The Biggest Disgrace?

[zaremba]

Without wanting to play devil's advocate too much, for all we know Hair or Doctrove might've seen someone tampering. Just because no one admitted it and the cameras didn't capture it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I'm pretty certain that neither Billy D nor Darrell H ever suggested they'd seen tampering taking place. They were both going purely by the condition of the ball. I'm not sure that pictures of the ball have ever been published but it would certainly be interesting to see.

 

[zaremba]

Am I wrong in saying this was the first case when someone was found guilty of ball tampering without a proper see through by the referee. It is beyond my imagination how he thought he could do that and get away with it.

You're referring to Billy Doctrove, I take it?

Anyhow perhaps the umpires saw some extremely suspicious marks on the ball. That might well be good enough evidence. It depends on how the ball looked. As for consulting the Referee, I see no need for it. The Laws of the Cricket make these things pretty clear imho.

Ball-tampering comes under Law 42 (Fair and Unfair Play).

Law 42.2 provides that "The umpires shall be the sole judges of fair and unfair play. If either umpire considers an action, not covered by the Laws, to be unfair, he shall intervene without appeal..."

(1) In other words, this is a matter for the umpires, not the match referee.

Law 42.3(c) provides that the umpires shall make "frequent and irregular inspections of the ball."

(2) The reason being to detect ball-tampering from simply looking at the condition of the ball.

Law 42.3(d) provides that if the umpires believe that there has been unfair ball tampering,
"the umpires after consultation shall
(i) change the ball forthwith...
(ii) inform the batsmen that the ball has been changed.
(iii) award 5 penalty runs to the batting side..."

(3) The umpires have to act "after consultation". This means consultation with each other, not with the referee, and still less with a TV company who may happen to have juicy footage.

(4) Note also that the process is an immediate one. The condition of the ball must be changed forthwith. The umpires are not entitled to wait for an interval or the close of play, or to consult with anyone except each other.

Law 42.3(e) provides that "if there is any further instance of unfairly changing the condition of the ball in that innings, the umpires after consultation shall
(i) repeat the procedure in (d)(i), (ii) and (iii) above.
(ii) inform the captain of the fielding side of the reason for the action taken and direct him to take off forthwith the bowler who delivered the immediately preceding ball. The bowler thus taken off shall not be allowed to bowl again in that innings..."

(5) Again, the Law is providing for an immediate remedy - the bowler shall be taken off forthwith - there is no power for the umpires, having formed the opinion that a second infringement has occurred, to wait till an interval or until the close of play.

 

[Pratters]

Bias against Asian teams by certain umpires/match referees certainly exist/existed. Remember Bucknor speaking to Parthiv Patel with contempt? Catch him speaking to Boucher or Geraint Jones like that. The same kinds of appeals from Asian teams draws dismissive frowns from a Bucknor while he respects the appeals of other teams. And it has nothing to do with over appealing. All teams over appeal. When 4-6 Indian players were banned/fined in the game in South Africa for over appealing, the person who made the most disgusting over appeal was Shaun Pollock and he was let off scot free. Many fans from the subcontinent feel that their teams are targeted. There may not be a racist purpose for it - that is taking matters beyond context but biases can't be ruled out.

EDIT - and I don't like the common refrain that subcontinent fans wrongly feel that they are targeted and cry foul on every given occasion. There has been basis and not just one instance which is why the subcontinent fans often feel their teams are being unjustly treated. I will agree though that often subcontinent fans over react.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'm pretty certain that neither Billy D nor Darrell H ever suggested they'd seen tampering taking place. They were both going purely by the condition of the ball. I'm not sure that pictures of the ball have ever been published but it would certainly be interesting to see.

I'm sure you're right, although I would doubt even Mr Hair would be quite so foolhardy as to allow any public speculation as to the cuprit's identity to be made on his behalf for fear of litigation further down the line, especially when it became obvious quite quickly the schisse was heading fanward.

If my memory serves, the line we (the public) were fed was that the Pakistan team management asked the players at tea if anyone had tampered with the ball and when no-one held their hand up much wackiness ensued.

Whatever the truth of the matter there's no doubt in my mind the umpires handled it spectacularly badly. If neither ump had seen any tampering take place surely they could just have said the ball had gone out of shape or some similar convenient fiction and quietly changed the ball without the penalty runs? The whole topic is known to be something of a red rag to Pakistan.

 

[zaremba]

I would doubt even Mr Hair would be quite so foolhardy as to allow any public speculation as to the cuprit's identity to be made on his behalf for fear of litigation further down the line, especially when it became obvious quite quickly the schisse was heading fanward.

If Hair had seen anything during the game, he could and (I think) would have mentioned it in the pleadings for his Employment Tribunal claim against the ICC and the PCB without risking being sued for defamation. But he didn't mention it there (having proof-read the pleadings for a colleague of mine who was drafting them, I can confirm this).

 

[Migara]

Quite so.

& When did ball tampering become the kiddie-fiddling of cricket anyway? I definitely missed that meeting. If it's so beyond the pale it's a wonder blokes who've been caught altering the condition of the ball (Atherton & Dravid off the top of my head) dare show their faces in public, tbh.

It's very odd that you missed the English players in Ashes 2005 who used to put sweets on the ball to get reverse swing. Selective amnesia possibly?

 

[zaremba]

I don't like the common refrain that subcontinent fans wrongly feel that they are targeted and cry foul on every given occasion.

I'm certainly not suggesting this. And you're quite right that (a) bias is prevalent (we all have biases and prejudices and allow them to influence our behaviour in many ways both consciously and unconsciously) and (b) subcontinent teams have endured their fair share of injustices over the years.

I do however think that Darrell Hair has been casually accused of racism without any rational basis for it, and, to be fair, those making that accusation do tend to be from the subcontinent.

 

[Migara]

I do however think that Darrell Hair has been casually accused of racism without any rational basis for it, and, to be fair, those making that accusation do tend to be from the subcontinent.

The accusations of Hair of racism is as baseless as ovalgate. I tend to think him as a skin head in umpire's suit. big body little brain, still smaller usage of it.

 

[zaremba]

It's very odd that you missed the English players in Ashes 2005 who used to put sweets on the ball to get reverse swing. Selective amnesia possibly?

Before devising this witticism, did you actually read what BoyBrumby wrote? He was saying that ball-tampering is no big deal. And one of the two players he referred to as having indulged in ball-tampering was a former England captain. Where did you get the allegation of selective amnesia from?

 

[Migara]

Before devising this witticism, did you actually read what BoyBrumby wrote? He was saying that ball-tampering is no big deal. And one of the two players he referred to as having indulged in ball-tampering was a former England captain. Where did you get the allegation of selective amnesia from?

the whole episode is no big deal when players from England got caught red handed. The English media kept on attacking Pakistanis for ball tampering before their stock was also found out. The double standards are evident of English media. BB is just following the pattern set by them

 

[Pratters]

I'm certainly not suggesting this. And you're quite right that (a) bias is prevalent (we all have biases and prejudices and allow them to influence our behaviour in many ways both consciously and unconsciously) and (b) subcontinent teams have endured their fair share of injustices over the years.

I do however think that Darrell Hair has been casually accused of racism without any rational basis for it, and, to be fair, those making that accusation do tend to be from the subcontinent.

Yeah even I think the racism line is talking crap as I said in my post. My post was just a rant, not directed at any one particular.

 

[BoyBrumby]

If Hair had seen anything during the game, he could and (I think) would have mentioned it in the pleadings for his Employment Tribunal claim against the ICC and the PCB without risking being sued for defamation. But he didn't mention it there (having proof-read the pleadings for a colleague of mine who was drafting them, I can confirm this).

Ah, fair play. Insider knowledge.

Does make his rather high-handed imposition of the 5-run penalty seem even more rash. I doubt he expected quite the reaction he got, but he'd have been naive not to expect one at all. Or perhaps the man's arrogance was such he didn't much care.

Of course I've fallen into the usual trap of saying "the man", but it was obviously a folie à deux on some level because Daryl didn't act alone.

 

[zaremba]

the whole episode is no big deal when players from England got caught red handed. The English media kept on attacking Pakistanis for ball tampering before their stock was also found out. The double standards are evident of English media. BB is just following the pattern set by them

Codswallop.

If BB was following the pattern you describe, he would be attacking the Pakistanis for ball-tampering. Which he isn't doing. Your last post (accusing him of selective amnesia) was, with great respect, nonsense.

The English gutter press is not representative of English people generally, or cricket fans, or BB in particular. "Ah you English are all the same" - well, no we're not actually.

 

[BoyBrumby]

the whole episode is no big deal when players from England got caught red handed. The English media kept on attacking Pakistanis for ball tampering before their stock was also found out. The double standards are evident of English media. BB is just following the pattern set by them

That's an interesting interpretation of my post. Not one that's supported by either its wording or intent, but interesting nonetheless.

Intrigued to know more of the English media's stock that was found out too.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The accusations of Hair of racism is as baseless as ovalgate. I tend to think him as a skin head in umpire's suit. big body little brain, still smaller usage of it.

Bit of a skinheadist comment there.

 

[Cruxdude]

You're referring to Billy Doctrove, I take it?

Anyhow perhaps the umpires saw some extremely suspicious marks on the ball. That might well be good enough evidence. It depends on how the ball looked. As for consulting the Referee, I see no need for it. The Laws of the Cricket make these things pretty clear imho.

Ball-tampering comes under Law 42 (Fair and Unfair Play).

Law 42.2 provides that "The umpires shall be the sole judges of fair and unfair play. If either umpire considers an action, not covered by the Laws, to be unfair, he shall intervene without appeal..."

(1) In other words, this is a matter for the umpires, not the match referee.

Law 42.3(c) provides that the umpires shall make "frequent and irregular inspections of the ball."

(2) The reason being to detect ball-tampering from simply looking at the condition of the ball.

Law 42.3(d) provides that if the umpires believe that there has been unfair ball tampering,
"the umpires after consultation shall
(i) change the ball forthwith...
(ii) inform the batsmen that the ball has been changed.
(iii) award 5 penalty runs to the batting side..."

(3) The umpires have to act "after consultation". This means consultation with each other, not with the referee, and still less with a TV company who may happen to have juicy footage.

(4) Note also that the process is an immediate one. The condition of the ball must be changed forthwith. The umpires are not entitled to wait for an interval or the close of play, or to consult with anyone except each other.

Law 42.3(e) provides that "if there is any further instance of unfairly changing the condition of the ball in that innings, the umpires after consultation shall
(i) repeat the procedure in (d)(i), (ii) and (iii) above.
(ii) inform the captain of the fielding side of the reason for the action taken and direct him to take off forthwith the bowler who delivered the immediately preceding ball. The bowler thus taken off shall not be allowed to bowl again in that innings..."

(5) Again, the Law is providing for an immediate remedy - the bowler shall be taken off forthwith - there is no power for the umpires, having formed the opinion that a second infringement has occurred, to wait till an interval or until the close of play.

I was referring to Hair. I believe Doctrove was nothing but a yes man there as otherwise I can't imagine how he escaped. You are right about saying Hair was within his right. But here is where an intelligent umpire would know how to deal with the situation. Prior experience with Murali should have taught him that confrontation is not always the best way. There is a way to deal with it and what he did was thick-headed given the history of England vs Pakistan in ball tampering. Also one should remember that Pakistan at that time was a deeply religious team, and I believe the thought of being accused of cheating must have been a bit too much for Inzi (I am speculating here).

 

[zaremba]

I was referring to Hair. I believe Doctrove was nothing but a yes man there as otherwise I can't imagine how he escaped.

Where's the evidence for saying that Doctrove - who let's not forget is a Test Match umpire on the ICC Elite Panel - was nothing more than a yes man?

what he did was thick-headed given the history of England vs Pakistan in ball tampering.

This had nothing to do with England. England just happened to be the opposition. They didn't make a complaint about ball-tampering, Doctrove and Hair did it of their own accord. And remember, Doctrove and Hair aren't English either. One's West Indian, the other is Australian.

Also one should remember that Pakistan at that time was a deeply religious team, and I believe the thought of being accused of cheating must have been a bit too much for Inzi (I am speculating here).

I just don't buy that. If he's oversensitive because he and his team are religious, well to me that means nothing more than that he's oversensitive. And if he really was that oversensitive it's a wonder that he didn't disappear in a puff of holy smoke when Shahid Afridi cheated by dancing on the pitch, when Asif and Shoaib took banned drugs, when Asif got caught again with illegal drugs, when Shoaib attacked Asif, when Afridi threatened a spectator etc etc. No team in international cricket (my team included; Pakistan included) are angels.

 

[GIMH]

I'm sure you're right, although I would doubt even Mr Hair would be quite so foolhardy as to allow any public speculation as to the cuprit's identity to be made on his behalf for fear of litigation further down the line, especially when it became obvious quite quickly the schisse was heading fanward.

If my memory serves, the line we (the public) were fed was that the Pakistan team management asked the players at tea if anyone had tampered with the ball and when no-one held their hand up much wackiness ensued.

Whatever the truth of the matter there's no doubt in my mind the umpires handled it spectacularly badly. If neither ump had seen any tampering take place surely they could just have said the ball had gone out of shape or some similar convenient fiction and quietly changed the ball without the penalty runs? The whole topic is known to be something of a red rag to Pakistan.

If they genuinely believed tampering had taken place, though, then I don't believe that pakistan's potential reaction should be a consideration, personally. "They might overreacy so we'll let them off." That being said, it doesn't seem they could have been completely sure that something untoward had happened, so you're probably right that they should have just changed the ball and got on with it.

In other news, some absolute nonsense spouted in your direction in this thread, can't beat a bit of subtle trolling hey

 

[four_or_six]

the whole episode is no big deal when players from England got caught red handed. The English media kept on attacking Pakistanis for ball tampering before their stock was also found out. The double standards are evident of English media. BB is just following the pattern set by them

Haha, it wasn't a big deal when Atherton got caught?! It was a huge deal, the English media certainly didn't give him an easy ride!

 

[GIMH]

Haha, it wasn't a big deal when Atherton got caught?! It was a huge deal, the English media certainly didn't give him an easy ride!

Why let facts get in the way of an irrational argument?!