nightprowler10
Global Moderator
From what I remember it had to do with Hair's warnings to Kaneria and Butt for running on the pitch.Legglancer said:
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Ball-Tampering Hearing
- Thread starter silentstriker
- Start date
Legglancer
State Regular
All's well that ends well?
Sambit Bal
September 28, 2006
Darrell Hair: acted on a mere suspicion and acted in haste © Getty Images
Ovalgate has got the resolution that most people wanted, and it was hardly a surprise. No one seriously believed the ball-tampering charges against Inzamam-ul-Haq¹s team would be, or could be, proved, and everyone expected Inzamam to get some sort of a ban. A crisis has blown over, and cricket has come out smiling. Well, almost.
Inzamam and Pakistan have got what they were seeking: they would feel that justice has done, their honour has been restored, and the four-match ban on was a small sacrifice for their valiant hero who had stood up to be counted. In fact, it can be argued that Inzamam got off lightly; Sourav Ganguly had once got more for slow over rates.
The ICC would be mighty relieved that a hot potato is off its back lightly. It has been seen to have dispensed justice. Dropping the ball-tampering charge would make it look fair in the eyes of fans in the subcontinent, and the punishment to Inzamam is proof that the law has been upheld. Everyone can now get on with the business of cricket. For good measure, it has also announced that Darrell Hair will not officiate during the Champions Trophy. That would make, apart from Pakistan, who haven¹t wanted Hair for quite a while, even India, the powerful hosts of the Champions Trophy, happy.
But what does it leave Hair? The two-day proceedings ended with him fielding questions from the press with dignity and composure. There was little that he could say, but perhaps he was eager to say whatever little he could. The reason offered for dropping him from the Champions Trophy panel that the ICC were concerned about his safety was pathetic(that it would have been inappropriate to appoint Hair under the circumstances would have sounded far more convincing), but he sat through the inquest with a smile and helped cricket present a veneer of a happy family.
Of course, it was soon reported that the Pakistan Cricket Board was considering pressing the ICC to charge Hair with "bringing the game into disrepute", the very charge on which Inzamam was banned. It may never come to that, but there is enough in the 4047-word verdict delivered by Ranjan Madugalle to encourage Pakistan that they have a case.
[U]Madugalle does not merely give Pakistan the benefit of doubt. He almost absolves them of the possibility of wrongdoing. "In my judgment," he says, "the marks were as consistent with normal wear and tear, and with the ball being pitched into the rough and contact with cricket equipment, as they are with deliberate human intervention." And then goes on to add: "If, as the Umpires told us, the ball was in an acceptable condition after the 52nd over, it is, in my view, highly unlikely that the condition of the ball could have been changed so substantially thereafter by human action within a short period of play without some suspicious conduct by a fielder being noticed by an umpire, television camera, or third party."
He then virtually rejects the umpires decision saying the "the physical state of the ball did not justify a conclusion that a fielder had altered its condition," and that he "would have expected the umpires to draw Mr ul-Haq's attention to the marks and to tell him that they intended to keep a close eye on the ball after each over."
The subtext of the verdict can be read as thus. Hair acted on a mere suspicion; he acted in haste (his fellow umpire wanted to wait); he could have avoided the crisis had he chosen the diplomatic route; and since there as the equal possibility of the ball being damaged naturally, the umpires were wrong in penalizing Pakistan. Madugalle makes it point a say it was not his case that umpires were "perverse" or had "acted in bad faith", but it is a damning judgment nevertheless[/U]. But the pity is that this case will now make umpires wary of decisive action. Cricket needs strong and decisive umpiring and I had always considered Hair to be one. The outcome of this might strengthen the argument that Hair always had it in for the players of the sub-continent, but not only is it a simplistic assumption, it also stems false sense of injury.
His calling of Mutiah Muralitharan was the right one under the prevailing law then. Regardless of the optical illusion created by his bent arm, it has been established that Murali's action involved a certain flex, and though it is permissible under the revised regulations now, Hair called what he saw. He subsequently reported Shoaib Akhtar, Harbhajan Singh and Shabbir Ahmed, and in each of this case, as it was proven later, the action involved a certain straightening of the arm. Plenty of umpires have been known to share their suspicion about dodgy actions in private, but few have had the courage to act on it on the field.
However, through this unfortunate misjudgment and by choosing the stentorian approach when a little tact could have done, Hair might have severely damaged the cause of strong and decisive umpires. It is both an irony and a tragedy.
Sambit Bal is the editor of Cricinfo and Cricinfo Magazine
© Cricinfo
Sambit Bal
September 28, 2006
Darrell Hair: acted on a mere suspicion and acted in haste © Getty Images
Ovalgate has got the resolution that most people wanted, and it was hardly a surprise. No one seriously believed the ball-tampering charges against Inzamam-ul-Haq¹s team would be, or could be, proved, and everyone expected Inzamam to get some sort of a ban. A crisis has blown over, and cricket has come out smiling. Well, almost.
Inzamam and Pakistan have got what they were seeking: they would feel that justice has done, their honour has been restored, and the four-match ban on was a small sacrifice for their valiant hero who had stood up to be counted. In fact, it can be argued that Inzamam got off lightly; Sourav Ganguly had once got more for slow over rates.
The ICC would be mighty relieved that a hot potato is off its back lightly. It has been seen to have dispensed justice. Dropping the ball-tampering charge would make it look fair in the eyes of fans in the subcontinent, and the punishment to Inzamam is proof that the law has been upheld. Everyone can now get on with the business of cricket. For good measure, it has also announced that Darrell Hair will not officiate during the Champions Trophy. That would make, apart from Pakistan, who haven¹t wanted Hair for quite a while, even India, the powerful hosts of the Champions Trophy, happy.
But what does it leave Hair? The two-day proceedings ended with him fielding questions from the press with dignity and composure. There was little that he could say, but perhaps he was eager to say whatever little he could. The reason offered for dropping him from the Champions Trophy panel that the ICC were concerned about his safety was pathetic(that it would have been inappropriate to appoint Hair under the circumstances would have sounded far more convincing), but he sat through the inquest with a smile and helped cricket present a veneer of a happy family.
Of course, it was soon reported that the Pakistan Cricket Board was considering pressing the ICC to charge Hair with "bringing the game into disrepute", the very charge on which Inzamam was banned. It may never come to that, but there is enough in the 4047-word verdict delivered by Ranjan Madugalle to encourage Pakistan that they have a case.
[U]Madugalle does not merely give Pakistan the benefit of doubt. He almost absolves them of the possibility of wrongdoing. "In my judgment," he says, "the marks were as consistent with normal wear and tear, and with the ball being pitched into the rough and contact with cricket equipment, as they are with deliberate human intervention." And then goes on to add: "If, as the Umpires told us, the ball was in an acceptable condition after the 52nd over, it is, in my view, highly unlikely that the condition of the ball could have been changed so substantially thereafter by human action within a short period of play without some suspicious conduct by a fielder being noticed by an umpire, television camera, or third party."
He then virtually rejects the umpires decision saying the "the physical state of the ball did not justify a conclusion that a fielder had altered its condition," and that he "would have expected the umpires to draw Mr ul-Haq's attention to the marks and to tell him that they intended to keep a close eye on the ball after each over."
The subtext of the verdict can be read as thus. Hair acted on a mere suspicion; he acted in haste (his fellow umpire wanted to wait); he could have avoided the crisis had he chosen the diplomatic route; and since there as the equal possibility of the ball being damaged naturally, the umpires were wrong in penalizing Pakistan. Madugalle makes it point a say it was not his case that umpires were "perverse" or had "acted in bad faith", but it is a damning judgment nevertheless[/U]. But the pity is that this case will now make umpires wary of decisive action. Cricket needs strong and decisive umpiring and I had always considered Hair to be one. The outcome of this might strengthen the argument that Hair always had it in for the players of the sub-continent, but not only is it a simplistic assumption, it also stems false sense of injury.
His calling of Mutiah Muralitharan was the right one under the prevailing law then. Regardless of the optical illusion created by his bent arm, it has been established that Murali's action involved a certain flex, and though it is permissible under the revised regulations now, Hair called what he saw. He subsequently reported Shoaib Akhtar, Harbhajan Singh and Shabbir Ahmed, and in each of this case, as it was proven later, the action involved a certain straightening of the arm. Plenty of umpires have been known to share their suspicion about dodgy actions in private, but few have had the courage to act on it on the field.
However, through this unfortunate misjudgment and by choosing the stentorian approach when a little tact could have done, Hair might have severely damaged the cause of strong and decisive umpires. It is both an irony and a tragedy.
Sambit Bal is the editor of Cricinfo and Cricinfo Magazine
© Cricinfo
Last edited:
nightprowler10
Global Moderator
A link to the article would have been enough. All that extra scrolling gets me thirsty.
shortpitched713
International Captain
I was using the potent martial art of extreme sarcasm. Usually I prefer not to use smilies with it, but extreme sarcasm in its pure form has been known to have killed many a man.Dasa said:
I suppose you have evidence that the Pakistanis cheated then?
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Actually, the comment by the referee doesn't ratify any such thing. What the comment illustrates is that there wasn't sufficient evidence to the required standard to find anyone guilty of ball tampering. It's hardly a ringing endorsement of either side in this dispute for the arbiter of proof to say the marks could either be by ball tampering or by normal wear and tear. But, because he who accuses must prove, unless there is strong evidence to support the umpires' (plural) stance, the alleged ball tamperers must be found not guilty.Legglancer said:
And that's how it should be. Absent any proof on camera of ball tampering, you look at the physical evidence, in this case the ball. The referee has effectively said the marks on the ball are as consistent with wear and tear as they are with tampering, so there's not enough evidence to support the charge. Hence, an acquittal.
The comment does not ratify that Hair is biased. It's a long bow to draw an inference to say that because an umpire got it wrong, he must be biased. How do you propose to punish him? Assume he's made an error in judgment and hasn't handled things the way he should have - and absent bias that seems to be the case. Does that mean he should be "punished"? If you punish an umpire for that, where do you draw the line?
It's apparent that Darrell Hair handled this thing poorly in the way he went about things. In hindsight, the best way might have been to approach Inzy and say he wasn't happy with the state of the ball and we'll talk about it at the end of the day. Nevertheless, you can't just refuse to play a match. Inzy had to be convicted for not going on with the game.
What about the structure of ICC penalties in general? Is everyone happy that if you get suspended for anything as a result of what you did in a test, you miss out on one-dayers, and presumably vice-versa? Is there a place for a test match infringement leading to test match bans and one-day infringements leading to one day bans? Heard this raised in the media here last night and thought it was an interesting one - haven't really made up my mind on it.
Anyway, thank God it's over.
Slow Love™
International Captain
Pretty fair result all round, given the circumstances, IMO. The ball had to strongly suggest tampering - and if it didn't conclusively, the question has to be asked as to what evidence Hair, an experienced umpire, based his decision on. At the very least, he should have listened to Doctrove and tried to identify the cause of his suspicion.
Also, Hair's happiness to constantly pre-empt the ICC (this time in announcing he was officiating the Champions Trophy, before the list of umpires being announced) has to be seriously questioned.
And I really wonder whether the rule that allows an umpire to charge a team with ball tampering without seeing anybody do it is a reasonable one, even if that in particular wasn't relevant to the defence in this case. Use the cameras - we seem to have an amazing ability to catch players' surreptitiously scratching their nuts, after all. Have one or two of the camera operators following the bowler back to his mark between deliveries, as well as the designated shiner.
And in future, teams should be very, very careful about decisions not to come back on the ground immediately after breaks in the form of defiant protest.
Also, Hair's happiness to constantly pre-empt the ICC (this time in announcing he was officiating the Champions Trophy, before the list of umpires being announced) has to be seriously questioned.
And I really wonder whether the rule that allows an umpire to charge a team with ball tampering without seeing anybody do it is a reasonable one, even if that in particular wasn't relevant to the defence in this case. Use the cameras - we seem to have an amazing ability to catch players' surreptitiously scratching their nuts, after all. Have one or two of the camera operators following the bowler back to his mark between deliveries, as well as the designated shiner.
And in future, teams should be very, very careful about decisions not to come back on the ground immediately after breaks in the form of defiant protest.
What Hair proved by taking it upon himself to Charge Pakistan for "Cheating" without "reasonable" evidence shows that he is indeed lacking common sense and good judgement. By not even discussing the matter and with Inzi and his condescending attitude he could be percieved to be Biased and prejudiced. If you substituted Ponting or Smith for Inzi I can't see the same sequence of events taking place. I cannot be certain of course.....Burgey said:
But as they say ...Perception is Reality
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
True, perception is often reality.chipmonk said:
But, if one substituted Doctrove for Hair, would there be the same kerfuffle? He apparently supported the allegation. Whether he did so straight away or waited until later is a matter of contention. He supported Hair inthe allegation. You can't say he had to, because if he's not strong enough to go his own way, then maybe he shouldn't be umpiring.
And just because the allegation was ultimately not proven, doesn't mean they didn't have "reasonable" evidence. The referee's decision in some way supports this with the comment that the damage to the ball was "equally" consistent with tampering and normal wear and tear. There just wasn't enough evidence to convict them.
The terrible thing here is not the damage to the ball but the damage to the game. Veiled and unveiled allegations of racism and bias we can all do without. Hair is a very headstrong man and his way of doing things is not something I'm real comfortable with, but just because he makes unpalatable decisions doesn't make him a racist. An umpire just has to make his calls as he sees them, right or wrong. No one should have to do that without feeling (rightly or wrongly) that if he does so he'll be accused of being prejudiced or biased.
He got it wrong. Umpires get things wrong all the time. He went about it the wrong way and should have been more conciliatory. That may mean he shouldn't umpire. It may mean that he should work on the way he does things. It doesn't make him a racist.
C_C
International Captain
I disagree with you over this one.
Hair accusing Pakistan of ball tampering can only occur in two scenarios: He had evidence to back up his assessment, since you do not accuse anyone without evidence, or he had an agenda.
For unless he has categoric evidence that Pakistan tampered with the ball (which, the verdict proves he didnt), he has zero reason to assume the said wear-n-tear he noticed was not due to natural means. That he chose to penalise Pakistan on back of dodgy evidence does demonstrate a fundamentally flawed perspective from his part.
An umpire or a referee has to be absolutely sure of a misdemeanour at this level to question someone's integrity. Everyone knows this and Hair building his house on a deck f cards cannot be seen as anything but a skewered perspective. Especially when you ally it to the fact that the overwhelming bulk of his punitive measures have come against teams of a certain demographic region.
So i ask, on the corollary - if we are going to disregard distinct patternistic behaviour allied with case-specific examples, just how exactly you prove someone is a racist ?
What are the criterias needed to be called a racist ?
I agree that Doctrove agreed with Hair that the Ball could have been tampered with. However Doctrove as most people with common sense recomended that they should look for some sort of evidence before pointing the finger in deferencetothe seriousness of the charge and its ramifications. If Hair followed Doctrove's advice or even just changed the ball without Calling Pakistan "Cheaters" by docking them 5 runs this matter would have been no big deal at all.Burgey said:
Fusion
Global Moderator
If true, The Guardian has an excellent inside account of what happened at the hearing. Here's the link: http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cricket/story/0,,1883674,00.html
Some very interesting passages from the story:
"Boycott in particular delivered a veritable tour de force. At one point, he took the infamous match ball in his hand, held it up and said: "That's a good ball, not just a playable ball."
Boycott also took exception to the idea that an accusation of cheating should be tolerated. "If me or any of my friends were ever called a cheat," he told the hearing, the accuser would be "decked with a bunch of fives". The former England opener invoked "the spirit" of the game with passion while Hughes, a former county player, gave evidence in support of Boycott's position that the ball had not been tampered with. Hughes was enlisted as a witness by the Pakistan team's lawyers for his distinguished expertise on the condition of cricket balls.
Some very interesting passages from the story:
"Boycott in particular delivered a veritable tour de force. At one point, he took the infamous match ball in his hand, held it up and said: "That's a good ball, not just a playable ball."
Boycott also took exception to the idea that an accusation of cheating should be tolerated. "If me or any of my friends were ever called a cheat," he told the hearing, the accuser would be "decked with a bunch of fives". The former England opener invoked "the spirit" of the game with passion while Hughes, a former county player, gave evidence in support of Boycott's position that the ball had not been tampered with. Hughes was enlisted as a witness by the Pakistan team's lawyers for his distinguished expertise on the condition of cricket balls.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
But he did have evidence to back it up: the ball, him and Doctrove. Madugale said the condition of the ball was equally consistent with tampering or normal wear and tear, so the evidence wasn't dodgy. The fact that the case wasn't proven doesn't mean that there was no evidence to support the allegation. If Madugale had said "There is nothing to suggest that this ball has been tampered with in any way" then I would agree with you.C_C said:
Assume for a moment that the allegation had been proven on the balance of probabilities (51% to 49%) which is all that was required. Would the allegations about Hair being biased/ racist still be reputable?
Yes he's had dramas with teams for the subcontinent before. I don't dispute that. But what possible agenda would he have? To kill off his own career? He can't umpire Australia and Zimbabwe are currenlty out of the loop, so that leaves 8 test teams, 4 of whom are from the sub-continent.
This all harks back to Boxing Day 1995 and the no-balling of Murali. Unless I'm mistaken at that time there was no referal of bowlers to committees for an assesment of their actions - an umpire either called someone or they didn't. He called it (forgive the pun) as he saw it at the time, which was a time when there were plenty of whispers about that player's action. Fortunately for the game, Murali has been able to play on.
Hair's a contrary figure I don't doubt that but I guess I just find it hard to go the extra stretch and say "he's a racist" You can't just say a bloke's a racist when his job is to enforce the rules as he sees them. You can say he's incompetent, you can say he shouldn't be umpiring, you can say he hs an attitude problem but you need more than citing instances of his interpreting rules and implementing them to say that he's a racist.
Even the Pakistani Board aren't saying that, they are saying they have a problem with him. Just as well too, because in 2000 Pakistani team officals made imputations of racism agaisnt Australian umpires and Hair told them to stand behind them, which they never did. That may be where the problem lies.
He questoined Shoaib's action, he questioned Shabbir Ahmed'a action (he got a 12 month suspension by the way after being reported twice in 12 months). He also called Grant Flower. I'm not saying he's a great umpire, I'm not saying he handled this as well as he could, I'm just saying that you cannot on one hand demand an umpire be absolutely sure before calling a player's integrity into question then on the other call an umpire's into question unless we can be absolutely sure that what is alleged is true.
Certainly polarises views though, doesn't he? How will Pakistan go now without Inzi in the Champions Trophy? Imo they will still be very competitive.