Inzamam Ul Haq - Should he be sacked ?

[R_D]

Inzi didn't over react, but you are. We lost the series because we got outplayed, based on the talent on the field. Simple. There was no umpiring factor.

Sure Pakistan were outplayed but there were quite a few crucial decisions that went agaisnt them in the series which could possibly have affected the series. But we won't go into ifs, what could've, would've happend.

They probaly should change captains and give it to Younis he looks like more of a captain material but not sure if it'll go too well with Inzi though.

 

[SJS]

I have voted for Inzy to be sacked. And here is my reasoning.

Assuming no Pakistani player was seen by Darrell Hair to be actually 'working' on the ball and he was just presuming that the 'comdition of the ball MEANT that there was 'dirty' work done.​

- In this case Inzy has every reason to be upset and he should have shown his displeasure on the ground when the ball was being changed and five runs were being awarded.
- If he did think he was to protest after tea. He did it by not coming out but it was NOT a few minutes protest as Mr Sheyaryar Khan would have us believe. The umpires waited on the field for nearly twenty minutes before coming back.
- Then Hair went to Inzy and asked whether or not they would be coming out. This was Inzy's last chance to back off ! He could have said yes we are coming but we are doing it under protest or something to that effect and followed the umpires as they went out again.
- Hair had not taken off the bails at the end of the first period of twenty minutes. He followed the laid down law and came to Inzy to ask him. Inzy refused to answer the direct question asked and then by not following the umpires on the field answered in the negative by implication.

This is not about whether Hair was wrong in implicating that Pakistan were 'cheating'. This is about a captain taking the response to the accusation to a level that caused his team to be declared to have lost the match.

Inzy as skipper should have known that he was risking forfieture when he refused to follow the umpires the second time on the field.

Inzy may not be wrong about being upset and protesting the decision to award the five runs and , more importantly, implying that one or more of the Pakistani players were 'cheating' but he (Inzy) must also take the complete responsibility for the forfeiture of the match.

Inzy has a problem about his 'hotheadedness'. This isnt the first time he has displayed it. Hotheadedness is not justified by situations and definitely not in captains of international sides. He has shown himself as incapable of showing the cool and restrain that the position demands and worse, he has shown that nearly half an hour later and with the result of the game at stake he still doesnt let hois mind over-rule his emotions.

No. He is not fit to be an international side's leader.

I am not saying Darrell Hair was right or wrong as far as the original decision/conclusion that the ball was tempered with. Thats a different matter altogether and will come out in the investigations being conducted. Whatever maybe the result of these, they will not exonerate Inzy.

PS : If it comes out that Hair was wrong in 'assuming' their was dirty work afoot on the ball, he should be sacked as well !!

 

[Sanz]

Thanks SJS for making the point of this thread so eloquently.

 

[Jono]

The overweight members of the incident are copping it one way or another, whether it be Hair or Inzy.

 

[pasag]

Not a big enough issue to be sacked over IMO. Even if he is in the wrong, which it is debatable that he is, I don't think one incident would/should be enough to remove him.

 

[Yahto]

The overweight members of the incident are copping it one way or another, whether it be Hair or Inzy.

Why should people like Shahrayar Khan and Zaheer Abbas get let off ? They are senior officials and should have had more sense than Inzamam. If I were in charge of Pakistani cricket (unfortunately Khan himself is), those two would be the first to get the sack. What was Shahrayar Khan there for ? To sample the champagne in the hospitality box ?

 

[Jono]

Why should people like Shahrayar Khan and Zaheer Abbas get let off ? They are senior officials and should have had more sense than Inzamam. If I were in charge of Pakistani cricket (unfortunately Khan himself is), those two would be the first to get the sack. What was Shahrayar Khan there for ? To sample the champagne in the hospitality box ?

I was just having a joke at the expense of Hair and Inzy's 'fatness' really.

 

[SJS]

Why should people like Shahrayar Khan and Zaheer Abbas get let off ? They are senior officials and should have had more sense than Inzamam. If I were in charge of Pakistani cricket (unfortunately Khan himself is), those two would be the first to get the sack. What was Shahrayar Khan there for ? To sample the champagne in the hospitality box ?

Absolutely spot on.

Clearly they pursuaded Inzy to go onto the field once they realised that the match was being awarded to England. What were they doing till then? From what one could see, not much.

Sheharyar could have 'forced' Inzy to take the field anytime he wanted. If Inzy was still 'fuming' and in no frame of mind, he could have asked the vice captain to take the boys in so that the match continued while Inzy 'cooled off' and they planned how to proceed formally with the 'protest'.

 

[honestbharani]

Fusion - Please calm down. Inzi is one of my fav. players but very often he just doesn't understand the situation and over-reacts. Also, this post isn't just about today's incident, it's also about his history as captain and as player.

Here are a few of his actions :-

1. In Toronto with the bat he assaulted a spectator
2. His over reaction after being given out vs. England
3. His over reaction after being given out vs. India
4. Then what went on today.

Also, he has a communication problem, not onlt when he speaks English, but also when he speaks Urdu.

PS :- Please note that I am not defending Darrell Hair in any way, but Inzi is also responsible for today's mess.

Look, Sanz, most human beings would have lost their cool with reg. to that Toronto incidents. The other two, I think, he was at fault to varying degrees. But this last one... ok, I didn't watch any part of this test so far, but honestly, if the umps called his side cheats, then wat was he supposed to do. That is a pretty serious accusation based on, what it appears to me, pretty slight evidence. Has there been any footage or anything to show that any of the Pakistan players actually tampered with the ball? Even the circumstantial evidence seems to be rather thin, from what I understand.

 

[SJS]

Look, Sanz, most human beings would have lost their cool with reg. to that Toronto incidents. The other two, I think, he was at fault to varying degrees. But this last one... ok, I didn't watch any part of this test so far, but honestly, if the umps called his side cheats, then wat was he supposed to do. That is a pretty serious accusation based on, what it appears to me, pretty slight evidence. Has there been any footage or anything to show that any of the Pakistan players actually tampered with the ball? Even the circumstantial evidence seems to be rather thin, from what I understand.

Hi HB.

The point is not that Inzy should not have reacted to the insinuation but whether he should have gone as far as he did.

If everytime a captain is going to refuse to play if there is an insinuation that one of his players is 'cheating' (resorting to unfair/illegal means) we may have a very serious problem.

Afterall, calling a bowler for 'throwing' could also be termed as insinuating that he is cheating. There could be others like not taking a fielder's word for having clearly taken a catch or not having touched the boundary rope and so on.

Secondly, if Inzy was 'bent' on not taking the field, why did he come onto the field AFTER the match had been declared forfeited? Nothing had changed as far as his original protest was concerned. Its just that it FINALLY dawned on him (or he was made to see) that he had gone too far. The fact that he DID come back to the field at this stage is a clear admission that he realised (was made to realise) that his protest had gone too far and was actually hurting the game's and , more importantly, Pakistan's interests.

It is this refusal to have seen this about to happen even when Hair came to ask him in the dressing room,. that shows how wrong Inzy was, NOT IN HIS ORIGINAL PROTEST, but in carrying on and on and on.

 

[JASON]

If anything, Inzy should be sacked for not walking out right away and standing 12 overs in humiliation after being told that his side were cheats.

Exactly my thoughts . He should've taken the Ranatunga approach, without being so damn gentlemanly , IMO.

 

[greg]

If one player was involved in ball tampering then i don't see why that means that "the Pakistan team is accused of cheating". Lack of a culprit stepping forward does not imply the whole team were involved. Just as Surrey were not guilty (as a team) of cheating when the incident occurred earlier this year. (although circumstances demanded that the only option was to punish the team as a whole).

If one person tampering inferred guilt on the team then Pakistan are already known to be cheats because of what Shoaib did a couple of years ago.

 

[SJS]

If one player was involved in ball tampering then i don't see why that means that "the Pakistan team is accused of cheating". Lack of a culprit stepping forward does not imply the whole team were involved.

You are spot on. I think the fact that a 'culprit' wasnt pointed out left it for the team to assume that they were being 'collectively' charged.

But I beg to differ on a 'culprit' stepping forward. Its for the umpires to point out the 'culprit' which doesnt seem to have been done.

Of course it is possible that the ball could be damaged so much that the umpires would have no option but to suspect foul play. The scruffing of one side on a number of places with a bottle crown would leave the kind of damage that's virtually impossible unless intentionally inflicted. One did not see whether there was such a damage to the ball.

If umpires are going to assume the fielding side is guilty of ball tampering everytime a ball is damaged we may find some home crowds (if their sides are batting and facing certain defeat) becoming important players in deciding the fate of games.

Thats why the proof needs to be conclusive. Its possible that sometimes culprits will get away but if the punishment is exemplary (ban for six months or more lets say) the chances of a player risking his career will be substantially reduced.

But if no conclusive proof is available, umpires should just change the ball and get another with similar condition and watch even more closely for foul play. Maybe they could talk to the fielding captain and inform him of whats happening this will put everyone on guard including cameramen and this could be a big deterrent.

 

[greg]

You are spot on. I think the fact that a 'culprit' wasnt pointed out left it for the team to assume that they were being 'collectively' charged.

But I beg to differ on a 'culprit' stepping forward. Its for the umpires to point out the 'culprit' which doesnt seem to have been done.

Of course it is possible that the ball could be damaged so much that the umpires would have no option but to suspect foul play. The scruffing of one side on a number of places with a bottle crown would leave the kind of damage that's virtually impossible unless intentionally inflicted. One did not see whether there was such a damage to the ball.

If umpires are going to assume the fielding side is guilty of ball tampering everytime a ball is damaged we may find some home crowds (if their sides are batting and facing certain defeat) becoming important players in deciding the fate of games.

Thats why the proof needs to be conclusive. Its possible that sometimes culprits will get away but if the punishment is exemplary (ban for six months or more lets say) the chances of a player risking his career will be substantially reduced.

But if no conclusive proof is available, umpires should just change the ball and get another with similar condition and watch even more closely for foul play. Maybe they could talk to the fielding captain and inform him of whats happening this will put everyone on guard including cameramen and this could be a big deterrent.

This argument about the "five-run penalty" is OK, but i don't really think it would have made much difference. What we know is that the ball got unusually scuffed up for some reason. The umpires thought it had been tampered with and acted accordingly. But what other course of action was really available to them? It's all very well saying they should just have changed the ball and left the reason inconclusive. But in reality that would have had the same effect - because the dispute is between "ball tampering" and "wear and tear". The umpires can't change a ball (not having gone out of shape) for "wear and tear", so the implication would have been obvious. Given that they might as well go along with the proper procedures.

This is basically a "stickler for the rules" vs "common sense" argument, the like of which we hear every weekend in football, and many other sports. Of course everyone always comes down in favour of "common sense" except for the people who actually have to implement the laws (referees, umpires etc) because they know that "common sense" is the first step towards that other favorite bugbear of umpiring/refeering critics - "Inconsistency".

 

[SJS]

because the dispute is between "ball tampering" and "wear and tear".

Exactly.

And we still do not know what kind of damage was on the ball that HAD to be due to 'tampering'.

Then will come the question of who did it. Hit a cricket ball hard onto a concrete surface and a bit of its 'skin' will come off. All those who have played on concrete wickets will know what I am talking about.

I am not castigating Hair. I havent done it once in any of my many posts on this subject. I am kust saying that we still do not know why he "assumed' it was done by a fielder. For all you know he has a very good answer to that query. Its just that we dont know.

 

[marc71178]

Then will come the question of who did it. Hit a cricket ball hard onto a concrete surface and a bit of its 'skin' will come off. All those who have played on concrete wickets will know what I am talking about.

Over the period in question, the ball did not hit any concrete or anything though.

 

[honestbharani]

Hi HB.

The point is not that Inzy should not have reacted to the insinuation but whether he should have gone as far as he did.

If everytime a captain is going to refuse to play if there is an insinuation that one of his players is 'cheating' (resorting to unfair/illegal means) we may have a very serious problem.

Afterall, calling a bowler for 'throwing' could also be termed as insinuating that he is cheating. There could be others like not taking a fielder's word for having clearly taken a catch or not having touched the boundary rope and so on.

Secondly, if Inzy was 'bent' on not taking the field, why did he come onto the field AFTER the match had been declared forfeited? Nothing had changed as far as his original protest was concerned. Its just that it FINALLY dawned on him (or he was made to see) that he had gone too far. The fact that he DID come back to the field at this stage is a clear admission that he realised (was made to realise) that his protest had gone too far and was actually hurting the game's and , more importantly, Pakistan's interests.

It is this refusal to have seen this about to happen even when Hair came to ask him in the dressing room,. that shows how wrong Inzy was, NOT IN HIS ORIGINAL PROTEST, but in carrying on and on and on.

Good points, SJS and I agree with you. And of course, I have to apologize as well because I havent really seen what happened. I am basing watever I am saying on the reports and other posts that I have read here and in other sites. But still, there is a difference betwee calling a guy for throwing and calling a team ball tamperers. The former can happen even involuntarily and also it is abt one person. Here the whole team is being insinuated and the charge, AFAIC, is a lot more serious than a questionable bowling action.

 

[honestbharani]

If one player was involved in ball tampering then i don't see why that means that "the Pakistan team is accused of cheating". Lack of a culprit stepping forward does not imply the whole team were involved. Just as Surrey were not guilty (as a team) of cheating when the incident occurred earlier this year. (although circumstances demanded that the only option was to punish the team as a whole).

If one person tampering inferred guilt on the team then Pakistan are already known to be cheats because of what Shoaib did a couple of years ago.

the evidence, greg? That is the whole issue right now. IF of course it gets proved that the Pakistan team ( or even one of them) did voluntarily tamper with the ball, then that settles the matter. But so far we have had no evidence and from wat I gather, I dont the umpires have too much 'solid' evidence for their case either.

 

[adharcric]

the evidence, greg? That is the whole issue right now. IF of course it gets proved that the Pakistan team ( or even one of them) did voluntarily tamper with the ball, then that settles the matter. But so far we have had no evidence and from wat I gather, I dont the umpires have too much 'solid' evidence for their case either.

Exactly. Not only should the umpires have evidence to suggest ball-tampering, it should be clear evidence and not just some sort of suspicion. Being accused of ball-tampering, whether for an individual or an entire team, is a big deal and it shouldn't be dished out on the basis of an umpire's guesswork. Besides, how do the umpires know what can and can't happen to the ball "naturally"? I doubt any of them have tried out throwing a ball in every possible manner in a cricket stadium to see just what kind of 'wear and tear' it suffers from "naturally". Perhaps they have experience regarding what kind of wear and tear the ball usually takes "naturally", but someone's reputation and integrity cannot be put at stake simply because the umpire sees something extraordinary by his own standards. Furthermore, allowing the umpire to make such a subjective call can always be dangerous if the umpire has the slightest of biases. I can't say much more on this issue except that until Hair shows some clear evidence to the public, I'll blame him the most for this disaster.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

This argument about the "five-run penalty" is OK, but i don't really think it would have made much difference. What we know is that the ball got unusually scuffed up for some reason. The umpires thought it had been tampered with and acted accordingly. But what other course of action was really available to them? It's all very well saying they should just have changed the ball and left the reason inconclusive. But in reality that would have had the same effect - because the dispute is between "ball tampering" and "wear and tear". The umpires can't change a ball (not having gone out of shape) for "wear and tear", so the implication would have been obvious. Given that they might as well go along with the proper procedures.

This is basically a "stickler for the rules" vs "common sense" argument, the like of which we hear every weekend in football, and many other sports. Of course everyone always comes down in favour of "common sense" except for the people who actually have to implement the laws (referees, umpires etc) because they know that "common sense" is the first step towards that other favorite bugbear of umpiring/refeering critics - "Inconsistency".

Nice post. I agree entirely.