Are you all set for an exciting final day’s play today? It is a pity that in all the noise, there’s been very little said at all about the cricket itself, because England played some magnificent cricket until tea, with Kevin Pieterson to the fore once again. It would have been interesting to see what might have happened if England had been able to force Pakistan to chase 150 on the fifth day with plenty of help for Monty Panesar.
Well, if ‘ifs and buts’ were berries and nuts, we’d have Christmas every day. Of course the big story is the Great Oval Farce of 2006.
A couple of bored or overexcited journalists have called it the biggest crisis since Kerry Packer, which is just a bit over the top; there was the general match-fixing crisis and the Hanse Cronje affair, after all. What this farce is, when it comes down to it, is just a massive dummy spit that has been badly managed.
There’s been a lot of ill-informed commentary about this affair all over the internet already. However, you can not blame the commentariat for that; we still do not know all the facts about what has gone on. The failure of just about everyone involved to come out with timely information has simply added a layer of frustration to the whole mess.
We still do not know about what has happened with the state of the ball, and in talking to the BBC this morning, Malcolm Speed was pretty delphic with his remarks.
“The ball tampering charge, that will be dealt with, and there is power there for the match referee to fine or ban the player there. Similarly, if other charges are laid, the player could face fines or, if he is found guilty, he could face a fine or a ban.”
So it is quite possible that the umpires had someone specific in mind. I will await with interest the ‘charge sheet’ that is brought in the wake of all this, because if there is no particular individual charged with ball-tampering, then I have to say that the umpires have been way out of order.
It also appears that Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq may be charged with bringing the game into disrepute, by staging that ‘sit in’ after tea. Now bear in mind that he’s already been penalised by means of the forfeit, I think the ICC should tread carefully there. I basically agree with Aggers that the whole idea was pretty infantile, but having the game forfeited is actually a pretty severe penalty already.
I have to wonder about the Pakistani management though; how well was Inzamam advised? I do not blame him for not being aware of the ins and outs of cricket regulations; I think it is perfectly possible that he was not aware that in staging his protest, he ran the risk of forfeit.
And there is nothing wrong with that- a cricketer has enough on his plate without becoming the equivilent of a cricket lawyer. Inzamam is busy enough as it is avoiding training drills and actually playing the game. The role of being aware of every contingency is the role of the team manager. He is the fellow who should have got things moving.
Here is the timeline, once again:
4.40pm – Although play is officially due to resume, Hair and Doctrove wait in the middle, England batsmen Ian Bell and Collingwood remain on the dressing-room balcony while Pakistan do not re-emerge.
4.44pm – The match officials leave the field of play.
4.50pm – England and Wales Cricket Board chief executive David Collier is seen addressing England coach Duncan Fletcher.
4.55pm – The England fifth-wicket pair and umpires Hair and Doctrove return to the middle but Pakistan again are absent.
Now, to me, it seems that at 4.55pm, Pakistan should have emerged- they had staged their sit-in, made their point, and should have got on with the game. Clearly the players feelings were running high, and when that happens, people do not think as clearly as they ought, and it is at that point that the Pakistani hierarchy should have insisted to their players that they resume.
Because we don’t clearly know what happened, we can only guess that sometime in the next few minutes after 4.55pm, the umpires decided on declaring the game forfeit. However, if they did so, they were plainly in the wrong in clearly explaining this to the teams and the relevant ground authority.
England seem to have understood clearly enough- when Pakistan walked onto the field at 5.23 pm, they stayed confined to barracks. After all, they had been awarded the game. So if England knew it was all over, why did Inzamam lead his men on the field? Either they did know, and were trying to force the umpires to reverse their decision, or they did not know, in which case the umpires and Mike Proctor were incompetent in explaining the situation to Pakistan.
However, if the game had been forfeited, why was the ground authority not told? Play was ‘officially called off’ at 6.13pm, so from that we can infer that the game was still live at 5.23pm when Inzamam led his team back on the field.
In which case, why did England and the umpires not appear at that time as well?
Are you confused yet?
This is what happens when people aren’t kept clearly informed.
Where do we go from here?
The ICC needs to have a full inquiry into the mess, and to release its findings of what actually happened to the public. Beyond that, it is clear that dispute resolution procedures need to be improved. Also, the ICC needs to reform the way that it appoints umpires to fixtures. It is pretty clear that some teams have problems with Darrell Hair, and while it is a pity, it is also the case that cricket teams are entitled to play the game with confidence in the officials who are standing.
It is worth remembering after all that the whole point of having neutral umpires in the first place was to give both teams confidence in the integrity of the match officials.
Loading ...
Scott, I would say that was an excellent summary of the situation.
I was just reading http://sport.guardian.co.uk/englandpakistan2006/story/0,,1855087,00.html where Bob Woolmer claims “We didn’t find out out until 9.15pm that evening. If he [Hair] had forfeited the innings someone should have told us.”
Frankly I find that to be a ridiculous claim, and it furthers my point on the previous thread that there is spin doctoring and obsfucation happening on the part of Pakistan to try and strengthen their position. Why do they feel that they need to do this?
No one comes out of this looking very good. Pakistan can hardly deny some responsibility for what happened; even if it wasn’t properly explained to them that they would forfeit the match, their actions were designed to be disruptive and kick up a stink. It’s up to them to decide whether the provocation was sufficient to justify their actions, but they knew that they were escalating the conflict.
Having said that, even if Darrell Hair was completely certain that ball-tampering had taken place – perhaps having seen it happen – he still has to take some blame for handling it badly. He doesn’t seem to have properly explained himself at the time, or later, or in any way to have made allowances for the fact that penalising a team for ball-tampering is a bigger deal and a more sensitive issue than, say, adjudicating on an LBW. When even Boycs is criticising you for lacking sensitivity , that probably means you’re a dickhead. He will no doubt go to his grave pointing out to people that he was within his rights and was applying the letter of the laws, and feeling a warm glow of self-righteousness. Personally I think that in any sport, if a match completely self-destructs, the umpire or referee who was supposed to be in charge takes some of the responsibility.
Pakistan are trying to ‘strengthen’ their case because no matter what side we take, we all know that they were on the wrong side of the law yesterday. Atleast more so than any other guilty party.
And since then, they’ve been trying to add legal support pegs to their moral stand (with which a majority sympathise, going by evidence of comments on internet).
But that, to my mind, is not the question here. The question is did they cheat or not. And would the ICC come out decisively in favour of the innocent party.
Presumably there must be something of a case to answer, as you might assume the match referee would have overturned the decision to call off play, replacing the umpires if necessary. This means that the ICC have to back the umpires at least to the point of bringing charges and following the disciplinary procedure.
Throwing this forward, we can presume that if charges are brought, Pakistan will defend them strenuously, including the use of legal action. Once lawyers are involved, the only winners are the lawyers’ accountants.
As all parties are backed into corners (Pakistan and the umpires to defend their honour, ICC to follow their procedure) this is bound to end badly for someone.
The question is how badly – could this end up with a split in the ICC?
Coalster: One thing is for sure, the actions taken by Hair and subsequently the ones taken by ICC would be based on existing laws. So, if they decide to penalise Inzamam for forfeiting, that would also be within cricketing laws.
What needs to be seen is how does the match referee adjudicate on the actual ball-tampering charges. As there is no precedence of a charge being brought up where the umpire had no video evidence to back his claim (and I’m assuming Hair atleast has a name of a guilty party), we can only wait on this one.
If the referee does not penalise Pakistan, then the ICC is obviously conceding Hair got it wrong. Since there is no clause to actually penalise the umpire in such a case, all they can do is assure Pakistan that Hair won’t officiate in their future games (there is precedence for this one). At the same time, ask Pakistan to cop the penalties imposed within the laws of the game, including the actual result of the test.
If this latter case does not happen, and the referee upholds umpire’s verdict without convincing evidence, then there are chances of serious implications. Then, once again, it would depend on how ICC decides to assuage Pakistani’s fear of future misgivings by Hair.
And btw, going by what has been reported so far, the ICC (through its match referee) already decided to persuade its own official (Hair) into reverting his decision. That was the result of the first crisis meeting when all except the umpires were in favour of getting on with the game.
Ofcourse I go entirely by what has been reported officially and unofficially. Since I don’t expect ICC to ever come out with the whole thing
Yes Coalster, this may well end up with a split in the ICC.
As of yet, there is no evidence of any ball tampering being caught on any one of skysports 20-odd camera’s.
It will be interesting to see if the ICC stick by their umpires, Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove if there is no evidence of any ball tampering at the end of all this. If not, what will happen to the umpires?
Also I think it will be inevitable that Pakistan will get some sort of fine/ban for their protest, although I think they were right to protest being called “cheats”.
worma: I guess the question is which decision was the match referee trying to revoke – the whole tampering allegation, or just the forfeiture? I suspect those involved at the ECB/PCB were trying to get the game to go ahead for financial reasons, leaving the tampering allegations to be dealt with separately.
ty: I am working on the assumption that the umpires believed (rightly or wrongly) they had sufficient evidence to make the call. I am also assuming that the umpires are working in good faith, i.e. have no bias. Thus, although in the absense of evidence in the public domain, I sympathise with Pakistan, I’m not sure that the manner of their protest can be condoned.
The only thing I think this shows, is that like throwing, this is an occurrance that cannot really be dealt with on the field of play and that the laws should be changed to deal with it retrospectively, in the match referee’s room, before it goes public. At least then, if there is sufficient evidence to present a charge, a captain would not be able to try and claim the moral high ground before the case has been answered. This kind of case should be fairly cut and dried – either there is evidence (whether tv or something the umpires have seen) or there is not. I don’t believe that someone saying “We are honourable, thus we must be innocent” is relevant.
On another point, what kind of penalty is 5 runs for an offence like this anyway? – is tampering with the ball, i.e. cheating, as bad as the ball hitting the helmet, i.e. bad luck?
coalster: To my understanding, the referee was trying to revoke the ‘match forfeited’ result pronounced by the umpires. Although I don’t understand why he didn’t go on to replace the umpires, if they were not ready to officiate.
I do agree with your suggestions for the changes that should be brought about to the throwing and ball-tampering laws. That they should be applied retrospectively, and based entirely on hard evidence.
And, in case of serious offence, the penalties can include awarding the match to the opponents – thus deterring anyone from blatantly violating the rules (knowing there is no immediate censure) to win a tight game.
I think a captain ought to have some idea that coming out a half hour late could result in a forfeit. If a batsman is 2 minutes late to the crease, he’s out, so why would an international cricket captain think his fielding side could show up half an hour late with no consequences?
ARGH!!! Say it ain’t so, Duncan, please!!! Say you didn’t start this. I’m sorry, mate, but you’d better have a darn good reason for going up to the match referee before play on Sunday.
And let it NOT have been about this.
IT’S JUST NOT CRICKET.
*Head in hands*