Pakistan faces ball tampering allegation during 3rd test against England

[Fazal]

Originally Posted by sovik
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]

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]

Experts on Oval controversy (bbc):


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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by akabir77
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

Well put. ওই কুকুরের ছানাটাকে পাছায় লাথি মারতে ইচ্ছে করছে!
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]

Originally Posted by RazabQ
Well put. ওই কুকুরের ছানাটাকে পাছায় লাথি মারতে ইচ্ছে করছে!
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]

Originally Posted by thebest
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]

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, Which left Inzi and his team in a fault.

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

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?

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]

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]

England no more the innocent party. Today's Independent 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]

[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]

Originally Posted by Miraz

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

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]

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.

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]

Notun Bhangachura Khobor:

Pakistan demands a Hair Cut !!

[Rabz]

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

[reverse_swing]

Tuesday August 22, 2006

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?

Guardian >>

[Tigers_eye]

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]

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]

I think Mike Proctor the match referee could have resolved this issue instead of doing nothing during tea break.

[Miraz]

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