Hair said that he felt the PCB had induced the ICC to act discriminantly, considering that Billy Doctrove, the other umpire in the fateful match, got off totally scot free. Hair alleges it is because he is black. The PCB are typically incensed at the charges, although they do need to exercise caution when making statements, something they failed to do in the original instance which caused no end of confusion. Chairman of the PCB, Nashram Ashraf said:

This is adding insult to injury. Race has nothing to do with this.

(Radio 4)

Unfortunately for Dr Ashraf, race quite clearly has everything to do with this. The PCB (and most of the sub-continent) lauded Hair as a racist. Hair is now saying the ICC and the PCB are racist. It’s clearly a case of tit-for-tat, he-said, she-said, and it’s going to be an extremely difficult case for Hair to argue. (Maybe he should arrange for him, the PCB and the ICC to spend a week in the Big Brother house? That ought to hunt out any racist tendencies from the lot of them.)

Presumably the motivation for Hair here is to recover some of his integrity, something was considerably battered as a result of a Ovalgate, especially after he offered to resign from his job for the mere sum of $500k. Although presumably, were he to win this case, then the question of damages, and even lost earnings, would be at stake. Quite what has prompted Hair to bring the charges isn’t clear at the moment – it’s either the prospect of umpiring Bermuda for the rest of his career, or he’s either got a nasty gambling habit. What is clear, however, is that the ICC need to make a stand and wherever possible avoid the race question. The need to maintain their line that they had lost faith in his ability, even though I still believe he should have been given the boot full stop – not because I thought Hair was wrong, but that if the ICC really don’t want him umpiring, then he shouldn’t be umpiring at all, rather than palming him off to the associate members as they did.

Short of the ICC giving in and paying the $500k of the original request, though, he’s not Hair today gone tomorrow – this one’s going to be around for a while.

Post from: EveryJoe

Hair in debt again?

Now, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out the stats have been somewhat skewed by recent events, and that no doubt cynical non-Pakistani punters will undoubtedly have voted for Hair just for the heck of it.

But whether he is the number 1 umpire in the world, or more realistically number 2, it still raises questions over how the ICC could have sacked him in the first place. Then the smug git took his opportunity to have a stab at his enemies:

“I suppose it is a bit of a shock,” Hair told the magazine. “But if free-thinking people want to vote that way and they do believe I’ve done the job as well as anybody or even better I can accept that fact. It’s a great vote of confidence.”

Well there you go. Pakistan got they wanted. Hair will moreorless get what he wants. The losers? The ICC. And of course, the great game itself, after being dragged through the mud.

Post from: EveryJoe

Ovalgate takes a cruel twist

“We have told (ECB chairman) David Morgan that we are willing to play a one-dayer next summer in England and revenues earned from that game after deducting expenses can be taken as compensation.”

Admittedly, I don’t know how a profit share of International matches usually works but this idea of a match really seems to be moot, especially as they say “after expenses” – that is, “as long as it doesn’t cost us anything, you can have anything you want.”

Pakistan continue to make the situation worse.

Their position is (for them, at least) perfectly simple. Darrell Hair’s removal from the board vindicates their stance that he was to blame for the Ovalgate affair ever occurring – had he not been in the wrong, then they would not have forfeited the game. Which is obviously complete nonsense. Darrell Hair never said “you’re cheating therefore you will forfeit the game”, instead, he implied they were cheating, deducted a measly 5 runs and in the process, it seems, insulted the whole of the sub-continent. The fact remains, though, that it was entirely the actions of the Pakistan side that resulted in the forfeiture, by refusing to return to the pitch they forced the forfeiture of the game, and that is the question surrounding the compensation claims. This fact is entirely supported by Inzamam’s ban for bringing the game in to disrepute. Had the Pakistani’s responded to the situation in the proper fashion, that is, continue playing and address their concerns after the match, then it would never have been forfeited and this whole ugly mess would never have gotten quite so out of hand.

All this does is add to a long procession of incidents involving the Pakistani side and management, which really calls in to question their integrity (something which was ultimately at the heart of the whole problem). In being so determined to prove their innocence, all they’ve really done is confirm that they are, for want of a better expression, “a loose cannon”. Their handling of the situation was from the very start awful, they’ve since had two players banned for drug use, they held the ICC to ransom over Darrell Hair, they’re refusing to pay compensation, the list goes on.

Maybe Pakistan now feel they’re backed in to a corner and so have raised their heckles. It seems the support from India and Sri Lanka is (understandably) diminishing and they’re on their own to fight their battles. I’m not saying they should capitulate, but this situation only continues to worsen due to their selfish actions.

Post from: EveryJoe

Pakistan continue to take the piss

The charges of ball-tampering against Inzamam Ul Haq were today repudiated as ICC “judge” Sanjan Madugalle decided there was insufficient evidence to uphold the charge. However, he did find Inzy guilty of bringing the game into disrepute after twice refusing to bring his players out to the field. For this offence, he was banned for 4 ODI’s. It seems sense has prevailed. Or has it?

Whilst the ruling makes sense – it’s what most people have been saying since the whole ugly mess transpired – after all, there is no evidence that the ball was tampered with, but, by defending Pakistan’s honour in not returning to the field, Inzy was breaking one of the Golden Rules of cricket – the umpire is always right. The judgement seems sensible, and fair. Inzy has the right to appeal, and I sincerely hope he doesn’t use that right.

However, Pakistan have failed to let the issue drop. Shariya Khan who made the whole situation worse by sticking his oar in at any available opportunity, has disclosed that the PCB have approached the ICC to investigate Hair and claims that his actions brought the game in to disrepute. Seriously. Pakistan already have part of their wish, that is, Hair will not stand in any games at next month’s ICC Champions Trophy, and it seems increasingly likely that he’ll never officiate in a Pakistan game again. And probably not India. And probably not Sri Lanka.

The PCB really need to know when to step back and let this whole thing die. Chasing Hair further won’t achieve anything. Inzy agrees:

Inzamam himself told Pakistan TV: “The whole nation has supported our decision. This was a matter of respect for our team and country. We fought for what we thought was right. Team’s reputation in the past hasn’t been great and so this was important. It was important to register our protest becuase if we didn’t then it wouldn’t have gotten this far even and now it has been proved we are not guilty of ball tampering. This is a victory for Pakistan.

So they’ve found the good in the bad, can they please place a gagging order on Khan.

Post from: EveryJoe

Inzy found not guilty and also guilty

Post from: EveryJoe

Ovalgate inquiry gets under way

And, in a cruel twist of fate, where will the hearing be held? The Oval, where it all kicked off. Ought to be an interesting few days.

Post from: EveryJoe

Inzy to learn fate by Friday

Quite how this has angered the whole sub-continent, though, is quite beyond me. Whilst controversial, you can’t argue with the fact that Hair was simply doing his job. Yes, the question over evidence of ball tampering is still up in the air, but that’ll be resolved one way or the other sooner or later. But after the accusations was made, the penalty runs were added and the ball switched, Hair did conduct himself professionally. He stuck to the law – the laws that govern the game of Cricket as we know it – and did things by the book. Inzy, Pakistan, and now Sri Lanka and potentially India, are arguably in the wrong to think they can boycott the system on these grounds, much less accuse Hair of being racist.

Surely such accusations are on a par with Hair implying that Pakistan are cheating? Both parties have history – Pakistan have previously been charged with ball tampering, Hair has previously been involved with dodgy decisions whilst umpiring in the sub-continent.

Regardless, Hair has said he’ll keep umpiring as long as the ICC want him. Whether they buckle under the pressure and say that he won’t umpire in any matches involving the sub-continent remains to be seen. Hopefully, though, the ICC won’t be listening to Dick French, former Australian umpire when deciding which matches he will stand in. When commenting on whether Hair should officiate or not, he shrewdly observed that:

“He can’t umpire Australia as a neutral, so he can’t then just umpire South Africa, the West Indies and England for the rest of his career.”

(link)

I’m guessing New Zealand will be thrilled to know the least of their worries will be the umpires, considering it seems they’ve been booted out of the International arena by Mr French.

Post from: EveryJoe

Hair today, gone tomorrow?

So as something of a quick interlude, may I present two cricketing items that’ll remind you why you love this game. It won’t make the scandal go away, but it’ll be a quick hiatus from it all.

Number 1: One of the most staggering cricket moments of all time : Jonty Rhodes in full flight

Number 2: A fantastic story as told by Dickie Bird, legendary English umpire, in his autobiography “From the Pavilion End”

“Bomber” Wells, a spin bowler and great character, played for Glocuestershire and Nottinghamshire. He used to bat at No.11 since one couldn’t bat any lower. Of him, they used to paraphrase Compton’s famous words describing an equally inept runner; “When he shouts ‘YES’ for a run, it is merely the basis for further negotiations!” Incidentally, Compton was no better.

John Warr said, of Compton “He was the only person who would call you for a run and wish you luck at the same time.” Anyway, when Wells played for Gloucs, he had an equally horrendous runner as the No.10. During a county match, horror of horrors…….both got injured.

*Both* opted for runners when it was their turn to bat. Bomber played a ball on the off, called for a run, forgot he had a runner and ran himself. Ditto at the other end. In the melee, someone decided that a second run was on. Now we had *all four* running. Due to the confusion and constant shouts of “YES” “NO”, eventually, *all* of them ran to the same end.

Note – at this point in time, the entire ground is rolling on the floor laughing their behinds out. One of the fielders – brave lad – stops laughing for a minute, picks the ball and throws down the wicket at the other end. Umpire Alec Skelding looks very seriously at the four and calmly informs them “One of you buggers is out. I don’t know which. *You* decide and inform the bloody scorers!”.

And those, my friends, are just two reasons why we love Cricket. (Both items found at CaughtBehind)

Post from: EveryJoe

On a lighter note than the ball tampering

Anyway – 24 hours on and where are we? Well, still floating about in a cloud of confusion. This argument is going to rage and rage, until everyone gets really bored, and then remembers that the Ashes are but a few months away.

A few things have emerged:

1. Inzy is going to feel the brunt of this.

Inzamam-ul-Haq has been charged with bringing the game into disrepute along with changing the condition of the ball and, if found guilty, faces a ban of up to eight ODIs or four Tests. The ICC have confirmed that Inzamam will face a Code of Conduct hearing on Friday in London.

(Cricinfo)

His role in this is simply that he’s the captain of the side. And since no allegations of ball tampering have yet been directed at a specific player, he’s going to be the fall guy. Presumably it was his idea to make the protest. This seems harsh – Inzy conducted himself quite admirably during the whole furore, and whether the protest was right or not, you can’t blame the guy for defending his team’s honour. Pakistan coach Bob Woolmer reckons that if Inzy gets a ban, then the ODI series will get the can, despite words to the contrary from President of the PCB Shariya Khan.

2. The facts surrounding the actual ball-tampering offence are still unknown

Neither the umpires (Darrell Hair / Billy Doctrove) nor the match referee (Mike Procter) have made any kind of official statement as to what the alleged offence was. They haven’t singled anyone out. They haven’t said “at this this point this happened”. Television footage has not been able to provide anything. About the only thing we know is that one defence was that KP had been carting the ball in to the stands, so some damage was natural. Apparently, KP only started hitting sixes after the ball was changed. SO that scuppers that argument. But that’s not to say that a 56 over old ball hadn’t been thrashed in to the advertisement boards a few times.

Until such time that something more official is said about what was supposed to have actually occurred – this is issue isn’t going to rest.

3. The Pakistan Cricket Board (and presumably most of the sub-continent) hate Darrell Hair

The PCB near enough accused Hair of being racist:

“Darrell Hair has trained his guns on the team,” said Shahrayar. “It is a slur on the players and a slur to Pakistan itself. The team has had problems with him before, and have lost confidence in him as an umpire. They are deeply offended by his attitude. Ask the Sri Lankans, ask the Indians about the same man.”

(Cricinfo)

But the PCB won’t get out of this lightly, thanks to Sharyia Khan’s interview, where he insisted that the protest was only designed to last for a few minutes to make a point. The protest lasted over half an hour, during which time, the Umpires and English batsmen took to the field twice, and the Pakistan fielders were urged regularly to take to the field. The attitude of the Pakistan teams in many ways seems quite juvenile “We don’t like Mr. Hair therefore we’re going to throw our toys out of the pram, and refuse to play.” Not very professional in my book.

4. Darrell Hair may yet survive

The ICC had little choice but to stick up for their umpires, despite the absence of any formal proof of the ball tampering allegations and despite the intense media pressure to get some sort of solid information. Although they were on holiday today, so maybe more will break light tomorrow. There’s already history there – Hair is no stranger to controversy having made the headlines several times previously for being a stubborn, insensitive git, and most famously for no-balling Murali in 1995. It seems the matches forfeiture was largely due to Hair’s decision to not return to the field.

5. Old ball-tampering scandals are raised from the dead

The BBC did a top job of bringing scorn and despair on the likelihood that old ball tampering scandals will be brought to life – by bringing a bunch of ball tampering scandals back to life. Good work chaps.

6. And finally, at least irony has not been lost amongst all this

Geoff Boycott on the situation:

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. There were mutterings after the Headingley Test that Pakistan didn’t like Hair’s attitude. Pakistan regard Hair as an officious umpire and they don’t like his style of man-management. It should have been obvious to the ICC that appointing him to this series created a situation like a volcano waiting to erupt

Er, pot? Yeh, hi, it’s the kettle. YOU’RE BLACK.

Brilliant. My thoughts on the whole scandal? Well, I’m the same as everyone else. It’s a terrible way for the series to end, it’s been a total cock-up by pretty much everyone involved (with the exception of the England team, and perhaps the ECB), I believe the Pakistani’s should not have refused to come out after tea, but I understand why they took the action they did, I believe Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove absolutely did the right thing, but if they are unable to pinpoint the time at which the infringement took place, then they’ve committed a very serious error, oh, and Geoff Boycott is an idiot. Great cricketer, but a bit of an idiot. Buckle yourselves in – this one’s not going away for a while.

Post from: EveryJoe

Ball tampering, cheating, Darrell Hair and being no closer

UPDATED BELOW

Jag over at Cricket 24×7 has assembled a very pertinent list of questions that need answering:

# Was the ball actually tampered with?
# If so, did the umpires see someone do it, or were they merely basing their judgement on how they saw the ball at a specific point in time?
# Does the act of the umpires, i.e. charging the Pakistan team with altering the condition of the ball, amount to an accusation of cheating?
# Do the umpires have to necessarily point out exactly who they saw fingering around with the ball? If the issue were taken to court, could lack of evidence on TV prove that Pakistan didn’t tamper with the ball?
# If the ICC’s code of conduct is applied, will the entire Pakistan team be charged under a Level 2 offence, assuming that there’s no evidence against one specific individual?
# Should Pakistan have actually just conceded the match, thereby ensuring that their protest was amply reflected?
# What did Pakistan hope to achieve by not coming out and then coming back on the field?
# Where did they get that ball, which they were playing around with on the field, from? I thought the ball would have been in the possession of the umpires.
# Even if the umpires had come back, would they have offered the light to the batsmen?
# Why doesn’t the ICC rules of mobile phones in dressing rooms apply? We saw so many folks chatting on their mobile phones.
# How would some of these players, Mike Atherton, Waqar Younis, Shoaib Akhtar, have felt, given they’ve been at the receiving end of ball-tampering controversies earlier?
# What is match referee Mike Procter’s role? Why didn’t he get Inzamam, Strauss, Doctrove and Hair together to sort it out rather than wait for Pakistan’s dressing room meeting to finish?
# Does the umpires’ act of taking the bails off indicate the game is over? I think not. The bails being taken off indicate an end/abandonment of play for the moment (rain break/bad light/end of a session etc.). End of the game is when the stumps are uprooted (by the umpires and by the victorious team, if any!)
# Why hasn’t the ICC even bothered to make some sort of a statement on this issue, at least to let viewers/spectators know what’s going on?
# Why didn’t ESPN go to a single advertisement break?
# The last time a ball tampering controversy erupted big-time, an England-India test series was nearly cancelled. What about this match? What about the forthcoming one-dayers?

High-level meetings are still taking place, but ultimately the whole thing was a farce. I saw the whole thing unfold on Sky Sports and it was real soap opera stuff which just continued to get worse. The whole ball-tampering thing aside, the management of the incidents just heightened the nonsense. Whether or not Pakistan were right to protest is obviously up for debate (it seems to me that something should have been said during the Tea interval – perhaps the fact that nothing was said was why they decided to protest? That of course is the problem – everyone is so in the dark over what actually happened). But the umpires and batsmen going on, then off, then on, then off, then the players going on, then off… it was just ridiculous.

According to Sharyia Khan of the Pakistan Cricket Board – the Pakistani’s were simply trying to make a point – a protest – by being a few minutes late. But when they finally emerged on to the pitch, the Umpires apparently refused to return to the field. I say apparently, because obviously, no-one really knows. Cricinfo has gone positively mad with a flurry or articles, trying to shed some light – but as with all the other commentators, they’ve got very little solid information to say anything about it.

Incredible. At the very least, the debacle will take the heat off Kevin Pietersen, who I was otherwise going to be quite critical of, for yet again, showboating, rather than settling down and getting a really big score. Enough of him.

UPDATE

It has been officially announced that the game has been abandoned – there will be no further play. In theory, therefore, England win the series 3-0. What a way to win a whitewash.

Post from: EveryJoe

The Oval test nonsense, update