if Hair is found to have had ulterior motives in making the decision that he did, then kick him as far out of the game as you like but you still cannot have the players taking the laws into their own hands.

Whilst clearing Doctrove no doubt...

 

[Slow Love™]

I can only assume that Doctrove has been ruled out as well now that the evidence is out that he supported Hair

Well, it's a little more complicated than that. I thought Pakistan were basing some of their defence on Doctrove apparently initially disagreeing with Hair's desire to instantly call the penalty and award the five runs. In that he wanted to look for evidence as to why the ball's condition might have changed, first (I'm guessing in terms of perhaps trying to catch a culprit in the act). At least, according to cricinfo.

 

[Jono]

Interesting. Doctrove and Hair disagreed at the start though didn't they?

But Cricinfo has learnt that Doctrove, as written in his match report on the incident, was initially of the opinion that the umpires allow play to carry on for a few more overs to help identify the cause of the change in the ball's condition. Eventually, though, Hair is thought to have reasoned that if both umpires were in agreement that the condition of the ball had been altered then they should change it immediately. Doctrove then agreed and the ball was duly replaced.

Edit: Just saw SL's post.

 

[C_C]

Anyway, coming back to the controversy at hand, Darrell Hair should definitely go. There are no two ways about it. It’s not the decision but the way he took it is what makes him a substandard umpire unworthy of adjudicating at the international level. Clearly he hasn’t grasped what the game has become and what it has come to represent and he should know better than to take these hasty decisions, which can potentially divide the known cricketing world. If that ever happens then we know who is responsible. Plus I don’t really know how exactly you judge a ball to be tampered when there are twenty-two cameras on field and none of them have picked up anything suspicious.

Well put..well put indeed.

 

[silentstriker]

With that said, I still feel Hair's reaction was out of line and not in conjuction with the 'spirit' of the game. However, with that said, I've been doing a lot of thinking and I am now on the side of most Australian/English posters on this board, in that Pakistan should not have ceased playing the match.

Thinking with a clear head, even though the umpire might be racist, and his actions inappropriate, you should have enough respect for the game and finish it. Then you can refuse to play for that umpire in the future, and do whatever you need to.

So, my earlier emotional defence of Pakistan was in error, I think. I still understand why they did it, because I felt the same way at the time....but thinking with a clear head, its obvious to me that the integrity and respect for the game should come first.

Also, I do think the ICC should find Inzy guilty of the bringing the game into disrepute, regardless of what happens with ball tampering. Like I said above, I sympathize with him. But regardless of whether the ball was tampered with, I now do not believe it is cause enough to warrant the abandonment of the game, so they must find him guilty of that.

 

[C_C]

Allegation that you are cheating, made by the referee/umpire, is always cause enough to abandon a game as far as i am concerned.

 

[silentstriker]

Allegation that you are cheating, made by the referee/umpire, is always cause enough to abandon a game as far as i am concerned.

Yea, I agreed with you for a bit. However, coming to think about it...I don't think so. Let's say you were accused of cheating.

1) You as a captain have no way to be absolutely sure that all your bowlers are in fact innocent. You can obviously choose to take their word for it, but it’s still only that.

2) Assume you are, in fact, innocent. Fine, finish the game, and then take it up with the relevant authorities. You can then in fact say that you will never play under Hair again, assuming you were found to be innocent in the ball tempering row.

3) Your primary obligation is not to yourself, but to the spirit/integrity of the game, and the spectators. The integrity of the game states that the umpires can declare that a ball has been tampered with, as long as they think you did, not whether you think you did. If you did not, that’s fine, but since no literal laws were violated when the umpire called you, you should wait until the end of the game to make your case.

The laws state that the umpire can call a team (not saying he should have gone about it in the way he did) for tampering if he suspects it, but the rules also state that you have the ability to bring up grievances at the appropriate time. Hair followed the law, you should too. Don't break a law just because you were accused of breaking another.

4) Precedent. Let's say you refuse to play the game, because you believed that you were innocent. If you succeed at this tactic, then it means the burden of proof will always be placed on an umpire thereafter. If you set a precedent that it is ok to walk out of any game without the permission of the umpire (the only exception might be something like physical safety), then you are saying "I have the right to walk out if I feel unfair treatment has been occurring against me, and the umpire must prove otherwise." It is hard to have conclusive evidence in a criminal trial, let alone a fast paced (I use the term loosely, when Inzy is playing) cricket match.

Overall, I do believe that Hair was out of line. I do believe that he unfairly targets certain teams. I do believe that, if he truly believed there was some ball tampering, that there was a better way to go about doing it, unless he saw the action occurring.. But even with all that, I do not believe you have the right to violate a Law to protest improper treatment. Follow the Laws, and file a grievance at the right time.

Until then, as professional men playing a game that has been good to you and has allowed you to become stars, do that game the honor and follow its Laws, however inconvenient it may be to do so.

 

[silentstriker]

Holy crap, that post was a lot longer than I thought it'd be. Hopefuly, I was semi-coherent with my thoughts.

 

[Slow Love™]

Holy crap, that post was a lot longer than I thought it'd be. Hopefuly, I was semi-coherent with my thoughts.

100%.

I originally would have extended some leniency to Pakistan because some of the confusion concerning whether the game had been conceded or not, but then they muddied the waters by implying they originally intended to concede. I'd also put some onus on the umpires to do their best to have the match continue, as other umpires not so needlessly provocative and rigid might have done in the past.

Can't disagree with anything you've said though, and IMO you are completely correct that a finding of unproven for the ball tampering itself (should that happen) doesn't exclude the Pakistan team or Inzy himself from any other disciplinary action.

 

[Dasa]

Interesting thing, according to the report on CricInfo, is that Inzy and co apparently weren't informed that through their actions they had forfeited the game:

It has also emerged that Mike Procter, the ICC match referee, failed to inform Pakistan of their forfeiture soon after the decision had been taken by the umpires in the afternoon. "Hair instructed Procter to tell Pakistan that they had forfeited the game in the afternoon. Procter failed to do so and officially, much later at around 10 pm, did they learn that the Test had been forfeited," claimed the source.

If the above is true, Proctor stuffed up big-time. If nothing else, Inzy and the Pakistani management should have been informed that through their actions they were in danger of, or had already, forfeited the match.

 

[Slow Love™]

Interesting thing, according to the report on CricInfo, is that Inzy and co apparently weren't informed that through their actions they had forfeited the game:

If the above is true, Proctor stuffed up big-time. If nothing else, Inzy and the Pakistani management should have been informed that through their actions they were in danger of, or had already, forfeited the match.

I think we knew all this a while ago, mate. After the umpires had decreed the game conceded, the match referee and various ECB officials wasted a fair amount of time trying (successfully, eventually, though the game was already over when they did, apparently unbeknownst to the players) to get Pakistan to come out and finish the game.

Sparks might fly if Proctor disputes that he was told by the umpires that the match was over - but if he did know, you have to wonder what on earth he thought he was doing.

 

[C_C]

1) You as a captain have no way to be absolutely sure that all your bowlers are in fact innocent. You can obviously choose to take their word for it, but it’s still only that.

And thats perfectly fine to think that all my bowlers are innocent. For it is 'innocent until proven guilty'. Until someone proves guilt, i am well within my rights to think my bowlers are not guilty

Fine, finish the game, and then take it up with the relevant authorities.

Sure. Or i could walk. I see no reason i have to finish the game when the integrity of my team is questioned without evidence being presented.

The laws state that the umpire can call a team (not saying he should have gone about it in the way he did) for tampering if he suspects it,

Then whoever wrote that law needs a lesson on how law works and the law to be promptly discarded.
You dont make allegations and draw a conclusion before/without presenting evidence. Infact, you present evidence first.
Replace the ball all you want if you think its not worth playing with. But make a judgement only and only after you've presented the facts.

 

[Dasa]

I think we knew all this a while ago, mate. After the umpires had decreed the game conceded, the match referee and various ECB officials wasted a fair amount of time trying (successfully, eventually, though the game was already over when they did, apparently unbeknownst to the players) to get Pakistan to come out and finish the game.

Sparks might fly if Proctor disputes that he was told by the umpires that the match was over - but if he did know, you have to wonder what on earth he thought he was doing.

Well, I think it was suspected that that was the case, but now it seems confirmed. At any rate, you're right, you have to wonder what Proctor was thinking. Perhaps he thought he could first get the Pakistanis to agree to play on, then maybe get Hair to go back on his decision to end the match? Either way, it seems a pretty clumsy way to go about it.

 

[Burgey]

Also, I do think the ICC should find Inzy guilty of the bringing the game into disrepute, regardless of what happens with ball tampering. Like I said above, I sympathize with him. But regardless of whether the ball was tampered with, I now do not believe it is cause enough to warrant the abandonment of the game, so they must find him guilty of that.

I agree. Whilst the umpires' (plural) allegation against Pakistan was insulting and impeached their credibility, it should have been dealt with in a better manner by the team's management and captain.

A day or two after this incident there was a very interesting interview on Sydney radio with Zaheer Abbas, the Pakistan team manager. Among the matters he raised in relation to their not appearing after tea were:

1. The 5 run penalty was the last straw in a line of a number of decisions against Pakistan and the team had had enough - interesting rationale; and
2. The team didn't hear the bell to warn them tea was ending - the tea break has lasted 20 minutes for the better part of a century if not longer and the appearance of the batsmen and umpires might have given them a clue that it was time to get out and play.

The way Hair in particular handled the initial incident was very poor, however, with match referees in place there are systems available for teams to air their grievances and to be heard as to their guilt or otherwise. Imo the no-show was the wrong thing to do, even though the matters they were accused of were extremely serious and would justify a great deal of anger if indeed they were innocent of the allegations.

 

[silentstriker]

Yea, I agreed with you for a bit. However, coming to think about it...I don't think so. Let's say you were accused of cheating.

1) You as a captain have no way to be absolutely sure that all your bowlers are in fact innocent. You can obviously choose to take their word for it, but it’s still only that.

2) Assume you are, in fact, innocent. Fine, finish the game, and then take it up with the relevant authorities. You can then in fact say that you will never play under Hair again, assuming you were found to be innocent in the ball tempering row.

3) Your primary obligation is not to yourself, but to the spirit/integrity of the game, and the spectators. The integrity of the game states that the umpires can declare that a ball has been tampered with, as long as they think you did, not whether you think you did. If you did not, that’s fine, but since no literal laws were violated when the umpire called you, you should wait until the end of the game to make your case.

The laws state that the umpire can call a team (not saying he should have gone about it in the way he did) for tampering if he suspects it, but the rules also state that you have the ability to bring up grievances at the appropriate time. Hair followed the law, you should too. Don't break a law just because you were accused of breaking another.

4) Precedent. Let's say you refuse to play the game, because you believed that you were innocent. If you succeed at this tactic, then it means the burden of proof will always be placed on an umpire thereafter. If you set a precedent that it is ok to walk out of any game without the permission of the umpire (the only exception might be something like physical safety), then you are saying "I have the right to walk out if I feel unfair treatment has been occurring against me, and the umpire must prove otherwise." It is hard to have conclusive evidence in a criminal trial, let alone a fast paced (I use the term loosely, when Inzy is playing) cricket match.

Overall, I do believe that Hair was out of line. I do believe that he unfairly targets certain teams. I do believe that, if he truly believed there was some ball tampering, that there was a better way to go about doing it, unless he saw the action occurring.. But even with all that, I do not believe you have the right to violate a Law to protest improper treatment. Follow the Laws, and file a grievance at the right time.

Until then, as professional men playing a game that has been good to you and has allowed you to become stars, do that game the honor and follow its Laws, however inconvenient it may be to do so.

Also, to add to what I said above...there are really four possibilities:

1. Hair thought you tampered and called you and you tampered
2. Hair didn't think you tampered and called you and you tampered
3. Hair thought you tampered and called you and you didn't tamper
4. Hair didn't think you tampered and still called you and you didn't tamper

Now, if the only possibilities that would be out of line would be #2 and #4. #2 less so, because you actually did it, even though he wasn't sure. So out of all the possibilities, #4 is the worst, but it is also the least likely one because Doctrove agreed in the end that the ball had been tampered with. So most likely he thought you tampered, but perhaps took an action against you that he might or might not have against another country.

Fair enough, complain when needed, but I don't think thats grounds enough to stop playing the game. Like I said above, you do owe the game a lot, and at the very least, you ought to think enough of it and the spectators to keep playing.

I can't blame Inzy because when it happened I got on the bandwagon like a lot of others, but when you think with a clearer head, I think the actions really were out of line.

And thats perfectly fine to think that all my bowlers are innocent. For it is 'innocent until proven guilty'. Until someone proves guilt, i am well within my rights to think my bowlers are not guilty

OK, so lets say you as a captain believe that your bowler is innocent because he said so. So you go and abandon the game, and then it turns out that he did it? I think you have to go with the umpire decision on the field. Afterwards, you can take whatever action you need to take.

Then whoever wrote that law needs a lesson on how law works and the law to be promptly discarded.
You dont make allegations and draw a conclusion before/without presenting evidence. Infact, you present evidence first.
Replace the ball all you want if you think its not worth playing with. But make a judgement only and only after you've presented the facts.

How is it possible to do that in the middle of a game?

 

[Fusion]

Fair enough, complain when needed, but I don't think thats grounds enough to stop playing the game. Like I said above, you do owe the game a lot, and at the very least, you ought to think enough of it and the spectators to keep playing.

I can't blame Inzy because when it happened I got on the bandwagon like a lot of others, but when you think with a clearer head, I think the actions really were out of line

I too thought that the MORE APPROPIATE action would've been to keep playing. However, I will continue to defend Inzi's actions as it wasn't me (nor anyone else besides his team) accused of cheating. He took the allegation strongly and felt insulted. Considering that so far no proof has been presented that the ball had been tampered with, I think he has a legitimate right to his indignation and subsequent actions. And please don't give me bull about "no evidence needs to be present for an umpire to make that decision". That's a crap rule. If any one of us were accused of cheating or being liars just based solely on someone's "opinion", we too would feel insulted and react strongly.

OK, so lets say you as a captain believe that your bowler is innocent because he said so. So you go and abandon the game, and then it turns out that he did it? I think you have to go with the umpire decision on the field. Afterwards, you can take whatever action you need to take.?

The more appropiate action is for the umpire to wait until after the game to present his doubts in his match report. Considering that there was seemingly no proof for the allegations, that's exactly the route the umpires should've taken. If ICC had subsequently found that the umpires were correct in expressing that allegation, they could've taken appropiate actions.

SS, the whole point is that Hair (and yes he is the dominant factor in all this, not Doctrove. If anyone thinks otherwise, you're being naive) didn't handle this appropiately. He is overbearing and insulting to players. He knew the sensitive nature of the allegation, yet he acted without proof. The whole drama that unfolded was because of his actions. He is not fit to be an international umpire and should be sacked.

 

[silentstriker]

So how do you think the match referee will rule tomorrow?

 

[marc71178]

Allegation that you are cheating, made by the referee/umpire, is always cause enough to abandon a game as far as i am concerned.

So how come they didn't walk off then?