The Oval Fallout Continues…

If you thought the Oval fiasco was behind us, think again. Opinions on the matter are flying in from all corners, and while the two main charges may have been resolved, there
are still some issues which need sorting out.

Not only did the cancellation of the Oval Test harm the game in general, it also cost the England Cricket Board up to $1.5 million. According to “The Sunday Times”, they are in
the process of requesting that the Pakistan Cricket Board pay up, a request which is unlikely to be accepted. Speaking to the same paper, PCB Chairman Saharyar Khan

said,”We are not ready to pay because it was not our responsibility… The decision of protest was due to anger because umpires did not tell Pakistan why they were penalised five runs and even Inzamam did not know about why the five penalty runs were docked. ” The PCB also want a disrepute charge to be brought upon Hair, in which case the ICC would be responsible for the damages instead. However, they will not be appealing against Inzamam’s ban, or the forfeiture of the game.

Meanwhile, the big names of world cricket continue to lend their voices to the debate, with Richie Benaud and Geoffrey Boycott the latest to express their views. Benaud certainly will not be making any new Pakistani friends, given his interview with “News Of The World”.

After labelling the hearing “crass and unbecoming”, he went on to express his disgust at the minimal fine handed out the Inzamam-Ul-Haq, while claiming that Hair had been “stabbed in the back.” His most stinging criticism of the PCB, however, came when he was asked to comment on the notion that Pakistan had been slurred by the allegations. He responded by saying “It is completely logical – if you take into account Pakistan has constantly inferred that it is a more proud nation than India, Australia, Sri Lanka, England, South Africa, New Zealand and the West Indies.”

Geoffrey Boycott, however, would appear to disagree. Speaking through his column in “The Daily Telegraph”, he criticized Hair for trying to play God. He went on to write, ” Darrell Hair was so bullish [at the post-hearing press conference], even though the decision had gone against him. He was still acting as though he was not aware of what he’d done…It astonishes me that he could sit there, with absolutely no sign of contrition, implying that he would do the same thing again. He seems to have learnt nothing…It shows that the umpire is not always right. If he is going to make a huge decision, which affects the whole fabric of the game, he had better have some evidence to back it up.”

What next?