PDA

View Full Version : Pakistan faces ball tampering allegation during 3rd test against England


Miraz
August 20, 2006, 09:33 AM
From cricinfo

The match took an unsavoury twist as the umpires changed the ball midway through the afternoon session after becoming unhappy about how its condition had altered. At the end of the 56th over, bowled by Danish Kaneria, Darrell Hair went over to Billy Doctrove and was seen pointing at the quarter seam. The fourth umpire, Trevor Jesty, then brought out a box of balls and the England batsmen, Kevin Pietersen and Paul Collingwood, were allowed the choose the next one to be used, in accordance with the Laws.
To confirm that this had been the umpires' decision to change the ball five runs were added to England's total. Soon afterwards, Bob Woolmer was seen marching towards the match referee's office before returning to the dressing room where he talked to Waqar Younis.

More from cricinfo (http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/engvpak/content/current/story/257010.html)

England have found their excuse for poor performance in the final test.:)

Miraz
August 20, 2006, 10:49 AM
It's very important for umpires and ICC to back the allegation with proper video evidence, otherwise it will add further fume to Controversal decisions taken in the past against the Asian players by Hair and will be a disgrace for Cricket.

Miraz
August 20, 2006, 11:12 AM
Pakistan refuses to take the field after the controversary.

Mr-Cricket
August 20, 2006, 11:24 AM
Wow, this is getting kinda serious.

Mr-Cricket
August 20, 2006, 11:26 AM
I think they've just agreed to take the field. Doesn't really help their cause mind you. Bad light threatening.

Mr-Cricket
August 20, 2006, 11:27 AM
5.50pm "We are hurt and we are disappointed," says Shahrayar Khan, "and we are registering our complaints through the relevant channels."

He also added this, on Sky: "We have indicated very clearly that we can go out and play, in fact the boys came out and that we want the Test match to continue. We want this issue to be finished and resolved. We want the umpires to come out. We have indicated we are ready to come on to the field and play."

5.45pm No individual has been accused, by the way; Cricinfo have been told by sources inside the Pakistan camp.

5.40pmAt last there's an announcement over the tannoy for the crowds.

Meanwhile, Mike Atherton's opinions on Sky are scathing of Darrell Hair, saying his decision lacks any historical context and that they lacked common sense. "It's bound to inflame things. It would have been best to leave it to the end of the day. He's not a man to back down. He's a stubborn character, a strong character.. so even though Pakistan said they were willing to come back out [after the bails removal/apparent forfeiture] you could imagine him sitting in the dressing room refusing to come out."

5.32pm It gets more bizarre. Pakistan are now walking off as the umpires aren't coming out.

"It sums up the ICC for me," says Nasser Hussain on Sky. "They talk about irrelevant things. You've got a major sporting issue here at The Oval, surely Mike Procter sits down with the main people and says, "Right what's going on?" Do it behind the scenes and get a decision made and this would stop all these ridiculous scenes of players going up and down stairs."

There are press cameraman loitering at the bottom of the steps capturing these extraordinary scenes, and who can blame them. These photos will be making the backpages tomorrow for sure.

Some people aren't hanging around - fed up with the nonsense, spectators are starting to leave.

Andrew McGlashan has just had a call from a friend at the ground who confirms that none of the spectators has been told anything about what is going on.

5.30pm Boos from the crowd as Pakistan take to the field. The crowd haven't been kept informed of what's been happening, but it'sgood that Pakistan are on.

Sky are now reporting an unconfirmed rumour that Darrell Hair is now saying that if Pakistan take the field, he won't.

It's all very sad, and very messy.

5.27pm A ha, the Pakistan team have spoken with Mike Procter, the match referee, and have apparently confirmed that they will take the field. But, oh dear, the light has deteriorated so the England batsmen could take the light if they go back on the field. This is a complete farce of Carry On proportions, but without the humour.

5.25pm In a further surprising twist, the covers are now coming off and that's greeted by a huge cheer. But the stumps have still not been replaced. Whatever it is, it's a mess.

5.20pm Here's what Andrew Miller has for us. "The issue would seem to boil down to evidence. Has Darrell Hair got any proof that the Pakistanis were tampering with the ball? Did he see a specific player scratch at the seam, or did he take a look at a ball that is 55 overs old and draw his own conclusions? As Ian Botham has just said on Sky Sports, it's a matter of honour to the Pakistanis. If Hair has no proof, then they are well within their rights to take this stance." Thanks for that update, Andrew.

5.15pmThe Pakistan officials and David Morgan are now going into the Pakistan dressing room for talks.

5.10pm Kamran Akmal has been called back into the dressing room, presumably for a team meeting, whereas Shoaib Akhtar has left. They're shaking hands on the balcony. David Morgan, the ECB chairman, has just shaken hands with Zaheer Abbas. Now Morgan and Sharayar Khan, the chairman of the PCB, are sitting around to have crisis talks. Stay with us.

5.05pm Still waiting for news, as is everyone else... so bear with us...

5.00pm The bails are coming off now - suggesting the game is over - and the umpires are roundly booed by the crowd. The umpires are walking off as are the batsmen. Have Pakistan forfeited the game? We'll let you know as soon as we've got anything on that. This is a hugely serious situation - and the crowds have no idea what's going on. Stay tuned and we'll bring you the news as it develops.

4.55pm The batsmen are coming out now, to great cheers, but there's no sign of the Pakistan team. Oh, there goes Kamran Akmal, on the balcony, but he just sits down and takes his gloves off. He's making a statement of intent here, picking up his paper and just reading it. Pakistan are clearly not going to take the field now. The only people out on the field are the two batsmen and two umpires. This is most peculiar.

4.50pm Jenny here, while Andrew goes to find out what's going on... nobody seems to know, though, as the Pakistan team have delayed their arrival on to the pitch. We will let you know as soon as we know what the latest situation is, but an extraordinary day is just getting more baffling. The crowd are entertaining themselves with a Mexican wave, in the absence of any entertainment out in the middle. Stay with us.

4.45pm Zaheer Abbas, Pakistan's manager, is talking on his mobile phone on the balcony, but no sign of Inzamam or Bob Woolmer, the Pakistan coach, who was seen before tea striding towards the match referee's office with the rule book in hand.

No doubt about it, we've got a protest in progress here.

4.40pm Now then, this is interesting. The umpires are out there, but the Pakistanis are not coming out of the dressing-room. We could have a bit of an incident here.

The slow-hand claps start to ring out ... but there is nothing doing from the Pakistanis. The England batsmen are ready, and now the umpires are having to troop back indoors.

Inzy was threatening to come out, it would seem, but now they are going deeper back into the bowels of the pavilion. I sense a major incident is about to kick off here.

4.35pm The covers are coming off, and it's looking bright enough for a resumption. And here come the umpires

Tea So the umpires call an early tea as the skies get gloomier... We'll keep you updated as to when play will recommence but meantime everyone will be reflecting on the unexpected events this afternoon. Drop us a line (http://content-eap.cricinfo.com/feedback) to let us know what you think

Miraz
August 20, 2006, 11:29 AM
Pakistan team again went to dressing room as umpires fail to come to the field.

Miraz
August 20, 2006, 11:29 AM
Darrel Hair refuses to come to the field

Watchinng the drama on sky sports.

BangladeshFan
August 20, 2006, 11:44 AM
daryl hair is under fire again.

it will be nice to see, how icc tackles this issue and mr. hair

Mr-Cricket
August 20, 2006, 11:44 AM
Ridiculous.

1. They should be informing spectators of news as it comes to hand.
2. Match Referee & Officials should be more proactive/swift in resolving issues.

Miraz
August 20, 2006, 11:47 AM
This is getting very tense..

Commentators are assuming Hair declared the match over by taking the bells off. In that case England will be winner. Pakistan went to the field under the direction of PCB cheif Shariyar Khan after discussion with ECB chief.

Now, nobody knows what will happen.

Mr-Cricket
August 20, 2006, 11:53 AM
Hair is such a tool.

What is he doing.

Fazal
August 20, 2006, 12:02 PM
If Hair cannot prove any evidence (who did it and when), I hope this will be end of his colorful career. And I am not sad about that prospect which is overdue for a while. :lol:

Miraz
August 20, 2006, 12:02 PM
Play have been called off for today.

Still uncertainity surrounds about the fate of this test.

Banglatiger84
August 20, 2006, 12:20 PM
Hair is a [ ] and at least in thsi case, i am fully supporting the Pakistani team's refusal to return to the field

ialbd
August 20, 2006, 12:29 PM
umpires shud hav returned to the field...

'barabari' from both sides....
________
FORD TH!NK (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_TH!NK)

reverse_swing
August 20, 2006, 12:49 PM
Pakistan has long history of this. But in this case Hair's decision lacks any common sense. It would have been best to leave it to the end of the day as Atherton mentioned.

Hatebreed
August 20, 2006, 12:56 PM
Pakistan does have a history of tampering with the bowl, but I have a feeling it's not the case this time. They were easily in the driving seat in this test and they could win with or without cheating. I wonder if it's an England plot to avoid defeat.

Hatebreed
August 20, 2006, 01:02 PM
5.20pm Here's what Andrew Miller has for us. "The issue would seem to boil down to evidence. Has Darrell Hair got any proof that the Pakistanis were tampering with the ball? Did he see a specific player scratch at the seam, or did he take a look at a ball that is 55 overs old and draw his own conclusions? As Ian Botham has just said on Sky Sports, it's a matter of honour to the Pakistanis. If Hair has no proof, then they are well within their rights to take this stance." Thanks for that update, Andrew.

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/engvpak/engine/match/225258.html

Miraz
August 20, 2006, 01:06 PM
I am not happy with way Hair handled the situation.

It could have done in a lot better way. if he was unhappy with the ball after cook's dismissal he can bring that to the attention of the captain, Inzamam and also after pakistan failed to turn up after tea he should have consulted with Inzamam the captain of Pakistan team before takig the bell off.

He suddenly decided to change the ball and also added further controversary by taking the bells off too early.

Ejaj
August 20, 2006, 02:21 PM
WEll. this is notingh new. Pakistanis were always suspected of ball tempering .. only to get renamed as Reverse Swing when someone from some petty British Universtiy found the sciene behind the method to swing an old ball. So.. not at all surprised. I am pretty s ure, soon British media will be running band wagon on how did pakis temperd with the ball. ... Silly

Miraz
August 20, 2006, 02:50 PM
Finally the match is abandoned and still a number of issues remain unresolved.

israr
August 20, 2006, 03:48 PM
Breaking news
9.10pm After the news that the Test was off there are again further conflicting reports coming out of the The Oval with sources saying the match is still on. The amazing events continue to unfold.
8.50pm The Test match has finally been called off after a farcical afternoon and evening on the fourth day. The actual result is, as yet, unknown, but we will keep you posted.
8.30pm The status of the match is being reviewed; they may strip it of Test status - that's all we know from the meeting so far. Darrell Hair has gone home, so the top brass are reviewing the situation now. We still don't know if they're going to make a decision tonight. A room has been set aside for a press conference, although they may not yet be needed.
If they have to do have to appoint a new umpire, to call it a Test match could prompt anarchy. There is speculation among the press corps that Darrell Hair may be replaced mid-Test. It's up to the ICC to decide whether they can change the rules mid-match, but that could set a dangerous precedent.
In 2001 the final Test between South Africa and India, at Centurion Park, was stripped of its Test status after India refused to play with Mike Denness as match referee when he brought charges against six Indian players, including a claim that Sachin Tendulkar had tampered with the ball. Denness, and the neutal umpire George Sharp, flew home and the ICC refused to call it a Test.
7.50pm The vice chairman of the ECB, Mike Soper, has just announced that he believes that the fourth and final Test is likely to be called off after today's extraordinary scenes.
Now Kamran Akmal, Shahid Afridi and Umar Gul have all left the building; they didn't stop to speak to anyone but also they had no kit with them. Once again absolutely no information is coming out at all and all the signs are utterly conflicting. The high-level meeting is still taking place in the players' dining room, but there has been no announcement coming out of it as of yet.
Duncan Fletcher and Matthew Maynard have just walked past and they spoke to the journalists to say they didn't know what the situation is.
It's just been noted that the ICC office will be closed tomorrow. As the press release has it: "The day has been declared a holiday in Dubai to mark the Ascension of the Prophet (PBUH). The office will be open as normal on Sunday 20 August (8.30am - 5pm) and, after the day off, it will reopen at 8.30am on Tuesday 22 August." Could this situation get much more farcical? Probably not...
We will keep you updated with progress.


Let me tell ya one thing...........
This is the most enigmatical, ambiguous, and grotesque incident ever witnessed in cricket history, something which the ICC shall never be proud of.

israr
August 20, 2006, 04:18 PM
BREAKING NEWS
Fourth cricket test forfeited by Pakistan, England win series 3-0

Miraz
August 20, 2006, 04:29 PM
BREAKING NEWS
Fourth cricket test forfeited by Pakistan, England win series 3-0

New breaking news

Test could still be on at The Oval

Source - Cricinfo

Miraz
August 20, 2006, 04:40 PM
Final Breaking News at 10:25 PM
The fourth Test between England and Pakistan at The Oval has been forfeited as an England win, after a joint statement between the ICC, ECB and PCB.

Orion
August 20, 2006, 04:55 PM
Serves those Pakistanis right. They gave away a game they were winning.

cricman
August 20, 2006, 06:04 PM
Pakistan is most likely to cancel the ODI series and go back to Pakistan ASAP. Inzy did the right thing Hair is hopefully all but done from umpiring.

babubangla
August 20, 2006, 06:43 PM
International Cricket Council

Certificate of Appreciation

Presented to

Darrell Bruce Hair

For your umpiring service to ICC from 1992 to 2006.
Your contribution to international cricket reflect great credit upon yourself, ICC, Cricket Australia and the Umpire Community.

Signed
Malcolm Speed
Chief Executive
ICC

Sovik
August 20, 2006, 07:13 PM
pakistan should cancell odi series

Hatebreed
August 20, 2006, 07:15 PM
What a silly incident.. has it even been proved? If not, I hope this is the end of Darell Hair, and Pakistan should go home.

Bancan
August 20, 2006, 09:47 PM
i think the umpire did see sumthing. pakistan has been charged with following

"The issue of a charge or charges to be laid against Pakistan under the ICC's code of conduct will now be dealt with at the earliest possible opportunity. Pakistan has been charged under level two of the code of conduct, 2.10, which relates to changing the condition of the match ball."

Rabz
August 20, 2006, 11:06 PM
well, darrell always had something against the sub continentals..nothing new with that...

damn.. one breaking news after another...

etogula bhanga chura khobor hoye gelo..ar ami ghumaitesilam !!
dhett!!

i usually would never support Pak, but guess they r on the right here.
if Darrel the idiot can not produce any hard evidence, i think the paks should catch next flight and go back home. teach them english a good lesson as well.

thebest
August 20, 2006, 11:18 PM
Sydny it was not ECB's fault. So pak should not return. But I find one interesting thing. SKY with 26 cameras failed to spot one pakistani temparing with balls.
[quote] I am commentating here for the Sky television, and we have here a most high profile team of commentators and around 26 cameras that catch every moment of the action all the time throughout the day. Not one did catch a Pakistani fielder or a bowler tampering with the cherry.
It was therefore a subjective decision, not backed by any evidence, as neither was it witnessed by anyone nor caught on the camera [/quote} by Ramij Raja (http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/august-2006/21/index1.php)
Just to remind that ball was 55 over old and KP was hitting mercilessly. so there is every possibilty tht it was worn out naturally.
Listen to Dicky Bird's view (http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/sport_web/audio/9012da68004f278/nb/09012da68004f2d4_16x9_nb.asx).

crickwizard
August 20, 2006, 11:33 PM
This umpire is the worst of a kind. He has number of examples that were deliberate against most of the South Asian teams. If you have not followed his career, search Google with keyword 'Worst Umpire Darrell Hair" and see the result. Should be severely punished if can't provide evidence of ball tempering for the sake of keeping Cricket sprit alive

Hatebreed
August 20, 2006, 11:56 PM
In the end, what counts as evidence? The "eye witness" (i.e. umpire), or television footage?

If there is no evidence produced, clearly the umpire is being subjective on pure assumption.

I find it hard to believe no one except this guy has supposedly seen a Pakistani player do it. Even when Shahid Afridi tampered with the ball (in England's tour of Pak) amidst a little firebomb incident, the cameras (Sky tv) still picked him doing it and guess what, so did the batsman.. how ironic!

imtiaz82
August 21, 2006, 01:39 AM
Darrell hair is well known for his anti south asian stance, be it Srilanka or Pakistan. He is the same umpire who was involved in the Muralidharan incident. Such racist umpires should be banned from International cricket.

Sovik
August 21, 2006, 05:41 AM
inzamam did the right thing. none of the 26 cameras picked any images that the ball is being temperd

Tintin
August 21, 2006, 06:44 AM
Even when Shahid Afridi tampered with the ball (in England's tour of Pak)

Afridi danced on the wicket. That is a little more explicit than this :)

Rabz
August 21, 2006, 06:45 AM
Sydny it was not ECB's fault. So pak should not return. But I find one interesting thing. SKY with 26 cameras failed to spot one pakistani temparing with balls.

mate i know ECB is not, its more like a spur of the moment comment. but
they r the innocent by-stander of the whole situation. after refunding 40% of 4th day and all of 5th day's ticket, the ECB has already lost £ 400,000. and would probably set to loose more if the some fans turn thier back on the remaining Paki games.

its a total shame what happened. let us wait and see what happens next.
the drama has just begun.

Miraz
August 21, 2006, 07:13 AM
An umpire should not take subjective decision without any evidence. He should know, if he is wrong, he is making a grave mistake in every respect by accusing a team with a serious allegation simply based on assumption.

If he had seen anyone tampering the ball, he should have mentioned the specific name and brought specific charge against him.

This is utter stupidity in the name of guts and and upholding the spirit of the game.

Tintin
August 21, 2006, 08:21 AM
If he had seen anyone tampering the ball, he should have mentioned the specific name and brought specific charge against him.
I am not sure whether anyone would pull up the seam right infront of the umpire. If the the ball shows obvious signs of tampering, that should be enough.

Mr-Cricket
August 21, 2006, 09:08 AM
ICC charges Inzamam
From correspondents in Dubai, UAE
<CITE>August 21, 2006</CITE>

<!-- // author -->
<!-- // lead story --><!-- story body -->THE International Cricket Council (ICC) charged Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul Haq with bringing the game into disrepute after his team forfeited the fourth Test against England at the Oval.

An ICC spokesman Jon Long said the charge was brought forward by the umpires.

“There are two charges brought forward by the umpires, one for changing the condition of the ball and the other for bringing the game into disrepute,” he said.

Reuters

Mr-Cricket
August 21, 2006, 09:11 AM
An ICC spokesman Jon Long said the charge was brought forward by the umpires.
There's no stopping Darrel Hair. Or the ICC for that matter.

May well be the most stubborn Umpire/Organistation on the planet.

Mr-Cricket
August 21, 2006, 09:19 AM
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=770 border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD width=5>






</TD><TD width="100%">Inzamam faces eight-match ban
Cricinfo staff
August 21, 2006

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/engvpak/content/current/story/257357.html


Eight match ban. Right. And Hair will get off scot free I presume?

It's actually quite humourous if you think about it for long enough.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Fazal
August 21, 2006, 09:23 AM
I am not sure whether anyone would pull up the seam right infront of the umpire. If the the ball shows obvious signs of tampering, that should be enough.
I don't think so. That may be enough to change the ball, but not enough to call that ball have been tampered intentionally. By awarding 5 penulty runs and refused to explain, Hair pretty much did that: without explaining who did that, when they did that, and the proof that whoever did that. And there lies the controversy and premature end of a fine game.

Now someone can bring up some rule # x.y.z from the book try to spin to support what Hair did, but to normal cricket fans, who have some grey matrial in their head, knows who messed up this fine game in the first place. Its the ego of that []. There is no iff or butts in that, we just need to use our commen sense to conclude that.

Miraz
August 21, 2006, 09:30 AM
I don't think so. That may be enough to change the ball, but not enough to call that ball have been tampered intentionally. By awarding 5 penulty runs and refused to explain, Hair pretty much did that: without explaining who did that, when they did that, and the proof that whoever did that. And there lies the controversy and premature end of a fine game.

Now someone can bring up some rule # x.y.z from the book try to spin to support what Hair did, but to normal cricket fans, who have some grey matrial in their head, knows who messed up this fine game in the first place. Its the ego of that []. There is no iff or butts in that, we just need to use our commen sense to conclude that.
I second you.

This is utter stupidity in the name of guts and and upholding the spirit of the game by Darrel ( ) Hair.

thebest
August 21, 2006, 09:38 AM
Tintin you are quite right. But can I kindly remind you that there were 26 cameras covering every inches of field for the whole period. All the instances where team were find tampering with ball was caught by camera not by umpires. In one of the game, the umpire was Dicky Bird. In cricinfo article on readers view one ask the question whether Mr Hair can even apply the law on ball temparing. I am quoting for you
Law 42.3 states that in "the event of any fielder changing the condition of the ball unfairly ..." Who was the fielder? And if there was none identified, how was the law correctly applied?
Application of law does not mean reading by book, but by spirit of law.
Mr Hair I think very much irritated that Pakistan officialy lodged complain againest him and his officiating in this test. So he was just trying to show who is the boss. And Mr Docrave, he is as uncompetant as our Mahboob.
By the way, cricinfo fail to mention Artherton's dirt in the pocket ball temparing

Tigers_eye
August 21, 2006, 09:43 AM
Mr. Hair could have handled it a little better.

1. When you charge someone for cheating, don't you have to let the person/party know that they are cheating or they cheated?

2. In the locker room when the umpires walked in to see if the Paki palyers were coming out or not, did the captain have no right to ask the questioned what he asked? The question was why the ball was changed and why they got penalized? A simple question but the answer of Mr. Hair was, I don't have to answer that here. or something to that nature. You are penalizing without evidence and you are can't answer the simple question? What strong charecter he has?

Hair should be banned from Intl cricket cause he thinks he is the law and does not have to explain his audacious behavior.

Now this 8 match ban is a joke. What would a board do if our Mahabub did that?

Sovik
August 21, 2006, 09:53 AM
i think ACC should make a stand and back inzamam. he has done the right thing. He was accused of cheating and facing 8 match ban.

Fazal
August 21, 2006, 09:59 AM
i think ACC should make a stand and back inzamam. he has done the right thing. He was accused of cheating and facing 8 match ban.

Yes. And they should deal this witn bag-full of competent lawyers like Gangu handld his ban and successfully reduced it. This case is more seriuos and sensitive than that. You play hard ball with hard ball, fire with fire. PCB and Inzy shouldn't hesitate to sue ICC, Hair, Proctor, etc if needed.

ACC needs to support each other, to fight back against systemetic discremination and abuse of power against ACC teams.

Rabz
August 21, 2006, 10:13 AM
this could be the beginning of a new era..
a big hole in ICC has been dug out and they need to fix it, though wont be that simple.
Now, the Asian bloc to move a resolution to ban certain umpires officiating thier games, something ICC has severely rejected before. and if the motion gets passed, we could see the "white" block mainly Aus, Eng, NZ and SA coming out with a theory of their own.

guess its time for WI and Zim to make some more money and gets some extra tours !!

on a serious note, the match referee was also criticised for his incompetent role and we could see a change on the responsibilities and duties of the referees from here on now.

All in all, cricket set to be the biggest looser out of all these shanonigans.

Fazal
August 21, 2006, 11:30 AM
Experts on Oval controversy (bbc) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/5270038.stm):


Geoffrey Boycott, "The ICC must be blind or stupid not to have realised that there is history between Darrell Hair, the umpire who accused them of changing the nature of the ball, and Pakistan."

Ian Botham , "They needed to make a statement specifying exactly why the ball was changed, what they had seen, who was involved and how often."

Imran Khan, "I certainly think Darrell Hair is at fault"

Nasser Hussain , "Has he got proof? If he hasn't then he has made a massive mistake. If I had been accused of cheating in this way then, as long as I was sure of our innocence, I would have done exactly the same thing as Pakistan. I wouldn't have come out after tea, either."

Rameez Raja, "The star of the show was definitely umpire Darrell Hair, but as a villain of the piece."

Dickie Bird, "Pakistan have been badly hurt (by the accusations) but the people who have to suffer are the fans."

Mike Gatting, "At the end of the day when you get called a cheat it is not very nice and it is an emotive subject."

Asif Iqbal , "It was badly handled by Darrell Hair. He should have spoken to the captain first and said he was suspicious."

Rashid Latif, "I put the blame squarely at the feet of the match officials for a sad weekend in the history of cricket, with Pakistan forfeiting a Test after allegations of ball tampering."

sadi
August 21, 2006, 11:37 AM
This guy has a long history and history never lies but repeat itself. He is [] and stubborn. ICC better take care of this now. What was the match referee doing? Taking a nap?

Tigers_eye
August 21, 2006, 11:46 AM
I hope in the future, for any BD game if he is scheduled to umpire against Eng, SA, Aus (ODIs), NZ, Zim, WI, and/or associate countries, Bd must protest to ICC before they even start the match and ask for a replacement well ahead of time.

bangla'r pola
August 21, 2006, 11:49 AM
What an irony the people who where ment to make sure cricket was palyed at its best spirit allowed the game to be disrespected and made a mockery off it.

PCB had previously stated they would appreciate Mr Hair not judiciate games concerning them. Its funny how these people living in their imaginary ideal world without the realisitc threat of raicesim, war and a president of a world power who says he couldnt care enough for some people even in his own country, can make a sporting body of a country look like school boys. When PCB said that they would prefer him not judiciaiting their games they must have had reason.

Its human like to bias and thats the very reason a Judge has to be no way related to any of the parties before he is called to sit in a case.

Its like how Ashoka should not umpire our games. Nothing personal against him but we have to understand he had a past in bangladesh for which he has a grugh against us. We can not exactly blame him. Not even we, Bangladeshis are very happy with the system in our country.

Hairs past clearly shows he would not be suitable to umpire in such a game and yet ICC put him in place. Hiar coming from where he is, this was inavitable.

The umpire should never be bigger then the game and any dicision based on emotions which was clearly done is ilegitimate.

ICC should pull their sock up and clean the mess they have made in the first place. Its a shame for cricket that this had to happen.

bengaltiger
August 21, 2006, 04:00 PM
dear ICC,
please come to your senses, realize that this umpire is racist against south asians (sri lanka, india, pakistan), accuses south asian players w/o any evidence and retire his A**. thank you.

Mr-Cricket
August 21, 2006, 05:46 PM
I think Hair's biggest aspiration as an Umpire was to leave a lasting impression on the game. His own stamp if you will. I think that - no-ball scandals, a run-out gaffe and several other isolated incidents aside - after this most recent debacle, no one will be forgetting this obstinate, egotistical arsehole in a hurry. Scary this is, none of these controversies have emerged as a result of incompetence. He's an intelligent individual and would have fully understood the consequences of his decisions. You've got to hand it to him though - I mean, how many times has the guy been officially reprimanded?

akabir77
August 21, 2006, 09:09 PM
In the street cricket we use to call a very good and fair ump - dicky bird... now I guess we got a name for those who cheats and makes foul decisions.. a hair

RazabQ
August 22, 2006, 01:49 AM
In the street cricket we use to call a very good and fair ump - dicky bird... now I guess we got a name for those who cheats and makes foul decisions.. a hairWell put. [বাংলা]ওই কুকুরের ছানাটাকে পাছায় লাথি মারতে ইচ্ছে করছে![/বাংলা]
Interestingly, all Australia is up at arm on Hair's behalf. I'm disappointed that Tugga (Waugh) would join in the fray and take the side of an obviusly bigoted, arrogant tool.

Mr-Cricket
August 22, 2006, 03:02 AM
Well put. [বাংলা]ওই কুকুরের ছানাটাকে পাছায় লাথি মারতে ইচ্ছে করছে![/বাংলা]
Interestingly, all Australia is up at arm on Hair's behalf. I'm disappointed that Tugga (Waugh) would join in the fray and take the side of an obviusly bigoted, arrogant tool.
Actually thats not entirely the case. The media, if anything, sympathises with Pakistan on this one. Most of the letters I've read on Cricinfo from Australian's are much the same. In addition, Waugh did not categorically take Hair's side either. He made the point that Hair followed the letter of the law by declaring that the match had been forfieted (which is true mind you). Steve Taufell said as much too. I don't think Waugh made any references to Hair's handling of the alleged ball tampering incident though.

Alien
August 22, 2006, 03:39 AM
Sydny it was not ECB's fault. So pak should not return. But I find one interesting thing. SKY with 26 cameras failed to spot one pakistani temparing with balls.


Maybe they werent tampering the ball. In that case, not even thousand cameras would pick anything.

Maybe Darryl Hair is trying to prove that his 20-20 vision beats any SKY camerea.

PoorFan
August 22, 2006, 04:34 AM
I think there are more stories behind this incident which is yet to be unfold. I mean at first we heard that when umpire Darrell Hair went to Pakistan dressing room, Inzi asked him why he changed the ball and Hair answered "I am not here to answer that", and he left to the field and took off the bails. Which seemed very rude and unfair but following Inzi's interview suggest they had few more moments and conversations between them. If Inzi took the stand not to go to the field until Hair bring the ball from referee's room and show him as well as convince him, which seems to me is too much. I mean Hair is a match official and not suppose to run around in the middle of the game to 'prove a decision' which has been taken earlier. Though Hair could have done it properly on the field at the time he took the decision. I think at this point two 'personal ego' made the things worst, not considering afterwards and fans all over the world, and Hair took his advantage as match official and act according to the book, <!--StartFragment -->Which left Inzi and his team in a fault.


<!--StartFragment -->Inzamam ran through the chain of events in his on-pitch confrontation with the umpires. "They did not warn me," he said, "and then they gave five [penalty] runs. [Hair] did not talk to me, he wasn't telling me when he's changed the ball, he didn't ask me 'can we change the ball?'"
The discussion continued when Hair went up to the Pakistan dressing-room to ask if they would be taking the field. "Personally I asked him: 'why did you change the ball?'", said Inzamam, adding that Hair responded that the ball had been tampered with, but then refused to show Inzamam the ball when he was asked, saying that it was in the referee's room.
"I said it is in my rights to see the ball," he added, "to show that the ball is doing nothing. I wanted to say it's ok, the condition of the ball has not changed, but Hair says 'It's my decision.'"

A matter of honour, says Inzamam (http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engvpak/content/current/story/257324.html)
<!--StartFragment -->
An ECB spokesman confirmed that Fletcher had met with Procter on Sunday morning but denied he had made a "specific complaint about the state of the ball". However, the newspaper went on to say that sources close to the team have stated that Fletcher played a part in drawing the officials' attention to certain issues.
No officials were available for comment yesterday, and with Inzamam-ul-Haq's hearing scheduled for Friday, none would have said anything anyway. If true, however, it would explain Darrell Hair's sudden interest in the state of the ball on Sunday afternoon.
The report goes on to state that England's players were concerned on Saturday and notes that Marcus Trescothick was "spotted watching Pakistan's players through binoculars, presumably to ascertain what actions they were performing on the ball". It added that Fletcher had also made enquiries as to why Sky TV cameras were not following the ball more closely as it was passed around the Pakistan fielders during the Headingley Test.

Did England trigger tampering row? (http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engvpak/content/current/story/257401.html)

Now I feel like ICC will definitely find Inzi as guilty and 8 match ban is coming on him. Lets see what comes new and things may turn Pakistan and Inzi are ALL guilty, and Mr. Hair remain as 'Right Man'.

Miraz
August 22, 2006, 05:01 AM
So far, British Media was favouring Pakistan and was against the stance of Darrel Hair. I'm sure we'll find the difference in reporting once England is fully involved in the row.

thebest
August 22, 2006, 05:03 AM
England no more the innocent party. Today's Independent (http://sport.independent.co.uk/cricket/article1220848.ece)specificly pointed finger to Tresco - who was the official police and Flecher.

There were claims last night that ball tampering was discussed by England players on Saturday, and opener Marcus Trescothick was seen studying the Pakistan players through binoculars after being dismissed. It is alleged that the finger of blame could have been pointed at Pakistan paceman Mohammad Asif.
Fletcher is also said to have suggested to television cameramen that they should focus on the ball being passed between the Pakistan players ­ although these comments were said to have been made in the third Test at Headingley. Whenever England got resistance, they started to find fault. [edited]. Would some body tell them they may also tempered the ball. Even 2 Ws failed to reverse swing after 30 overs the way Jones and Flintoff did in Ashes.

Miraz
August 22, 2006, 05:07 AM
[quote]It is alleged that the finger of blame could have been pointed at Pakistan paceman Mohammad Asif.
Fletcher is also said to have suggested to television cameramen that they should focus on the ball being passed between the Pakistan players ­ although these comments were said to have been made in the third Test at Headingley.

Asif was not playing in 3rd test. How they can make comments reagrding his involvement ??

PoorFan
August 22, 2006, 05:16 AM
Asif was not playing in 3rd test. How they can make comments reagrding his involvement ??
<!--StartFragment -->I think you have mixed up 2 different comment ...

Comment on 4th test :
There were claims last night that ball tampering was discussed by England players on Saturday, and opener Marcus Trescothick was seen studying the Pakistan players through binoculars after being dismissed. It is alleged that the finger of blame could have been pointed at Pakistan paceman Mohammad Asif.

Comment on 3rd test :
Fletcher is also said to have suggested to television cameramen that they should focus on the ball being passed between the Pakistan players ­ although these comments were said to have been made in the third Test at Headingley.

mzia
August 22, 2006, 07:23 AM
Hair did wrong. And there are distinct code of conduct what to do in such type of situation. Pakistan lodged their protest to the match referee and the complain will be handled accordingly. But a subsequent step taken by the Pakistan was also not right as per law of ICC and Hair, proven mentally disorder umpire, with ill motive capitalized their mistake but Hair did his called-off decision as per law. Now he will has to answer how he has taken the decision regarding ball-tempering matter.

Historical Zidan case, his reaction was not as per law that so he was punished immediately in the field and Italian got after hearing.
<O:p</O:p
This is the caricature of Law and in the earth the British have made maximum law and this Hair, I assume, originally a bad British.

Rabz
August 22, 2006, 08:31 AM
Notun Bhangachura Khobor:


Pakistan demands a Hair Cut !!

Rabz
August 22, 2006, 12:19 PM
a very good article about the issue has been addressed on Sydney Morning Herald.
i think the author is just about right and sums it up well.

Game is reduced to a farce- SMH (http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/game-is-reduced-to-a-farce/2006/08/22/1156012543020.html)

reverse_swing
August 22, 2006, 12:32 PM
Tuesday August 22, 2006[/URL]

1 Did Darrell Hair actually witness ball tampering or was it surmising? He might have deduced that the condition of the ball was consistent with tampering but is this sufficient to take the action he did? 2 Is there any video or other evidence that has subsequently come to light that suggests the ball was tampered with?
3 Did he warn Pakistan, through their captain Inzamam-ul-Haq, that he was suspicious of malpractice? He is not required to do so but common- sense and courtesy might demand it.
4 If he was sure of tampering, did he have evidence of a single individual or did he suspect a corporate conspiracy?
5 Was there any evidence of tampering when the umpires had possession of the ball at 2.15pm, when Alistair Cook was dismissed? If there was, why wasn't action taken then? If there wasn't, can we presume that the umpires identified ball tampering between then and 2.30pm when the five penalty runs were awarded to England?
6 Why was he not prepared to discuss with Inzamam precisely why the ball had been changed? It was obvious that he believed there had been tampering but Inzamam is adamant that Hair refused to discuss it when he visited the dressing room to assess their willingness to play.
7 Were the umpires primed to look out for ball tampering? There are rumours that an England team official visited the match referee and/or umpires to report suspected ball tampering.
8 How certain could he have been that the ball had not become scuffed naturally? It was 56 overs old and England had scored in excess of four runs per over although no sixes had been struck at that stage.
9 Did the umpires consider the good of the game and the thousands in the ground and millions watching on television and listening on the radio when they refused to recommence the game?
10 At what stage was the game deemed forfeited to England? Was it before the Pakistan team took the field? And were the Pakistan team informed of the decision before they walked down the pavilion steps?
11 Where is the ball now?
12 Will the ICC allow the ball to be forensically examined to determine if damage to the ball was made by human intervention or the normal wear and tear that the ball would experience by hitting hoardings and the concrete of the grandstand.
13 Why were substitute umpires not instructed?
14 Should Hair be allowed to stand in any future matches involving Pakistan?
15 Who will foot the bill?

[URL="http://sport.guardian.co.uk/englandpakistan2006/story/0,,1855421,00.html"]Guardian >> (http://www.guardian.co.uk/)

Tigers_eye
August 22, 2006, 12:51 PM
With so many questions unanswered I still see ICC fining and banning Inzi and this farce ending up in an appeal process and ending up in the court. The appeal date will fall after the Eng-Pak ODI is over. Because this is not a just society and ICC tribunals are just hogwash.

I personally have no problem of Mr. Hair calling the forfeit by the Pakis. I have 100% problem on the ball tampering issue. Mr. Hair will be having the last laugh, and I hate it.

bengaltiger
August 22, 2006, 02:33 PM
15 Who will foot the bill?

why, hair ofcourse. he is the one who ruined the game so it's only natural he reprimands it.

allrounder
August 22, 2006, 03:57 PM
I think Mike Proctor the match referee could have resolved this issue instead of doing nothing during tea break.

Miraz
August 22, 2006, 04:02 PM
India board to side with ICC over Hair

The BCCI have appeared as an unlikely saviour of Darrell Hair's career when their secretary, Niranjan Shah, suggested India would support the ICC in the ongoing row over ball-tampering accusations.

Full report (http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/india/content/current/story/257473.html)

Ubiquitous
August 22, 2006, 04:21 PM
For all its worth, we've thrown our weight behind Pakistan:

Bangladesh backs Pakistan in ball tampering row (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=cricketNews&storyID=2006-08-22T143843Z_01_DHA290832_RTRIDST_0_SPORT-CRICKET-PAKISTAN-PROTEST-BANGLADESH.XML)

israr
August 22, 2006, 04:29 PM
Man, we already know the attitude of BCCI, they're just ....... .... ... ...-.... ....... ........

Sovik
August 22, 2006, 06:55 PM
I feel sorry for Inzi. he did what he had to. but we have to wait and see. may be pakistan's tour of england is over

PoorFan
August 23, 2006, 02:54 AM
Inzamam hearing postponed

Cricinfo staff
August 23, 2006

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=170 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=10>http://img.cricinfo.com/spacer.gif


</TD><TD class=photo>
<TABLE cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=2 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=photo>Inzamam-ul-Haq: more time to prepare his defence <NOBR>© Getty Images</NOBR>


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>According to a report on BBC News, Inzamam-ul-Haq's disciplinary hearing, originally set for Friday, has had to be postponed because of a family illness suffered by the ICC's chief match referee, Ranjan Madugalle.
More to follow.

© Cricinfo

thebest
August 23, 2006, 06:08 AM
Why ICC is so adament on countries can not chose umpire. I agree they should not allow to chose, but should have license to say no to one. Umpire is the judge in the field. If any party have objection on any judge, a self respecting judge made himself unavailble for the case. If he did not, the party could go to supervisor, in most cases superior judge relive the 'controversial' judge from presiding that case.
In the jury system, practically both the parties choosing the judges for the case.
So if ICC was not so adament, this might not happened as Pak objected his appointment.
Hypothetically, if Pak go to a court on the validity of result of 3rd test, they might nullfy the result. Because KP was out on 2, which Hair missed and KP made 130+. A clever lawyer might made the result nullify on the basis, Pakistan objected his appointment before the march and Hair did it intentionally.
I am not from legal profession. Some of the board member might shed more light on it.

Xavier
August 23, 2006, 06:23 AM
Lol... all the world press reporting of what happened at the Oval, more than 1,600 results for it on "google news on cricket"! Here the most famous italian newspapers article on it:
http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Esteri/2006/08_Agosto/21/cricket.shtml
A way to develop cricket in the world?!?

Hatebreed
August 23, 2006, 06:48 AM
India board to side with ICC over Hair

The BCCI have appeared as an unlikely saviour of Darrell Hair's career when their secretary, Niranjan Shah, suggested India would support the ICC in the ongoing row over ball-tampering accusations.

Full report (http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/india/content/current/story/257473.html)

What else did you expect? This is India's biggest opportunity to rub dirt all over their arch-rivals. I'm disgusted at the direction this game is heading.

Sovik
August 23, 2006, 02:16 PM
Inzamam hearing postponed

Cricinfo staff
August 23, 2006

<table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="170"><tbody><tr><td width="10">
</td><td class="photo"><table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2"><tbody><tr><td class="photo"><nobr></nobr>


</td></tr></tbody></table>

</td></tr></tbody></table>According to a report on BBC News, Inzamam-ul-Haq's disciplinary hearing, originally set for Friday, has had to be postponed because of a family illness suffered by the ICC's chief match referee, Ranjan Madugalle.
More to follow.

© Cricinfo

That because Pakistan would scrap the odi series if inzi was given ban

Tigers_eye
August 23, 2006, 03:10 PM
That because Pakistan would scrap the odi series if inzi was given ban
Yup!! And ECB having to replay the ticket holders. I guess if they have to lose 400,000 pounds for the final day of the test imagine how much would they lose for all those ODIs.

But I am 120% certain he (Inzi) will be banned for some matches. And hair will umpire in future tests. By that time the ODIs would be finished. So Pakis can't do anything about it. No enquiry will be done on the ball tempering issue. That is our ICC. Can you believe it was Gavaskar and Speed appointing Hair for 3rd and forth test even after strong opposition by the Pakis?

Sovik
September 28, 2006, 08:56 AM
Inzamam cleared of ball tampering (http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engvpak/content/current/story/260775.html)

Miraz
September 28, 2006, 09:04 AM
Now, Inzi is cleared of ball tampering and faces four match ban for bringing the match in disrepute, what will happen to Hair.

From the judgement it is clear that the ball was not tampered. Hair should face major punishment for all the chaos.

Tigers_eye
September 28, 2006, 09:26 AM
Why didn't hair do things by the book as some people wanted to believe. How come Pakistan got off without tampering blame?

I am surprized with the outcome though. Never thought ICC had the guts to standup to hair. I guess his $500,000 threat had some influence and India's recent letter to the ICC regarding Hair had to weigh in some.

A win-win out come for ICC and Pakistan. Hair is out of the CT for security reason, lol. Still ICC can't say "we kicked him out". This is so funny!!
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/iccct2006/content/current/story/260794.html

Hatebreed
September 28, 2006, 10:09 AM
This isa great news, even though a four-match ban means he'll pretty much miss CT but at least he's retained his dignity.

So what will happen to Hair? Will he get sacked or not?!

Fazal
September 28, 2006, 10:22 AM
ICC again proved that they are spine-less and poisonous for Asian teams (except for India). They cleared Inzy of ball tampering but failed to decipline Hair. They rejected Pakistan's request to exclude Hair on matter of principle, but when India requested, they came up with lame security excuse and bend their spine. ICC runs by bunch of partial and worthless people in the top.

Baundule
September 28, 2006, 10:41 AM
ICC should have organized this hearing before the ODI series against England. Anyway, that was going to be a finacial loss for England!

I am also wondering what punishment Hair will receive. This is akin to the police incident in Bangladesh: once police does some misdeed - even killing - they are just 'closed'! Holy shame!!

Tigers_eye
September 28, 2006, 11:17 AM
The hearing was against Inzi not Hair. So one should not expect anything happening to Hair. No step had been taken by ICC to punish Hair from the beginning after the controversy. Even Mr. Speed sided his mate and warned Inzi and Pak for talking to the press too much.

Unless Pakistan sues Hair now, there will be no further action against Hair. Umpires don't have to face the music for making a bad judgement but the players and fans have to. They (umpires) are above the law in the ground. Even out side the ground ($500,000 demand and no action taken). Nepetism at its best.

Miraz
September 28, 2006, 11:30 AM
The hearing was against Inzi not Hair. So one should not expect anything happening to Hair. No step had been taken by ICC to punish Hair from the beginning after the controversy. Even Mr. Speed sided his mate and warned Inzi and Pak for talking to the press too much.

Unless Pakistan sues Hair now, there will be no further action against Hair. Umpires don't have to face the music for making a bad judgement but the players and fans have to. They (umpires) are above the law in the ground. Even out side the ground ($500,000 demand and no action taken). Nepetism at its best.

PCB is actively considering to Charge Darrel Hair with disrepute charge.

From cricinfo (http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/content/current/story/260801.html)

sar2005
September 28, 2006, 01:15 PM
when is the hearing for DH? Is he escaping then? When Inzi is not proved for ball temparing, there should be an alligation against DH for false statement. He should be charged first for interrupting the match, shouldn't he?

Sovik
September 28, 2006, 05:31 PM
pakistan should sue hair

Tigers_eye
September 29, 2006, 10:54 AM
The latest news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/other_international/pakistan/5391118.stm

Another blow at the intigrity of Hair. Hair supporters are nowhere to be found now.

This time it is Simon Hughes.
Umpire Darrell Hair was only "guessing" when he decided to penalise Pakistan for ball-tampering, according to TV analyst Simon Hughes.


"The problem was Hair was guessing, using the flimsiest evidence. The marks on the ball were not blatant enough for the drastic measures Hair took," former Middlesex and Durham seam bowler Hughes commented.

May be Tresco and England coach had to do something with this. Otherwise why all of a sudden in day four he started this. - My comments.


Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Hughes said when he examined the ball it was in "pretty good condition". He added: "There were a number of small abrasions on the rough side, fairly typical of normal wear and tear on a deteriorating Test pitch.

I am loving this. If the judges are biased then why go through the trial? Removing the biased judge wouldn't be an option for ECB (his home) and Cricket Australia (his passport affiliation)(ODIs).

Fazal
September 29, 2006, 12:18 PM
May be Tresco and England coach had to do something with this. Otherwise why all of a sudden in day four he started this. - My comments.


Ofcourse it has something to do with Duncan Fletcher as he initiated the issue. But when situation went out of control, both Duncan & Procter ducked leaving Hair alone. Surprisingly this issue died prematurly without further investigation by the reporters.


ENGLAND has been dragged into the ball-tampering furore after it was revealed coach Duncan Fletcher visited match referee Mike Procter before the start of Sunday's play at the Oval. details (http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/row-turns-to-england-coachs-chat-to-ref/2006/08/22/1156012542360.html)

Miraz
September 30, 2006, 05:24 AM
A very good article by Boycott in Telegraph. he nicely summarised the events and pointed Hair's mismanagement. A good read..

Link to the article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2006/09/30/scboyc30.xml)

Sovik
October 2, 2006, 10:13 AM
Last year, though, England beat Australia with reverse-swing, used superbly by Andrew Flintoff and Simon Jones. That was treated as fair play simply on the basis that they were white men. But it would be unfortunate if people went around assuming that Pakistanis cheat and white men don't.

- Geoffrey Boycott

Tigers_eye
October 2, 2006, 12:02 PM
I never liked Boycott for his stupid comments against our team. However, I applaud his guts and pointing out who is the main culprit and with no remorse Hair still thinks he is right and went by the book which is totally false.

Sovik
October 2, 2006, 04:52 PM
hair said he won't retire soon cause he is bloody good at umpiring

ashes
October 10, 2006, 07:55 PM
hmm, i dont know about this, they must have some sort of reasoning to do it.umpire billy doctrove ahda good look at teh ball too so its just not hair. just cause the camara didnt catch anything doesnt mean it didnt happen. pakistan was stupid for going off the field just added to the controversy. anyways just trying toadd a diff opinion :P