***Official*** Pakistan in England

[Kweek]

The point is Pakistan say this is a matter of honour/we will not play under Hair again, yet Afridi has done more than Hair will ever do to discredit the team and yet still plays/is worshipped.

If both he and Hair disappeared from the planet tomorrow I'd be nicely indifferent, to put it mildly.

yup, couldn't agree more...bit of a mixed up world eh?

 

[Slow Love™]

Hair today, gone tomorrow — at least we hope so for sake of game
Simon Barnes in a hard hitting article against the Aussie umpire

SO NOW we know it. Officials are more important than players, laws are more important than people, one man’s vanity is more important than the pleasure of millions, principles are more important than common sense, intransigence is better than decency, vindictiveness is better than compromise, trouble is much more fun than peaceful co-operation and a fat man’s dignity is more important than mutual understanding between nations.

Ouch!

The question of whether or not Pakistan were guilty of tampering with the ball is no longer relevant. The point at issue is how a single man’s pigheadedness was allowed to disrupt the fun of millions, to give cricket a terrible, gaping wound and to add to the tensions between Muslims and white Westerners at this, of all moments in history.

He will also argue that he was standing up for the laws of cricket when he stopped the match and refused to restart it. If you read the laws, you will find that he is right. If you park on a double yellow line for two minutes outside the chemist to get some urgent medication for your dying wife, the policeman who fines you is also acting according to the law. He is also acting without humanity and common sense.

Although the example with the dying wife is hyperbolic, it does get the point across. There also seems to be a false dichotomy suggested by some between "the letter of the law" and "common sense". You can actually apply common sense without necessarily compromising the letter of the law.

England and Pakistan have a history of trouble, Hair has a history of trouble. And trouble between Muslim countries and Britain is precisely what is to be avoided right now.

Best for this not to form the basis for decisions in the game though. Perhaps Barnes got a bit carried away here - I think we can leave off holding Hair responsible for the current status of terror alert in Britain.

 

[Scaly piscine]

You really don't have a clue, do you? That's the way it works: innocent until proven guilty.
As Dasa said, you seem to find it convenient to assume by default that the Pakistanis are cheaters.
Besides, nearly everyone on here has pledged support for Hair if he presents valid evidence and support for the Pakistanis in the absence of any evidence.
That seems perfectly fair and reasonable considering the uncertainty of the present situation. These "assumptions" are perfectly acceptable.

What the hell does this have to with the assumption that there is no proof? They've been officially charged and nobody outside of the relevant people knows what's going on - so from that you could assume there is evidence, whether or not it proves anything is something nobody on here is going to know about for a while, if ever - what evidence there is could easily have been confiscated by the ICC. So in these circumstances you don't assume proof or lack of. Also if you actually bothered to read properly instead you would have noticed I've never called Pakistan cheats over this because it's up in the air at the moment - if I was going to call them cheats it would be over the times when they've been caught (and there are plenty of those, but I don't think the 4th Test team had someone who's been caught cheating before in it like Shoaib Akhtar or Shahid Afridi - bowling coach tho was caught). But as I know there are a lot of precious people like yourself on here I get told off as soon as I use the c word as you tend to get even more irrational and extreme about it.

 

[SJS]

What Others think (continued)​

Miandad :

Former Pakistan captain Javed Miandad Monday said Pakistan had put themselves in a difficult position and made a mistake by not taking the field following the row over alleged ball tampering which wrecked the fourth Test against England.

“Pakistan committed mistake after mistake and put themselves in a no-win situation,”

“Either he (Inzy) should have taken the decision immediately (when the ball was changed) or have played the match under protest,”

“If I have been in Inzamam's place I would have asked the boys to play on.I would have played under protest and kept the door open for the appeal,”

“What Hair did would be decided by the ICC after hearing Hair, match referee and there will not be many votes in our favour. So we may emerge as loser,”

 

[JustTool]

In Lanka he's remembered as someone far worse than Hitler!

Both Hitler and Hair something in common, both happen to be first class racist

Finally someone on this BB with the courage to call a spade a spade.

I am so tired of all the Aussies on this board rising to the defence of Hair - some want me kicked off this Board for POINTING out the FACTS that ALL OF Hair's stupid disciplinary actions have ALWAYS been against Asians. I am so sick of Asians being fined for "excessive" appealing and then being asked to "learn how to sledge" from the Aussies.

I tell you some Asians on this Board don't desreve to be living free as they can't stand up for what's right. Learn from Inzy - and just in case the racists out there are wondering, no I am not Muslim. And when I last checked all the Aussie "greats" are slobbering in line for Indian commercials and coaching jobs to grab some money.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

What Others think (continued)​

Miandad :

Former Pakistan captain Javed Miandad Monday said Pakistan had put themselves in a difficult position and made a mistake by not taking the field following the row over alleged ball tampering which wrecked the fourth Test against England.

“Pakistan committed mistake after mistake and put themselves in a no-win situation,”

“Either he (Inzy) should have taken the decision immediately (when the ball was changed) or have played the match under protest,”

“If I have been in Inzamam's place I would have asked the boys to play on.I would have played under protest and kept the door open for the appeal,”

“What Hair did would be decided by the ICC after hearing Hair, match referee and there will not be many votes in our favour. So we may emerge as loser,”

Does anybody really believe that Miandad would have taken such a rational approach had he been captain.

I hope for Bob Woolmer's sake that he isn't made to look a chump again over this in the same way that he was in his unrelenting denial that Hansi Cronje was involved in match-fixing.

 

[SJS]

Khalid H Khan
The Dawn (Pakistani National Daily)​

- Inzamam and his team acted in the heat of the moment by remaining in the changing-room far too long.

- One was aghast to find the tour manager Zaheer Abbas behaving casually on the tense day, constantly chatting on his mobile phone and appearing disinterested by walking out of an emotion-filled dressing room meeting.

- There are different methods and means of lodging a protest. The appropriate action from Pakistan team would have been to continue the game under protest by taking the field while sporting black armbands.

-

 

[Slow Love™]

2. The point about reporting to the referee is, Slow Love, so that there can be an actual hearing where the umpire says why he suspects foul play to the team captain and then the team captain explains what exactly went on and why the condition of the ball might have changed. It gives chance for a dialogue, a meeting where the issue can be trashed out. That is why Hair should have simply changed the ball without mentioning anything about this to Inzy (or maybe he could have just told him that he suspected such stuff and that he wanted the ball at the end of every over or something like that) and then went to the referee and then reported his suspicions. My whole point reg. this issue is that an umpire cannot come to such conclusions on an issue like ball tampering based on just suspicion and speculation. You need something more concrete than that.

Yeah, my only point was that it'd be better to argue this as a better process (with some ability for discourse, evidence, etc) rather than it being a matter of respecting cultural differences - ie that to Pakistan, it's a greater slur than to other countries (incidentally, I'm not sure that's so much a cultural difference as one that has its roots in quite recent history). Ultimately, no sportsman reacts well to be called a cheat, but having a hearing rather than a five-run penalty wouldn't avoid the accusation being made, anyhow.

 

[Yahto]

So if you believe Pakistan tampered with the ball Yahto come out and say it.

I believe that the umpire is well within his rights (and well qualified too, might I add) to distinguish between a ball that is affected by natural wear and tear, and one that also bears marks of deliberate tampering. Why are some people making the simplistic assumption that the umpire is ignorant of the possibilities of the ball being affected by the natural passage of play ? That being the case, he cannot be faulted for acting as he did. Hair cannot be questioned on the steps he took as a result, except perhaps in failing to inform Inzy about his intention to penalise them, although I don't see what purpose that would serve. Umpire's decisions are non-negotiable. The moment one introduces an element of negotiation, a mockery is made of the game.

 

[SJS]

Does anybody really believe that Miandad would have taken such a rational approach had he been captain.

I hope for Bob Woolmer's sake that he isn't made to look a chump again over this in the same way that he was in his unrelenting denial that Hansi Cronje was involved in match-fixing.

There are other Pakistanis who think the same. Read on

 

[Yahto]

Did what? No one yet knows whether anything was done to the ball at all.

The umpires take all factors into consideration and are capable of making the deduction.

 

[SJS]

Some Former Pakistani Cricketers - The Dawn​

- “Pakistan team should have protested in a different manner rather than not coming onto the ground after tea. Whatever happens, the game has to go on,” - Wasim Akram

- “Umpires have the right to change the ball and Pakistan players should have controlled their emotions,” - Former test cricketer Jalaluddin

- “The game should have continued, I fail to understand why Inzamam chose to protest after the tea interval and not at the time of the Hair objection?” - Sarfaraz Nawaz

- “PCB’s top brass who were present in London should have handled the controversy in a more tactical manner,” - Hasib Ahsan Former test cricketer and Chief selector

 

[SJS]

Some other ex Palistani players - The Post Pakistani National Paper​

- "The team first refused to play after the tea interval but went in when the umpires had awarded the match to the other side which was unbelievable. I feel Inzamam should have taken the decision of leaving the ground at that very moment when the umpires decided to change the ball or he should have kept on playing as Pakistan were in a winning position," - Intikhab Alam former Pakistan Captain

- "Inzi should have reacted far sooner than he did. Had I been in Inzi's place I would have taken a stand right there and then when Hair decided to change the ball and accused the Pakistanis of ball-tampering. I would have insisted on the managers of both teams and match referee coming out to register my protest. I would never have meekly accepted Hair's judgement the way Inzamam did. Hair's brash and provocative manner makes him the main culprit in letting things go out of hand" - Imran Khan

- "Inzamam should have shown prompt reaction and immediately led the team off and would not have returned until the umpires had explained their decision. Pakistan team is a victim of circumstances and I think people who have something between their ears would understand Inzamam's action. It's a testing time for the ICC because they now need to come out with something otherwise international cricket would turn on its head. " - Moin Khan

- Inzamam would have called the manager and the match referee in to the ground to record their protest and told them that he was going to continue the game in the best interest of the game but the matter seemed to have not been properly handled....Mohsin Khan

 

[silentstriker]

The rancour, resentment and sulks have been left to the umpires and so has the trouble. The first decision for the ICC to make is that Hair never stands in another international match.

This series has showed us that white Westerners and Muslims can get on in sporting opposition, or, for that matter, on the same team. The shame of it all was that one man’s overweening vanity had to spoil it.

Ouch. Barnes really rips into him...


Laws aren't more important than the game. If both sides want to continue playing, use some ****ing common sense, and let them play.

 

[Kweek]

In Lanka he's remembered as someone far worse than Hitler!

Both Hitler and Hair something in common, both happen to be first class racist

you have something in common with Hitler too, your Human...


this is just the worst post of the day...and I hope you get banned for it.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Ouch. Barnes really rips into him...


Laws aren't more important than the game. If both sides want to continue playing, use some ****ing common sense, and let them play.

Laws and the game are dependent on one another, you can't let anyone hold the game to ransom and you have to draw the line somewhere. Pakistan had been given fair warning and chose to take the consequences, it was not a case of they had been delayed 5 minutes by a dying wife or something.

 

[JustTool]

How Hair courts controversy
By Tom Fordyce - BBC

The fateful moment when Hair and Doctrove first examined the ball
Throughout his umpiring career, Darrell Hair has been no stranger to controversy.

In the 14 years since his international debut, he has been among the most visible of a new breed of match officials.

But Hair is not one for the crowd-pleasing physical antics of a Billy Bowden or David Shepherd, nor the animated chatter of a Dickie Bird.

The title of his autobiography - "The Decision-Maker" - provides a hint to his character.

Hair sees himself as a figure of authority on the pitch. If you want banter, talk to your team-mates. If you want to take things further, don't expect him to back down.

It has been that way from his very first match, a Test between Australia and India at Adelaide in January 1992 which Australia won by 38 runs.

A flick through the pages of Wisden reveals that the game was "marred... by controversy over lbw decisions - eight times Indians were given out, while all but two of their own appeals were rejected".

But that was only the start of things for a man who had spent his earlier cricketing days as a right-arm fast-medium bowler with the Mosman club in Sydney grade cricket.

Sri Lanka fury

It was on Boxing Day 1995 that Hair became embroiled in the row that made him a household name from Kandy to Kalgoorlie.

On the first day of the second Test between Australia and Sri Lanka at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, Hair no-balled Muttiah Muralitharan seven times in three overs for chucking.

This was despite the fact that Hair was at the bowler's end, rather than at square leg, from where an umpire would ordinarily study a bowler's action.


Hair no-balls Muralitharan in Melbourne in 1995

Sri Lanka captain Arjuna Ranatunga was so incensed by Hair's actions that he took his team off the pitch, although - unlike Pakistan on Sunday - they returned shortly afterwards.

The other umpire that day, New Zealander Steve Dunne, had no problem with Murali's action when he was brought on from his end.

Dunne also pointed out that the rules stated that any suspect action should be reported to the match referee rather being called immediately, and that it was governing body the ICC - not the umpires - who should rule a bowler's action legitimate or not.
Hair, convinced he had acted correctly, refused to back down.

Despite receiving death threats, he went on to describe Murali's bowling action as "diabolical" in his autobiography.

In Hair's mind, he was merely upholding the old maxim that the umpire's decision should always be final.

To others, he was guilty - at best - of stubborn intransigence, and at worst of bias against Asian players.

"Hair is a misfit in today's cricket because he acts in a high-handed manner whenever he officiates," said Ranatunga after Sunday's fiasco at the Oval.

There have been other incidents too.

Prior to the Murali mayhem in Melbourne, Hair had attracted criticism for his decision to give Craig McDermott out caught behind as Australia were denied a record-breaking win over the West Indies in Adelaide in January 1993.

At the same ground a year later, South Africa's Peter Kirsten was incensed by a series of lbw decisions from Hair, eventually prompting an outburst which cost him 65% of his match fee.

In Hair's defence, the ICC clearly has a lot of faith in him. He has officiated in 76 Tests - only three men in history have stood in more - and 124 one-day internationals.

He has a reputation as an umpire who is consistent in his decision-making, and has also made high-profile calls against Pakistan's opponents.

"The Darrell Hair I know calls the game the way he sees it without fear or favour. He knows the laws better than anyone," said fellow Australian Simon Taufel, another member of the elite umpiring panel.

"Umpires have to follow the laws and the playing conditions as they are written, so it's hard to fault the umpires in this case.

"The disappointing thing is that the spirit of cricket has taken a hit over this," Taufel told the Sydney Morning Herald.

Problems in Pakistan

The current Pakistan side's issues with Hair began during England's tour last winter.

The team were angered by Hair's decision to refer a run-out call involving captain Inzamam to the third umpire, despite the skipper only being out of his ground because he was taking evasive action.

In the same Test, Hair warned opener Salman Butt for running down the middle of the pitch, sent him back to the striker's end and gave him out lbw next ball.

When he was appointed for the third and fourth Tests in England this summer, the Pakistan management privately expressed their disappointment.

And Hair's refusal to give Kevin Pietersen out when he appeared to edge a Shahid Nazir delivery to the wicketkeeper on the first morning of the third Test only succeeded in stirring troubled waters still further.

Hair may yet survive this latest controversy, as he has done all previous ones.

Whether his authority with the world's best cricketers will be intact is another question entirely.




SEE ALSO
Cricket's stigma
21 Aug 06 | Cricket
Test charges for Pakistan captain
21 Aug 06 | Cricket
Pakistan anger over cricket chaos
21 Aug 06 | South Asia
English cricket suffers cash blow
21 Aug 06 | Cricket
Test abandoned after ball dispute
20 Aug 06 | England
Day four: How the controversy unfolded
20 Aug 06 | England
Pakistan in England 2006
27 Jun 06 | Future tour dates
Live cricket on the BBC
19 Apr 06 | Cricket

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


RELATED BBC LINKS:
Cricket weather
BBC Asian Network Sport
Your say on England - TMS
BBC World Service - Urdu
Your say on South Asian cricket - TMS


RELATED INTERNET LINKS:
England and Wales Cricket Board
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites


FROM OTHER SPORT SITES
Cricket365.com So is this One-dayer show even going to go forth? - 24 mins ago
Sky Sports Inzi wants Oval result annulled - 35 mins ago
CNN Hair hailed as a 'hero' back home - 37 mins ago
Daily Mail Pakistan: Ban Inzamam and the tour will be over - 1 hr ago
FOXSports.com ICC charges Pakistan captain - 1 hr ago
About these results

 

[Oli Norwell]

For me two people are to blame. Hair was well within his right to give the 5 penalty runs, but he needed to come up with some concrete evidence. Which sadly he doesn't seem to be able to. So he initially is at fault..

However two wrongs don't make a right and Inzamam should have known the rules of the game, by not coming out to play when he was asked to (twice), he inacted a rule which meant his team forefitting the game. So you need to blame the Pakistan management and Inzamam for the farce of not having cricket to watch.

Sadly I feel the whole thing could have been sorted out by Hair telling the players exactly what he'd seen, and ensuring the public knew what incident had invoked the penalty runs.

Thumbs up to the The Oval management though for refunding 40% of the admission price for people who were there. They didn't have to and were the only party acting remotely sensibly.

 

[silentstriker]

Laws and the game are dependent on one another, you can't let anyone hold the game to ransom and you have to draw the line somewhere. Pakistan had been given fair warning and chose to take the consequences, it was not a case of they had been delayed 5 minutes by a dying wife or something.

But there are things more important than the game itself even. Pakistan and England both wanted to play. It wasn't a case of the ECB complaining, it was a case of the umpire imposing his will on both the teams.

As Simon Barnes says:

He will also argue that he was standing up for the laws of cricket when he stopped the match and refused to restart it. If you read the laws, you will find that he is right. If you park on a double yellow line for two minutes outside the chemist to get some urgent medication for your dying wife, the policeman who fines you is also acting according to the law. He is also acting without humanity and common sense.

 

[Scaly piscine]

As I said it was not a case of they had been delayed 5 minutes by a dying wife and they were given fair warning - it was not a strict interpretation of the law, it was surely the sort of thing the law was meant to deal with (in terms of a team refusing to play for a good length of time).