***Official*** Pakistan in England

[silentstriker]

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).

But then they were both willing to play afterwards....so the umpire is there to facilitate the play. Not to impose his will on the proceedings.

 

[SJS]

Probably the best came from Imran Khan in an interview with Chiade O'Shea, correspondent for The Times in Pakistan, ​

Excerpts :

Pakistan lost out and so did cricket. Inzamam-ul-Haq said he made the protest for his country, but if I were him I would have done it by going out and winning the game.

The way the Pakistan team protested baffled me. If I were him, I would have protested there and then and kept playing. The protest was right, but the manner was wrong.

He is a fundamentalist kind of umpire and he likes to stamp his authority on a match. He is extremely controversial, he’s bullish and provocative. The reason we all liked Dicky Bird wasn’t that he didn’t make mistakes, but because he nipped controversy in the bud.

You cannot tell if a 50-overs ball is scuffed from the worn out pitch, the hoardings or tampering. In my career, I saw many great bowlers pulling at the seams of the ball. People used to do it openly, but within limits. The only time ball tampering became an issue was after Pakistan mastered reverse swing and the English couldn't understand it. So, it became an issue.

and Writing for Hindustan Times India he wrote :​

I can inderstand he (Inzy) was hurt and insulted but he still should have had the presence of mind to protest as soon as Hair decided on a ball change.... he was deprived of a swinging ball, penalised in terms of runs and above all accused of cheating. He should have immediately stopped playing and demanded an explanation from Hair.

The latter would not have been able to conclusively prove ball tampering when the ball was 50-plus overs old, on the fourth day under pretty dry conditions. He should have called the management on the field and registered his protest and then continued with the game.

There was a test match to be won and Pakistan's decision not to play was quite literally self defeating.

It did not help that there were too many officials scurrying around and it was a situation of too many cooks...

I was not convinced by Shaharyar Khan's statement later in the evening that they were merely they were merely establishing their sense of hurt and protest.

The PCB should ask the ICC to commission an enquiry into the whole episode and should also seriously consider suing Hair for defamation.

...some action must be taken against Hair. His conduct always smacks of arrogance and his tendency to douse fire with gasoline makes him harmful to the game.

Superb. Just my thoughts. Has he been reading my posts? I wonder

 

[SJS]

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.

I think he got VERRRY carried away. His was one of the least objective reports I thought.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Imran was interviewed by BBC News yesterday, and I have to say he gave the most level-headed, sensible views I've seen from anyone so far.

 

[Scaly piscine]

But then they were both willing to play afterwards....so the umpire is there to facilitate the play. Not to impose his will on the proceedings.

It's completely irrelevant whether they were willing to play afterwards, they were warned of the consequences and once the bails were dislodged that's it. You can't go back on it when the game is finished, it would just be a complete farce - this decision isn't even debatable as far as I'm concerned.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

But then they were both willing to play afterwards....so the umpire is there to facilitate the play. Not to impose his will on the proceedings.

How can they let them come back out to play after they'd already awarded the match to England? If Pakistan had stayed off for 5 minutes and then come out and the umpires had refused to play, that'd be a bit harsh, but they waited 20 minutes, and Hair went to the dressing room and asked them what was going on. As far as I'm concerned, he did everything he could to get play going again.

When Pakistan refused, he took the bails off, thereby ending the match in a forfeit. He can't reverse that decision later on, it'd just be stupid, as Scaly said.

 

[Fusion]

Probably the best came from Imran Khan in an interview with Chiade O'Shea, correspondent for The Times in Pakistan, ​

Excerpts :

Pakistan lost out and so did cricket. Inzamam-ul-Haq said he made the protest for his country, but if I were him I would have done it by going out and winning the game.

The way the Pakistan team protested baffled me. If I were him, I would have protested there and then and kept playing. The protest was right, but the manner was wrong.

He is a fundamentalist kind of umpire and he likes to stamp his authority on a match. He is extremely controversial, he’s bullish and provocative. The reason we all liked Dicky Bird wasn’t that he didn’t make mistakes, but because he nipped controversy in the bud.

You cannot tell if a 50-overs ball is scuffed from the worn out pitch, the hoardings or tampering. In my career, I saw many great bowlers pulling at the seams of the ball. People used to do it openly, but within limits. The only time ball tampering became an issue was after Pakistan mastered reverse swing and the English couldn't understand it. So, it became an issue.

and Writing for Hindustan Times India he wrote :​

I can inderstand he (Inzy) was hurt and insulted but he still should have had the presence of mind to protest as soon as Hair decided on a ball change.... he was deprived of a swinging ball, penalised in terms of runs and above all accused of cheating. He should have immediately stopped playing and demanded an explanation from Hair.

The latter would not have been able to conclusively prove ball tampering when the ball was 50-plus overs old, on the fourth day under pretty dry conditions. He should have called the management on the field and registered his protest and then continued with the game.

There was a test match to be won and Pakistan's decision not to play was quite literally self defeating.

It did not help that there were too many officials scurrying around and it was a situation of too many cooks...

I was not convinced by Shaharyar Khan's statement later in the evening that they were merely they were merely establishing their sense of hurt and protest.

The PCB should ask the ICC to commission an enquiry into the whole episode and should also seriously consider suing Hair for defamation.

...some action must be taken against Hair. His conduct always smacks of arrogance and his tendency to douse fire with gasoline makes him harmful to the game.

Superb. Just my thoughts. Has he been reading my posts? I wonder

SJS, earlier you pointed out that Imran is a politician and as such will make comments that suit him. I for one don't believe for a second that he would've stayed and played the game. Imran had the biggest ego in Pakistan cricket history and if he and his team were called cheats he would've stormed out right there and then. Same goes for Javed. As for the other Pakistani players you quoted, most of them seem to be faulting Inzi for not reacting fast enough. They all seem to be saying that he should've either walked off the field right away, or not make an issue until after the game. It's their opinion, but I disagree. They weren't in Inzi's position.
Also, I appreciate you presenting other views, but in my readings of articles, the overwhelming majority have faulted Hair above anyone else. I have pointed out before that some notable figures like Nasser Hussain, Atherton, and Botham have implied that they would've done the same thing as Inzi. Dickie Bird blamed Hair and said that he could've handled things a lot better. Finally, here's an article from Cricinfo which I thought was well balanced. It rips into both Pakistan and Hair, but acknowledges that Hair created the problem and could have defused it:

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/columns/content/story/257382.html

First, Darrell Hair got heavy-handed. Where many umpires would have used a quiet word, Hair reached straight for the biggest weapon available to him, the five-run penalty. The five runs are nothing - if a team is really ball-tampering, the penalty ought to be more like 50 - but the statement was a loud one. The ball looked pretty normal to the television audience. Did he really need to change it? Couldn't he have issued a warning, with the threat of a referral to the referee if it wasn't heeded?
For me, Hair over-reacted. His behaviour was inflammatory, and the fact that he has a history of it made it more so. And as the laws of physics almost state, to every over-reaction there is liable to be an equal and opposite over-reaction.

 

[Fusion]

It's completely irrelevant whether they were willing to play afterwards, they were warned of the consequences and once the bails were dislodged that's it. You can't go back on it when the game is finished, it would just be a complete farce - this decision isn't even debatable as far as I'm concerned.

Why can't you go back and play? The crowd had not been told that the game was forfeited. The television audience was not told anything. The Pakistan team didn't find out till later. The England players were ready to play on. So why couldn't Hair come out and umpire? No one would've faulted him if he did. Also, why did he have to end the game like that? There have been plenty of sit-ins before in Cricket history. If every umpire acted as brashly as Hair, there would've been many forfeits before this incident.

 

[Sanz]

Fletcher had supposedly visited the match referee in the match voicing his concerns, can't remember when exactly he was supposed to have done this but it wasn't like 5 minutes before the penalty or anything. Seemed like this story is in most of the British papers.

So where is this PROOF of yours now ??

 

[Sanz]

Backpages as seen by me on Sky Sports News:

"Asif Accused" - Daily Mail
"Fletcher caught up row over ball tampering" - Independent (link)
"England Triggered Ball Row" - Daily Telegraph

Looks like the Proverbial is going to hit the fan tomorrow...

Has it been printed yet or are they going to print it next year ?

 

[Sanz]

There are repeated assumptions that there is no proof.

We are still waiting for your proof that Asif was guilty of match fixing or that Duncan Fletcher complained about Asif.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Why can't you go back and play? The crowd had not been told that the game was forfeited. The television audience was not told anything. The Pakistan team didn't find out till later. The England players were ready to play on. So why couldn't Hair come out and umpire? No one would've faulted him if he did. Also, why did he have to end the game like that? There have been plenty of sit-ins before in Cricket history. If every umpire acted as brashly as Hair, there would've been many forfeits before this incident.

He took the bails off for a start, so presumably they couldn't play til tomorrow at the very least. Pakistan were told what would happen, it's in the laws and presumably other people were informed.

As for the muppet who keeps taking my quotes out of context - Sanz, when I was describing what the paper story was and saying what was *supposed* to have happened - what a waste of space he is.

 

[Fusion]

He took the bails off for a start, so presumably they couldn't play til tomorrow at the very least. Pakistan were told what would happen, it's in the laws and presumably other people were informed.

.

According to Inzi, Pakistan were not informed that the game had been forfieted until later in the evening. Regardless, I still ask what was the harm for Hair to continue? I can guarantee you that the spectators would not have minded if play had resumed, even if initially the game had been awarded to Eng. More importantly, the England team was ready to continue, and they would've had the biggest objections in continuing a game already awarded to them right? Dickie Bird stated he would've resumed the game had he been the umpire. So in the end, everyone wanted to continue, except Hair. It shows again why he's the root cause of this whole issue. He's stubborn, thinks of himself as bigger than the game, and his attitude is not fit for an International umpire.

 

[gio]

I'm guessing this is where we're talking about the 4th test abondonment, so I'd like to give two pennies...

First of all, if Darryl Hare believes the ball to have been purposefully altered, he should take action. Whether or not he warns Pakistan first is irrelevant. However, Hare should be 100% sure that the ball has been altered.

Once Pakistan had been accused, they should grin and bare it until the close of play. To not come out after tea just beacuse you feel hard done by is extremely immature and irresponsible. Imagine if every team refused to play on just because decisions didn't go their way? There are protocols and procedures to deal with appeals etc. In my opinion, Pakistan lost any sort of sympathy by behaving like spoiled brats. And what on earth are admired ex-pro's such as Ian Botham and Ramiz Raja doing condoning such an action? It's ridiculous that these people should be backing such a stupid action. The fact that Hare accused them of cheating should not matter. If you have not cheated, then you have nothing to worry about. Everything will sort itself out in the long run.

Then, when the umpires followed the laws of cricket and abondoned the game, Pakistan had no right to object to this. There is no way the game could be restarted, and to do so would set a terrible precedent. Yes, there was a large crowd at the game who went home unhappy. But what could seriously have been done? If they allowed the game to continue, and Pakistan went on to win, then it would have been even more farcical. People would have said, and rightly so, that Pakistan threw their dummys out the pram and huffed and puffed until they got what they wanted.

The responsibility for the first abondoned test in over a century of cricket lies firmly at the feet of Inzamam Ul-Haq and any other Pakistani involved in their "protest" after tea. It is right he is punished with the disrepute charge and hope that the ICC do not back down over this. Things like this cannot ever happen again.

 

[The Baconator]

Imran was interviewed by BBC News yesterday, and I have to say he gave the most level-headed, sensible views I've seen from anyone so far.

Missed that, what did he say?

 

[Fusion]

Some interesting developments. Bangladesh and SL have given their full support to Pakistan, including PCB's stance that they would not accept Hair as an umpire in their games any further. However, the BCCI have not supported Pak in this regard. The stories:

Bangladesh backs Pakistan - India sides with Hair

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

DHAKA, Aug 22 (Reuters) - Bangladesh became the latest Asian nation on Tuesday to pledge their support to the Pakistan cricket team following a ball tampering row which led to the fourth test against England to be forfeited. Bangladesh Cricket Board president Ali Asghar said he had contacted his Pakistani counterpart Shaharyar Khan to express his backing on the issue.
"I told him (Shaharyar) that we are with Pakistan as they had supported us on many occasions," Asghar told the reporters.
"I have gone through the whole incident and found nothing wrong in Pakistan's reaction."

On Sunday, umpires Darrell Hair of Australia and Billy Doctrove from West Indies decided that Pakistan had forfeited the match when they failed to take the field after the tea interval.
Pakistan were incensed that the umpires had decided they had been guilty of ball tampering, docking the team five runs, and staged a protest by staying in the dressing room for several minutes.
Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq was charged with ball tampering and bringing the game into disrepute and could be banned for eight one-day internationals or four tests if found guilty.
The Sri Lankan cricket board have already given their backing to Pakistan.

source: [http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/art...SPORT-CRICKET-PAKISTAN-PROTEST-BANGLADESH.XML


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

THE international career of Australian umpire Darrell Hair may be spared by the unlikeliest of sources - India. The Board of Control for Cricket in India was expected to side with Pakistan and refuse to play in matches in which Hair is officiating.


But in a surprise move, BCCI secretary Niranjan Shah told the Herald last night that his board did not "necessarily agree" with Pakistan's sentiments and would abide by the International Cricket Council decision on Hair.

"We would never say no to any umpire that the ICC supported," Shah said. "If the ICC is happy with [Hair], then we are happy. Let us see a report first, and if Mr Hair has made a mistake, then we will see what happens. But it is up to the ICC to take action."

Should the BCCI adhere to this stance, both Hair and the ICC will have avoided a potentially explosive situation. Given that the ICC is desperate to avoid a repeat of The Oval fiasco, Hair is unlikely to umpire matches featuring Pakistan and Sri Lanka, both of whom have well-documented problems with the Australian umpire. Hair, who is not believed to be considering retirement, is also unable to preside over matches involving Australia.


"If the Asian bloc gangs up on him and says, 'We don't want him appointed in our games', there might be trouble," **** French, a former umpire and Hair's one-time mentor, told AAP. "He can't umpire Australia as a neutral, so he can't then just umpire South Africa, the West Indies and England for the rest of his career. So that's a tough one for the authorities."


source: http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/...ecision-on-hair/2006/08/22/1156012547462.html

 

[silentstriker]

I am absolutely shocked that India are not backing Pakistan. That hits me out of left field. I thought it was a given.

Suprising, to say the least. I guess I was wrong earlier in the thread regarding the Asian bloc voting him out.

 

[Fusion]

I am absolutely shocked that India are not backing Pakistan. That hits me out of left field. I thought it was a given.

Suprising, to say the least. I guess I was wrong earlier in the thread regarding the Asian bloc voting him out.

Though I am surprised by this as well, I think it's understandable. BCCI would want to avoid adding to the perception that they have become the be all and end all of world cricket. They would be sensitive to the concerns people have about their influence on cricket matters, as they are the most powerful board in cricket by a mile. And they are not really going against Pakistan, just saying they won't support a team dictating who can't umpire against them (in this case I think they're being short sighted, but oh well). I would be more surprised if they don't back the PCB in their fight against Inzi's ban. I think the BCCI will (either behind the scenes or publicly) support PCB stance that Inzi should not be banned.

 

[Kweek]

why back each other..this is so stupid, childish..very childish

 

[Scaly piscine]

But in a surprise move, BCCI secretary Niranjan Shah told the Herald last night that his board did not "necessarily agree" with Pakistan's sentiments and would abide by the International Cricket Council decision on Hair.

"We would never say no to any umpire that the ICC supported," Shah said. "If the ICC is happy with [Hair], then we are happy. Let us see a report first, and if Mr Hair has made a mistake, then we will see what happens. But it is up to the ICC to take action."

Who'd have thought the BCCI would be so sensible? Shocking indeed. I'd have expected Bangladesh to support Pakistan because they're too small to stand up for themselves really, but I thought SL have always been a very respectable country in cricket over the past decade or so - shame they've just thrown that out of the window.