Oval Test awarded to England

Good job this is essentially a dead rubber, isn’t it?

Have just read the linked article, and it now says “9.10pm After the news that the Test was off there are again further conflicting reports coming out of the The Oval with sources saying the match is still on. The amazing events continue to unfold.” Reports that they are waiting for the match referee to locate his backside with both hands are unconfirmed.

Isn’t it nice that they kicked all the journalists out the building so that no one has a clue? ECB and BBC are conspicuously silent on the issue. Sky still reporting it off.

BBC report that talks are still ongoing and no news as yet – whilst Sky have shown pictures of Hair and Proctor leaving the ground. Finally, there is apparently still the possibility of a Pakistani press conference this evening. Sky have made no mention of sources, so I can only assume they’ve jumped the gun a little.

At the end of the day, an umpire of Darrell Hair’s experience must have had some reason for acting as he did, and don’t forget that Billy Doctrove must have had some say in the course of events too. Bear in mind that the footage hasn’t been thoroughly analysed yet, but if nothing shows up, the man has shot himself in the foot in a spectacular way, and the chances are that he’ll never adjudicate again.

Sadly the fact still remains that relations have inevitably been soured and a perfectly good match has been ruined.

I am devastated for both teams and all supporters. This is no way to win a Test or a series. But at the same time for God’s sake, someone has to stand up for umpire Hair – he played it by the book. Look at the Laws. We have had occasions this season in the North Rhine League when players try it on with the 3rd team. You get sick of it. Play by the Laws and when it goes pear-shaped, look at your team not at the umpires. He was not alone out there.

Sorry Wraye, but I cannot agreee.

We’ve all played against treams trying it on, and gone home seething because of it. This is not the third team in the North Rhine League, or a third team in League 3a in the Netherlands (where I happen to play), but a test match.

The umpires say that this 50+ over ball, that has been seriously tonked around by various England batsmen, has been tampered with.
There are a shedload of Sky cameras, thousands of England supporters, extra offficials, a match referee, and god knows who else, but no-one has seen any evidence of this. The umpires have as far as we know not named any culprit, or seen anyone doing anything suspicious.

Let’s be honest, it stinks.

I don’t know which book you think Hair played it by, but I sincerely hope we find out soon.

According to an advert on the cricinfo page, you can still bet on wether Collingwood will make a hundred or not

Also, I don’t believe Hair would call anyone for tampering with the ball unless he seriously believed it was going on.

The issue has not been dealt with well at all, by both the Pakistanis and the umpires, but it WAS dealt with in line with the law, and i don’t think you can complain about that.

And please, lets not forget that there were two umpires involved in this scenario, and stop singling out Hair!

One thing I did notice throughout sky’s coverage of the fiasco, was that when the Pakistan team did decide to come back onto the pitch after the lengthy delay, it was not 11 players that came out onto the field, but 13.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of what happened (and I hope they come out in the wash) this smacks to me of a spot of spin doctoring.

For 13 players to come out, they must have known at that point that they weren’t going to be playing – its not a normal occurrance – and it looks to me like an effort to make the umpires look bad in front of the crowd – maybe, and I’m obviously speculating here, to use crowd pressure to put pressure on the umpires to reverse the decision made to forfeit the game.

Bob Willis isn’t a man I normally agree with, but he made one excellent point about this being sport, and to keep politics out of sport. As far as I’m concerned, the only sort of spin on a cricket field should be out of the hands of Warne, Monty, Danish etc.

Hi, folks, I was there. God, it was the most bizarre day of cricket ever…and the only reason ANYONE knew what was going on was b/c those of us who had TMS radios were passing the information along…or their friends were ringing. When the 5 penalty runs were awarded, we all assumed it was b/c Pakistan was WASTING TIME by insisting on a new ball.
Even at *5:45*, most of the people around me didn’t have a CLUE, b/c the information coming from the officials was…erm, non-existent.

As an England supporter and a woman of Pakistani descent, there are some observations I’d like to make:

1. We still don’t know why Hair and Doctrove acted as they did. It is a SERIOUS accusation, the MOST serious in cricket, and I cannot believe that they would have made that decision very good reason. Yes, they should have given Inzy a warning. Imran admits to having a bottle cap in his pocket and scoring the ball. It’s not THAT hard to avoid the cameras.

2. Mr Hair is probably crusty and lacking in interpersonal skills with EVERYONE. We got bad decisions too. Stop with the “He hates Asian teams” already. I grew up with affluent Pakistanis whingeing ON and ON about how much they were hated by the white majority. PLEASE. STOP PLAYING THE VICTIM AND MOVE ON. Use the energy to PROVE yourself.

3. THE PAKISTANI TEAM MADE A DECISION TO STAY IN THEIR DRESSING ROOM AND SULK. WHY SHOULD THEY GET WHAT THEY WANT? They didn’t consider the consequences for anyone else, or for the game. They were doing FINE with the ‘new old’ ball, had gotten KP out with it, seemed to be doing fine. The best way to win sympathy and prove their innocence? Get out there and play to win. Talk to the match officials AFTER PLAY THAT DAY. Take the high moral ground. Instead, they whinged about being hard done by, they sulked and refused to play…frankly, folks, THEY GOT EXACTLY WHAT THEY DESERVED FOR SUCH A SELFISH, MANIPULATIVE ACT. It wasn’t a ‘farce’ UNTIL THEY MADE IT ONE. And the Pakistan team has a reputation for pushing the limits – tell them not to do something [e.g., step on the protected part of the pitch], and they’ll put a toe over. Let them do that, next time it’s a foot. With that kind of history, it’s no wonder umpires come down hard on them. It would be nice to see them grow up and take some responsibility for a change.

The umpires violated the spirit of the law? Not as much as Pakistan has done by its constant complaining and wheedling and playing the victim. Mind you, they are a well balanced side – a chip on EACH shoulder.

The umpires did the right thing in forcing the Pakistani team to face the consequences of its actions. All the cajoling and begging for them to play was simply rewarding the worst passive aggressive behaviour I have EVER seen.

What a sad, sad day.

Whether Hair’s decision was right or wrong, to openly challenge the umpire is clearly out of order by Pakistan. You accept the decision of the umpires, even if everyone else knows its a mistake, and you deal with it at the end of the day. Deciding to take your bat and ball home just cos you don’t like a decision is petty. Pakistan should have used their indignation of roll England over and make it all a moot decision to change the ball, plus the award of the penalty runs.

Would you believe I switched off and went to sleep at Tea! What a shock when it was even reported on the news in Australia the next morning.

Have to say I agree with Wraye and Irim. If players don’t want to be treated like “schoolboys”, Helen, perhaps they should stop behaving that way. Their protest seemed pretty inappropriate and immature in the context of an international fixture. I feared I might be biased in this, so kept quiet at home, but even my husband, who is an Aussie supporter through and through, thought it was pretty poor form. The match referee’s report will be very interesting, but so far I have had a lot of respect for Darrell Hair, and see no reason to crucify him. Can’t say the same for some Pakistan players over the years . . .

A poor performance by two of cricket’s most notable recidivist’s.

Hair as a decision maker is one of the very best i have seen, but i think he should leave his ego in the cloak room; and his memoirs until his retirement, which he may have just started.

Pakistan sulk in the dressing room unable to galvanise an appropriate response, leaving a disenfranchised crowd with some very dark thoughts.

Another bleak day for sport.

funny how everything boils down to an “Anyone But Oz” attitude these days.

GOOD BOY, DARELL!
umpires today need to show courage and need to be backed when they show it.

BAD BOY, DARELL!
u should’ve shown the smarts and subtlety to have made a decision at a tea break or some suitable stoppage time instead of right in the middle of an over. you could have had the cameras track the goings-on before and very neanderthal, that.
if his suspicions were found just, then things would’ve been easier to control in a hush-hush manner.

ddm pointed to a link which concludes:
“Darrel Hair insulted the honour of the Pakistani team, and Pakistan as a country, and a game of cricket needs to take second place in such an instance.”
Or perhaps….
Darrel Hair caught Pakistan cheating and the only insult to honour done was by the Pakistanis upon themselves.

Irim makes some very good points. As a qualified cricket umpire myself, I am loathe to criticise Hair and Doctrove without knowing more about the background to the decision they took. I’ve looked through some Pakistani English-language discussion groups today, and the tone is niggardly and negative regarding any umpire considered to be anti-Pakistani (or anti-subcontinent, in general). Almost every decision ever made against a local player is catatlogued and re-hashed (some go back more than 20 years), without, in general, any appreciation of the fact (not a “fact” to these people, sadly) that the local players have had as many decisions go their way over the years (from the same umpires).

In the place where I umpire, 70% of the players are subcontinental, and this kind of irrational thinking (and harping on past “injustices”) is manifest, or underlying, in a lot of players and managers. Not all, thank goodness, but I do see it as part of my mission to understand the way they are brought up and the way they play the game. A small way of contributing to conciliation and understanding in one place where my life intersects with those of Muslims (predominantly). I think it can certainly be said that Pakistani players are NOT more prone to cheating than Aussies or Poms, but an umpire does require sensitivity – both sensitivity to their cultural background (without being condescending) and sensitivity to possible cheating.

But, there are individuals from all countries who seek to gain an unfair advantage from time to time in one way or another. Umpires mustn’t be suckers. Strength and toughness under pressure are absolute key requirements. Maybe Hair got it wrong, but I think if he did it was out of an over-developed sense of the need for tough justice than any racism. Once an umpire has a reputation for “racism” – and that’s so easy to gain now with irresponsible journalists and former players pontificating from their armchairs and anyone with access to a computer raking up the decision against Sikhander Bakht back in the 80s! – it puts tremendous pressure on him. What’s the solution? Drop him off the Elite Panel? Hardly, I think. You’ll soon have a conveyor belt with good umpires falling off, and, then, no good umpires at all.

Sadly, even on umpiring courses, the attendees all have tales of this terrible decision by Dicky Bird, or that shocker by Hair against Sourav, or Azhar, or Dravid. Sometimes I’m just left shaking my head. To be an unbiased umpire is not at all difficult if you love the game. The idea that there’s this kind of great magnetic tendency to be biased, which an umpire will fall prey to unless he fights the tendency with militancy, is pernicious nonsense – and has the potential to lead to a lot of good umpires quitting the game.

Sadly, as long as too many people are looking to settle scores for past perceived injustices and the evils of imperialism, things will only get worse. And I think they will.

Scott, first of all an update on that Indian incident. Mike Denesse had penalised most of the Indians for over-appealing at the end of second test. The Indians felt aggrieved, and without going here into who was right or wrong, they boycotted Denesse for the third test.

At that time, UCB and BCCI got into agreement to start the third test with replacement officials, while the ICC considered it as an infringement, and ‘awarded’ the match to SA on grounds that Indians refused to play.

That decision was later (much much later) overturned, and the match, played with replacement officials, was deemed an official test under ICC. Although it made no difference to Indians who lost that game anyway

As to those over here who are saying Pakistan should have got on with the game, despite feeling aggrieved, and later ‘officially’ protested about it – I would say you are either naive or not following the game closely enough.

To give a very recent example – it was the same Darrel Hair who had officaly penalised Kaneria for trundling on the pitch (without an informal warning) in the Nov series against Eng in Pakistan. And also penalised Butt (again without informal warning) for running on the pitch while batting. And to add to it, most commentators felt that both these players were not really guilty of what Mr Hair accused them of.

In the same series, Hair also gave Inzy run-out when he was taking evasive action (yes, it was very very clear from the replays that he was within the crease, and jumped out to avoid the ball aimed at his body). That was not only unfair, but also ‘legaly’ wrong on part of Hair – the runout rule clearly states that it cannot be applied if the batsman is not trying to take a run.

And ofcourse the Pakistani’s did not forfeit those games. They ‘took it in their stride’ as you are professing now, and ‘officially protested’ about Hair later on.

So what did ICC do about it?

Darrel Hair played by the book- if there is any evidence whatsoever that suggests a Pakistani player altered the condition of the ball, then whatever his actions were, were correct. All the stuff about the spirit of the game and the larger picture and all that is crap if a Pakistani player did indeed alter the condition of the ball.

HOWEVER, what is MOST important is that NO Pakistani player’s name has been made available to the fans or to thos concerned (ie. the two teams and other officials). In such a scenario, I think the Pakistani cricket team’s actions are not only justified but even correct. There is no way I would take my team onto the field if my team or someone in my team had been called cheats and yet, no evidence was provided.

It is sad that the game ended the way it did. It is one big mess but you need to get to the heart of it. Did Darrel Hair see a Pakistani player tambering with the ball? If he did, then give us the name and take action against the player. If he did not, then well, take action against him.

I wonder what odds you could have got on England winning a day or so ago…

I believe that Pakistan were right to protest as they honestly believed none of their team had tampered with the ball.

Why should they have played on with the umpires saying they had cheated?

But I do think Inzy should have taken the team off straight away like arjuna ranatunga did with the murali issue.

Also i think that Darrell Hair SHOULD be taken off the “elite panel” as he is the cause of so much un-needed controversy, for god saaake there is no evidence of pakistan tampering with the ball!

Absolutely ty! Footballers too, should walk off the pitch when one of their number is booked. Rugby players when one is sin-binned. And why do the officials take all those poor cyclists and athletes to be cheats? They should refuse to ride and run instead of taking those demeaning drug tests.

And as for those punctilious officials like Darrell Hair, applying their “laws”. They are nothing but a blight on our fair game, causing so much unnecessary controversy. Toss them out! And let the game return to its charitable and sportsmanlike roots.

yes,i agree that pakistan stalled and should have protested much earlier than they actually did. they should have expressed their resentment as soon as the ball was changed. but they did not.

the reason may not be clear to others,but to a die-hard Pakistani cricket follower it is. The Pakistani team is devoted to Inzamam-he is their leader in every sense of the word. unfortunately, inzi, despite being captain, does NOT know the rulebook by heart (nor will he ever,seeing that he’s got just about a year of cricket left in him. he did not know what to do when the ball was changed. he was angry, but he is a cool-headed man and probably realized that striding off the pitch then and there would cause a huge fuss. and he was uncertain as to the ramifications of such an act. so he did not move then and told his players to carry on.
when he got in and had a talk with bob woolmer, waqar younis, and zaheer abbas (and maybe shahriyar khan), talked to his teammates, and it was probably a collective decision to register a protest.

then they had a meeting with the match referee and heads of both ECB and PCB, and were persuaded to go back out and play. the mistake then was to not consult the umpires before going out.

but protesting was not wrong-and it is not the first time Pakistan and the PCB have protested against Darrel Hair to the ICC. They objected to his presence in this match, they have been hard done by him many times before (Headingley in this series, against England last year in Pakistan, and more) and they have registered official complaints before-the type of complaint that most people here say should have been lodged. there have been official protests to the ICC before. and they have not made an iota of a difference. this was just the straw that broke the camel’s back-and you can’t blame them for expressing their displeasure in such a manner. what has surprised many is the delay in doing so-and i have explained that above.

kym is right, there are no winners here, but i think that most people agree it was due to faulty umpiring. people are saying that he was right by the rules: i say no he wasn’t. the umpires are supposed to check with the captain before declaring the game forfeited-and there is no mention of any such confirmation.
i may be wrong above saying that hair did not follow the law properly, but it is clear that he did not follow the spirit of the game. for those who say that pakistan behaved childishly, like schoolboys, and refused to come out because of honor was wrong: look at darrel hair. he too refused to come out because it was a matter of pride. the difference is that hair caused this whole mess by accusing Pakistan of cheating.

look at it this way. i represent my country in an internationally watched match. if i am deemed to be cheating, it reflects upon my country as well as me-because I am an ambassador of my country. inzamam and the team were protesting because they thought that it was Pakistan’s credibility called into question. playing on would have convinced people that yes, pakistan cheated and they accepted their punishment-a mere 5 run penalty- like bad boys and meekly went on about their business.

the major blame, again, then lies on Hair. without any evidence at all,it was incredibly presumptuous of him to change the ball and then penalize the team for ball tampering. he did not ‘accuse’ pakistan of cheating. by penalizing them, the umpires DECIDED that pakistan WAS, in fact, cheating. there’s a difference between an allegation and a statement.

everybody’s hoping that some evidence can be produced.if a player is caught red handed ball tampering, he deserves whatever punishment is handed out to him. but if there is no evidence, darrel hair is in a very big mess indeed.

From where the ‘alteration’ appears to have taken place, its have to see how it can be done but scuffing the ball against the hoardings. Apparently the ‘quarter-seam’ stitching was lifted slightly, how it happened is not clear, but it would be hard to do it by just whacking the ball against the boundary edge.

Hair does not need to point the finger at a single person, he decided the ball had been tampered with. Whether the decision was right or wrong, it had to be accepted.

I suggest people do their research properly. Reports are saying that Hair and Doctrove, after the first non-appearance, DID go to the Pakistan dressing room to ask if the team was going to come out onto the field and play. Inzi chose to apparently ask why the ball had been changed, and Hair refused to answer that one, as was his right. He was only interested in if the game was going to proceed. Pakistan were given a second chance, they spurned that chance. Effectively, by extending the protest beyond the second chance offered by Hair and Doctrove, they effectively forfeited any further chance to play on.

taken from http://www.cricinfo.com:
http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/engvpak/content/current/story/257072.html

“The initial incident took place in the 56th over, when umpires Hair and Doctrove deemed that the quarter seam on the ball had been raised and would therefore have to be changed. But the situation only really kicked off after tea, as the Pakistanis remained in their dressing-room in protest at the decision.

After waiting in the middle of the pitch for twenty minutes, the umpires went to the Pakistan dressing-room to ask whether or not Inzamam-ul-Haq would lead out his team or not before they went out, took the bails off and left, thus awarding the Test to England.

Bob Woolmer told Cricinfo that after Pakistan refused to come out after the tea break, both umpires, after waiting on the field, went to the Pakistan dressing room to ask whether or not they would continue to play. Inzamam countered by asking the umpires why they had changed the ball, which led to the Pakistan team protesting.

“We are not here to answer that question,” Hair was reported to have said, and when Inzamam didn’t provide any reply to their initial query, they walked back out again. By the time Pakistan were eventually led out onto the field by Inzamam, the umpires had already walked on, knocked the bails off and gone back inside, refusing to come out again.”

So Pakistan were given the chance, they refused it.

Fascinating turn of events. Hair applied common sense and proper ruling – I don’t care what you say.

Now we have an elite umpiring panel who can’t get the rules right between all four of them!

Fascinating read!

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,21656217-5012554,00.html