Inzamam will celebrate despite ban
Although the charge of bringing the game into disrepute carried the greater punishment in the eyes of the lawmakers, Inzamam will be delighted to have been cleared of ball-tampering.
To have been found guilty would be tantamount to cheating, and no cricketer wants to be labelled a cheat.
That was always going to be the more difficult charge to prove, particularly when the lawyers became involved.
It was, after all, only based on the opinion of the two umpires, both of whom are meticulously trained to spot ball-tampering and who stand by their decision.
As is always the case in these incidents, sporting law cannot stand up to the scrutiny of professional lawyers.
Ranjan Madugalle chose his words carefully when he said: “On the balance of probability, the ball had not been tampered with.”
There was no escape for Inzamam on the charge of bringing the game into disrepute.
He was told twice by the match officials to take the field, and twice he refused.
His suspension for four one-day internationals means he will probably miss all of the ICC Champions Trophy.
But no one outside the International Cricket Council – for which the tournament is little more than a money-making exercise – will shed many tears about that.
The punishment meted out to him represents 50% of the maximum tariff and no doubt reflects the sense of injustice that Inzamam felt at the time.
But this is a serious issue, and is fundamental to all sport. It is simply unforgivable for any sportsman to refuse to play because he objects to a decision.
Darrell Hair’s future will inevitably come under the spotlight. Already India and Pakistan have said that they will not play in matches in which he is an umpire.
The ball-tampering verdict will certainly be used as further evidence of alleged bias, although some examples used to illustrate this in the past have been wildly exaggerated.
The ICC has already said that it will not be dictated to when it comes to appointing umpires.
But the fact is that the ICC is made up of the Test-playing countries, and if Pakistan and India can gather enough support, they will get their way.
No one really wins in these situations. The role and, particularly, the authority of the umpire has taken another knock.
It is the fundamental principle of all sport that the umpire’s word is final.
He is fallible, but without that respect, anarchy rules. As these events prove, we have moved closer in that direction.
I think the decision is nice specially give reference to the fact that umpires are fallible as expresses by Jonathan. Thats why I am firm beliver in introducing a 2nd appeal option in test matches , around 3 per innings. This is done when fielding side thinks they are sure the batsman is out but is not given out and the decision can go to 3rd umpire.
Also, there should be more scrutny on 3rd umpires. Sometimes they have been getting run outs wrong, now when you time and technology and you do that, umpire should be punished.
Complain about this postThis is clear vindication for the entire Pakistan team. Mr Agnews article on the BBC site states Ranjan Madugalle chose his words carefully, in effect implying due to the presence of the lawyers this was the only decision that could have been reached due to the potential legal ramifications.However he fails to mention that Ranjan Madugalle also says clearly that the ball in his opinion has no marks that would not be consistent with a ball of this age. I think that says it all.
Complain about this postThe Suspension has been made to Inzamam why not to Darrell Hair’s coz he was the one who responsible for every thing.
Complain about this postThe argument that this verdict has moved cricket closer to anarchy is specious. Inzamam has been punished for not accepting the umpire's verdict. But, at the same time, Hair has at the very least, acted in haste. Why is incompetence not a good reason to remove an umpire from the elite panel? The National Football League and the NCAA (college football) in the US routinely suspend umpires (referees) and publicly acknowledge bad decisions by them without in any way undermining their authority in on field decisions. Mr. Agnew needs to consider all parts of the verdict and reconsider his "move towards anarchy" statement.
Complain about this postThis is a real victory for inzimam. The question of bringing the game into disrepute is totally irrelevant now since it is found that the first charge was not based on honesty and is he punished on protesting on a wrong decision . anyways the ICC has for once showed some bravery in standing up and saying that the umpire is wrong. We have to understand that anybody can make a mistake and it can be an umpire also.
salman
Complain about this postwell thank goodness this mess has been finalised..!
Complain about this postthe question remains.. what of Mr Hair..?? It looked to be his call and from what has happened he got it wrong.. He labled the pakistan team cheats and they were quite rightly offended by this. The enquiry has proved he could not be certain that this was the case so should not have made the ruling.
Does he have a future in the sport? Everything he does will be scrutinised and analysed.!!! Also with his outragous offer of pay me and i'll go away... should he not be investigated too?
I love cricket, but would not claim to know the finer points of the rules.. but surly he has been proved to be wrong? Will he now face an investigation?
Inzamam should have been found not guilty on both counts. The disrepute charge occurred due to the haste of Darrell Hair's actions in relation to the ball tampering accusation which has subsequently lacked credibility.
No such charges occurred when the following captains took there team off the pitch in protest:
Keith Fletcher Vs Australia
Mike Gatting Vs Pakistan
Steve Waugh (twice) Vs Pakistan and West Indies.
Their actions also did not result in the match being forfeited.
Complain about this postNo body is saying that umpires should be kicked out of the game. The key issue is that the particular umpire in question is biased. He has done more damage to the institution of umpiring by deliberately courting controversy.
In the best interests of sport and the umpiring institution Hair should leave.
In addition, Hair wants to go, just give him $500k!
All told, I disagree with Jonathan's conclusion.
Complain about this postI disagree with Mr Agnew's summation:
"It is simply unforgivable for any sportsman to refuse to play because he objects to a decision."
This was not an LBW decision, or a run out that inzy didnt like. It was an umpire accusing the Pakistani team of cheating. We all know the history and how this is a sensitive issue.
I do not agree with Pakistan not continuing the game, but it must be clear that saying the ball had been tampered with, despite no evidence whatsoever of this from all 20-odd sky cameras that had been rolling all day, was no ordinary umpiring decision.
I believe the Pakistan team deserve an apology from the umpires from the accusations levelled at them about ball tampering.
Complain about this postWell there was never any doubt but the way BBC posted the news again showed how they can use the words and what they can see as the major heading because the main case was regarding the ball tempering and the befitting title of the news should have been "PAKISTAN CLEARED OF BALL TEMPERING CHARGES"
Complain about this postThe result is not unexpected. It was clear from day 1 that there was no video evidence of the ball tampering - and by purely examining the ball, it was always going to be difficult to prove guilt beyond doubt.
I agree with you Aggers that the umpires role has been undermined. Taking into account the amount of controversy caused by this incident, it is going to take a very brave umpire to accuse a team of ball tampering again. Perhaps the ICC needs to employ a forensic scientist and biomechanics expert for each match to monitor ball tampering and suspect bowling actions.
Complain about this postI feel for any official in this situation. They follow the rules and their training, only to find players spit their dummy's out if they disagree with your decision.
Whats the point in having an umpire if the players on the field refuse to abide by the decisions these umpires make?
Inzy should have accepted the 5 run penalty then appealed after the test had finished.
Chances are he would have been cleared, but he escalated the test into a farce by taking the decision personally, not professionally.
Complain about this postThis verdict is a big embarassment for the umpires. I wonder what the future holds for Darrell Hair.
Complain about this postDarrell Hair (to me) is only guilty of enforcing a badly written rule. If the rule is meant to say that if in the opinion of the umpire the ball has been tampered with, then that rule will never stand up to legal scrutiny. Ultimatley that is all about proof and there was not any
However, I do not accept that the umpires word should be final. What if there was a corrupt umpire? Why should games be won and lost because of human error? I suppose the question is where do you draw the line?
However, with all the money involved in cricket it is important that correct decisions are made
It would be better if the 5 run penalty was abolished and when an umpire is concerned about the state of a ball then that ball should be replaced with a ball of similar age and the ball tampering or whatever, be dealt with at a later date with opportunity for both sides to state their case.
Complain about this postThe most important aspect of this whole mess is that Darrell Hair accused Pakistan with no evidence and now wraning. We seem so quick to forget that last summer England were achieving massive amounts of reverse swing and we called it an art like nobody's ever done it before. Pakistan, through players like Sarfraz Nawaz, Akram and Younis are the true pioneers of the art yet because they're Pakistani, must be doing it illegally. That is the real problem and if nothing else, this episode had proved that there is still a problem with predjudice in cricket.
Complain about this postSalman - you are completely wrong- Inzi DID bring the game into disrepute. Two wrongs do NOT make a right.
No player has the right to defy an Umpire.
If, as you say, Inzamam was right not to resume because the Umpire had made a mistake, does that mean whenever a batsman has got a bit of bat on one and is given out lbw he can take his team off and refuse to play on? No. You always accept the Umpire's decision, right or wrong.
You can then deal with it later.
Complain about this postI believe the ruling was still unfair on ol'Inzy. The fact that he was being led to a disciplinary hearing as the accused and Darrel Hair left alone was unjust to my eyes. The whole issue of 'direpute' wouldn't have taken place in the first place if Umpire Hair hadn't taken the drastic stand he took. Given the fact that Inzamam has been cleared of that count, it amazes me how he has been given a ruling that for an action which was provoked incorrectly by the officials on that day.
Umpire Hair screwed up, and the ICC should point blame where blame is due.
Complain about this postNo surprises at the result of this. To be honest it's ridiculous that the on field umpires should be asked to ajudicate on ball tampering. It's a shame but trial by TV is the only way.
Also I'm not sure why Inzaman has taken all this so seriously. 5 runs is a pitiful punishment and hardly a deterrent. If he had just denied it and got on with the game then we could all have been spared this unnecessary drama.
It seems to me that a lot of egos from both sides got in the way of common sense.
Complain about this post....But this is a serious issue, and is fundamental to all sport. It is simply unforgivable for any sportsman to refuse to play because he objects to a decision....
What about match officials, why are we not seeing Hair and Doctrove being investigated ?
Complain about this postWhy are you and the media not writing how his actions show that he is inconsistent with normal criketing views?
I think the problem here (apart from what seems to have been high-handedness on the part of Darrell Hair) is more with the options available to the umpires when the codition of the ball is questionable, than the ball-tampering law itself. If there was a middle ground, whereby if the umpires felt that the condition of the ball was such that they considered there to be a strong possibility of tampering, but no conclusive proof, it would be much more satisfactory if they were able themselves to change the ball (rather than a replacement being selected by the batting side), without any penalty being applied to the fielding side. That way, the honour of the fielding side would not be such an issue, as there would not be a direct accusation of cheating, only a view that tampering could have been the cause of the state of the ball, rather than that it definitely was.
Complain about this postI'm not suprised Jonathan Agnew is upset considering he is good friends with Darrel Hair.
Darrell Hair must be punished for accusing Pakistan of ball tampering. I agree with Imran Khan, Pakistan should have taken this matter to the courts.
Darrell Hair is fallible but also very foolish, to accuse a team of ball tampering when he had no evidence to support his claim.
Anyway I am very pleased that justice pervailed today and hope that this be a lesson to all umpires that they are fallible and therefore MUST obtain the evidence before accusing a team of cheating.
Complain about this postI believe respect is earned it just does not come be default. If you are given an authority then it one should not it comes with some responsibility.
Darrell hair has shown on multiple occasions that he is in capable of earning respect from around the world be it Pakistan, Srilanka or India.
Players have always respected Dickie Bird, Steve Bucknor and others
Zia.
Complain about this postSo "on the balance of probability" the ball was not tampered with and the Captain and team are cleared. You watch the ICC close ranks around the umpire now, same with all sports the officials never seem to be as accountable for their actions and over-reactions as the players. In my opinion Hair has now been totally discredited and with both India and Pakistan refusing to accept him as an umpire surely he should retire gracefully, though not with $500,000 in his pocket!
Sports officials are now very well paid individuals and while admittedly not as much as the players they officiate more than the majority of spectators who's enjoyment there should be considering.
Complain about this postDarrell Hair is a very competent umpire who as done is job by following the rules of the game and as had the courage to make decisions were others may back away, as I understand it the game had two umpires did they not jointly make the decision.
Complain about this postThe ICC should not allow countries to dictate who umpires matches and should some courage.
The comment about the ball looking like any other 56 ball over ball, this should not be so as it had hardly left the field of play in 56 overs so avoiding damage from outside the boundary and the umpires must have looked at ball at the fall of the previous wicket.
If the ICC do stand firm it will be a case of the person doing the most shouting winning whether they are right or wrong, didn't we get nuetral umpires because the same countries couldn't trust home umpires.
I was lucky (?) to be in the crowd just in from of the England dressing room on Sunday of the Oval test and as such i had a reasonable view of all that was happening.
Complain about this postAs a qualified umpire, I often watch the actions of the on field umpires to try and learn form the professionals. I watched Darrell Hair approach the fielder to look at the ball and his subsequent discussions with Billy Doctove.
Their discussions and subsequent actions are wholly in action with the Laws of Cricket.
Whether the ball had been tampered with is not something I cannot comment on as I have not seen the ball. However, if the umpires (and they did act together as two memebers of the Elite panel) believed that the ball had been tampered with then they had no option but to change and this also leads automatically to 5 penalty runs being awareded to the batting side.
Imagine please the reaction if a Pakistani bowler would have taken three quick wickets and then one or both of the umpires were to state that they were unsure that the ball had been tampered with. Outrage from the England ranks would have abounded!
The umpires subsequent actions of awarding the game to England were technically correct, but here is where I would have suggested a more reasonable tack to be taken given that they had just penalised Pakistan for tampering.
Mr Hair's subsequent mercanary actions were of no credit to an umpire who until that point had been very correct.
I am after 24 seasons retiring from umpiring after this season due to the amount of pressures being bought upon me as an umpire by players and team officials alike. My job is stressful enough!! I am under 50 and feel robbed that I feel I cannot continue to support the game I love.
No one should be untouchable, Umpairs, Lawmakers or Media. If Inzi gets the punishment then ICC should come forward take the responsibility and fire Hire, which in my opinion is a more just desion.
Complain about this postJonathan, anarchy will rule only if umpires like Darrell Hair are allowed to let personnel prejudices influence their decision making. After all, today's findings reveal that there was no ball tampering involved.
The infallibility of the umpires has also been taken into consideration. Umpires make wrong decisions all the time, but nobody goes to court or harps on about it - as seldom has it been felt the umpires made anything elese but a mistake. The Oval debacle is an entirely different case. An Umpire leveled cheating charges against the Pakistanis. No unbiased person can condemn any nation for taking a strong objection and fighting against such a charge.
Today's verdict proves the Asian Nations do have a genuine grouse. We now know for sure that Hair has made a wrong decision. I do not think that the ICC should allow Darrell Hair to officiate at this level ever again as it will put entire tours and relationships between the ICC and Asian Nations in a state of jeopardy.
Complain about this postSo, there was no evidence of ball - tampering...
Inzamams actions are validated - if he had not protested, if he had quietly accepted the umpires decision and got on with the game, the Oval test would now be remembered as "The test where Pakistan cheated".
The fact that he had to forfeit the test in order to be able to contest the charge of cheating is the real problem. Would the ICC have held a hearing to clear Inzamam if he had completed the game? Or would the whole issue have gone quietly under the carpet, with Inzamam effectively convicted of cheating without trial or evidence?
From Inzamam's point of view, he's cost himself four matches but he's cleared his name, which he would not have been able to do if he had played on in the Oval test.
Complain about this postIf Inzy has been penalised for bringing the game to disrepute, clearly Hair should also be penalised for making false allegations about ball tampering and bringing the game to such direpute ......when acting as a 'judge' in the field.
ICC's insistance to still support Hair after the verdict (not to mention $500k!) will not be beneficial for the spirit of the game in the long run.
Hair must go
Complain about this postI think it is Sri Lanka and Pakistan who have said they they will not play in matches in which Darrell Hair is an umpire. India have said they will play Darrell? Or am I wrong?
Complain about this postAnd presumably offering to resign for half a million dollars is not bringing the game into disrepute!
Complain about this postIf in the rule says, as i believe it does, that it is in the opinion of the umpire whether ball tampering has taken place how is it possible for Inzi to have been found not guilty? Darrel Hair and the other umpire made it plain that they were of the opinion that it had happened.
Having said that I don't agree with the law. Reverse swing makes cricket more entertaining (the whole point being to entertain). Even though he caused us so many problems i hav'n't seen more interesting cricket that when Waqar and Wasim destroyed us (England) a few years ago.
Complain about this postOnce again the easy way out has been taken. No evidence has been found of cheating. Hair made a decision without proof and he should be the one charged with disrepute! However it seems easier to charge the individual player. Most cricketers would refuse to allow their team to take the field if accused wrongly of cheating.
This not the first time that he has caused trouble without good evidence when Subcontinent teams are involved.
Complain about this postWith Inzy cleared of cheating charges, the ICC should dock Umpire Hair for taking a rank bad decision. After all, nobody is above the law.
Complain about this postI've just watched the ICC press conference and I cannot understand why Darrell Hair was there, given he made quite clear what he could not talk about. It looked to me as if the ICC had him there just to be hung out to dry.
I am alone in being very concerned with how the ICC have handled this? If my employer did this to me, i would be seriously unhappy.
Complain about this postA factual correction - India has not said that it will not play in matches in which Darrell Hair is an umpire. It has merely requested the ICC not to appoint Hair for the Champions' Trophy as it may be lead to a law and order problem.
Complain about this postWe must keep in mind that umpires are human beings too and are prone to errors. We have seen it so many times in matches where umpires have made mistakes, and such decisions are accepted anyway. When it comes to the question of accusing someone of cheating; umpires do not have absolute power. They have to look for solid evidence. At the Oval test, had they changed the ball without accusing the Pakistan team as cheater, there would not have been so much fuss. This decision would open the eyes of umpires, and hopefully, the umpires would be careful in futures in making such hasty and biased decisions.
Complain about this postI fully agree with you Aggers. Cricket has taken a step closer to anarchy. It is highly likely that Hair will not officiate in any match involving South Asian teams again. The fact that BCCI has now come out in support of the PCB does I feel mean the end of the road for a very fine umpire, albeit a stubborn one.
Yes, he could have acted differently and recommenced play when Pakistan were ready. If he had then I feel he would not be in the dire situation he now finds himself. Umpires can and do make mistakes in every match they officiate. Both he and Doctrove had considered the ball to be tampered with and therefore imposed the only penalty open to them at the time.
The actions after that, both by the PCB, Inzamam and his team has led to Inzamam being found guilty of disrepute and penalised accordingly. Hair is going to be penalised with his job.
Why, because he stubbornly refused to restart play when the chance was there and because of hounding by the PCB and now the BCCI. Hair and the PCB was like a boil under the skin. That boil has now burst and is likely to turn cancerous if the ICC fail to back their umpires to the hilt.
If I recall correctly this is not the first time the PCB has hounded an umpire they considered to be biased. In the early 90's I do believe something similar was occuring with an umpire called Reid.
It is time for the ICC to stand firm against those that appear to wish for anarchy.
Complain about this postI think the shadow of a legal threat, which seems to hang over many controversial decisions in sport in the modern era, has caused the ICC to back down on this.
The fact is, the umpire's decision should be final. If the umpire says the ball was tampered with - then it was tampered with, whether the facts are proven or not. Just like in football, if the referee says it is a penalty, it is a penalty - no matter what any other evidence says. This should never have been under review at the hearing.
Maybe we will have our sporting officials wearing gowns and wigs before too long, if this is the road we are heading down. Respect for the authority of the officials in all sports has taken a serious bashing today.
Complain about this postCommon sense prevailed and it appears that after looking at all the evidence, the ICC achieved a just result. Inzamam was rightly punished for bringing cricket into disrepute, surely a foregone conclusion, and hopefully he and others will learn a valuable lesson. Nobody is above the laws of cricket. When umpires say play, you do so - or pay the price. National and personal prides are not part of the equation, nor one's emotions in the heat of the moment. I am surprised that Woolmer and other advisors gave in to Inzamam's anger, perceived slight and lack of foresight in the dressing room if they believed strongly that he should have led the team out when directed by the umpires to do so. The honorable thing would have been for them to resign, but then money is a strong deterrent against such actions
Complain about this postAgnew is right. Umpire's word should always be final. It is so in every sport. Now onwards, no umpire will ever rule that someone is tampering with the ball. Was Madugalle thinking of Hair's rows with Sri Lankans in the past when he gave the decision? Why should he have been bothered whether it will stand scrutiny in a court of law. That was for the ICC to worry about.
Complain about this postNo one is above the law-umpires included.The umpires can also bring the game into disrepute as is visible in this case. Inzy is a cool customer.I wonder why no one explained to him the correct procedure of a protest.I also wonder if ICC has ever taken an umpire to the task.If not , certainly this is the time.
Complain about this postTo avoid any repetition of the incident it appears that the only change required is in the process followed by umpires if they believe a ball is showing marks not consistent with its age.
If they simply informed the fielding captain that they were unhappy with the condition, suspicious of how it had occured and were invoking the tampered ball process surely that would prevent any confusion or protests.
The fielding captain would see the ball and know on what evidence the umpires were acting. It could even be done discreetly so the suspicions were kept private until the relevant authorities had investigated. Under no circumstances could the umpires decision be challenged at that time, merely accepted by the players on both sides.
In no way does this change any of the rules, merely how the incident is handled.
Complain about this postA very lucid analysis of the verdict. Thank you for bringing it to us.
It is true, as you say, the umpire's word is final and should be treated with respect lest anarchy dominates the playing fields. That said, one must also take into consideration about how that umpire has usually responded to situations.
In the case of this umpire, he has been consistent in the nature of his decisions enough to rouse suspicion of some bias affecting his judgement. It may not be so, but that's how the effect of his decisions are.
The sequence of his decisions that led to this kind of perception is well documented in the media as well as BBC website itself. Then again, he himself hasn't done any favors to himself or his supporters by some ill-advised electronic communication and demands.
In that situation it does become difficult to continue with that expected respect to the umpire's word. How can one accept his word as final knowing fully well that he does come across as biased against and unfair to some teams? We do not live in kindergarten times anymore, do we?...where mute acceptance is expected for the sake of good form.
One has to appear balanced when occupying a judmental post of moral authority.
Complain about this postDarrell hair is not being faulted for his falliability.Most umpires are, but he seems to display a singular lack of "good judgement".All seasoned observers of sport,and indeed of life in general, will agree that no amount of laws or rules are ever adequate to cover all possible situations.Given that, a top umpire is required to display sound judgement in the face of highly emotional situations that develop in the course of a game.Darrel Hair failed utterly in that;and not once, but several times starting from the Murali incident in 1995.For this utter lack of "good judgement" he should be removed from his position on the elite panel.Ability to hear the nicks off a bat or glove is not all that good umpiring is about.
Complain about this postThere's an old saying ... "no smoke without fire".
If a team refused to resume play because they objected to an LBW or caught behind decision would it have been handled differently ? If players threw their toys out of the pram everytime they disagreed with an umpires decision we'd never finish a Test match. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Pakistan should have continued playing, won the Test, and then worried about the ball-tampering decision afterwards.
These were two very experienced umpires who were in a position to note any unusual changes to the condition of the ball.
What a shame we don't have that excellent Scottish legal option of "not proven".
Complain about this postInzee is a great cricket talent. He would not have been in this position had the umpires acted in a responsible manner and spoke to Inzee prior to all this escalating. Because of a ver bad decision from the umpires Inzee is paying a price.....ridiculous. I think both umpires should also be exempt from umpiring any international games for a period of 1 year to balance this all out. It may make them think before making rash decisons about teams or individuals cheating. I think Hair is just trying to makea big name for himself. We dont need him but we need the genius Inzee
Complain about this postAlthough Inzamam will feel vindicated this is a hollow victory and the punishment for bringing the game into disrepute doesn't stand up to logical examination.
The ONLY reason he refused to carry on playing was because the umpire(s) accused him of cheating and punished him by docking 5 runs due to ball tampering.
His subsequent action was provoked by this accusation, which has been found to be lacking in substance.
It's a bit like me being provoked into a fight, my attacker telling the police I started it, the courts subsequently deciding I didn't start it but charging me for fighting back and letting him go!
Makes no sense at all, either the umpire(s) were right or they were wrong. If wrong then what is their 'punishment'?
Complain about this postIs it not cowardly to remove Daryl Hair from officiating at the ICC trophy on the grounds of "safety and security concerns"?
If the ICC retains confidence in Hair as an umpire, they should let him stand. If it doesn't, he should be stood down or suspended with reasons given.
But the rationale given seems effectively to give extremists a veto on appointments.
Complain about this postIf, as Jonathan Agnew states "It was, after all, only based on the opinion of the two umpires, both of whom are meticulously trained to spot ball-tampering and who stand by their decision."
why bother with the inquiry ? If I read the media articles correctly umpire Doctrove was not that certain but it was Hair's coercion which led him to agree to the ball change. Why is Agnew so adamant that Hair was completely innocent in this whole episode ? As many had suggested he could have cautioned Inzaman without sanctioning him. Yes, indeed we would have headed for anarchy if not for this incident.
Omar Nawaz.
Complain about this postI am an England supporter and an delighted that Inzamam was found not guilty of ball tampering.
As he knew that he was not guilty when he was accused, I sympathise with the team's decision to remain in the dressing room.
I understand that he will now be banned for four matches. This serves no purpose. Any reputable team would want the play against a Pakistan team that includes the best players available to it - there can be little credit for a team that happens to beat a Pakistan team denied one of it's key players becuase he was wrongly accused of ball tampering and stood up for himself.
Hair was the cause of this problem, not Inzamam.
I, like many others, have extreme concern about Hair. He should do the honerable thing and resign WITHOUT expecting a huge payout.
Tim.
Complain about this postI fail to understand Mr Agnew's logic. If all of the umpires decisions are final , why would the ICC have a due process in place wherein an aggrieved party , be a individual accused of an illegal bowling action or a team accused of ball tampering, is given the right to appeal against the charges been brought forward by the umpires on the field? And its not like the Pakistan team is appealing against a LBW verdict that went against them. We are talking about an cricket entire nation been branded cheats. And if you accuse someone of ball tampering , the burden of proof is on you to prove that the ball was indeed tampered with. And clearly Mr Madugalle has found that there wasnt sufficient evidence to prove those charges. And if all decisions made by an umpire on a cricket field were final, we wouldnt still be seeing Murali play international cricket. Would we? And what was Inzaman supposed to do when Hair accused him of ball tampering? "Sir,I dont agree but i respect your judgement and i will let you brand me a cheat!!" Hello!!
Complain about this postThe uncivilesd behaviour of Darell Hair in this whole sordid incident went without punishment to Darell.
Complain about this postJonathan Agnew the BBC is cricket correspondent has given extremely partial commentary on this incident ...poor journalism regardless of his views. Its been reported one of the umpires initially and subsequently questioned the charge; umpires need to have some standards in applying rules (in the face of NO EVIDENCE) to charge someone of cheating is simply no standard, and by an umpire with a history of bad blood with asian teams. If this has happened to england i wonder how mr. agnew would have commented! Umpires are not above the game, like any profession, the authority they get is subject to their integrity, impartiality and above all judgement in applying rules fairly! And not asking for $500K to resign or write a book after making highly controversial decisions. BBC needs a better cric correspondent! Pick a respected ex.Englad cricketer who knows something about playing the game!
Complain about this postDoctrove should be removed from the umpires list - he's either incompetent or too weak, there were two umpires out there and if he wasn't in agreement he should have said so at the time
Complain about this postIt seems that the "gentleman's sport" of Cricket has fallen prey to the American philosophy regarding all sports: find a 'loophole' in the rules and exploit it.
It's sad to read of people from all sides supporting what is essentially cheating, simply in order to win a game.
How naive of me to believe that this great game was all about personal integrity and sportsmanship...
Complain about this postMr. Agnew I dont agree with you "umpire’s word is final". What if the umpire is a bad umpire ? what if he is consistently making verdicts against one team over the other ? what if he is corrupt ? what if he is racist ? Umpires should be consistently monitored. Its no wisdom to stick to a wrong decision only because it has already been taken. Its another reason why we should be less reliant on umpires and more on technology !
Complain about this postahhahahahah.
Complain about this postMr.Agnew once again shows his bias against South Asian teams particularly against Pakistan. And to call Hair an otherwise competent umpire is nothing but trash-talk..he has on numberable occassions made horrendous decisions and is at best a mediocre umpire. I am sure Agnew will be consoling Hair at drinks tonight.
Complain about this postunder rule 43 of the so called cricket regulations law it is stated that if a player has been suspected of cheating, and the umpire has seen a player cheating he would then give the batsmen the option of choosing a ball and award 5 penalty runs to the batting team. these were the very words of sky sports commentator and cricket guru david lloyd. ''surely mr hair saw someone cheating'' as he's gone by the cricketing law, so the burning question for me is why did'nt he come out publicy and name the names. for me this incident has been taken as if pakistan were the main culprits from start to finish. to accuse a team of cheating is a big story so why are we all jumping on the same band wagon saying they should come out to play
Complain about this postJust to elaborate Mr. AGnew your British Civil Justice system is based on the principal of Balance of Probability. There is nothing careful about the way Ranjan made that statement. Its merely the way the system works!
Complain about this postCongratulations Ranjan Madugalle on a very fair and balanced decision. Now what happens to the umpires who caused the furor in the first place.
Complain about this postThis whole imbroglio has highlighted one point: Darrel Hair acted precipitously and without enough justification.
The solution is pretty simple. Hair, like a FIFA umpire, should be sacked or at least not allowed to umpire international matches.
Complain about this postFor a sportsman to be accused of cheating, but they knew they had not is the same as a normal employee or memeber of public accused of steeling when they had't.
Would that person do?
Have respect for that peron who accused him/them?
Complain about this postit is a pity for the game of cricket that Daryl Hair has got out scot free for accusing pakistan team of cheating. i would like to ask what would the australian team have done in similar circumstances? why is nobody asking ricky ponting, shane warne or for that matter anybody else wht they would hve done. the answer is that they would have left as soon as the ball had been changed. that is why nobody would dare to do such thing when they are playing.
Complain about this postso what happens when an umpire accuses smbdy of cheating without any evidence? answer he gets scot free and is paid for doing so as well as congratulated.
it is a pity for the game of cricket.
Having read through a few of the coments, it seems to be that most of them in disagreement to the ban of the Pakistan captain are from Pakistan supporters. Saying that i do agree Inzamam should not have been punished for ball tampering as this was badly managed by Darrel. But from which ever angle you look at it he did bring the game into disrepute which is a rather more serious offence than ball tampering. I think Inzamam has got off quite lightly, however for the good of the game it was the correct decision
Complain about this postI simply asked one question from Mr.Hair did he know the meaning of Umpire? and if he! then ICC should ban him for the rest of his life, i feel sorry for him.
Complain about this postInzamam ul Haq missing the ICC tornament is a big disappointment for the Pakistan fans, but on the other side it will pump some extra energy in the team to perform in the tournament and beside that Yonus Khan is not a bad captain, and he will be under great pressure to perform as batsman as well as a captain
Complain about this postThis is probably the best result for Inzamam, Pakistan and cricket. My only regret is that chances are if Inzamam had gone through the 'proper' channels and waited until Pakistan won before lodging an official complaint, ICC would have probably ignored him. What a waste that it had to take such a strong reaction from Inzy before this hearing was brought about forcefuly to resolve the ball-tampering case. Needless to say, in future matches, Darrell Hair has to be extremely sure the ball has been tampered with before he brings on the penalty runs. Long live integrity!
Complain about this postSince Inzy has been cleared of the ball tampering charge; it can be infered that his decision not to play was right.
On that basis; once can say that the match verdict of forfeit should be nullified; and more importantly action should be taken against the match referee.
That would be a fair trial; and probably increase the confidence of the fans in the sports body; which currently is obviously biased.
Complain about this postThe game is about the players, its about skill in batting, bowling and fielding, its not about over officious umpires or for that matter the ICC. Any side going into a contest deserves officials they feel are fair and unbiased. Period.
Complain about this postUnless there was clear demonstrable evidence of tampering, which the umpires or referee can substantiate then no judgement can be made. Since Hair apparently cannot provide such evidnce then the Icc were right to reverse his decision. The rules for the future should be changed, so that the can be no doubt about the issue,
Complain about this postI was brought up to believe that the referee is always right and if you want to agrue with that then you will be puished. How else can sport be run?
Complain about this postWhether the umpires judgement on the ball tampering incident was correct or not, the teams should simply have got on with the game. Can you imagine a football team refusing to carry on playing because the referee has dropped a clanger?
Having been at the game, there was no doubt whatsoever that the Pakistan team made no effort to continue playing. At the time everyone at the ground found that remarklable. There were only around 10 overs to the new ball and Pakistann were well on the way to winning the match.
More importantly, let's not forget that there were 20,000 spectators, many in family groups, at the match. What sort of example is now being set to young people? It's my ball and I'm not playinmg anymore.
It is unfortunale that Inzaman takes the rap for his team. But it was his team that refused to play, not the umpire. He got off light. You can't argue with the ref.
So Mr Hair is the sacrificial lamb. The collective decision of the umpire's was based on real time events, by seasoned qualified officials.
It is my opinion that the recent decision was made because of the finance involved in cricket. I think that although some of the rules of the game are steeped in the past, in need updating to accommodate the modern game; Mr Hair acted correctly (if mistakenly) and the floodgates will now open with the eventual outcome that games will be decided in the court room not on the field.
Complain about this postTest umpires are trained to indentify ball tampering, two of them (as Mr Doctrove was a party to this) felt that this was the case in this Test Match.
The statement by the ICC is more confusing to cricket lovers. Far from clearing the matter up it leaves the remaining Test umpires without options if they believe there is ball tampering going on. Should they secretly notify the TV channels to covertly monitor the ball. If they do not, how other then by using their skill, which is clearly not good enough based on this case, will they ever be able to produce enough evidence to make the case stand up in an ICC court!
To me the ICC should have backed the two umpires, they were on the spot, have the correct training and know all the rules. If it is suspected that there is racial or prejudicial issue by a single umpire then that should be dealt with as a seperate matter.The facts of this case however on the ball tampering decision is that it was made by two umpires.
Complain about this postWhy not the laws of cricket be applied if and when an umpire makes blatant errors in his judgement as was evident in the Oval Test fiasco?
Complain about this postIf Inzamam can be cleared of ball tampering charge, it tantamounts to Darreyl Hair incorrect judgement, for which goes scot free. Why??
Hair says he is doing his job to be best of his ability and if his best is not good enough ICC should sack him immediately before he gets involved in another drama.
Any other umpire would have handled the Oval test differently than Hair. ICC must take note of this danger man.
from some of the comments it appears that many people believe that refusing to play in front of around 20,000 paying spectators is acceptable. It's about time the supporters of the Pakistan team realised that it's not all about them, but more importantly about the good of world cricket as a whole. Irrelevant of what both umpires (yes, there were two involved) decided to do concerning the alleged ball tampering incident, no team can ever be considered to be correct in refusing to play. They all have a duty to the game to play first, and discuss any given situation later.
Complain about this postAs usual, Jonathan Agnew takes an anti Pakistani stance. No mention is made about Hairs' demand for money to quit, what does he make of this?
The Pakistanis were ill advised to not resume the game but when the emotions of the situation are taken into consideration, it is easily understandable why they took this stance (ex England captains, Ian Botham and Nasser Hussain agreed with this stand).
I guess if it was England or Australia in Dehli or Karachi, then it would be standing up for the good name of the game. Since it is Pakistan, then ofcourse we are ruining the game!
Complain about this postThe umpires, we are told, inspect the ball at frequent intervals so it is unfair for people who only see the ball after the event tocomment on whether they feel it has been "tampered with". If the umpires saw it a couple of overs before and felt that it was in exceptionally good condition for a 50 over old ball and then decided that it had detoriated significantly over those couple of overs then they will believe it has been tampered with. So all you experts who say the ball has not been tampered with should stay out of the argument unless you can qualify it with opinion based on the detoriation rate of the ball. That means you Nassser and co who have a beef for whatever reason with the ICC anyway.
Complain about this postThe whole issue seems to have ignored Doctrove's part in this affair.
The umpires were jointly responsible for the decision. Doctrove has leaked the concerns he had at the time but if he felt that the ball had not been tampered with he should have refused to go along with Hair and award the penalty. If he does not have the strength of character to disagree with Hair then should he be umpiring at this level? If he felt that Hair was a bully he should be making representations to Doug Cowie and not just hiding away from being involved. Some of his decisions in the ODIs that followed surely suggest that he should not be umpiring at this level.
What a disgrace! The reason Inzamam and the Pakistan refused to carrying on with the test match was because of the umpires calling them cheats which has know been proven to be false so the only punishment should be handed out to the umpires resulting in them being kicked out of cricket and never allowed to umpire a game again.
Complain about this postInzi refused to play not because of an LBW or catch but because the whole nation was called cheat. No one would walk out if there was a wrong LBW decision or something.
Complain about this postBut this is more serious than just an LBW decision. Umpires called Pakistan cheat and that is offensive to every Pakistani. So stop comparing it to wrong LBW decisions...
Taking a slap in face for himself and his country based on questionable (at best) evidence without even the decency of a civil explanation (the video shows that Inzamam had to protest vigorously before he was even shown the ball) was far too much for the Pakistan captain. His response was completely appropriate.
Simply taking the indignity of a baseless accusation by walking back onto the pitch without any protest would have legitimized the accusation itself.
Sometimes one has to break the trend to make a point. Inzamam was right in not taking the allegation of dishonesty lying down as it was an affront to the his honor and the dignity of the entire nation of Pakistan (they take their cricket very seriously).
Complain about this postWell Inzi got banned not because of the ball tampering as it was never proved. Now what will happen to Umpire Darrel Hair? as its not proved that Pakistani team tampered with the ball.
Complain about this postThe last time I saw as much whitewash as the ICC press conference was on Tom Sawyer's fence!
Ranjan did not answer any questions properly or straightforwardly. The rules of cricket are printed in a booklet, and the umpires (note the plurality) enforce those rules as they see fit. The issue as Ranjan says is NOT the honesty of a whole nation, but the actions of 13 players on a field at any one time. Umpires can only judge what is before their eyes, and enforce the rules as laid out.
If the law is an ass change the law, but until it is changed, don't shoot the sherriff for enforcing it.
Let's get real here. It doesn't matter whether Pakistan tampered with the ball or not (and I for one don't think they did). What matters is whether the umpires have the last word on decisions.
Complain about this postThis decision is a great slap on darrell hairs face and on all those who supported hair on his pathetic accusation of cheating without any evidence.
I cant beleive hair got away with accusing some one of cheating without any punsihment.
I feel for inzi as he is a fantastic captain and maintained his degnity.
Complain about this postInzamam being cleared of ball tampering but bringing the game to disrepute is a contradiction in itsself. The accusation of ball tampering led to the protest that seems to have brought disrepute to the game. Without the first there would not have been a second.
On the other hand it is surprising that Hair has not been penalised for making wrong accusations based on sub-standard umpiring.
Sincerely
Asad Sadick
Complain about this postMaybe if Mr. Hair had not made that atrocious decision Inzaman would not have reacted the way he did. I hope Mr. Madugalle factored this into his decision. Furthermore does the ICC have the courage to rescind the forfeiture of the test match to England considering the obdurate and unprofessionalism of it so called elite umpire. What about Darell Hair ? Is he not to be penalized for being a catalyst in these unfortunate chain of events. Or does the ICC want to reward him by keeping him on the elite panel?
Complain about this postIt is appallingly clear from the comments posted by your readers that the verdict in the ball tampering and disrepute charges has become another slanging match between the legion of fans in the Asian bloc and the rest. While I painfully accept the verdict, there is no denying the presence of solid extenuating grounds for clearing Inzamam of the disrepute charges as well, but, as could be predicted, political expediency had to prevail. What saddens - and maddens - me is that while the captain of the Pakistan team got his "just dessert" the incorrigible man who precipitated the whole crisis, Darrell Hair, has got off scot free. Unless he is banned forever, we will before long be witnessing "Hair raising" experiences again.
Complain about this postthe icc have given pakistans captain a tab on the wrist for forcing the umpires to abondon a test match.he should of got at least a ten match ban.the umpires have been sold down the river.they are the sole judge of what is fair or unfair in a cricket match.untill .the icc judgement has undermined that fundamental part of the game of cricket.now you india saying they dont want darrell hair to umpire in any of there games.the icc should tell indias board of control.that we run the game not them.
Complain about this postI think its a shambles!! Why is Inzi banned from one day cricket when surely it should be from Test Matches as the offence took place during a test match.
The ICC on both counts has just continued the farce, they have failed to back the umpires who they employ. Now will any action be takenagainst Hair?? It won't offically but will he ever stand again i'm not so sure!!!
Inzi and Pakistan will see this as victory for them and in the media it will portrayed as victory. It is not a victory though for them Inzi is guilty and there is no greater crime than refusing to play this great game!!!
This issue will run and run...
Complain about this postBowlers should be able to do as much as possible to repair damage to a ball, if they wish, but not to artificially change it's condition to accelerate its wear and tear, or change it materially. If this were the rule then seam picking (ie repairing the seam) would be acceptable, as is shining the ball. Accelerating the wear on a ball by rubbing it in dirt or sweat, would not.
Complain about this postIt's always easier if umpires and refs are able to make decisions basede on fact, rather than their opinion.
it's all very well that Inzy has been cleared of cheating BUT what about Hair? Did he not bring the game into disrepute by asking for money so that he could retire and the ICC (Cowie, in particular) for releasing the e-mail to media? Hair's gotten away with it again for very poor umpiring. Double standards are in force, it seems!
Complain about this postNow it is evident Darryl Hair acted in a haste and his allegations were baseless. Should he also be charged on bringing the game into disrepute ? His regret of his decision is also clear from his email to ICC in which he offered to accept 500,000 USD for retirement. Justice is that if players are held responsible for their acts then so should be the umpires
Complain about this postInzi brought the game into disrepute, thats what it has been all about, being charged of 4 ODI's. But what about "Hair bringing Pakistan into disrepute", how much should he be penalised?
Complain about this postI do not agree with Mr Agnew's comment. If A Pakistani umpire made a deceision on suspicion of ball tampering on England's ream in an ashes series which England was to win after 21 years, how will England team will react. I do not beleive that they will not protest because may i qoute 4 english cricketers, Ian Botham, Nasser Hussain, Mike Atherton and Graham thorpe on sky TV agreeing that Inzamam,s act was justifiable of protesting. If you do not beleive me i can send you the copies of video tape of their comments.
thanks
Complain about this postDr KASHIF AHMAD
Clearly the verdict delivered was as well thought out a diplomatic solution as it was a fair judgement. Inzamam's protest was entirely illegal, and Hair acted correctly, in my opinion, by detemining his action to be one of forfeiture. My question is, that in spite of Inzamam being acquitted on the charge of ball tampering, how likely is it that the ball was actually tampered with, given the actual quality of the ball (and disregarding procedural evidence which may have hindered the umpires' case)?
Complain about this postOf course Inzy was going to be cleared of ball tampering charge.Everyone knew there was no evidence of such an action because such as act was not committed at all.Perhaps the umpires had the previous reputation of pakistani bowlers in mind and hastened to give their decision which caused a havoc for pakistan team's future and spoiled the great spirit of cricket.
Complain about this postI was disappointed with the umpiring in the last two test matches between England and Pakistan and have lost all faith in the umpires.
I belive most decisions in the hands of umpires must be supported with technology as the respect for umpires and the game itself is in balance.
Complain about this postIn this day and age there are no excuses not to use technology to empower the sport.
The ICC had the perfect opportunity to show who the boss is and they missed it. Inzamam should have got the maximum pently regarless of what the the outcome of the ball tampering case.
With regards to Daryl Hair let him continue umpiring all be it begrudgingly as technically he did nothing wrong.
Complain about this postOne thing I could never quite understand is the role Bob Woolmer had to play on this. He should have made a stand on the pitch and supported his team on the pitch when the incident happened. It is wrong that Inzy has to take the blame for what must have been a action sanctioned or perhaps even suggested by the head coach/manager.
I also think the remarks on here against Jon Agnew are a little harsh
Complain about this postThis entire episode has brought the wrong sort of worldwide attention to cricket. It is particularly sad for the great game following what was arguably the greatest Ashes series of all time. What I find puzzling is that all the attention has been directed at Darrel Hair, who did not have the sole and ultimate authority to award 5 penalty runs for ball tampering and for ultimately awarding the Test match to England. I would like to know what part the other umpire, Billy Doctrow, played in the decision process. In addition, why has the media circus completely ignored Doctrow's role as one of the protagonists is the saga. The fact that he is on the test match panel clearly demonstrates his ability as an umpire in the top flight and, presumably, his ability to make crucial decisions. Can someone please enlighten me?
Complain about this postWhether right or not, this is the decision that most people expected. ICC always tends to take the safe route out of a situation rather than the right route. If, in fact, Inzi and Pakistan were not guilty of the first charge, then there is no reason to ban him for the second one. The second one would not have happened if the first incidence never took place. Secondly, since he is not guilty on the first charge, where is the punishment for the umpires for creating this mess and initiating the chain of events to follow?
The decision handed down really means the following: If an umpire delivers a wrong verdict (knowlingly or unknowlingly), there is no accountability for them. They can do whatever they want without any fear of bans or loss of income. However, a reaction from a player on that wrong verdict means that he will face all sorts of problems even though he was instigated and did not willingly enter the dispute.
In this case, the main issue that started everything was ball tampering. Inzi and Pakistan were right on that issue and yet Inzi faces a ban. On the other hand, the umpires were wrong and they face no penalities of any sort. Where is the justice in this?
When umpires make the wrong decisions, people always say "umpires are humans". Are players not humans? Can they not make mistakes? And if players have to pay for their mistakes then why do the umpires always go scot-free? Where is the accountability for them?
Complain about this postWhat is more important? The word of the umpire or the integrity of a team and its captain? An umpire must apply the laws of the game, but they can't call a player a cheat and not have proof. Opinion is not enough in matters so grave. Without a team's integrity, there would be no real cricket matches to officiate. Umpires in the end can always be replaced. So Hair has unfortanetly been made the scapegoat. It is the least damaging outcome for the game as a whole.
Complain about this postIt is a sad day for sport when the officials walk themselves into positions like this. Umpires will now think more of the 'game in general' instead of the match they are standing in. This will lead to 'political decisions' instead of straightforward in or out in the match at hand. You can see a time when it is impossible for one team to trounce another because the umpire is worried about being accused of bias. Very sad indeed.
Complain about this post"As is always the case in these incidents, sporting law cannot stand up to the scrutiny of professional lawyers. Ranjan Madugalle chose his words carefully when he said: “On the balance of probability, the ball had not been tampered with.”
Jonathan, this is a disgraceful insinuation.
Ranjan Madugalle also said, and for some reason you have chosen not to quote this passage, "In my judgement the marks are as consistent with normal wear and tear of a match ball after 56 overs as they are with deliberate human intervention."
Inzamam was not acquited on a technicality, he was acquited because his acuser could not provide a shred of evidence to support his accusation.
It may be, " a fundamental principle of all sport that the umpire’s word is final", but it's also a pretty fundamental principle that you're innocent until proven guilty, and in this case not a shred of proof has been provided.
Complain about this postWhy wasn't the ball sent for forensic tests, as the initial hype indicated? What are the unique qualities of Ranjan Madugale, that led to the hearings being delayed to suit his schedule? Aren't there equally, or better qualified individuals, who could have adjudicated?
Complain about this postlots of posters have mentioned how offensive it is for pakistan in general, and their skipper in particular, to be labelled cheats...
fair enough, but the same people are then happy to then bandy about offensive and unproven accusations of their own, accusing darrell hair of being a racist. this charge has also been directed against various ICC officials, and against aggers, which i would consider deeply offensive to someone who has no agenda at all regarding race. if ranjan madugalle was not asian he would also, no doubt, have been accused of being a racist...
this was the least-bad solution, although i think inzy should have received a five-game ban that meant him missing the entire champions trophy... but suggesting this slight increase no doubt makes me a racist?
Complain about this postLike always, Mr Jonathan Agnew's comment, just looking at one side of picture and just ignoring the other half. I think the comments of Dicky Bird on BBC Radio today, probably the most respected umpire in the world, sums up the whole issue by saying that Mr HAIR HAD CONDUCTED THE WHOLE AFFAIR IN HASTE.
Complain about this postI beleive that if Mr Hair had a little pride, he should have resigned from umpiring as i do not see him umpiring in future.
The whole process is completely unreliable and is the biggest cricketing farce in recent history of the game.
The ICC must take a good look at the way the complete issue was handled and how the enquiry was conducted. I would urge them to move quickly and put some "rules and laws" in place to avoid a repeat of this.
No team, cricket board, ICC official or players should be able to stop a match and the punishment for such acts must be severe.
At the same time, the charge of ball-tampering must be proven beyond any doubt by the umpires (all 4 of them) before imposing the penalty of a ball change and 5 runs to the batting team.
But I think this is too logical for the ICC to implement it!!
Complain about this postI think Pak could have officially launched the protest after playing the match and that wouldn't have brought 2nd offense to inzi. Inzi and team got it wrong by protesting during match.
Complain about this postLet us not forget that there were 2 umpires involved in this matter. Although Hair was the senior one, Billy Doctrove also had a say and no one is critising him.
Complain about this postThe idea of going to court is ridiculeous. Can you imagine what the affect of that would mean for umpires in the future if sucessful !!!!
Do we get to read a transcript of the ICC hearing on the ball-tampering case via the Freedom of Information Act?
Complain about this postProving the ball tampering charge was always going to be difficult, but if the umpires really thought it was going on-as they did-the public and players should be satisfied with their judgement. After all they are the experts on the spot, and have a duty to the integrity of the sport to highlight any cheating.
Inzi has got off with a mere slap on the wrist for his absurd reaction not to take to the field twice when asked to do so by the umpires. This ruling sends out a message to all those sportsmen who think there is one rule for them, and one rule for everone else. If you can't play by the rules, you should not play at all!
Complain about this postInzaman was never accused of cheating personally, as has been mentioned on many of the posts here. As the captain of the team he is deemed responsible for the actions of his players and that was the case in this instance as nobody was actually seen tampering with the ball. Yet, in the opinions of the umpires, the ball was tampered with so the responsibility feel were it was due.
It is my understanding that the ball is checked regularily during an innings so any drastic difference in the state of the ball will be noticed. I find it hard to understand how Madugalle made his decision regarding the state of the ball when he was not on the pitch during the match so did not know what condition the ball was in several overs earlier. Politics!
Complain about this posti actually pakistan has lossed this case. the ball tampering allegations led to putting the game in disrepute. if the ball tampering allegation never surfaced then all this would have never occured. saying that inzamam will not be available for the champions trophy which is a huge loss for pakistan. as of this moment pakistan have no finisher.
Complain about this postJonathan Agnew is clearly disappointed by the decision. The umpire here has serious doubts against his integrity. What should have happened, is that the matter should have been dealt with on the day by the match referee.
I dont see how anyone can accept the balatant charge of cheating from a questionable umpire and not react the way that Inzimam did. I was disappointed that Inzi didnt walk off the field there and then when the incident occurred.
How can you just make a decission on your gut instinct when people who have seen the ball, have said openly that the ball was fine with normal wear and tear. Jonathan needs to look at the issue from outside his blinkered world...
Complain about this postThere are two important issues here:
1. Did the Pakistan team 'tamper' with ball?
There is insufficient evidence to suggest that they did, so Inzi (as captain) should NOT even have been charged with this offence.
2. Did the Pakistan team behave appropriately at the time (having been given several warnings that they risked forfeiting the match)?
The sensible option would have been for Inzi to complain to the match referee during the tea interval re his concerns, but to re-take the field having lodged his protest fully & legitimately.
Simply to refuse to resume play was a much worse transgression than the original alleged offence.
As such, the verdict of the ICC is a 'PC' whitewash, but the punishment is also a fudge. The refusal by the Pakistan team to resume play was in a TEST match, not a ODI, so any punishment should be a ban from Test matches.
Unfortunately, this whole episode ( & the clear bias exhibited on this blog from most supporters from Asia) does not bode well for the future of the game.
Complain about this postA number of people here have missed the point.
There is a perfectly fair appeals structure in place in which the aggrieved player or team meets with the match referee at the end of the day's play.
This is what Pakistan should have done on this occasion - they should have issued a statement at tea, absolutely denying the charge of ball tampering, and then got on with the game (which they might have won).
Surely you could never condone refusing to play?
Complain about this postI agree with Johnathan that the umpire's decision has to be final and it was wrong to refuse to play even if for a brief period.
Complain about this postBut one has to wonder whether such a public vindication would ever have come about if the 'protest' had not been made and the real problem with this particular incident was Hair's failure to give a warning or explain the decisions being made when they were on the field - as he was required to.
It's not in cricket's best interests that Darrel Hair is effectively pilloried by the ICC judgement, but this whole sorry affair could have been avoided if Hair had exercised judgement and had a quiet word with Inzy instead of coming out with an accusation of cheating
Complain about this postWhen the lawyers move into the world of cricket or any sport, the lawyers win and sport will be the losers.
There is no such thing as a win win situation.
The ICC now need to take on board the ruling a create a formal rule TO BE ACCEPTED BY ALL MEMBERS that the umpire's decision will be FINAL.
Complain about this postIn return, the ICC need to restate exactly what their umpires responsibilities are to avoid any future doubt and to avoid seeing the lawyers again.
The whole affair has been a shambles from start to finish.
What is clear from today is that the ball was obviously in a reasonable state for the amount of overs bowled with it.
This leaves 2 choices, either Hair was incompatent in his decision making or biased. Both are quite obviously unacceptable.
Inzy's actions were wrong though on not continuing to play. I fully understand his frustration but above all the paying customers that day both at the Oval & watching on TV should have been watching a test match not an empty ground.
1 final thought, what of Billy Doctrove. did he agree with Hair or was he railroaded by a more experienced & senior colleague. The fact he umpired in the one day series suggests the latter.
Hair's postion as a top rate umpire is more or less untenable now.
Complain about this postThe umpires decision is final in all instances except when he accuses the opposition of cheating, with no visual confirmation of the act. The umpire is forgiven for mistakes when he is making decisions without the benefit of replays and has had only one, split-second look at the event (a faint nick, lbw's, etc.). However, in this particular case, he and the referee could have decided to review the issue after the close of play (just like some alternatives offered w.r.to Inzy's course of action). There was poor judgement on both sides, and there is no reason why Hair should be let off given Inzy's four game ban.
Complain about this postDear Respected Mr Johnson,
If you want to watch the game of cricket, then please watch the game (Pakistan and India are not that bad).
If you only prefer to watch Darrel Hair umpiring, then no one bothers whether you watch or not.
05:21 PM on 28 Sep 2006, alan johnston wrote: I Fully support Darrell hair how could any umpire make a decision against cheating now i have watch cricket for fifty years but would never go and watch Pakistan or India play again
Complain about this postthis is a bad decision for cricket and sport in general. the umpires decision is final any lover of cricket will tell you that! could flintoff walk away from an ashes game because he didnt like an lbw decision? or what about a disputed penalty in football? could we see alex ferguson selecting referees? the ICC has had the opprtunity to stamp its authority on the situation and instead of backing both umpires to the hilt they have wilted in the face of politics. handing out the minimum fine so he misses a nothing tournament is a joke - no punishment at all. this not justice for all the paying fans inside the ground is it?
Complain about this post"It is simply unforgivable for any sportsman to refuse to play because he objects to a decision."
Complain about this postThis is the key to whole thing - if Inzy feels he can challenge this main pillar on which our game if based, then he has another thing coming.
The decision was made by two umpires, one white, one black. Both with good reputations around the world for getting it right more than they get it wrong. For the majority of contributions from Asian's (I base this on names given) to suggest a rascist agenda is simply a one eyed and insular view.
Darrel hairs response to this whole thing today under the scrutiny of the world's press has been excellent - he's behaved like a real gentleman.
Great piece. There is an underlying issue here that has been avoided in a number of the press pieces.
The underlying principle is that the umpiring process should be final. We have third and fourth umpires becasue the game is just too dofficult to manage in real time, all the time on the field. For issues of ball tampering it shuld always go to the thrid and fourth umpires for approval before the two on the field draw their conclusions. This is an incredibly serious charge and should be properly examined prior to making the call. The ICC should immediately change the system so that the ensuing defendants reaction can be tempered. What harm would a ten minutre (all umpire officals on the ground) conference do?
Complain about this postI think the fact that two neutral umpires at the time had the view that the ball had been tampered with, should carry more weight than for example (an LBW decision) when one umpire makes a decision. Maybe they'll have to involve the match referee in future at an early stage. But on this occassion we are being told they must prove that the ball was tampered with, simply because one side doesn't like the decision. Should we also ask them to prove a batsmen was out when they make a decision?.
I agree with Jonathan that it's a sad day for cricket when we start scruitinising the umpires decisions to this degree. Let's not start going down the route of professional football where players charge up the referee forcing them to back-peddle when they don't like a decision. Let the umpires run the game.
Everybody knows that ball tampering has always gone on, but it looks like the laws are going to have to be tightened up because if push comes to shove the ICC will cave in. Who on earth will now award penalty runs on this issue? even if it's blatant cheating, they may have to prove it, in front of lawyers.
In my opinion Inzamam messed-up big time, when he decided not to continue with the match, Pakistan were in a good position with a chance of winning, instead they've forfeited a test match, and dragged cricket through the dirt. They could instead of accepted the decision and got on with trying to win the game.
The whole issue has done one thing and that's drawn attention away from the fact that Inzamam led a very talented side to heavy defeats after being in positions of strength on several occassions. If Pakistan have any sense they'll find a new captain soon, as he's not doing this side of the job well despite being a very talented cricketer. Pride comes before a fall.
Complain about this postI disagree with the writer's conclusion. Umpires like players are susceptible to mistakes. Darrel Hair made one by making a hasty decision without explaining any tampering evidence he might have seen to Inzi. Accepting mistakes does not cause 'anarchy'.
Complain about this postIt's a terrible decision, because it takes the regulation of the game another step farther from the umpires and into the laps of the lawyers. Madugalle says his "hunch" is that concrete proof will be required to enforce Rule 42. Well, in exercising his hunches rather than providing an intellectual lead, he has opened a door through which, to take a reductio ad absurdum, star batsmen will be able to ferry in their star lawyers to challenge lbw decisions on the grounds of loss of prestige and thereby earnings. If the umpire's word is not final, you might as well wrap the game up and go home, because it isn't a sport among gentlemen any more, it's a soap opera for lawyers and other moneymakers.
Complain about this postHi,
Jonathan Agnew writes that India has refused to play in matches umpired by Hair. The BCCI have said that Hair will not umpire in the ICC champions trophy. Can Mr Agnew tell us when has India officially said that they will not play if Hair officiates???
Mr Agnew has made assumptions again based on his prejudice that Asian teams "stick together" and India will force changes in the ICC because of their financial muscle in the cricket world.
Just for the record who had veto rights in the ICC until recently???
Complain about this postNow that the situation has reversed its not very nice for England and Australia, is it??
No one is disputing the authority of the umpire but the fact that when a sportperson's integrity is called into question , a sense of injustice, anguish and terrible hurt is bound to be ignited in him/her. As a former cricketer, iam sure Mr.Agnew understands these sort of situations.
Complain about this postMr. Haq has been penalised for not agreeing to resume play. Has Mr. Hair been penalised for his deemed-incorrect ball-tampering charge and what about his subsequent demand for a hefty amount from ICC ,in lieu of retiring in the aftermath of this incident . Why has this issue been conveniently swept under the carpet? Now ,where does Mr.Hair's integrity stand?
Anyway. these issues are conveniently forgotten as is when a certain Mr.Pointing
gets away with animatedly objecting to an umpire's decision whereas another national captain, in a same situation, is slapped with a ban.
All these reeks of double standards and these have to addresed first before we can come to the subject of knocking down an umpire's authority.
Mr Agnew has unfortunately selectively quoted Mr Madugale. This is the remainder of the quote.
"In my judgement the marks are as consistent with normal wear and tear of a match ball after 56 overs as they are with deliberate human intervention."
In layman terms I read this as: the ball was 56 overs old and looked like a normal ball of that age - there was nothing unusual to suggest tampering.
So, Mr Agnew, stop making mischief by suggesting something else. Mr Madugale also took into account expert assessments from the likes of Geofffery Boycott, who does know a thing or two about cricket.
Complain about this postTo ICC, Jonathan Agnew & all others, who said that Inzimam brought the game disrepute, answer only one question, with reference to Gohar Khan
When
Keith Fletcher Vs Australia
Mike Gatting Vs Pakistan
Steve Waugh Vs Pakistan
Steve Waugh Vs West Indies
took their teams out of ground? Why there were no charged been imposed to them?
Complain about this postSome of your correspondents seem to have missed the point: the allegation of ball tampering was found to be 'not proven'. Emphatically, this is not the same as saying categorically that no ball-tampering took place. Undoubtedly Darrell Hair believed in his decision, but occasionally even the best referees make mistakes. Cricketers used to acknowledge the occasional fallibilty of umpires, but at the same time accept that the word of the umpire was final.
Complain about this postAlas, cricket is becoming the latest sport to be ruined by 'big money'. Let's get away from 'third umpires', 'video evidence' and so on, and revert to the sport that gave us the phrase 'It's not cricket, old man'!
The decision of umpire this time was not the routine application of the laws of the game. No sport in the world can be played when the integrity of the players is in doubt. The fundamental principle of all sport that the umpire’s word is final does not apply in this situation. It was a situation where the playing and winning were immaterial. It was above usual crib of bad /baised umpiring altering the result of the game.
Complain about this postI don't know how Mr. Agnew would react if he is called a Liar and a cheat live in front of millions of viewers. But I am sure that being a proud English man, it would not be posssible for him to continue Normally as if nothing has happened because he is 'supposed' to respect the person who has called him Liar! I would suggest to the author to see the recording of the match on the fourth day at the tea interval and listen to what would Botham, Nasser Hussain and Gower would have done under the similar cicumstances.
I love journalists:
Complain about this post“As is always the case in these incidents, sporting law cannot stand up to the scrutiny of professional lawyers.
Ranjan Madugalle chose his words carefully when he said: On the balance of probability, the ball had not been tampered with.”
In other words Jonathan Agnew thinks the ball was tampered with but doesn’t want to say it outright.
In fact there were quite a few cricketing experts there apart from lawyers.
The verdict was: "In my judgement the marks are as consistent with normal wear and tear of a match ball after 56 overs as they are with deliberate human intervention."
I find this amazing. What it means as far as I can see is that there was no difference in appearance between this ball and one that had been used normally.
So surely the umpires (both of them) should be answering the question as to how they decided that there was no doubt as to its having been tampered with.
That’s where cricket was really brought into disrepute.
It still seems a bit of a whitewash to me. Saving face for everybody, instead of identifying what actually happened. How many people have seen the ball? Has Jonathan Agnew seen it, and would he give his opinion? What made the umpires decide it had been tampered with? We still don't know.
I haven't seen any report that says Darrel Hair decided that such and such a mark on the ball gave him the impression that someone had tampered with it, but surely, that's what it should have been about.
The umpires might have been wrong, but their decision making process does not seem to have been examined; or if it has, the results have not been made public.
The enquiry seems to me to have been more about keeping the peace than looking for the truth, and why we have to get lawyers involved in something like this I can't imagine. We're not talking about crime, here, we're talking about the values of sport. Let's keep it within the sport, please.
Martin
Complain about this postI wonder what would have been Mr. Agnew's verdict if England were to be in Pakistan's place?. Not so long ago England was using the reverse swing to great effect.
Complain about this postok Darrel Hair will not umpire in India then change the rules for this ashes series and let him Umpire . He is one of the the best Let the ICC give the confidence back to the Umpires
Complain about this postWell i am surprised at Mr Agnew's comments.He has the guts to still take side with Mr Hair who by all accounts have been proven wrong.Yes i agree that the game is moving towards anarchy but not because of Pak teams action but due to the biased umpires and their sympathetic journalists.
Complain about this postThose who suggest that Pak should have cont to play and later on react r not realistic in their approach.Nothing is more important than ones honour and integrity and it was the same at stake for Pak team and they did the right thing.Who would have bothered to hold an inquiry after the game.however the Test would have been remembered as "The Test where Pak won by cheating".We the Pakistanis are crazy about cricket and love to see our team win but in these circumstances who gives a damn about winning a match.What Inzi and the boys did was absolutely right and the whole nation supports them and r proud of them.
Those who suggest in these posts that we the Pakistanis r being emotional r damn right as we r and r proud of it because nothing wrong was committed by us. None of our player was caught on TV throwing sand out of his pockets(rings some bells).
Let me also make it clear that had any Pak player caught doing wrong things,we would have been the first one to hang him as he would have bought our beloved game and country in disrepute.But thiswasnt the case.remember Shahid afridi doing a stupid and silly thing during India -Pak series and inspite of our fascination from the BOOM BOOM man ,the entire nation was aghast and called for his head.
Last but not the least,common sense Mr Speed is that as Inzi has been held responsible for his action so should be Mr hair but then it is asking for too much.
"In my judgement the marks are as consistent with normal wear and tear of a match ball after 56 overs as they are with deliberate human intervention."
I have read the above the sentence about ten times now, and still can't get it to make sense. How can the condition of a ball be consistent with the normal condition of a ball, and be consistent with one that has had human intervention?.
Reading the report, it seems to read "I have considered all the evidence from the parties involved, completely ignored it, and given the result that ICC required.
If anyone should be on a disrepute change, it is the ICC.
Complain about this postI think that the lawyers getting involved was inevitable and so was the outcome. Hair did not accuse the Pakistan team of cheating hew said that IN HIS OPINION he thought that they'd tampered with the ball and so awarded 5 runs to the opposing team and a fresh ball to be used. In his role as umpire, his is perfectly within his rights to say and do so and the ICC should have backed him - regardless of whether the Paksitan team had tampered with the ball or not.
I think that the rules are now laid bare for all to cheat because proof is very difficult in these situations so no umpire will ever call anyone for ball tampering.
I think the only thing that is clear to come out of this is that cricket's governing body needs to be independent - not in the pocket of the squeekiest wheels.
Complain about this postI wholeheartedly agree with the decision today by the ICC. The ball tampering allegation was a flimsy allegation at best and the minimum four game ban for bringing the game into disreputre was absolutely appropriate. No 'cheating' had actually taken place, although of course Imzaman was wrong to not continue the 4th test at The Oval. No excuse can be made for refusing to play in front of spectators paying in excess of £40 a ticket for a days cricket. I would expect Pakistan to feel they have 'won' and the cricket world to quickly forget the whole incident as quickly as it happened.
Complain about this postWhat about his demand for half an million US dollars ? Are we going to forget that ?
Complain about this postFinally some closure on an ugly incident which has hung over the game for too long. Are Pakistan vindicated? Yes certainly, there was never any evidence of ball tampering and I am extremely pleased that they have been cleared! However Inzamam can have no cause for complaint. Refusing to take the pitch after two requests is simply not acceptable or professional, and actually constitutes very juvenile behaviour in any sport!
Complain about this postJonathan Agnew says the umpires word is final and must be respected. In the normal course of events I would agree but if you accuse me of cheating then I disagree. My reputation (and that of INZAMAM) is more important. You cannot accuse one of cheating without proof especially as JA would immediately have written about how awful it was that the Pakistan team could not be trusted, if they had not protested strongly and at once. Look at the case of Marion Jones and how the Press treated that case although she was ultimately found not guilty, maybe not JA but certainly his Press colleagues. This is not like an LBW. or a catch behind the wicket where there can always be room for legitimate contorversy.
Complain about this postNo real surprises with the outcome of this investigation. Well done to Inzi for pulling through (albeit with a four game ban). Why are the umpires as a unit not being scrutinised for their actions, surely if we want to move forward and to ensure nothing of this sort is allowed to happen again then we need to learn from the mistakes which took place.
Sure, it wasn't the best decision for the team to refuse to play but equally could the umpires not have handled the situation in a more sensitive manner. Would the umpires' reaction to the changing condition of the ball have been different if it was a different team being accused (clearly this raises the issue of prejudice and favouritism).
This and many other scenarios need to be explored and investigated so that the reputation of the game is not put at risk.
Complain about this postPunished twice for the same crime?
As a sign of protest, Pakistan captain decided not to bring his team to the field after team. He and his team were penalized by forfeiting the match. The Pakistan team has already been punished.
Why is the captain being banned for 4 matches for the same crime? He and his team have already been punished.
Thanks,
Complain about this postPranav.
Jonathan Agnew's comment that it is a fundamental principle of all sport that the umpire's word is final, is all very well, but which other sport allows its umpires or referees to be judge and jury and brand a player a cheat in front of a full house and millions of TV viewers. Moreover which player with any self respect is going to accept being branded a cheat in such circumstances and with no evidence other than someones opinion. The fact of the matter is the ICC have got this rule completely wrong. Indeed what should happen if for whatever reason the umpires are not happy with the ball is simply change it without any fuss or grandstanding.
Complain about this postI'm very dissapointed with Jon Agnew version of events.Why oh why does he find it so difficult to say that Inzamam has been found not guilty.Three former cricketers and the icc chief ref examined the ball and were of the opinion that there was nothing wrong with it,and no proof has ever been provided by Hair and his sidekick for instance they saw this or that player do something to the ball at such a time.
Complain about this postWhat is the point of on-field umpires nowadays anyway in professional matches?
They failed to prevent repeated intimidatory short-pitched bowling in the 1970s (despite having power under the laws to do so) so now all batsmen have to wear a variety of protective garb that makes them unrecognisable to the spectator.
They do nothing to deter 'sledging'; before light-meters they would take teams off the field of play in light which was perfectly good enough for play (despite the interests of the paying public); they defer to the third umpire for all but the most obvious run-outs and stumping decisions; they frequently miss no-balls; and technology has shown that they make numerous errors with regard to decisions on catches and LBWs.
They have already ensured that they exist only to count to six and to make the decision as to whether one more over can be fitted in before tea is taken.
The ICC decision does not move cricket further towards anarchy. What it does do is move the sport a little bit closer to the abolition of on-field umpires.
Complain about this postFascinating comment by Madugalle, "In my judgement the marks are as consistent with nomal wear & tear of a match ball after 56 overs as they are with human intervention". In other words it could be viewed either way, therefore neither side are wrong. A very political decision heavily influenced by legal representations. So therefore we still don`t know whether there was or wasn`t ball tampering.
Complain about this postAs far as the disrepute charge, the suspension is a joke, four one day matches is pathetically weak for what happened.I trust the ICC will make sure that all test sides are aware of an appeal procedure & the consequences of a failure to keep to it.If flouting the Umpires authority is only worth the minimum ban, how would anyone get a longer ban ?
Today the ICC have laid down the marker. Well done boys. How soon now before a player is asked to explain why he refuses to walk after being adjudged to be out - and wins the case. Cricket 0 - Lawyers (as ever) 1.
Complain about this postThis is really a victory for Pakistan team.This really shows that pakistani guys were innocent.
Inzamam's bold step at that time,has shown ,if your are inside the batting crease no umpire in the world can give you run out
Complain about this postTo my knowledge India never said that it would refuse to play if Darrel Hair is the I.C.C. appointed umpire? Pakistan, yes, would probably have refused to participate in the champion's trophy. India objected to Hair as it would complicate running the tournament because at least two major participating countries do not like him for reasons of their own. If India's failing in this respect,i.e., the authority of the umpire is based on the S.A. incident involving Denis(?), it should be understood that the Umpire should be impartial and competent. It is possibly not a great piece of journalism to always project the two together as parteners in the crime or wrongdoing, whatever it be! They are, of course, the two powerful members of the Asian block but have different cricketing institutions , different administrative approaches to deal with a problem , even different reputations in the matters of discipline. If the author who is pretty well-known in cricketing circles knew Dravid and Tendulkar well, he would think twice before writing his column for the bbc the way he did.
Complain about this postDear Jonathan,
Can you please clarify the following comment in your article?
"Already India and Pakistan have said that they will not play in matches in which he is an umpire."
Has India made the call for all tournaments or just for the Champions Trophy?
I don't seem to recall BCCI making any statement which says that India will not play in games that are umpired by Darell Hair. On the contrary, BCCI never sided with anyone when the Oval controversy arose. I believe even the current statement that the BCCI has made very clearly states that they don't want Darell Hair to umpire in the Champions Trophy because of the controversy - which I believe (in true earnest) is primarily due to security and monetary concerns. I like to believe that BCCI took the current stance because they would have wanted Pakistan to tour India - believe me, Pakistan is a very popular team in India - not just when they play against India, even when they are playing neutral games.
Your input is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Complain about this postDhaval Brahmbhatt
I think there should have been some form of understanding towards the Pakistani team. I admit that Inzamam didnt take to the field, but if you look at the situation agian, this happened becuase of a host of misunderstandings.
Everyone knows that Inzamam is not the best when it comes to understanding the rules of the game and at times needs someone else to explain to him what went on. He's not the only one who was to blame regarding this matter, infact it was a team decision.
As for the governing body they should really look at the way teams from the subcontinant are treated. They feel there is some form of bias against them. This may or may not be true, but the fact that they feel this way is not healthy for the game, especially as most of the cricketing audience comes from that region.
I guess the ICC have tried to keep both sides happy without this situation getting out of control, however the fact remains that some will feel that all is not right in cricket at the moment
Complain about this postBoth Inzamam and umpire Hair have come out of this ball tampering incident without any credit whatsoever. They both forgot about the public watching the match, the supporters who love the game. The correct decision has been made at the hearing.
The ICC now need to look again at the ball tampering law and the umpires' roll in deducting 5 runs during the match. Never again should a test match be abandoned in this way.
Complain about this postSound sense, Jonathan, yes. But tell me though, please - and this is the big issue. What do we do when the umpires get it wrong?
Complain about this postAnd I quote from Mr Agnew blog "He is fallible, but without that respect, anarchy rules. As these events prove, we have moved closer in that direction."
Umpair Hair has brought this unto himself and it would not have gone that direction if he used some comman sense that day, which he failed to do this whole thing would not have come up.
For you Mr Agnew to side with umpire Darrell Hair and say that this game is going towards anarchy or suggest that it is going that direction, is totally unjustified and biased.
Complain about this postNo wonder when sub continent teams play in outside the region they come across such biased comment
"In my judgement the marks are as consistent with normal wear and tear of a match ball after 56 overs as they are with deliberate human intervention."
In other words, this is not a vindication for anyone — it is a simple statement that, based only on the condition of the ball after play, and without access to its condition one over, two overs, three overs before, it was impossible to determine whether the condition of the ball was a result of tampering or normal play.
Therefore, there was insufficient evidence to impose a further penalty on Inzamam, but also no evidence to demonstrate that the original penalty was incorrectly applied.
“On the balance of probability, the ball had not been tampered with.”
This is a magnanimous statement, but it is not a statement that the ICC finds Hair to have been at a fault.
Complain about this postI am slightly puzzled why so many of the posters feel umpire Hair was accusing the entire Pakistani nation of cheating. He was accusing the country's cricket team which is an entirey different matter. I certainly didn't feel the red card against Wayne Rooney in the World Cup was particularly directed against me as an Englishman, what I did feel was that he got what he deserved. Certain Asian cricketing nations complain of bias against them but it's hardly a sign of maturity when they start playing the race card or implying that umpires are picking on an entire nation. And let's face it some members of the Pakistani team are hardly whiter than white. Remember Afridi's Come Dancing impression on the wicket? Grow up guys and accept that refusing to play is simply not acceptable and shake that chip off your shoulders!
Complain about this postNo one really knows whether there was ball-tampering or not although Madugalle's conclusion is quite reasonable and should be accepted by all parties and cricket fans.
It is also reasonable to accept that Darrell Hair acted in good faith even though he may have been wrong (we will never know); unfortunately not everyone will accept this.
What is beyond question is that the Pakistan captain and his team acted in contempt of the cricket public, paying and otherwise, as well as the laws of the game by refusing to take the field. They have been found guilty and talk of 'victory' after Inzaman received the minimum punishment smacks of further contempt.
No one won here; the cricket public certainly lost. no one has mentioned that much lately but it is worth remembering next time you travel to watch a test match having paid a large amount for your ticket, that one of the teams might decide not to play because they disagree with an umpire's decision.
Complain about this postI read your first article when this incident happend. Sadly, I don't agree with you. The sports is about being fair and square, and if someone feels that the game rulers are not doing their job properly then such acts should happen. Life is all abut learning from mistakes. I hope this act of Inzamam will remid everyone that no one should be put on sword without proper evidence.
Complain about this postDear Jonathan,
Complain about this postyou say -
1.-It is the fundamental principle of all sport that the umpire’s word is final-.
Then you must agree that all parties involved must respect decision taken by
senior match referee Ranjan Madugalle too.
2.-Madugalle chose his words carefully -.
Yes,he must, he is not a jounalist.Its clear to everyone that you pick up only part of his decision which suit to you !
ITS EASY TO CRITISIZE ONES DECISION,HOW YOU WILL DECIDE Mr.Jonathan?
How oftn does the ball get checked during a test match? I just wonder whether thre can be a regular check of the match ball every 15 overs. This could easily be achieved during drinks breaks and lunch / tea breaks. This might already be the case but if not it might create better system for monitoring the wear of a ball. It also might deter any player thinking of tampering a ball if they know it is going to be checked regularly.
Complain about this postI believe the ball-tampering charge was the main issue and Pakistan team's vidication in this regard was important, and should have been BBC's headline instead of "Inzi guilty of disreputing cricket"...it smells fishy just as were Hair's decisions at the Oval test.
Complain about this postI am abit shocked that the icc still keep on backing Mr Hair.
Surely if a Player (ie inzi) was to ask for a sum of money to resing, they would be world war 3.
The icc say he was under stress if thats the case hes not fit to stand in a game.
Complain about this postSo the losers are clearly the innocent public /fans / SkyTV / ECB. Approx 50,000 Manhours wasted by the crowd waiting for a resolution. Plus in my case an additional 1/2 day's leave lost due to the very late announcement on the night.
OK I got a cheque today for about £15 as my refund. But someone paid for that....and guiess what it wasn't the guilty party - whoever that was.
Complain about this postAnarchy is proved to succeed - in what would have been a meaningless Test.
Inzamam was rightly punished for walking off the field in a test match as you suggest, but what about those who interrupted it in the first place and did not allow it to continue based on his own incorrect thinking?
Darrell Hair is not the only one who took incorrect decisions then and through nearly every match he has stood in - line-decisions, close catches or LBW's - Billy Doctrove is equally culpable for many many mediocre decisions.
ICC should maintain a respectable standard of umpiring and for that they must employ umpires with better stats as regards decisons.
Complain about this postAs always, Jonathan Agnew's comments are very much to the point and extremely helpful to those who, like myself, did not actually witness the "incident".
I would add that if India and Pakistan do indeed gather enough support to ban any particular umpire, then it is THEY who ought to be banned from the competition in question. The ICC is sovereign but, should they be overruled, the whole future of international cricket will inevitably be thrown into question.
If that is what India and Pakistan want then that is what they will get, plus the probable consequences, i.e. a split between the present set of cricket playing countries on, it is to be feared, an ethnic basis.
Complain about this postI think Cricket gives too much importance to the umpire. I agree that he is important but people like Hair and Bucknor should realize that Cricket is what it is (popular and a religion in Ind and Pak) because of the players and not because of umpires. No one cares about the umpires until they screw up. Then it gets unpleasent. The argument that they get it correct 96% of the time just does not cut it especially these days we know the 4 % of the time they mess it up in less than a minute.
Complain about this postHence the best way forward will be to ask the 3rd umpire and match refree to intervene each time the umpire makes a wrong call. The 3rd umpire can call the umpire on his hand set and ask him to reverse his wrong decision immediately. If it causes a delay of 3 mins, so be it. Besides the delay should not occur for more than 5% of the time since that is when the umpires will need to reverse their decision.
Just because the laws of cricket was written 100 years ago it does not mean that it should not be changed. At the time when it was written, the umpires decision was final. This was because he was the only nuetral closest to the action and hence the best judge. that is ot the case anymore.
Most aspects of the game has undergone a sea of change and it is time to change the attitude of acceptance that 96% of time the umpires are correct. How about making it 100% of time and let the 22 men that count, influence the outcome of the match.
Cricket a game of glorious uncertainities, will remain so even after removing the uncertainilty over umpiring.
It will still make cricket cumpulsive viewing.
The saddest thing for me was watching my team being booed when coming out on to the pitch. This continued during the subsequent ODI's. Having to watch every move you make in case 21 cameras trained on pick up something must have been painful for the team. For this Mr. Hair has a lot to answer for. The umpires decision should be final however for that the umpire has to be fair and neutral, both of which does not apply to Daryl Hair.
Complain about this postIt is sad to read such over exageration and see such phrases like "anarchy". I do believe that any complaint in any walk of life should be channelled through available means and in this instance the "protest" was not appropriate. However, I have been a keen follower of cricket all my life and i have to say that the conduct of Mr Hair as an umpire whilst officiating in games involving Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka is somewhat more questionable then simply putting his decisions down to his human fallibilites.
There seems little balance in what is being written. The problems with Mr Hair are well documented and did not originate from this incident. I do understand the frustrations of the Pakistani team. They may well argue that they had on previous ocassions chanelled their complaints through the proper channels and as these were largely ignored then this was their only recourse.
The above column leaves in no doubt what the personal beliefs of Mr Agnew are but I would take the opportunity of reminding Mr Agnew that the experts used by Defence on the ball tampering charge were all "expert" cricketers and I assume Mr Hampshire was also "meticulously" trained to spot whether a ball was tampered with or not.
I wonder how many people adopt the same view that the "umpires decision is final" in this instance, yet perhaps didn't hold the same belief when the incident with Mr Shakoor Rana and Mr Gatting occured. I would also question whether Mr Agnew then fel that "anarchy" had decended?
Complain about this postI think Mr agnew gives readers a rather skewed analysis. What in particular is of note is the match referee's final comment that should something like this happen again, the umpires should engage the players and work towards the resumption of play. It was the high handedness of mr hair and the haste withwhich he ended the game which denied the spectators any chance of further play. I love bbc sport, so please mr agnew present a fair view.
Complain about this postIt seems to me that there are three overarching issues at stake
1. Potential racism in cricket
This does not just apply to anti-Pakistani bias - take the example of Australian supporters shouting abuse at South Africa recently.
2. Political bias in assessment of the outcome.
There are some people who believe that sport can never be tainted by association to politics because it is somehow nobler and purer than real life. This is a fallacy. Breaking apartheid bans in South Africa, recent goodwill matches between India and Pakistan and problems over playing ODIs in Zimababwe prove that cricket, in particular, is enmeshed and intertwined intricately with politics. Therefore, it is clear that political biases will enter into judgements of the outcome of Inzy's case.
I think it is a gross over-simplification to state that Darrell Hair's erroneous decision was a slur against the whole nation of Pakistan. I believe it is much simpler to see this as the personal prejudices of one man and the lack of diplomacy of another. The former is a more serious charge than the latter. Personal politics, if you will.
3. Rules, rules, rules.
There is a lot of twisted logic going on above. The distinction of this case over, say, a referee wrongly awarding a penalty in a football match or an LBW decision being contested is that in these types of cases the integrity of the official's decision is being called into question by the players or fans. However, in Inzy's case the integrity of the (unnamed) Pakistani players was being called into question by the umpire. Completely different logic. The correct process, as people above have alluded to, would have involved a specific player being named. By not naming a player it was inevitable that the team would make a collective decision. But this does not mean that each and every citizen of a proud country is also labelled a cheat.
Complain about this postI glad that he was cleared of ball tampering, but
the decision is pathetic and he should have had a longer ban for the un-professional way he acted.
Imran Khan's comments tonight, saying that he should, or could take Darrell Hair to court and sue, and should seek an apology, if necessary through the courts is ridiculous. If this happens who would want to umpire any game knowing that they could end up going the same way
Complain about this postI am pretty surprised that JA conveniently quotes Mr Madugalle halfway painting the ball tampering decision as a whitewash.I would like to know what was Mr Doctroves testimony?Anyway the question of anarchy is rightly bought up by JA.But there is a big difference between
Complain about this posta bad decision and being labelled a cheat.All of us have played sports and there is no doubt that anyones blood would boil on being called a cheat especially in front of a huge audience.The problem is the cricket laws are rubbish and tactless for ball tampering.Inzy is rightfully punished for refusing to play.I do think Mr Hair also deserves the same(bringing the game into disrepute) for acting in haste while forfeiting the match(in accordance with law) when he could have used some common sense and avoided this farce.
So the Pakistan captain can`t cope with critism and threw his toys out of the pram, grow up the umpires{plural}decision is FINALdelboy
Complain about this postI just think this whole thing is a joke. Why would any umpire make a hard decision out in the middle when they risk being accused of racism. Umpire Hair is a scape goat because the ICC is too weak to stand up to the powerful Asian cricket lobby. And all because on two occasions he's had the guts to call things as he sees it. In Australia, the umpire's decision is to be respected at all times. You don't go crying to officials because things don't go your way. The Pakistan team acted like a bunch of children and now they're running around trying to tell everyone they've been proven right. And they'll take their bat and go home if they don't get an umpire they aprove of. That's the same attitude that caused their team to stage a sit-in. The game is bigger than any country or individual yet it's integrity has again been undermined by this very soft decision.
Complain about this postJonathan Agnew wrote in one of his comments as a follow-up to the article and he said:
"A number of people here have missed the point.
There is a perfectly fair appeals structure in place in which the aggrieved player or team meets with the match referee at the end of the day's play.
This is what Pakistan should have done on this occasion - they should have issued a statement at tea, absolutely denying the charge of ball tampering, and then got on with the game (which they might have won).
Surely you could never condone refusing to play?"
Well, Mr. Agnew, the Pakistan board, team, management and players have suffered at the hands of Mr. Hair for a long time. There are many instances that can be quoted and no they were not honest mistakes. Each time Pakistan has politely told the ICC by following your so-called "fair appeals structure" about the situation who have simply IGNORED us.
I believe if Inzi and Pakistan had not staged a sit-in at the Oval, this case would have been brushed under the carpet too and Mr. Hair allowed to continue his incompetence on the cricket field. At least this way a statement has been made and people know we are serious.
While I am not happy at losing the test match, I am proud of what our team did. It is about time that the umpires be accountable too. And anybody saying that Hair does NOT have a bias is just blind. You tell me how a high percentage of your "mistakes" can go against one team? If that is not bias then I don't know what is. Besides, an LBW or a caught decision can be a quick mistake. But how can a referral to the third umpire for a run-out when Inzi was avoiding a throw from Harmison be called a mistake. He had enough time to think over what he was doing.
Complain about this postI don't understand the ICC verdict. How can they say that Inzamam did not "cheat" but brought the game to disreput? So what should a person in Inzamam's situation have done at that time?... if he would have continued playing the game after being penalized for ball tampering, you would have said that he was guity of ball tampering and that is why he continued. But Inzamam knew that he was not guity and he chose the right way to protest.
-Rahul from India
Complain about this postIf Inzamam ul Haq can be found guilty for bringing the game into disrepute (for actions that were wholly inspired by Mr Darrel Hair), then shouldn't Darrel Hair face similar direpute charges for NOT resuming the game when the Pakistani team took to the field after making their protest?
Mr Agnew - I just think you are letting your off-field friendship affect your impartiality on this issue.
Should we expect the umpires in the forthcoming Ashes series to keep a close eye on the ball when England start reverse swinging it?
How about we overlook Ricky Ponting abusing the umpires when a decision doesn't go his teams way?
Or are the non sub-continental teams above such suspicion?
Complain about this postJA sounds as if he belongs to another era. Players refuse to walk. they show dissent when they are given out, clearly questioning the decision of an umpire. Little, if anything, is done to address this state of affairs. An umpire makes a decision which is is at best questionable but according to JA must be respected even though the umpire has a history of questionable decisions. "The balance of probability" was the appropriate criterion in this case. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" applies in law to criminal cases. This "ball tampering" was if anything a civil matter. The fact that cricket pompously refers to the "laws" not rules of the game, did not affect the standards of proof applied. Let us move on, preferably without Umpire Hair.
Complain about this postSurely now that Inzamam has been cleared of ball tampering, there is a serious need for the ICC to consider whether the umpire involved has brought the game into disrepute as well. His very actions have been at centre stage here and so Hair must be held accountable as much as any of the players. Though the authority of the umpire is central to the running of the game, he too is not above the laws or above this charge. He also must be held accountable. If not you have an authoritarian dictator running the game and that is what leads to rebellion/anarchy that Jonathan talks about.
Complain about this postWhat people seem to be missing is that it was not found that there was no evidence of ball tampering. It was stated that "the marks are as consistent with normal wear and tear of a match ball after 56 overs as they are with deliberate human intervention". As such it is merely a balance of probabilities issue. Inzy was never going to be found guilty of ball tampering and always going to be found guilty of disrepute. Hopefully Cricket can now get on with playing the game and stop playing politics for a little while at least.
Complain about this postThis is a totally diplomatic decision . It was clear from 1st day what the decision would be. ICC wants umpires to be protected and thats partly right but who can ignore the financial interest Mr hair was interested in . Will there be any hearing for Mr Hair and Mr Doctrive for the wrong decision they made . No , definitely not . Thats what ICC stands for at the moment .
Complain about this postWell Done Mr.Ranjan Madugalle. You did a Wonderful job.
Complain about this post"It is the fundamental principle of all sport that the umpire’s word is final. "
Complain about this postThis law applies to general laws of the game like the test in Headingley where Pakistan got some shockers. Thos you accept and move on. But not one where an umpire labels a whole side cheats especially through just suspicion because he felt the ball should not have been swinging. Mr. Agnew, first check Darrel Hairs previous dealings with Pakistan and then decide as to what point the umpires decision is final.
The Innocent has been found guilty and gets 4 ODI matches ban as punishment
Complain about this postThe guilty has not been charged and might get £500k golden handshake.
This can only happen in England at the Oval under the ICC justice system.
It certainly would not have happened at the Old Bailey under the British justice system.
I think Inzi & the whole Pakistan cricket team should sue D.Hair for defamation/libel for every penny he has got, including his pants.
The fact that D.Hair is supposed to be such a good & experianced umpire, the incident could not have been a mere judgement of error in assesing the condition of the ball and it's probable cause but, I put it to you, a pre-ampted decision. The fact that he did not seriously consult with the other umpire, Billy Doctrove, of his opinion and take that on board before reaching a conclusion leads me to believe that it was pre-ordained.
While it is difficult to condone Inzamam's actions in not taking the field, I for one would have reacted the same way if I was indirectly being called a cheat. Hair has always been controversial especially with cricketers from the sub-continent. This will leave a lot of suspicion on Hair's true motives. It would be extremely difficult for cricketers from the sub-continent to play while he is an umpire in the future and if only for this reason he should be pulled off the Elite Panel.
Complain about this postThe real victor is I think is the sport of cricket.
I am a firm believer of the umpire and no other outside "decision makers" on the field. The game is played for the spirit of the game and friendship where winning or losing is secondry.
BUT this can only work only when the 15 people on the field respect and trust eachother, which did not happen in this instance.
As cricket has evolved in to a "professional sport" for all involved from the ICC to the players, I find , as a professional, it is very important that one leaves openions and moods outside of the boundry line when taking the field. Decisions must be based on facts and not suspisions and openions.
I find it inexcusable and outrageous that one calls another "cheat" without facts.
If umpire Hair could not keep his pride and temper on check while visiting the changing rooms (or in general) I agree with Pakistans 2nd protest as well.
I guess it is called for to analyze if payers trust and respect Mr. Hair on the field.
Complain about this postI cannot believe that the ICC have given up on this ball tampering. Many countries have practised this and it has been swept under the carpets. The Packistanis are key champs of this underplay and the captain should have been banned for life. Unfortunately money and politics play a key role and i for one will refrain from watching this wonderful game reduce to sham. Darren Hair is a hgreat umpire and like all honest men he has played the fall man. The ICC should be ashamed and indeed the Tv channel who chose to ignore the incidences of the tampering although quite obvious.
Complain about this postI agree with aggers in that when proffesional lawyers are involved it would be almost impossible to prove ball tampering or any other on field conduct had occured without video evidence of the incident occuring as with what happened to Mike Atherton a few years ago. I believe Inzy has been made a scapegoat not just by the ICC but the pakistan cricket board for this incident, along with Darrel Hair. But as captain, it would have been Inzamam's responsibility that Pakistan take the feild after tea on the 4th day. As everyone who has played any level of sport can appreciate, an umpires decision should not be undermined, even if the charge is serious or may impact on the course of the game/sporting event. I feel that the Pakistan Team/Cricket board made the wrong choice of protest when both umpires (with Billy Doctrove included along with Darrell Hair here, lest we forget) that the ball had been tampered with. It would be interesting to have made public Bob Woolmers role in this saga.
Complain about this postI think that, for once, the ICC has got it about right. Darryl Hair made a blunder by virtually accusing the Pakistanis of cheating - there was no evidence, apart from the ball. Neither umpire had seen any Pakistani illreating the ball, there was no film - nothing. To claim that umpires are
Complain about this post'meticulously trained to spot ball-tampering' is an exaggeration, in these situations the natural law of the 'equal and opposite expert' comes into play; it would not be difficult to find an expert view diametrically opposed to that of the umpires. The whole thing was Hair's fault he over-reacted. I am even a bit sorry for Inzamam about his ban. It's difficult for the captain in cricket, he is saddled with responsibilities beyond the norm, including man management. He was wrong when he refused to play, but what was the Pakistani management doing? It should have been they who made what was a political decision; and paid for the mistake - not Inzamam.
Darrell Hair brought the game into disrepute; if he had chosen to decide on ball tampering ,on the basis of evidence and not bias, International cricket would have been spared this controversy . The only way out for Darrrell Hair ,is to limit his role in umpiring, to the village green games.
Complain about this postEven though Mr. Hair acted within the legal boundary of the ICC ruling, he could have acted in a more diplomatic way in order to stabilise the situation. Secondly this is not suburban level Cricket; you have to have certain etiquette to make sure the game is played in a true spirit of the game where two of the major cricket playing nations are involved. It was also partly ICC’s fault to have this rule to give an umpire the authority to charge based on assumptions rather than proof.
Complain about this postthis is great News for all Pakistani cricket fans that Inzi cleared from Ball tampering charges. I congratulations Inzi& co . I also demand that ICC should take sum serious action against Dareal hair( he needs a Hair Cut now). Thats very sad not to see any ban on Hair. I condmn ICC not to take any action against stupid umpair accusing sum 1 with no evidense.
Complain about this postWhat many of the posters choose to ignore is the fact that the Pakistani team was not completely exonerated. The ICC merely said that it was more probable that the ball was not tampered with.
There are many examples, sadly mostly well in the past, of cricketers accepting decisions that they felt were wrong, in the interests of good sportsmanship. That's why cricket became a byword for honourable play.
Had Imzamam registered his protest but then led his team back into play, he would have seized the moral high ground, undermined the allegations even further, and set a positive example to cricket fans everywhere.
Instead, he has compounded behaviour that was at least questionable, played the 'racism' card yet again, and it is his side's reputation that has been undermined even further instead.
Complain about this postI am not a legal expert, but I assume the ICC works on the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.
The ICC's verdict was that they simply could not enough evidence either way to say for definite whether the ball had been tampered with or not. Therefore, their only recourse was to rule that the Pakinstanis were NOT guilty of cheating.
But if they were NOT guilty, why has no punishment or condemnation been raised by the ICC against the conduct of the umpires?
Mr.Hair behaved in a completely tactless manner over an incredibly sensitive issue. This, in itself is not a crime -although it is dumb - as he was actually operating within the laws of the game.
But surely he and Billy Docgrove too have brought the game into disrepute by making accusations of cheating that they were clearly unable to substanciate?
Complain about this postI unfortunately do not agree with Jonathan Agnew. Unlike most other decisions, this decision has sensitive repercussions, and hence they must ensure the proof supports the decision. That unfortunately appears to be not the case here.
Hence countries that have consistently been affected by the Hair's decision will oppose his ongoing appointment.
There is no anarchy here, umpires may feel a bit let down.
Anyway I believe, batsmen over the last few years have gained substantially with better protection equipment etc. and rules. Bowlers have had no gains at all, no balls decisions are tougher, LBW decisions benefits always goes to the batsmen...any many other rules..
Hence why not balance the two aspects of the cricket....
Complain about this post