Reactions to The Oval debacle
As the aftermath of an extraordinary debacle at The Oval continues, we'll soon be hearing from some of the TMS team who were in situ and reporting the events as they unfolded.
In the meantime, here's a taster of some of the opinions expressed elsewhere in the blogosphere on a sad day for the game of cricket.
Quite prevalent is frustration at the lack of information given by the official bodies at this time. The Corridor sums up the situation in its customary no-nonsense style:
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.
Meanwhile, in The Guardian, Mike Selvey calls into question the actions of the umpires Darryll Hair and Billy Doctrove; but this view is roundly rebuffed by a blog by the name of Taking Aim:
I am certain that [the umpires] did the right thing in awarding the game to England when the Pakistan team refused to come out of their dressing room to resume the game. Simply refusing to play the game is not the way to address any dispute.
There are interesting views coming out of Asia as well; a Sri Lankan cricket blogger calls yesterday's events "the darkest day in Test cricket since Bodyline".
But while a large amount of criticism has been levelled at the umpires in the game, TMS commentator Jonathan Agnew questions the actions of Pakistan's team, arguing that:
...staging a sit-in was not the right way to register their protest. But a better, more sensible approach would surely have been to issue a strong denial at tea-time, in which they also promised to appeal, and get on with the game.
A very sad day for cricket but I feel that the umpires had no choice but to award the match to England and I applaud them in making what must have been a hard decission, but if as the laws of cricket state the umpires are in charge of the match and the laws cover what Pakistan did and the umpires followed those said laws then they made the only decission they could and any other outcome would have made an umpires job impossible, It could also have led to other teams protesting against other laws they think are either wrong or wrongly applied.
Complain about this postWhy all the furore about Hair? Ok, so he no-balled Murali - was he the only person in the world to think thats a dodgy action? He reported Afridi for dancing on the pitch in spikes, was he wrong? Why are people asking about race?
He may be difficult, stubborn and pig-headed but does it make him racist?
Complain about this postWhat a way to end a test match.
I have to agree with most commentators, that the Pakistan team should have continued the game. Having still had a chance to win the game, they should have left their protest untill after the game was finished.
Complain about this postAs for the umpire's deciding that Pakistan had tampered with the ball, I would like to see when they thought this happened and where is the prove.
The one article that made me laugh more than any today was in the Guardian, after enjoying the various articles I reached this Leader:
'It's not cricket':
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/englandpakistan2006/story/0,,1854904,00.html
The stand out quotes are that: 'This may have bitter consequences for both cricket and community relations in this country.' Also this is line is all-time classic for the Guardian 'But it can only fuel the alienation felt by some British Muslims at a time of great strain.'
This really is a cricketing matter is it not? I fail to see what it has to do with religion or community relations? Did we have Leader articles saying that 'Atherton dirt in the pocket' would stir up religious tensions. I really do think linking the events of a cricket match to the so-called 'war on terror' are strecthing even the immagination of the Cameron-supporting Guardian. If brainless leader writers in the Guardian can come up with trash like this, then what hope is there?
Complain about this postA neutral View
Some are of the view that Darrell hair's decision to award the match to England because of non availability of the Pakistan team on the ground is justified, as per the laws of the game. That is true, but if the incident is taken in isolation. However, when interpreting the laws of the game, you cannot just read beween the lines. Many of the laws are inter related with each other.
Consider these laws.
Under the laws of the game, Pakistan was fully entitled to lodge a protest during the match if they were unhappy with an incident which happened in the match (which they did). The next question is, was it an incident? Surely it was, because the umpires action was tantamount to calling the team cheaters, according to the law of the game.
Further, according to the laws of the game, it is then the duty of the Umpire and the match referee to clarify with the Captain regarding that incident.
Given this scenario, why is there talk about Pakistan's protest, but not of the Umpire or the match referee clarifying the incident.
It is only, and only when the incident is clarified and Pakistan further refuse to play, despite the clarification (whatever the clarification), the umpires can forfeit the match. This is written in the laws of cricket.
Well that clearly did not happen in this case. I am afraid, neither the ICC, Darrell Hair nor the match referee, have a leg to stand on.
There is no doubt that Darrell Hair/ICC/Match referee has to be blamed for one of the darkest hour in cricket's history. The final act of removing the bails cannot be therefore looked at in isolation.
Complain about this posti havent an issue with pakistan being called into question for ball tampering..as long as evidence is found, thats fair enuf..the problem i have is with the umpires trying to become bigger than the game by refusing to continue the match when the players were willing to play..cricket is about the players, not the umpires, who are meant to be seen and not heard..but to me, they, and particularly hair, have enjoyed the attention they hav recieved from this debacle..also, at the end of the day, i feel this issue revolves around the ball..and it must be shown to the public so that we can make our own judgement..if i was in inzamam's place, i wud hav done exactly the same thing.
Complain about this postQ) When was the last time a member of the Pakistan team tampered?
A) Afridi not very long ago by tampering with the pitch.
Complain about this postI agree the umpires must be backed up.
I wasn't that impressed by Viv Richards interview - he failed to back up the application of the rules and condemn the refusal to play.
I anticipate that Hair will say he looked at the ball one over before, there were no boundaries that would affect the ball to the extent he saw when he decided to change the ball, and the only cause could be artificial changing of the balls condition. He consulted his fellow umpire and applied the rules.
To look at it from the 'what if' point of view.
What if Pakistan had been allowed to continue - Hair tells the england batsmen that it not as all over as he had thought, there's been a compromise (james bond style) and to get out to the crease. Pakistan takes three wickets in the first two overs after tea.
Pakistan should have put uppermost in their decisions the need to be fair to their opposition. In my view they have as a team acted like John McEnroe having a stomp - is it for publicity, is it to put the other player off. John has admitted that it was often the latter.
If this kind of protest were allowed it would inflame like a pus filled sore and end up in head to heads with umpires football style.
I note that every time a football ref blows for a foul he is accusing the offending team of cheating.
5 run deduction is about 1% of runs in a test match - rather insignificant and a gesture as far as the outcome is concerned. How many matches would this actually affect - its a warning ploy, not a showstopper.
Is there any grounds for the umpire to discuss ball tampering with a bowling team - if so he only exposes himself to unfair influence from the offenders - of course they will say they are innocent.
No in my view once he has decided, in conjunction with his other umpire that ball tampering has taken place there is no room for compromise, little warnings and the like.
What if Pakistan had fileded after tea but lodged a formal protest, or gathered in a huddle for 5 minutes when they went out - the game would have finished I think. So who brought the game into disrepute - pakistan. They sulked - its as simple as that. They took away their half of the train set.
What if Pakistan did not have the past history of ball tampering as it clearly does.
It seems to me that what one wants in an umpire is someone who applies the rules of the game without deviation - surely this is his primary role. All this guff about warnings and compromise is tedious, and the need for 'proof' - ha, what do you expect Mr Hair to have - sworn statements and photographs.
Wait till we here what the review on Friday brings out.
I noticed aggers was backpedalling at one heck of rate today - maybe someone has had a word in his ear about what the outcome will be.
Woolmers suggestion that ECB get together with PCB and ICC is nonsence - he and his team should have considered that before refusing to play. Why is he dragging ECB into the scenario ??????
Complain about this postMy father age 70 and me age 35 had a huge argument about this episode. he felt that right or wrong the umpire's decision is final. But from my perspective that pertains to whether or not a person is out or not. when you claim somebody is cheating- you can't make that decision on a feeling or hunch. there better be evidence to the fact. I am not one to follow the decisions of authority like blind lemmings. Maybe if my father's generation thought the same - the improvements in economics in India would have happened 50 years ago.
Complain about this postto Sam Nunes - you say
cricket is about the players, not the umpires
No - Cricket is about observing the laws of the game (the umpires, players, etc are part of the game nothing more) but the umpires are the arbirtors of the rules on the field - so by refusing to come back onto the field the pakistanis opened themselves up to forfeiting the game.
Do you want cricket to go the way of football where all a player has to do is whine and decisions are overturned? If not then we must back the umpires whether you like them or not or have the rules changed through the propoer channels.
Complain about this post