By Scott 7 years ago, mid-August Leave a comment on this post
The ICC has charged Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq with ball tampering, and with bringing the game into disrepute.
Both Inzamam’s charges will be considered during a hearing to be conducted by the ICC chief match referee Ranjan Madugalle. Madugalle has been appointed to chair the hearing because Mike Proctor, the match referee at The Oval, was involved in the incidents that took place on Sunday afternoon and is likely to be asked to present evidence to the hearing.
Inzamam has been charged, as captain, with a breach of level 2.10 of the ICC code which relates to changing the condition of the ball in breach of Law 42.3 of the Laws of Cricket.
Inzamam has also been charged with a breach of C2 at level 3 of the code which relates to conduct that brings the player or the game into disrepute. This charge was brought by Doctrove and Hair, along with Peter Hartley and Trevor Jesty, the third and fourth umpires, following a meeting on Monday morning.
Unless there is some photographic evidence that we do not yet know about, the ball tampering charge is likely to descend to a messy farce, with just the umpire’s word versus that of Inzamam.
The ‘bringing game into disrepute’ charge, I think, will be an open and shut case. The nightmare scenario is that if Inzamam is found innocent of ball tampering, and guilty of bringing the game into disrepute.
Pakistan will then feel that they were found innocent, and punished for it. The fact is, they are going to be punished for their ‘post tea sit in’. However, sides have been taken, and the facts are going to get lost in the noise and shouting.
Whatever the outcome, it certainly is not going to be very edifying for cricket.
Tags: ball-tampering, disrepute, farce, ICC, inzamam-ul-haq, pakistan, pakistan-in-england |
Personally, its now beyond the game of cricket and now this decision has more to do with the ego and respect of an entire country of Pakistan watching on the edge of their seats.
If at all Pakistan is found guilty in any charge I would strongly suggest an appeal and a full boycott of the English series. Other teams have done so and have succeeded despite them being guilty of the charges, why cant we do it when innocent. We will stand behind our captain all the way.
Apparently there is a picture in the London Metro, which I judge to be exceptionally dodgy, inconclusive and most likely taken out of context.
Just one small thought though: it strikes me that dear old Inzy has a rather vague knowledge of the Laws of cricket? I’m sure plenty of Sky viewers have also heard Nasser come out with some bloomers, so I’m not having a go at Inzy per se. When a Test captain is elected, surely it would be a good idea to have a chat with them first and explain some do’s and don’ts?
Wraye maybe umpires need to learn the rules too? Don’t you think? Darrell Hair gave inzi out in the last eng pak series in pak where inzi stepped out of the crease after being behind it to avoid a throw which under the laws is not out. So there he decided to act the fool and not know the laws but here he was self-righteous alleging ball tampering with offering no proof at all. Then he decided that according to the rules the match is over even though everybody was ready to resolve the issue for the greater good. Quite selective adherence to the rules i would say. What pak did was wrong but it was the only thing they could have done. Going along with this racist and insensitive umpire would be admitting guilt. No self respecting person would be ready to continue after being kicked in the groin by unsubstantiated allegations of Hair. The simple solution = All Hair had to do was say: I saw XYZ tamper the ball and that would have been the end of the story. He assumed that since the ball is reverse swinging the nasty paks must be cheating. You just can’t get around his racism. The Umpire is NOT god. He is within the laws of what he did but power given to you by laws is not meant to be abused. He did all this because he knew he could. Letter of the law is not all that counts. There’s also the spirit of the game which Hair has abused to no end but all the england supporters can’t see this and only accuse pakistan.
yes,it is true that inzamam has not memorized the rule book but it is also true,as mani says, that he has been dealt with unfairly before by umpires who did not know the rules themselves-whose job it is to uphold those very rules. incidentally it was darrell hair last time too.
but the outcome of all this is predictable i think. no pakistani found guilty of ball tampering, inzamam guilty of bringing the game into disrepute (by protesting and waiting longer than necessary,which the umpires interpreted as forfeiture,btw) and the pakistani nation will erupt in indignation at the unfairness of it all.
and i will be one of them.
it might also come down to hair’s word vs inzamam’s word,as scott says..which is going to be very VERY ugly indeed.
Mani, much of what you said may be reasonable, however your last sentence is way off the mark.
I haven’t heard any England supporters accuse Pakistan; as I saw it, albeit via TV, the issue was between Umpire Hair and the Pakistan team. At worst I think the England team (and supporters)were frustrated but impartial, at best they may have been supportive of Inzi.
Accusations of racism, like ball tampering, have to backed up by credible evidence.
Therefore given the decision to change the ball was made by the umpire, Pietersen can’t be critisised for choosing the most battered satsuma in the box, any batsman would have done the same.
Interesting times.
M D-L
Apologies for the bad spellinge; written in a rush.
Can i just say, everyone i’ve heard so far has said that Hair has no evidence of ball tampering.
Two things-
1)Has eveyrone forgot that there where two umpires that day?
2)The umpire does not have to accuse a certain player of ball tampering in order to call it. If in the opinion of the umpires the ball has been tampered with then they take the course of action that the umpires did on Sunday. It doesn’t matter if they don’t have any video evidence or can’t accuse a certain player.
Not that i don’t think the umpires were right, i very much doubt whether the Pakistani’s tampered with the ball and it’s quite obvious that Hair, even if he’s not racist(which i think he is) is a terrible terrible umpire.
Pakistan took the wrong course of action IMO, Bob Woolmer can’t just keep repeating ‘we wanted to play, it wasn’t handled correctly’ because IT WAS handled in the correct manner as writen in the laws of cricket and even if Pakistan did want to play, they have no right to pick and choose when they play.
Sure, stage a protest, but when Darrel Hair comes into the dressing room and says ‘are you playing or not?’ then goes out onto the field, don’t stay in your dressing room then say afterwards that you wanted to play.
Also, Kamran Akmal’s behaviour was an utter disgrace, if any English player or team had forfeited a game in Pakistan or India, the crowd would have burned the ground down and the players with it.
The Darrel Hair incident with the Inzamam ‘run out’, could someone clarify with me whether Hair was the 3rd umpire or the on field on? standing at which end aswell.
In response to what Mani posted, I would just like to back up what Miles D-Ls said (intelligible Miles despite the spelling!) I can understand Pakistan and their supporters feeling aggrieved at the apparent draconian implementation of law 42.3, but I cannot understand the almost reflex response that it’s motivated by racism, both from the umpires and the English. Pakistan are a brilliant team who are a joy to watch, but on this occasion aren’t they deserving of some censure in their refusal to take the pitch at the proper time? They would almost certainly have gone on to win the game a win incidentally achieved on behalf of all their supporters both here and back home.
I’m not going to comment on this specific incident until all the facts are out. But I do want to make a more general point about Hair, as a neutral observer (since I’m neither Pakistani, nor Australian, nor English), and make a suggestion for reforming the way the ICC’s elite panel is selected.
Clearly, Pakistan have been unhappy for some time about Hair officiating in Tests involving them, and have asked the ICC to do something about it. The Indians were very unhappy with him in both ‘96 (during, as it happens, a tour of England) and ‘99 (when he had his famous exchanges with Ganguly and Kapil Dev in Australia). And Sri Lanka, obviously, are unimpressed with him as well, to say the least. As Dawn rather diplomatically puts it, he “has a track record of poor decisions and sparking controversy in matches involving Asian teams.”
The question, then, is: Why was he added to the ICC elite panel in 2003, when at least three major teams had expressed a lack of confidence in his umpiring? And why is he still on that panel today, given not only his track record in the ’90s, but also his poor decisions in the last couple of years? Is there such a shortage of quality umpires in world cricket that Hair is considered one of the best 10 umpires in the world? If so, the umpiring fraternity is badly in need of the sort of overhaul (read: modernization, professionalization, performance metrics, etc) we’ve witnessed in other aspects of the game in the last 10-15 years (such as specialized coaching, fitness training, better player management through central contracts and player development through academies, use of on-field technology, better playing equipment, etc, etc).
As a start, I have some suggestions for reforming the composition of the elite panel:
1. Each full member of the ICC should nominate one member of the elite panel, subject to ratification by all other members. This would prevent controversial / seemingly biased figures from being okayed, and would prevent accidental over- or under-representation (for example, there are currently no Indians or Sri Lankans in the elite 10, while there are 2 Aussies).
2. Membership of the elite panel must be ratified by all full member nations every twelve months — that way the umpire is on notice to behave or be kicked out.
3. A points system should be set up, to judge umpires’ performance based on various metrics, and their annual compensation should be linked to it — if players’ compensation can be affected by their performance (they can be dropped) and behavior (they can be fined), why not umpires’? The umpire with the least points at the end of the year should be automatically dropped, to be replaced with another umpire from the same member nation, with his replacement again subject to ratification by all full members. Sort of like relegation. 
Comments are welcome.
Dear Mani, dear all, I think we all agree on at least 5 specific points and these are (I hope I get them all right!)
1 - we all agree that the siutation was handled badly
2 - Hair is not the most popular being on the planet despite following the Laws as he saw them
3 - we are all speculating - no evidence for or against has been yet produced for the public
4 - all cricket lovers world-wide are devasted by this
5 - thank the Deity /Deities of your personal choice that we have a blog here, with an intelligent and friendly community so that we can express ourselves with and for each other. Yesterday was a sad day for international cricket, but notice how we, with our differences, rallied together? Is than not something positive? Do I see the fan base blasting Pakistan? - I do not. I see sympathy and understanding. Inzy got it a bit wrong in anger. Too late now for the PCB to start changing their story, sorry. I felt bad for Inzy at the time but now I want solid information as I bet all of you do too. I want to be informed before I can make a definitive decision and until then all remain innocent until proven otherwise.
I have seen an ICC umpire call a stumping off a no-ball. I have seen a definite six signalled as a four in a vital run-chase. I spent years and a lot of personal money getting qualified to be an official. You see howlers. They have to be handled sensitively. That was perhaps not the case at the Oval on Sunday and we all now have to live with the consequences and hopefully we can learn from them.
Mmmm. Am musing in my free time. Now an incident happened over here and I am reflecting on possible consequences. I’de love to hear your opinions.
Last year, we had a tournament here. The hosts had organised umpires for the indoor tournament but not scorers. I volunteered as scorer for the job but was disappointed at the lack of supporters meaning that I was on duty, unhelped, for 12 hours. Within 3 hours of the game, Team A - let’s call them that, okay? had scored 45 off their 6 overs. Team B scored 46 for 8 off 5 overs. During the last over, in front of a large crowd, the losing captain pointed to me and called the scorers F*** cheats. The umpires took umbrage. I was so affected, knowing that my scorebook recorded a perfect tally, I fell into tears - and believe me, that does not happen often. The pressure was enormous. Team A as hosts had not scored enough. We had hundreds in the crowd and an electronic scoreboard. Everyone saw that they did not meet the mustard.
It really hurts when you cannot react and prove your innocence. In this situation, the umpires talked, sorted it and play resumed with apologies all round and a good mood in the contest. Why was this not possible at the Oval?
What now, tell me that?
Interesting that Hair is still considered an Australian umpire when he has not lived in Australia for many years
Another thing, if ball tampering is such a giant stain on the country of Pakistan, howcome proven ball tampers Shoaib Akthar and Waquar Younis are still being selected and adored?
The problems of Friday will start AFTER the verdicts of guilty are handed down. (Do you seriously think there could be any other decision?)
Question is, what will the Pakistan players do? Inzy commands more respect that any captain since Imran. I can see all the squad backing him to the hilt and refusing to play. I can also see the Pakistani Board being very supportive to that point of view - unlike the English Board who’d bleat on about the ‘good of the game’ and ‘not rocking the boat’ - and if that disdn’t work they’d threaten players careers.
Then what? All five ODIs cancelled with millions of pounds refunded and sposnsorship deals down the drain?
PS - Mike Selvey’s article in today’s Guardian is required reading - exemplary stuff that John Arlott would have been proud of.
To see it from a slightly different angle, i think this episode was one in which judgements were made by both–umpires and Inzi–way too quickly, with the umpires having the benifit of law on thier side.
Clearly, the Pakistani team was wary about any decision involving Hair and to a large extent they should be suspicious due to an unsavory past with Mr. Hair.
(1) The pakistani team walked in with a bias against Hair.
On the other hand, D. Hair could NOT have been oblivious to the above fact (1)–He has a questionable history with the team and should have taken this into account while invoking the law. Having given no justification, or warning in light of shared history makes his decision seem partial.
I understand he was adhering to the rules, and i think the particular outcome would not have materialized if Hair was not umpiring.
It is precisely because Hair was Umpire at the time that history mattered. And some thing, some action, should have been taken by the umpire/umpires to account for it. To overlook it, and to consider this as zero-sum, cut amd dry case, where Umpire Hair has no past is simply nonsense.
In the end, if one was really concerned about the game, and the spectators, Umpire Hair should not have been chosen. I agree with Boycott, something was bound to happen, and it did. What is sad is that it could have been avoided.
Just be a little attentive when an entire team is unhappy with the selection of a particular umpire. All it required was an umpire everyone would agree with–not a surmountable task at all!
Hi everybody… Glad to hear that this is causing such a stir in the cricket community…
First of all I have to say that I’m neither a fan nor an enemy of the man who is fast becoming the most infamous umpire in the history of the game…if anything, since yesterday’s incident I should love him (seeing as I was able to get a $5 bet on odds of 25 to 1 for England to win on testskill.com).
While Darrell ‘Bad’ Hair’s famous Murali “Chucking” (1995) and Kirsten “Trigger Finger” (1993) decisions earned him the hatred of millions and the reputation of an Umpire out to stir up the world of Cricket, he may not be the stupid “balloon-knot” (a.k.a. ass) of a man that the majority of fans think.
I’m sure there is a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why, with not a shred of evidence from the 3rd Umpire, he decided to award yesterday’s match to England. I propose the following three possibilities which may have caused the apparent brain fart which lead to the English being awarded the match:
1). Darrell smelt a rat when he saw what the condition of the ball; posed the question to the Pakistani’s and after their ‘unwarranted theatrical response’ knew that there was indeed some foul play about; then decided to change his (until then “very lenient”) stance on Sub-Continent teams and awarded the match accordingly;
2). He was upset at not being invited to Arjuna Ranatunga’s next birthday party, and wanted to take it out on somebody;
3). He wanted to once again get back into the media spotlight (and seeing as all places in “I’m a celebrity get me the **** out of here” were taken) decided to do what he does best and again bring confusion and disrepute into the game.
There is of course another ‘Cronje-like’ possibility which might have caused him to make the decision…But the idea that Umpires could be involved in that sort of thing is unthinkable; it goes against the unwritten umpires’ code of conduct: “Be as annoyingly wrong as you can, as often as you can, to whoever you can, but don’t admit to it, or use your special ability to benefit others”
The question I pose is that while Umpires have for so long been a part of almost every sport, their place in all of them has been one of necessity. So, surely now that we have the means to replace them we should do so, or should we?
I’m sure that there would be a hell of a lot of people out there who would agree with that idea, but I’m interested to find out the opinions of those who support having decrepit old failures who can see barely past their own nose out there deciding the outcome of events which mean so much to so many.
I have in turn listened and contributed to this debate, i dissagree with some that Hair is a bad umpire, in my view he is better than most. However he is an egotist, unconsciously a racist, and because of these two traits he is unnacceptable to many non-anglo’s.
For most young players Umpires are their only point of contact with the hierarchy, what sort of ruling body would let such a devisive character uphold the law?
I agree with most that Pakistan handled the whole affair very poorly, they may even have tampered with the ball, who could possibly tell? One thing i do know is i pay good money to watch cricketer’s play cricket, i have no interest in grandstanding umpires.
I have no great interest in the probity of the decision i think the laws are terribly ambiguous and need to be re-framed, what really matters is the way things have been handled, and that responsibilty lies firmly at the Umpire feet.
That picture in Metro is the only bit of evidence of ball-tampering I’ve seen. Is that it? Does anyone know of anything else?
I think the disrepute action against Inzy is total madness. If he’s cleared of ball-tampering, then allowance should be made for the fact that the team had just been wrongly accused of cheating and summarily punished. Of course they were angry. But if the diplomats had got going quicker, and the match-ref had been on his toes to stop Hair knocking the bails off at the earliest possible opportunity, it could and would have been sorted out.
Cricket’s a game played by humans with feelings, not robots.
Dear all - Many sage words spoken already and as my final comment on this subject (before Friday that is) can I re-iterate Reverse Swing’s comment - check out Mike Selvey’s column (obtainable via Guardian Unlimited) and especially Osman Samiuddin’s equally well balanced obsevations on today’s Baggygreen web site.
Cheers to all & see you in Bristol!!?
Can i just point out to everyone that the state of the ball is evidence enough of ball tampering.
No where in the laws of cricket does it say that the umpire has to have seen ball tampering take place to call it.
Stop saying that there is no evidence, the ball is evidence enough.
Anyone know where there’s a link to the metro picture?
Sorry to break it to you guys…but apparently we’ve now got hard evidence of Inzie tampering…
http://cricketshot.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=277.0;id=3;image
For all of you Cricket Mad Punters out there, I just checked out testskill.com and they are offering odds for the outcome of the Inzie debacle!!! It’s obvious if you ask me… I rekon he’s going to get fined for dissent, get the full penalty and resign as Captain of Pakistan.
I mean, if the ICC is going to stick to their stance of supporting Umpires, no matter what the circumstances, then they’d have to follow through and penalize Inzie to the fullest extent wouldn’t they?
I’m not saying that they’re in the right, but I mean come on… If they do a back-flip and go lenient on him then they are obviously believing his word over Hair’s, which would put a shadow over Hair’s “stellar” reputation and perhaps even allow other sides to protest when appointed Hair as an Umpire…and maybe others as well?
Check out Testskill.com to see what else they’re putting odds on… They must be getting inside information…
Inzamam will be the last cricketer to temper any ball. We all love inzamam…
« Imran Khan: Hair should be sued | Main | Should Darrell Hair resign? »
The Corridor (a cricket blog) is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS)
The Corridor (a cricket blog) All content © 2004-2013 Will Luke. All Rights Reserved.
None of the views or opinions offered on this site reflect those of my employers, Cricinfo Ltd and ESPN International
Posts
