KARACHI, March 19, 2008 (AFP) - Former Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq said he was "disgusted" by controversial umpire Darrell Hair's reinstatement, saying that players would now be afraid to stand up to officials.
Inzamam clashed with Hair in the forfeited Oval Test between Pakistan and England in August 2006, which led to the Australian umpire's ban from standing in top level matches. "I am terribly shocked and disgusted at the news," Inzamam said from India, where he is featuring in the Indian Cricket League. Hair was recalled to the elite panel of umpires on Tuesday after the International Cricket Council (ICC) decided to reinstate him in its board meeting held in Dubai.
"I would blame the Pakistan Cricket Board for bowing down in Hair's case and no player will now stand against injustices at international level. Hair was at fault but he is reinstated like a hero," said Inzamam.
Hair and his West Indian colleague Billy Doctrove penalised Inzamam-led Pakistan five runs for alleged ball-tampering, a decision which infuriated Inzamam who refused to take field after tea on the fourth day of the match.
As a result the match was awarded to England on forfeit, the first such result in the history of the game.
I've deliberately avoided this subject after all the problem's following Bob Woolmer's death, the problems in Pakistan culminating in Benazir Bhutto's murder, etc but this stement from INZIE really takes the proverbial biscuit. What exactly did Mr Hair do that was so heinous regarding the Oval Test. In a nutshell he and Doctrove simply upheld the laws of the noble game. May I suggest Inzie you go back and find that hole in the ground you came from. There's no call for this kind of behaviour in the modern game.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Pakistan Judge speaks out.....
KARACHI, March 29, 2007 (AFP) - A Pakistani former judge who led a key probe into match-fixing during the 1990s on Thursday urged the government to send investigators to Jamaica to assist in the murder investigation of cricket coach Bob Woolmer.
Justice Malik Mohammad Qayyum also demanded a judicial inquiry into the national team's shock World Cup exit, amid swirling rumours that Woolmer's death was linked to a so-called gambling mafia. Minnows Ireland sent Pakistan, the 1992 champions, crashing out of the tournament on March 17, beating them by three wickets. A day later, Woolmer was found strangled in his hotel room. "A judicial inquiry should be ordered into this fiasco," Qayyum told AFP.
"Winning or losing is part of the game but the manner in which we lost against Ireland in particular needs to be inquired into," he said.
He refused to speculate on the possible motives for Woolmer's death but said that Pakistan's government should get involved in the probe.
"Woolmer was our man. He was our coach and the government must send its own investigation team," he said.
In 2000, Qayyum, at the time a Lahore High Court Judge, led a judicial inquiry into allegations of match-fixing centred on former Pakistan captain Salim Malik.
Australian trio Shane Warne, Tim May and Mark Waugh had alleged Malik offered them money to underperform during their team's tour to Pakistan in 1994.
The Qayyum inquiry banned Malik and paceman Ataur Rehman for life and fined six others, including the current captain Inzamam-ul-Haq, caretaker coach Mushtaq Ahmed, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Saeed Anwar and Akram Raza.
Pakistan Cricket Board Chief Naseem Ashraf on Monday denied the team were involved in any kind of match-fixing or corruption.
INZIEGATE CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT THE PAKISTAN JUDGE CLEARLY THINKS THAT MATCH-FIXING IS THE PRIMARY MOTIVE FOR BOB WOOLMER'S MURDER!!!
Justice Malik Mohammad Qayyum also demanded a judicial inquiry into the national team's shock World Cup exit, amid swirling rumours that Woolmer's death was linked to a so-called gambling mafia. Minnows Ireland sent Pakistan, the 1992 champions, crashing out of the tournament on March 17, beating them by three wickets. A day later, Woolmer was found strangled in his hotel room. "A judicial inquiry should be ordered into this fiasco," Qayyum told AFP.
"Winning or losing is part of the game but the manner in which we lost against Ireland in particular needs to be inquired into," he said.
He refused to speculate on the possible motives for Woolmer's death but said that Pakistan's government should get involved in the probe.
"Woolmer was our man. He was our coach and the government must send its own investigation team," he said.
In 2000, Qayyum, at the time a Lahore High Court Judge, led a judicial inquiry into allegations of match-fixing centred on former Pakistan captain Salim Malik.
Australian trio Shane Warne, Tim May and Mark Waugh had alleged Malik offered them money to underperform during their team's tour to Pakistan in 1994.
The Qayyum inquiry banned Malik and paceman Ataur Rehman for life and fined six others, including the current captain Inzamam-ul-Haq, caretaker coach Mushtaq Ahmed, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Saeed Anwar and Akram Raza.
Pakistan Cricket Board Chief Naseem Ashraf on Monday denied the team were involved in any kind of match-fixing or corruption.
INZIEGATE CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT THE PAKISTAN JUDGE CLEARLY THINKS THAT MATCH-FIXING IS THE PRIMARY MOTIVE FOR BOB WOOLMER'S MURDER!!!
Monday, March 26, 2007
MacLaurin calls for an ICC review!
Lord MacLaurin, the former chairman of the England and Wales Cricket Board, has called for a major review of the ICC in the wake of the murder of Bob Woolmer last Sunday.
"When you have a terrible situation like we are now facing, one's got to look at the whole of the operation: the directorship; the way it's run; the calibre of people that are doing it," he said. "We've got to have the very best people running world cricket, otherwise we will continue to have problems."
Although police do not, as yet, have any proof that corruption and match-fixing are the heartbeat of the whole investigation, the smoke signals are there. Rumours abound that Woolmer's forthcoming book was to reveal the true extent of the game's rotten core and have invited reactions from across cricket's community, with Michael Vaughan, the England captain, conceding corruption is, in his "gut instinct," still part of the game.
INZIEGATE SUPPORTS THIS VIEW.....
"When you have a terrible situation like we are now facing, one's got to look at the whole of the operation: the directorship; the way it's run; the calibre of people that are doing it," he said. "We've got to have the very best people running world cricket, otherwise we will continue to have problems."
Although police do not, as yet, have any proof that corruption and match-fixing are the heartbeat of the whole investigation, the smoke signals are there. Rumours abound that Woolmer's forthcoming book was to reveal the true extent of the game's rotten core and have invited reactions from across cricket's community, with Michael Vaughan, the England captain, conceding corruption is, in his "gut instinct," still part of the game.
INZIEGATE SUPPORTS THIS VIEW.....
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Summary so far...& the murder of Bob Woolmer!
When I started this blog immediately following the WALKOFF Test at The Oval between England and Pakistan I couldn't possibly imagine how events would unfold.
To summarise I was convinced then and am still now that the ICC gave the Pakistan players a lenient sentence for the Darrell Hair incident. What followed I felt was unsurprising. Shoaib Akhtar and another player were involved in drug abuse and by all accounts this lead to an imbalanced selection for the World Cup squad whereby Inzie (you may recollect my view that Inzie is purely a Test player due to his lack of manoevrability) surprisingly in my mind took charge. But did he have the credentials (perhaps) and the resolve (unlikely) to follow in Imran Khan's footsteps.
My feeling throughout is that corruption, irksome PCB management and poor leadership is rife throughout Pakistani cricket. The appointment of Bob Woolmer was welcomed and there were those in Pakistan by all accounts who thought that good would prevail and all the problems subside. At the time of the WALKOFF Test I was puzzled by Bob's reaction. As I have declared on bobwoolmer.com & repeated on timdelisle.com I knew Bob as a pre-teenager when he coached me at prep school in the late '60's and I know him to be a keen lover of the game, honest and very diligent, and yet over the Darrell Hair incident he appeared shackled (by the PCB management and that snake I imagine) and ultimately compromised. His loyalty to his players was admirable but one felt at the time that he knew more of what really happened at The Oval than was made public. His knowledge of the inner workings of the ICC was greatly utilised by Inzie & PCB board members no doubt and I suspect he was used as a go between for the wrong reasons. Anyway, the resultant ICC decision was inappropriate and the outrageous treatment of Hair must have made a bad taste in Bob's mouth. One can only speculate on what Bob's thoughts were about malpractice, cheating, matchfixing were when it came to Pakistani cricket but I am sure that at times he must have had to button his lip which must have sickened him a great deal. I suspect that he had identified troublesome players and back-up staff and management and it is conceivable that they were not all weeded out for the World Cup squad. Anyway if the views of Sarfraz Nawaz are accurate then at least 5 squad players were involved in match fixing. Whether this relates to those players fixing games prior to, during or prior to and during this World Cup I am not sure but the inference is that not all were whiter than white. As the Jamaican Police investigate the Pegasus Hotel tapes it is not appropriate to point any fingers at players on tour.
Bob's death may have been a chance killing. I have visited Jamaica a few times over the years and also the Pegasus, and the idea that this was a chance or pass-by/walk-by killing is very very unlikely indeed. Security in the hotel is not that bad and the idea that Bob was poisoned/throttled by a crazed rasta is pretty ridiculous.
Much has been made of the betting mafia operating from south-east asia and the murky world in which they operate. Personally, I doubt that their long claws could arrange an assassination at such short notice immediately following a dubious loss against Ireland (there's no evidence that the game was thrown by Inzie and/or his players).
But there are other possibilities. The most likely being (on the basis that Bob must have recognised, therefore let his killer or killers into his hotel room) that Bob had uncovered evidence that certain players were involved in a match-fixing ring and that he was about to blow the lid on their deeds. It might just explain the goings on in the dressing room during the Oval Test. Someone phoned me 2 days ago and suggested that a BIG MAN must have strangled Bob. I leave you to draw your own conclusions to what he actually claimed. The other possibility, and not even Sky or any member of the Press has suggested this, is that Al Queda or sympathisers killed Bob in retaliation for Pakistan's exit from the World Cup. I doubt that a peeved Pakistan cricket supporter (who had just spent his life savings on going to the West Indies)would go to the trouble but after seeing the burning effergies of Bob & Inzie in Pakistan and elsewhere then it's not inconceivable that an Al Queda sympathiser, possibly funded by those in Pakistan, who want to see more turmoil in the region, might have arranged a murder of this nature. Madness maybe but who could have foreseen 9/11 for that matter.
What are the consequencies for Pakistan if either players or supporters were involved in his death? Well, a total ban for Pakistan from ICC is not out of the question. Let's deal with the "players" scenario which includes by the way all those involved witht the tour party. I am not a lawyer or judge but I would suggest a 10 year ban from International Cricket, with a 5 year ban on all professional Pakistan cricketers from playing overseas (at all levels) with no ban for young cricketers seeking opportunities abroad (thus not stifling development), a complete overhaul of PCB. Well, you may not agree and I may be over-reacting but can you imagine what the reaction would be in the asian world. Al Queda would have a field day. In the "supporters scenario" I would suggest a 1 to 3 year ban but a professional players ban would be very unlikely. As Sarfraz Nawaz said today, the world authorities must wake up to the power of the matchfixing mafia. Sarfraz , you are a very brave man! Make sure you and your family are secure please.
To summarise I was convinced then and am still now that the ICC gave the Pakistan players a lenient sentence for the Darrell Hair incident. What followed I felt was unsurprising. Shoaib Akhtar and another player were involved in drug abuse and by all accounts this lead to an imbalanced selection for the World Cup squad whereby Inzie (you may recollect my view that Inzie is purely a Test player due to his lack of manoevrability) surprisingly in my mind took charge. But did he have the credentials (perhaps) and the resolve (unlikely) to follow in Imran Khan's footsteps.
My feeling throughout is that corruption, irksome PCB management and poor leadership is rife throughout Pakistani cricket. The appointment of Bob Woolmer was welcomed and there were those in Pakistan by all accounts who thought that good would prevail and all the problems subside. At the time of the WALKOFF Test I was puzzled by Bob's reaction. As I have declared on bobwoolmer.com & repeated on timdelisle.com I knew Bob as a pre-teenager when he coached me at prep school in the late '60's and I know him to be a keen lover of the game, honest and very diligent, and yet over the Darrell Hair incident he appeared shackled (by the PCB management and that snake I imagine) and ultimately compromised. His loyalty to his players was admirable but one felt at the time that he knew more of what really happened at The Oval than was made public. His knowledge of the inner workings of the ICC was greatly utilised by Inzie & PCB board members no doubt and I suspect he was used as a go between for the wrong reasons. Anyway, the resultant ICC decision was inappropriate and the outrageous treatment of Hair must have made a bad taste in Bob's mouth. One can only speculate on what Bob's thoughts were about malpractice, cheating, matchfixing were when it came to Pakistani cricket but I am sure that at times he must have had to button his lip which must have sickened him a great deal. I suspect that he had identified troublesome players and back-up staff and management and it is conceivable that they were not all weeded out for the World Cup squad. Anyway if the views of Sarfraz Nawaz are accurate then at least 5 squad players were involved in match fixing. Whether this relates to those players fixing games prior to, during or prior to and during this World Cup I am not sure but the inference is that not all were whiter than white. As the Jamaican Police investigate the Pegasus Hotel tapes it is not appropriate to point any fingers at players on tour.
Bob's death may have been a chance killing. I have visited Jamaica a few times over the years and also the Pegasus, and the idea that this was a chance or pass-by/walk-by killing is very very unlikely indeed. Security in the hotel is not that bad and the idea that Bob was poisoned/throttled by a crazed rasta is pretty ridiculous.
Much has been made of the betting mafia operating from south-east asia and the murky world in which they operate. Personally, I doubt that their long claws could arrange an assassination at such short notice immediately following a dubious loss against Ireland (there's no evidence that the game was thrown by Inzie and/or his players).
But there are other possibilities. The most likely being (on the basis that Bob must have recognised, therefore let his killer or killers into his hotel room) that Bob had uncovered evidence that certain players were involved in a match-fixing ring and that he was about to blow the lid on their deeds. It might just explain the goings on in the dressing room during the Oval Test. Someone phoned me 2 days ago and suggested that a BIG MAN must have strangled Bob. I leave you to draw your own conclusions to what he actually claimed. The other possibility, and not even Sky or any member of the Press has suggested this, is that Al Queda or sympathisers killed Bob in retaliation for Pakistan's exit from the World Cup. I doubt that a peeved Pakistan cricket supporter (who had just spent his life savings on going to the West Indies)would go to the trouble but after seeing the burning effergies of Bob & Inzie in Pakistan and elsewhere then it's not inconceivable that an Al Queda sympathiser, possibly funded by those in Pakistan, who want to see more turmoil in the region, might have arranged a murder of this nature. Madness maybe but who could have foreseen 9/11 for that matter.
What are the consequencies for Pakistan if either players or supporters were involved in his death? Well, a total ban for Pakistan from ICC is not out of the question. Let's deal with the "players" scenario which includes by the way all those involved witht the tour party. I am not a lawyer or judge but I would suggest a 10 year ban from International Cricket, with a 5 year ban on all professional Pakistan cricketers from playing overseas (at all levels) with no ban for young cricketers seeking opportunities abroad (thus not stifling development), a complete overhaul of PCB. Well, you may not agree and I may be over-reacting but can you imagine what the reaction would be in the asian world. Al Queda would have a field day. In the "supporters scenario" I would suggest a 1 to 3 year ban but a professional players ban would be very unlikely. As Sarfraz Nawaz said today, the world authorities must wake up to the power of the matchfixing mafia. Sarfraz , you are a very brave man! Make sure you and your family are secure please.
Friday, September 29, 2006
WHITEWASH & WORLD EXCLUSIVE
Over the last week or so this blog deliberately stopped blogging regarding the ball tampering and disrepute charges against Inzie as it was felt that by providing more ammunition to the gutter press sports correspondents would do nothing for the good and future of the game. Yesterday the ICC determined that the charge of ball tampering be quashed whilst the disrepute charge, Inzie was held accountable and banned from four 1-day matches. Well as was predicted by this blog the whole saga has been dealt with neatly and efficiently by ICC but in truth there are many unanswered questions. This blog takes the view that Inzie was indeed innocent of the tampering charge BUT...and this is the big BUT....someone(s) in the Pakistan team must have been accountable for the change of the ball somewhere between 50th and 56th overs. Quite rightly the charge of bringing the game into disrepute was proved but instead of a 5 TEST MATCH ban (i.e one av. series) Inzie received a lesser penalty of wait for it, a ban for 1-day matches. Quite why Madugalle thought that this was a punishment for a TEST MATCH is beyond reason. It's rather like penalising a Formula 1 racing driver for speeding on a public road by banning him from a Grand Prix at the end of the season after the outcome of the championship had been decided. Anyway Inzie is regarded as a Test player rather than a 1-day specialist so the result can only be described as a WHITEWASH. Perhaps WHITES-WASH would be a better term for a cricketing whitewash.
What has become of the noble game? Well, I can only compare what is happening in cricket to what has happened in society generally and in particular the similarities between the administration of cricket is similar to what has happened to the London Stock Exchange. When I joined the LSE in 1979 we had an exchange controlled and managed by experienced brokers understanding of the complexities and workings of the exchange. Any misdeamenours were dealt with by a council made up of practioners and a visit to the committee was considered tantamount to one's job, career and life being on the line. The phrase "23rd floor" was frowned upon and no-one wanted to visit there although I know plenty of old brokers who survived. After Big Bang in 1987 the government forced on the exchange a regulatory system consisting of lawyers, administrators and many non-practioners. The whole idea was that by having these monkeys telling us how to behave and regulating us then the rules of the exchange would be upheld, insiders would get prosecuted, well you get the drift. The result has been a disaster but like all the biggest and best disasters very few realise that they're actually part of it. The boffins at the EEC feel and act likewise no doubt. Meanwhile cricket has been going down the same road. Let me explain!
For years, indeed generations, cricket was run and managed by cricketers past and practising. Just like the old London Stock Exchange then. Something happened mid-term during Thatcher's tenure. Cecil Parkinson was directed to examine whether the exchange was a closed shop. The conservatives determined it was and self-regulation should be replaced by external regulation. The same thing has happened in cricket. Old cricket afficionados like Lord Cowdrey have been replaced by non-cricketers. Retired cricketers no longer get into cricket administration but join the press corps. It's a generalisation I know but just look at the ICC. It's has been hijacked by lawyers and regulator types. When Lord MacLaurin (Tesco's) entered the etchelins of the cricket establishment something happened for the worse. It wasn't deliberate you understand. The ethos of the game changed and big business arrived. Sponsorship improved, boxes and corporate entertainment thrived which is all quite satisfying but the structure of the game changed for the worse.
Every schoolboy knows two things about cricket when excitedly he starts his first day at his school or club and is put into practice nets with more experiened players. The first thing is that he thinks he knows how to hold his treasured bat but his grip is wrong. The other is that no matter what the umpires word is law...always law. If the umpire says the ball is BLACK it is black. It might be actually red, pink, white, green but if the umpire says it's black then it is BLACK. If a bowler hits a batsman plumb in front of the stumps and appeals thinking the batsman is out nothing happens without the decision of the umpire. I lost count of the times when I thought I was out LBW but given not out by the umpire. We all remember those occasions when we were given out unfairly but think of the run outs and LBW's we all got away with. This is what makes cricket a great game. The imperfections of the rules and the daft decisions of umpires. So why is it that administrators are ruining this game from Dubai?
The blog was set up to defend Darrell Hair but more importantly to defend the basic ethos of the game and all the millions of umpiring decisions that get made regularly all around the world. This is a world game. It always has been. How long will it be before absurd suggestions come from the ICC that they wish to make it a global game? Like the London Stock Exchange it always has been global. We (lovers of the game) don't need to be told it is global just like we don't need to be told that something murky is happening to our game. Bob Woolmer & PCB want the rules of ball tampering to be relaxed. Why? That is the question. The reason is obvious.
I notice that Boycott, Simon Hughes and John Hampshire were witnesses for Inzie during the hearing. Fantastic! All three are extremely knowledgeable and would have given very good accounts of why they thought Inzie was innocent. And he was! But one thing has puzzled me about this whole affair. This is it.....If 2 umpires felt it necessary to change the ball because they thought it had been tampered with and now they have made public that they didn't actually see someone tamper with it then surely logic dictates that someone on the field of play saw another player tamper with the ball. But none of the other 21 players active in the game appear to have made any statements.
Yesterday, shortly before the outcome of the hearing I had a telephone call from a friend. This friend (and I need to be very careful here) rang me for a general chat and I asked him if he has taken any interest in Inziegate or had any thoughts prior to the ICC hearing outcome. He told me had been too busy. You see he works in the world of cricket. It's a very small world so this is all I will say. I asked him whether he had thought any members of the Pakistan team had cheated by tampering with the ball in the Oval test. His response was surprising. Very surprising indeed! He said that he knew of young cricketers who had been shown in the last week or so how to change the ball without anyone seeing what was going on. I know it's a bit wishywashy but the source is very reliable and apparently an English cricketer (one of the 11 in the Oval match) had shown them how the Pakistan bowlers were changing the dynamics of the ball. The chiselled shape of the thumb in conjunction with a very hard nail is the key. Now I was told about this also around 1 month ago by my friend, the ex-Kent colt so it's no longer fantasy then.
Darrell Hair will no doubt be put out to grass not because he was wrong or a bad umpire but because he enforced the laws of the game fairly. Pakistan, on the other hand, are being appeased by pushing the boundaries to these laws to th extreme.
THE GAME IS NOW RUN BY LAWYERS...SAVE THE GAME BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.
In 7 days time this blog will change it's name to INZIEGATE, not because I believe that Inzie has done anything wrong but because he represents a country that is pushing the game into a corner. Ball tampering has always been around and like insider dealing it will always occur. But the lesson is that despite the thousdands of regulators working down at Canary Wharf very few accounts of insider dealing have been prosecuted. That's what happens when lawyers arrive. Things get murky and nothing get's done. Cricket is a game. Let's keep it as a game and let it be run by retired cricketers from London, Melbourne, Jo'burg, Kingston, Delhi NOT Dubai please.
What has become of the noble game? Well, I can only compare what is happening in cricket to what has happened in society generally and in particular the similarities between the administration of cricket is similar to what has happened to the London Stock Exchange. When I joined the LSE in 1979 we had an exchange controlled and managed by experienced brokers understanding of the complexities and workings of the exchange. Any misdeamenours were dealt with by a council made up of practioners and a visit to the committee was considered tantamount to one's job, career and life being on the line. The phrase "23rd floor" was frowned upon and no-one wanted to visit there although I know plenty of old brokers who survived. After Big Bang in 1987 the government forced on the exchange a regulatory system consisting of lawyers, administrators and many non-practioners. The whole idea was that by having these monkeys telling us how to behave and regulating us then the rules of the exchange would be upheld, insiders would get prosecuted, well you get the drift. The result has been a disaster but like all the biggest and best disasters very few realise that they're actually part of it. The boffins at the EEC feel and act likewise no doubt. Meanwhile cricket has been going down the same road. Let me explain!
For years, indeed generations, cricket was run and managed by cricketers past and practising. Just like the old London Stock Exchange then. Something happened mid-term during Thatcher's tenure. Cecil Parkinson was directed to examine whether the exchange was a closed shop. The conservatives determined it was and self-regulation should be replaced by external regulation. The same thing has happened in cricket. Old cricket afficionados like Lord Cowdrey have been replaced by non-cricketers. Retired cricketers no longer get into cricket administration but join the press corps. It's a generalisation I know but just look at the ICC. It's has been hijacked by lawyers and regulator types. When Lord MacLaurin (Tesco's) entered the etchelins of the cricket establishment something happened for the worse. It wasn't deliberate you understand. The ethos of the game changed and big business arrived. Sponsorship improved, boxes and corporate entertainment thrived which is all quite satisfying but the structure of the game changed for the worse.
Every schoolboy knows two things about cricket when excitedly he starts his first day at his school or club and is put into practice nets with more experiened players. The first thing is that he thinks he knows how to hold his treasured bat but his grip is wrong. The other is that no matter what the umpires word is law...always law. If the umpire says the ball is BLACK it is black. It might be actually red, pink, white, green but if the umpire says it's black then it is BLACK. If a bowler hits a batsman plumb in front of the stumps and appeals thinking the batsman is out nothing happens without the decision of the umpire. I lost count of the times when I thought I was out LBW but given not out by the umpire. We all remember those occasions when we were given out unfairly but think of the run outs and LBW's we all got away with. This is what makes cricket a great game. The imperfections of the rules and the daft decisions of umpires. So why is it that administrators are ruining this game from Dubai?
The blog was set up to defend Darrell Hair but more importantly to defend the basic ethos of the game and all the millions of umpiring decisions that get made regularly all around the world. This is a world game. It always has been. How long will it be before absurd suggestions come from the ICC that they wish to make it a global game? Like the London Stock Exchange it always has been global. We (lovers of the game) don't need to be told it is global just like we don't need to be told that something murky is happening to our game. Bob Woolmer & PCB want the rules of ball tampering to be relaxed. Why? That is the question. The reason is obvious.
I notice that Boycott, Simon Hughes and John Hampshire were witnesses for Inzie during the hearing. Fantastic! All three are extremely knowledgeable and would have given very good accounts of why they thought Inzie was innocent. And he was! But one thing has puzzled me about this whole affair. This is it.....If 2 umpires felt it necessary to change the ball because they thought it had been tampered with and now they have made public that they didn't actually see someone tamper with it then surely logic dictates that someone on the field of play saw another player tamper with the ball. But none of the other 21 players active in the game appear to have made any statements.
Yesterday, shortly before the outcome of the hearing I had a telephone call from a friend. This friend (and I need to be very careful here) rang me for a general chat and I asked him if he has taken any interest in Inziegate or had any thoughts prior to the ICC hearing outcome. He told me had been too busy. You see he works in the world of cricket. It's a very small world so this is all I will say. I asked him whether he had thought any members of the Pakistan team had cheated by tampering with the ball in the Oval test. His response was surprising. Very surprising indeed! He said that he knew of young cricketers who had been shown in the last week or so how to change the ball without anyone seeing what was going on. I know it's a bit wishywashy but the source is very reliable and apparently an English cricketer (one of the 11 in the Oval match) had shown them how the Pakistan bowlers were changing the dynamics of the ball. The chiselled shape of the thumb in conjunction with a very hard nail is the key. Now I was told about this also around 1 month ago by my friend, the ex-Kent colt so it's no longer fantasy then.
Darrell Hair will no doubt be put out to grass not because he was wrong or a bad umpire but because he enforced the laws of the game fairly. Pakistan, on the other hand, are being appeased by pushing the boundaries to these laws to th extreme.
THE GAME IS NOW RUN BY LAWYERS...SAVE THE GAME BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.
In 7 days time this blog will change it's name to INZIEGATE, not because I believe that Inzie has done anything wrong but because he represents a country that is pushing the game into a corner. Ball tampering has always been around and like insider dealing it will always occur. But the lesson is that despite the thousdands of regulators working down at Canary Wharf very few accounts of insider dealing have been prosecuted. That's what happens when lawyers arrive. Things get murky and nothing get's done. Cricket is a game. Let's keep it as a game and let it be run by retired cricketers from London, Melbourne, Jo'burg, Kingston, Delhi NOT Dubai please.
JUDGEMENT DAY
The following is the summary of the ICC's judgment on CricInfo....
Inzamam-ul-Haq has been cleared of charges of ball tampering after an ICC Code of Conduct hearing at The Oval, but has been found guilty of the charge of bringing the game into disrepute and banned for four ODIs. He said that he would not appeal against the ban.
"I have considered their evidence honestly and fairly given very carefully," Ranjan Madugalle, the senior ICC referee, explained. "My duty is to call and give my own judgment. On the second charge - bringing the game into disrepute by refusing to play - I find Mr Haq guilty in that on two occasions he led a protest against the umpires by failing to come on to the field of play at the relevant time. I take the view, subject of course to any further submissions Mr Gay [Inzamam's lawyer] may wish to make, this is a Level 3 charge - a ban of two or four Test matches and/or between four and eight one-day international matches.
"As to the appropriate penalty for the offence of bringing the game into disrepute, I am satisfied that this is a Level 3 matter. On two occasions he led a protest against the umpires. I have taken into account Mr. Haq's expression of regret and apology. I decide that Mr Haq should be banned for four one-day matches with immediate effect. What happened was unfortunate. It has taken time but the matter has been resolved now."
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.
"I had an idea that I would face some sort of ban. This is the most lenient ban and I will not appeal against it."
"We are very satisfied," Shahriyar Khan, the PCB chairman, said as he left the ground. "We feel the whole process is very fair."
Abbas Zaidi, the PCB's director operations, told Cricinfo: "We have just been told that Inzamam and the Pakistan team have been acquitted of the ball tampering charges. This is excellent news for us as it vindicates our stance all along that we weren't guilty of ball tampering."
Inzamam-ul-Haq has been cleared of charges of ball tampering after an ICC Code of Conduct hearing at The Oval, but has been found guilty of the charge of bringing the game into disrepute and banned for four ODIs. He said that he would not appeal against the ban.
"I have considered their evidence honestly and fairly given very carefully," Ranjan Madugalle, the senior ICC referee, explained. "My duty is to call and give my own judgment. On the second charge - bringing the game into disrepute by refusing to play - I find Mr Haq guilty in that on two occasions he led a protest against the umpires by failing to come on to the field of play at the relevant time. I take the view, subject of course to any further submissions Mr Gay [Inzamam's lawyer] may wish to make, this is a Level 3 charge - a ban of two or four Test matches and/or between four and eight one-day international matches.
"As to the appropriate penalty for the offence of bringing the game into disrepute, I am satisfied that this is a Level 3 matter. On two occasions he led a protest against the umpires. I have taken into account Mr. Haq's expression of regret and apology. I decide that Mr Haq should be banned for four one-day matches with immediate effect. What happened was unfortunate. It has taken time but the matter has been resolved now."
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.
"I had an idea that I would face some sort of ban. This is the most lenient ban and I will not appeal against it."
"We are very satisfied," Shahriyar Khan, the PCB chairman, said as he left the ground. "We feel the whole process is very fair."
Abbas Zaidi, the PCB's director operations, told Cricinfo: "We have just been told that Inzamam and the Pakistan team have been acquitted of the ball tampering charges. This is excellent news for us as it vindicates our stance all along that we weren't guilty of ball tampering."
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Monkey Business as the countdown commences
ISLAMABAD, Sept 20, 2006 (AFP) - Former cricket legend Wasim Akram Wednesday said Australian umpire Darrell Hair should also be penalised if Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq is banned for his role in the Oval Test fiasco.
Inzamam is due to face an International Cricket Council (ICC) code of conduct hearing in London on September 27 and 28 and faces a possible ban on charges of ball tampering and bringing the game into disrepute.
"Hair has not only been a controversial umpire now but he has been controversial in the past as well, and I think he should also be penalised if Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul Haq is banned," Wasim told AFP.
Hair and Inzamam were embroiled in a major controversy during last month's fourth Test at The Oval after the umpires awarded England five penalty runs against Pakistan on suspicions of interfering with the ball.
Pakistan subsequently protested and refused to continue the match which was eventually awarded to England after a stalemate -- the first ever forfeit in Test cricket's 129-year history. "It was an unnecessary stand-off at Oval and although Pakistan's protest was wrongly prolonged, Inzamam had led his team to the field and it was the umpires, especially Hair, who did not want to start the match," said Wasim.
"Why is only Inzamam appearing before the court and why is he only charged for bringing the game into disrepute? "Hair should also face a hearing."
Wasim said Hair was rude and had previously called Pakistani players "monkeys".
"He (Hair) is a rude sort of person and in 1995 he called Pakistani players monkeys for continuously jumping in appeal and as a captain I took a strong notice of that and protested over it," said Wasim.
Since the Oval controversy the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) has demanded that Hair should not stand in their team's future matches. But reports from Australia Wednesday suggested Hair will return for next month's ICC Champions Trophy in India.
Wasim, who took 414 Test and a world record of 502 one-day wickets, urged the ICC to use more former players as umpires. "Since Hair has not played cricket he doesn't understand players properly and if the ICC uses former players as umpires the game will benefit more and more," said Wasim.
Inzamam is due to face an International Cricket Council (ICC) code of conduct hearing in London on September 27 and 28 and faces a possible ban on charges of ball tampering and bringing the game into disrepute.
"Hair has not only been a controversial umpire now but he has been controversial in the past as well, and I think he should also be penalised if Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul Haq is banned," Wasim told AFP.
Hair and Inzamam were embroiled in a major controversy during last month's fourth Test at The Oval after the umpires awarded England five penalty runs against Pakistan on suspicions of interfering with the ball.
Pakistan subsequently protested and refused to continue the match which was eventually awarded to England after a stalemate -- the first ever forfeit in Test cricket's 129-year history. "It was an unnecessary stand-off at Oval and although Pakistan's protest was wrongly prolonged, Inzamam had led his team to the field and it was the umpires, especially Hair, who did not want to start the match," said Wasim.
"Why is only Inzamam appearing before the court and why is he only charged for bringing the game into disrepute? "Hair should also face a hearing."
Wasim said Hair was rude and had previously called Pakistani players "monkeys".
"He (Hair) is a rude sort of person and in 1995 he called Pakistani players monkeys for continuously jumping in appeal and as a captain I took a strong notice of that and protested over it," said Wasim.
Since the Oval controversy the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) has demanded that Hair should not stand in their team's future matches. But reports from Australia Wednesday suggested Hair will return for next month's ICC Champions Trophy in India.
Wasim, who took 414 Test and a world record of 502 one-day wickets, urged the ICC to use more former players as umpires. "Since Hair has not played cricket he doesn't understand players properly and if the ICC uses former players as umpires the game will benefit more and more," said Wasim.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Inziegate update after a breather
It has been a week since I last posted. Whenever an emotive issue arises in any sport many commentators discuss the merits of the disaster or whatever and then there is a lull....then a storm. Well, it appears that cricket or to be exact, Inziegate has been in a lull phase for the past week. After all, cricket has been played so let me be the first (last actually) to congratulate Pakistan on their excellent form in the 1 day series versus England. England's team is way below standard without Flintoff and a very wobbly opening pair. Shabby bowling doesn't help! But even during this Younis Khan and Inzie masterclass the ball-tampering fingers have been wagging. I am, of course, referring to Shoaib Akhtar (good to see you back Shoaib) seen rubbing his thumb across the white ball during his walk back or was it the start of his run up. Who could tell? Well, I can categorically say that the spin doctors and nutters running sports media really are losing their marbles. There is no way jose that any bowler could or can be accused of tampering by allowing his thumb to rub the ball whilst in his hand. Now if his chisel of a thumb had been lifting the seam then that is another story but BALL-TAMPERING no. Pakistan are innocent on this absurd suggestion or was it an accusation by the media. Shock of horrors I received a telephone call just after this Shoaib ball rub had been shown on Sky and my friend, an ex-Kent colt no less, and someone who was shown how to swing a ball from Richard Ellison, a great seam, swing and length bowler in his day, said to me that he had spotted a Pakistan infringement far more shattering than anything else other than the Hair Doctrove incident at the Oval. What could this have been? Well my friend, I shall call him Ozzie, told me that he had access to the Sky technology whereby he could slow down a bowlers action, focus in on the arm, and investigate and examine whether any bowler's arm could be considered CHUCKING! What! I'll repeat that...CHUCKING young man! A whole new can of worms could be opened here. According to Ozzie the aforementioned bowler's inswinger was a clear chuck. But then of course the umpires (was it Doctrove I saw on the ECB TV link?)don't have access to this sort of technology thank goodness! Of course, with the current poor standard of cricket reporting it's unlikely any of the ex-pro's would or could pick this up but it does show that Pakistan have allowed their coaching methods (pre-Bob of course) to get just a little stretched, if it's true, and I know my friend Ozzie is a man of his word and very knowledgeable. So knowledgable and skilled in fact that he told me he practised swinging balls by swinging stones round the corners of brick walls. He's in his early 40's now, and I've never seen him bowl, except chuck an orange across a dealing room floor in the City at around 70mph, so a great talent appears to have gone begging Kent. Oh well!
What else has happened in the Inziegate situ? Oh yes, the date I gave you earlier, 15th September, well that has been changed. With all the supporters of cricket screaming for an early hearing and a clear up to the mess what did the ICC do? They did what all daft codgers do. They put it back further rather like schoolboys passing smelly underwear around a dormitory during a pillow fight. So the hearing is now on 27th & 28th September 2006. TWO DAYS....now this must be important. Picture this! There are 2 sides at the hearing. The PCB with players, ex-players, squads of lawyers, and on the other side a certain Mr D Hair and his lot. Well apparently it takes 2 days to hear what everybody knows....Inzie brought the game into.....and a certain bowler tampered the ball. Robert Redford, I hear, is being considered for the role of D Hair! Someone send him a Wisden!
What else has happened in the Inziegate situ? Oh yes, the date I gave you earlier, 15th September, well that has been changed. With all the supporters of cricket screaming for an early hearing and a clear up to the mess what did the ICC do? They did what all daft codgers do. They put it back further rather like schoolboys passing smelly underwear around a dormitory during a pillow fight. So the hearing is now on 27th & 28th September 2006. TWO DAYS....now this must be important. Picture this! There are 2 sides at the hearing. The PCB with players, ex-players, squads of lawyers, and on the other side a certain Mr D Hair and his lot. Well apparently it takes 2 days to hear what everybody knows....Inzie brought the game into.....and a certain bowler tampered the ball. Robert Redford, I hear, is being considered for the role of D Hair! Someone send him a Wisden!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)