What happened?
In the 56th over of the ball’s life, the ball was replaced and the Pakistan team were penalised 5 runs (those runs were added to England’s score) for suspected ball tampering. Inzamam-Ul-Haq, Pakistan team’s captain, led the team into the pavilion at tea and didn’t return to the ground for twenty minutes post-tea. The tea and snacks were too good I guess! The umpires (Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove) walked upto the Pakistani pavilion and asked Inzy he was going to continue playing or not. Inzy answered the question with a question. “Why did you replace the ball?”. Hair is supposed to have said, “We are not here to answer the question”. The umpires walked back to the field and took the bails off as they do when a test match ends and awarded the test match to England as it was deemed that Pakistan had forfeited the match.
Where is the problem?
Legally, the mistake is entirely Pakistan’s. They didn’t get back to the field within the twenty minutes stipulated in the rule book. The umpires have followed the rule book to the tee. And they cannot be wronged by any authority in cricket going by the book.
Now what?
Pakistan will not play in any game officiated by Darrell Hair. Inzamam might be banned for eight matches under the charges of bringing the game to disrepute. PCB (Pakistan Cricket Board) is asking the BCCI (Board for Control of Cricket in India) to support it’s claim when the ICC (International Cricket Council) asks for its opinion. BCCI has chosen to side with the ICC in this regard.
My take
Darrell Hair has been in the news for all wrong reasons. He takes himself too seriously. The rule book is written that way because it has to be complete in every sense. That doesn’t mean you go about implementing everything that it has to say. The game has to be played in a certain spirit and if it is being played so then carry on with it. Don’t bloody interrupt it! Spoilsport!
Inzy, boss, you could have taken it up after the game was won. Come on yar. Jeet rahe the aap. You were winning. By losing the series 2-1 you would have won lot of respect that have lost now. The winning of this test would have resulted in a lot of good things. Yeh aapne theek nahi kiya. You didn’t do the right thing.
Sudhu’s take
I pity those spectators who spent money on the tickets to watch a cricket match. They were given a raw deal by being shown a diplomatic and political match. Even after 2 hours of waiting, there was an announcement saying that it was the end of play. No mention of end of Day’s play or end of the match. There are 4 ICC officials for every match – 2 umpires on field, a 3rd umpire and a Match Referee. But none of them were interested in sorting out this issue. What a pity.
Sudhakar’s take
It’s all about Cricket .. Team A starts batting first and when the Team A is all-out, Team B comes to bat and they wait for Team A players to take the field but none of Team A turns up just becoz their batting was over ..This is precisely the same reason ,why the toss-winning captain prefer batting first . This always happens in my village.
Darrell Hair’s take
“People who know me and the sort of person I am know I would not take action unless I really thought it was necessary,” Hair said. “I stand by what I have done, but if anything comes out at the inquiry that proves me incorrect I would accept that too. The process would have been followed.”
Inzamam’s take
Writing in his column for Jang, a Pakistan-based daily, he also stated that this was the biggest disappointment in his career. “If anything we want the ICC to declare the Oval test result as null and void,” he wrote. “The Pakistan Board is already trying to convince the ICC to do this. I am hugely disappointed and hurt by the slur cast on our team by Hair. I never thought my last test in England would end this way.”
Bob Woolmer’s take
“The ball-tampering charge is the sticking-point,” Woolmer told ITV News. “There’s probably room for reason here. We have no truck at all with the England cricket board and players, but we have been accused of cheating [by the umpires], and that is the worst thing you can do to this Pakistan cricket team.
“If Inzamam is penalised and penalised heavily, which he could well be, then I cannot guarantee that my side will definitely play. I would think the one-day series may well be in serious jeopardy. It would be difficult for the players to play on if we are labelled cheats.”
Steve Waugh’s take
Hair could be “stubborn and a bit hard-nosed” no team could expect to get away with not turning up on the ground, as Pakistan did in protest over a ball-tampering penalty by Hair in the fourth Test at The Oval.
“I definitely agree with that (Pakistan forfeiting) – if they don’t go back on the field the Test is over,” Waugh said.
“That’s quite simple. (India’s) Sunil Gavaskar tried that one on the umpires in Australia (in 1981). No-one is bigger than the game.
“The laws are there for a reason.”
Waugh said it would be interesting to see whether a camera has unearthed proof of the ball tampering but said Hair would not have made such a serious charge without some.
“He is not going to say it for no reason. He would know the storm it would create. He has been through the Murali incident so he knows the ramifications of doing it. He would not have done it lightly.”
Waugh said Hair “tended to do things his way” as an umpire but “he stands by what he believes so you can’t ask for much more from an umpire.”
Shane Warne’s take
I don’t think Darrell Hair is a racist. I think that he tries to do the best job that he can, like any other umpire. He goes by the letter of the law and does what he thinks umpires ought to do. It is unfortunate that he has been involved in a couple of controversies in his time, but labelling him racist is unfair.
If the umpires have a problem, there are clear channels to go through and it looks as though they did it by the book. It seems amazing that the problems could not have been resolved by talking. To end a game with a team refusing to take the field seems bizarre — especially, I’d guess, to spectators.
Imran Khan’s take
His (Darrell Hair’s) conduct always smacks of arrogance, and his tendency to douse fire with gasoline makes him harmful to the game. An umpire is the custodian of the game, but when he only guards the game’s rules and not its spirit, cricket is the greatest sufferer.
Peter Roebuck’s take
He could have tried to find some evidence to support his suspicions. Not a bit of it. Instead, he applied the letter of the law, thereby risking the ruination of a fine match. Just what the world needs right now. Another abrasive Australian.
Nor can Inzamam escape censure. He was responsible for the conduct of his side. It is written in the laws of the game. Captains must rise above the heat of the moment, must take into account the crowd, the match and the requirements of hospitality and sportsmanship. The show must go on. Pakistan had every right to take offence, had every right to make a protest.
