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.
Friday, September 29, 2006
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!
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
ICC repeal the Ball Tampering Laws of cricket ***HEARING***
SHOCK HORROR
WELL THIS GOT YOU HERE TO THIS BLOG ANYWAY......IT'S NOT TRUE....YET!
The views of many cricket lovers, pro and amateur appear to be split on the issue of what constitutes ball tampering and whether the rules should a) be relaxed or b) be axed. Glenn McGrath. the most successful Australian fast bowler in the history of cricket, albeit a seam up bowler primarily, has reportedly rejected the calls for ball tampering rules to be weakened. Jeff Thomson, he of the whip arch action and sometime fast bowling colleague of Dennis Lillee, has stated that the rule should be scrapped. In Pakistan I imagine 50m + people would agree with Thommo!
But Derek Pringle, the erstwhile Telegraph cricket writer appears in the Woolmer camp as someone who would like to see changes. Similar in action to Woolmer, Derek played for Cambridge and Essex I recollect, and latterly England and I think it fair to say that their joint statistics at international level would have been much improved if "converse swing" and over eagre "working" of the ball had been allowed and accepted practice back in the 70's & 80's. Ho ho ho!
Derek though does have a different slant altogether on the events of the eventful Oval Test. He says that the ball (not the same ball as the one Inzie allegedly doctored along with his team mates you understand) in the 1st innings bowled by Asif and Gul swung like a....what was it?....banana perhaps. Suspicions were equal between the umpires (apparently) and English players using their binoculars from the pavilion. How are these Pakistan bowlers achieving so much swing, and reverse swing to boot? Stranger still apparently Asif polishes the ball using both of his trousered flannels legs but only one side went cherry. What can it mean Dr Pringle? Perhaps Asif had used the wrong Sketchley's or more sinister, his girl friend, wife or partner had applied transparent nail polish or as Bob suggested was being used around various grounds, spittal from fruit drops. What a great opportunity for the advertising boys had been missed here. Can you imagine Opal Fruits as sponsored by Pakistan Cricket Board being plastered all over the players kit? This may not be so far from the impossible because I hear through the grapevine that Coca Cola sweets are NOT being used any longer in the sub-continent. I jest not!
So if Bob and Derek, Atherton and others, have their way you can put the noble game to bed, sleep easy, and know that games wont last 5 minutes let alone 5 days. Leggies and offies will be history. Batsmen like Hick, Tendulkar, Trezzie and other's wont last as long and the whole need for umpires will be transplanted by Sony on pitch camcorders held by various fielders. One can picture these signals being transported back to the Sky Newsdesk as catches go down along with broken camcorders. Oh well the new sponsors can pay and Mike Proctor can take the blame if the ratings collapse. Hehhhh! I've got a better idea Bob! Why not gift out cricket balls with packets of Opal Fruits so that the kids can practice. After all the kids of today in England do need to catch up on their counterparts in Lahore!
WELL THIS GOT YOU HERE TO THIS BLOG ANYWAY......IT'S NOT TRUE....YET!
The views of many cricket lovers, pro and amateur appear to be split on the issue of what constitutes ball tampering and whether the rules should a) be relaxed or b) be axed. Glenn McGrath. the most successful Australian fast bowler in the history of cricket, albeit a seam up bowler primarily, has reportedly rejected the calls for ball tampering rules to be weakened. Jeff Thomson, he of the whip arch action and sometime fast bowling colleague of Dennis Lillee, has stated that the rule should be scrapped. In Pakistan I imagine 50m + people would agree with Thommo!
But Derek Pringle, the erstwhile Telegraph cricket writer appears in the Woolmer camp as someone who would like to see changes. Similar in action to Woolmer, Derek played for Cambridge and Essex I recollect, and latterly England and I think it fair to say that their joint statistics at international level would have been much improved if "converse swing" and over eagre "working" of the ball had been allowed and accepted practice back in the 70's & 80's. Ho ho ho!
Derek though does have a different slant altogether on the events of the eventful Oval Test. He says that the ball (not the same ball as the one Inzie allegedly doctored along with his team mates you understand) in the 1st innings bowled by Asif and Gul swung like a....what was it?....banana perhaps. Suspicions were equal between the umpires (apparently) and English players using their binoculars from the pavilion. How are these Pakistan bowlers achieving so much swing, and reverse swing to boot? Stranger still apparently Asif polishes the ball using both of his trousered flannels legs but only one side went cherry. What can it mean Dr Pringle? Perhaps Asif had used the wrong Sketchley's or more sinister, his girl friend, wife or partner had applied transparent nail polish or as Bob suggested was being used around various grounds, spittal from fruit drops. What a great opportunity for the advertising boys had been missed here. Can you imagine Opal Fruits as sponsored by Pakistan Cricket Board being plastered all over the players kit? This may not be so far from the impossible because I hear through the grapevine that Coca Cola sweets are NOT being used any longer in the sub-continent. I jest not!
So if Bob and Derek, Atherton and others, have their way you can put the noble game to bed, sleep easy, and know that games wont last 5 minutes let alone 5 days. Leggies and offies will be history. Batsmen like Hick, Tendulkar, Trezzie and other's wont last as long and the whole need for umpires will be transplanted by Sony on pitch camcorders held by various fielders. One can picture these signals being transported back to the Sky Newsdesk as catches go down along with broken camcorders. Oh well the new sponsors can pay and Mike Proctor can take the blame if the ratings collapse. Hehhhh! I've got a better idea Bob! Why not gift out cricket balls with packets of Opal Fruits so that the kids can practice. After all the kids of today in England do need to catch up on their counterparts in Lahore!
Inziegate Part II
After my blog of 29/8 where I was critical of CricInfo allowing Bob Woolmer a regular slot on their site the predicted salvo of words from Pakistan Cricket Board has started. If say the Law Gazette, for example, allowed one of the key witnesses to a crime become a regular LG commentator prior to a trial regarding the events surrounding the particular crime there would be a mighty backlash right up to the House of Lords. Unthinkable! So why has CricInfo allowed Bob to possibly influence the outcome of the meeting of 15th September? One can only surmise that Wisden is no longer impartial in these matters. The repurcussions for world cricket if and when the truth is outed is unthinkable. A break up between nations could be on the cards. The Australian cricket writers and pro and ex-pro Aussie cricketers have hung their baggies on Hair's peg whilst the liver coloured assassins in the UK have backed Inzie and that snake, Shaharyar.
It has been quite clear to me since the Sunday Oval debacle that the ICC is simply not working. Indeed the entire cricket machine on the admin side is not working. If it was working, and there are thousands who think the status quo is working perfectly, then this utter mess would have been cleaned up by now. The reason it hasn't is wholly due the ineffectiveness of the ICC itself and the Muppets who work there. The entire cricketing media focus has been, in order of target priority, Hair, Doctrove, Proctor, Rule 42.3 la di da! So it has become of absolutely no surprise to me to read today's report on CricInfo perpetrated by Inzie. Inzie is portrayed as a mild mannered Captain and by all accounts is a laid back figure by all those who know. Certainly his body language at times implies that he's often pretty disinterested in general cricket proceedings. His salutation towards Hair then, "big trouble" for Hair, is uncharacteristic. "Darrell is in big trouble. I don't know why he is doing these things". Now Inzie must have been in touch with what has been going on, what the Aussies and various blogs including this one are thinking and saying, be familiar with the Laws of cricket, understand the phrase "the Umpires word is law" and yet he astounds us all by suggesting that Hair "is doing these things" presumably to him and his team. Or does he refer to the Speed trap (aw!!! "Speed trap"...reckless speedster!) and the negotiated and subsequent withdrawn compensation figure. Because if this is the case then this is another example of how Inzie, our Bob, Zaheer and the snake have mishandled true public opinion. Granted most of us wish this mess hadn't happened but to constantly suggest that Hair is the guilty party is quite ridiculous unless of course one knew before publishing these articles on CricInfo that certain people in ICC are already in the pocket of PCB. Yes folks, incredible as it may seem this is the implication of what is really happening to the noble game. With $m's at stake worldwide and another Ashes series in the waiting room and 2007 being World Cup year what better way to grab the public's attention that to relax the rules a little, and allow certain swing bowlers a finger picking good time. Because this is what is happening here.
So that we are all certain of the situation. The issue of ball tampering is here and now! So why not let messrs whoever of pakistan get away with it and lamblast the umpires for bringing this to our attention.
Enough said!
A few more thoughts....."I'm sure 100% because I have done nothing" Inzie says relating to the hearing result. Fix I say! Nice one Mr Speed and by the way I should check your pillow case in case the cobra is laying in wait for you. Now I've never known of anyone knowing for certain, 100% certain, the outcome of a trial some 16 days before it has happened. Amazing stuff Inzie! And to further snafu the case what have the PCB done overnight? They have, surprise surprise, written to ICC DEMANDING (notice the word is demand, not ask, not request, demand, DEMAND)an enquiry into Hair's conduct in the Test and ensure it is held before 15th so as to influence Hair's enquiry. My god! There are more snakes in the Oval long grass than I first realised.
As the run in to the 15th enquiry gets ever closer no doubt there will be more surprises in store.
It has been quite clear to me since the Sunday Oval debacle that the ICC is simply not working. Indeed the entire cricket machine on the admin side is not working. If it was working, and there are thousands who think the status quo is working perfectly, then this utter mess would have been cleaned up by now. The reason it hasn't is wholly due the ineffectiveness of the ICC itself and the Muppets who work there. The entire cricketing media focus has been, in order of target priority, Hair, Doctrove, Proctor, Rule 42.3 la di da! So it has become of absolutely no surprise to me to read today's report on CricInfo perpetrated by Inzie. Inzie is portrayed as a mild mannered Captain and by all accounts is a laid back figure by all those who know. Certainly his body language at times implies that he's often pretty disinterested in general cricket proceedings. His salutation towards Hair then, "big trouble" for Hair, is uncharacteristic. "Darrell is in big trouble. I don't know why he is doing these things". Now Inzie must have been in touch with what has been going on, what the Aussies and various blogs including this one are thinking and saying, be familiar with the Laws of cricket, understand the phrase "the Umpires word is law" and yet he astounds us all by suggesting that Hair "is doing these things" presumably to him and his team. Or does he refer to the Speed trap (aw!!! "Speed trap"...reckless speedster!) and the negotiated and subsequent withdrawn compensation figure. Because if this is the case then this is another example of how Inzie, our Bob, Zaheer and the snake have mishandled true public opinion. Granted most of us wish this mess hadn't happened but to constantly suggest that Hair is the guilty party is quite ridiculous unless of course one knew before publishing these articles on CricInfo that certain people in ICC are already in the pocket of PCB. Yes folks, incredible as it may seem this is the implication of what is really happening to the noble game. With $m's at stake worldwide and another Ashes series in the waiting room and 2007 being World Cup year what better way to grab the public's attention that to relax the rules a little, and allow certain swing bowlers a finger picking good time. Because this is what is happening here.
So that we are all certain of the situation. The issue of ball tampering is here and now! So why not let messrs whoever of pakistan get away with it and lamblast the umpires for bringing this to our attention.
Enough said!
A few more thoughts....."I'm sure 100% because I have done nothing" Inzie says relating to the hearing result. Fix I say! Nice one Mr Speed and by the way I should check your pillow case in case the cobra is laying in wait for you. Now I've never known of anyone knowing for certain, 100% certain, the outcome of a trial some 16 days before it has happened. Amazing stuff Inzie! And to further snafu the case what have the PCB done overnight? They have, surprise surprise, written to ICC DEMANDING (notice the word is demand, not ask, not request, demand, DEMAND)an enquiry into Hair's conduct in the Test and ensure it is held before 15th so as to influence Hair's enquiry. My god! There are more snakes in the Oval long grass than I first realised.
As the run in to the 15th enquiry gets ever closer no doubt there will be more surprises in store.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
The jungle drums have started beating!!!
Rather like the great battle at Rorke's Drift Mr Hair is surrounded by his leading protectors, Steve Waugh in Michael Caine's part, Shane Warne as...well you get the drift (no pun intended). The swathes of zulus are the rest of the populace intent on chopping Mr Hair up in to little pieces. I read that the ECB's umpires manager has withdrawn Mr Hair because..."It's an inappropriate time for him to do the match with what's going on (oh! you mean cricket Mr Kelly!). There are lots of lots of issues". I'm sure there are! And I thought Mr Hair was just a top class umpire trying to do his job and now we hear that there are other issues getting in the way. Funny old game as Greavsie would say.
But the best part of today's proceedings care of our great protectors at CricInfo or is it Wisden, who knows these days, I'm getting confused. That reminds me I must speak to the Brocklehurst's. They'll know what's going on! Because I am angry dear readers...very angry! CricInfo have published today an article entitled "At the right place at the wrong time" written by my old friend Bob and it's not that I'm angry that Bob has written for CricInfo you understand. I for one am delighted that Bob is writing to us all to clear this ugly mess up it's just that (I wonder if you spotted it!) written in italics under the heading CricInfo clearly state....
wait for it.......wait.....
"Bob Woolmer, the Pakistan coach, will be a regular contributor to CricInfo".
The offending word is....."will"........ooooohhhh what a stench!
How frightfully convenient of my old school teacher to grace CricInfo with his ramblings on what our Bob thinks is wrong with cricket,etc, etc....what utter balderdash. Wisden, CricInfo....I know you're all pro-Kent because I too am a Kent supporter (b.Tun Wells 57) but giving Bob a regular slot on candid ol' CricInfo is just too much.
Now for the main course.
What has Bob enlightened us with today? Before starting on this I should indicate to all new readers on this blog that I have been critical of the role Bob did or didn't play in the dressing room on the now fateful Sunday.
Well Bob starts by gleefully saying that he's been close to, part of, connected with ALL the 4 major crises in his 38 years since turning pro. I was there when my old Head Master congratulated him upon obtaining his county cap so I can vouch for the time frame. Kerry Packer's pyjamarama with Tony Greig, Bob was there, Gooch's laborious tour to unlock the next Pollock generation of South African cricketers, Bob was there, the late Hansie Cronje's infidelities, Bob was there or thereabouts and now Inziegate, Bob like a character from "Zulu", is in the thick of the fighting...god I love that film!
Bob then goes on to describe "the Darrell Hair affair" or is it the darrell affair o'hare...oh I give up...I prefer INZIEgate and that is what I'm going to refer to it as.....repeatedly...INZEEEEEE GATE.....INZIEGATE....even though I know that poor ol' Inzie is probably much more innocent than many people think. Guilty by affliction to the job (sic!)! Bob says and I quote. "It was dreadful for the game but I am sure it will also highlight issues such as how matches are umpired as well as enable a rethink on some laws of the game currently too inflexible in their interpretation". End of paragraph. Well let's just analyse this shall we Bob! I spend my working day analysing stocks and shares and see Chairmen and CEO's come up every day with excuses and spectacular innuendos but this little abbreviation is right up there with the best of them. You say "It was..." whereas I say "It is...". As for highlighting issues as to how matches are umpired I reckon we've got a pretty good system in place already Bob. It's called unbiased umpiring and foregive me if I'm wrong but most cricket games have two of them thus to avoid an element of doubt for players and spectators alike. It's only you professional cricketers who have 2 more umpires in storage and thanks to Mr Baird all 4 of them get a chance on occasions to relive an experience, something incidentally that the old codger on the village green or the 13 year old standing in for the 1st XI regular umpire and making an absolute horlicks of himself and the blessed batsmen's averages doesn't get.
And then you go on to say, and by gawd I've been expecting this (see my earlier postings on this blog), that you'd like a rethink on the laws of the game as they're too inflexible. Wow! So Bob you've been a pro for 38 years give or take a year or so and you think the laws of the game are too inflexible do you. Well let me tell you Bob I think you are talking absolute garbage. Tony Cozier mentioned 2 instances of penalties issued for ball tampering in the Windies and apart from what Billy and Darrell did the other day in my 42 years playing and watching cricket I can't ever remember umpires having to take this decision before. I would suggest that they didn't take this decision lightly as I'm sure you had sleepless nights when you stopped coaching SA and then deciding upon the Pakistan job. And when you say "their interpretation" you must be only referring to THE UMPIRES INTERPRETATION because it's ONLY the umpires who get a chance to interpret these great laws. Bob, let me bring you down to the level that the rest of us spend most of our time at, and say to you, in fact I'll take you aside and have a quiet word with you as you suggest Darrell should have done, and suggest to you that coaching cricket is your job, and you're very good, very good indeed I might say, but as a rule breaker you are flat useless. Your imaginative response to the delay by the Pakistan team to take the field reminds me of the countless schoolboys failing the time limit to get out of the pavilion and on to the field of play and their pitiful excuses.....wake up Bob this is cricket and you know the rules and so does Inzie and every spectator at that ground knew full well that when the umpire says jump, you bl**dy well JUMP. And none of you did! Your delightful reminiscence of the time that David Constant changed the ball whilst you were acting Captain (for Kent at Bournemouth presumably)because someone had picked the seam just personifies the situation you now find yourself in. You say "we got on with the game" so why didn't you get on with the game on Sunday after tea? You can't answer that BOB because you no longer like the rules. Once a rebel always a rebel! A rebel with a cause. Why I am so beligerent Bob? Because I am a rebel myself.
In your Kent days you were a very good medium swing/seam bowler and I often enjoyed your little skip as you turned back towards the stumps. I recollect that you often used to use sweat and lick to shine the ball..that's fine by me! But let's face it Bob you are or rather were a swing bowler who I recollect held the John Player record for wickets for a few seasons. Then it's not surprising that you are supportive of "converse swing". So long as it's legal that's fine. I agree with your analysis of Simon Jones. A natural swing bowler who managed to get the best fom the ball. But I think you'll agree with me Bob on this. Take 2 bowlers bowling at roughly the same speed in dry english conditions. One swings the other doesn't. Is it the ball or the action? Well, it's the action of course! You know that and I know that. Some bowlers have it others don't. C'est la vie! Some swing from when the ball leaves the arm (even G Boycott could bamboozle at times with his cap in reverse) whilst others when the ball reaches the keeper. Those that can control the swing (like Imran)just before it reaches the batsmen are gods in the annals of the game. So let's face it! This is what this Inziegate affair is all about. It's not about the lousy 5 runs Pakistan lost, it's not about the sit in, it's not about England being awarded the match, it's not about honour, it's not about Pakistan losing, it's not about Inzie, it's not about Hair, nor indeedy Mr "3 times" Billy Doctrove, it's not about Mr Speed, it's not about listening to Atherton and Hussain bleating on tv, it's not about CMJ or MN or AF using up too much copy before going to press, I'll tell you Bob what this is all about.
INTERMISSION
But the best part of today's proceedings care of our great protectors at CricInfo or is it Wisden, who knows these days, I'm getting confused. That reminds me I must speak to the Brocklehurst's. They'll know what's going on! Because I am angry dear readers...very angry! CricInfo have published today an article entitled "At the right place at the wrong time" written by my old friend Bob and it's not that I'm angry that Bob has written for CricInfo you understand. I for one am delighted that Bob is writing to us all to clear this ugly mess up it's just that (I wonder if you spotted it!) written in italics under the heading CricInfo clearly state....
wait for it.......wait.....
"Bob Woolmer, the Pakistan coach, will be a regular contributor to CricInfo".
The offending word is....."will"........ooooohhhh what a stench!
How frightfully convenient of my old school teacher to grace CricInfo with his ramblings on what our Bob thinks is wrong with cricket,etc, etc....what utter balderdash. Wisden, CricInfo....I know you're all pro-Kent because I too am a Kent supporter (b.Tun Wells 57) but giving Bob a regular slot on candid ol' CricInfo is just too much.
Now for the main course.
What has Bob enlightened us with today? Before starting on this I should indicate to all new readers on this blog that I have been critical of the role Bob did or didn't play in the dressing room on the now fateful Sunday.
Well Bob starts by gleefully saying that he's been close to, part of, connected with ALL the 4 major crises in his 38 years since turning pro. I was there when my old Head Master congratulated him upon obtaining his county cap so I can vouch for the time frame. Kerry Packer's pyjamarama with Tony Greig, Bob was there, Gooch's laborious tour to unlock the next Pollock generation of South African cricketers, Bob was there, the late Hansie Cronje's infidelities, Bob was there or thereabouts and now Inziegate, Bob like a character from "Zulu", is in the thick of the fighting...god I love that film!
Bob then goes on to describe "the Darrell Hair affair" or is it the darrell affair o'hare...oh I give up...I prefer INZIEgate and that is what I'm going to refer to it as.....repeatedly...INZEEEEEE GATE.....INZIEGATE....even though I know that poor ol' Inzie is probably much more innocent than many people think. Guilty by affliction to the job (sic!)! Bob says and I quote. "It was dreadful for the game but I am sure it will also highlight issues such as how matches are umpired as well as enable a rethink on some laws of the game currently too inflexible in their interpretation". End of paragraph. Well let's just analyse this shall we Bob! I spend my working day analysing stocks and shares and see Chairmen and CEO's come up every day with excuses and spectacular innuendos but this little abbreviation is right up there with the best of them. You say "It was..." whereas I say "It is...". As for highlighting issues as to how matches are umpired I reckon we've got a pretty good system in place already Bob. It's called unbiased umpiring and foregive me if I'm wrong but most cricket games have two of them thus to avoid an element of doubt for players and spectators alike. It's only you professional cricketers who have 2 more umpires in storage and thanks to Mr Baird all 4 of them get a chance on occasions to relive an experience, something incidentally that the old codger on the village green or the 13 year old standing in for the 1st XI regular umpire and making an absolute horlicks of himself and the blessed batsmen's averages doesn't get.
And then you go on to say, and by gawd I've been expecting this (see my earlier postings on this blog), that you'd like a rethink on the laws of the game as they're too inflexible. Wow! So Bob you've been a pro for 38 years give or take a year or so and you think the laws of the game are too inflexible do you. Well let me tell you Bob I think you are talking absolute garbage. Tony Cozier mentioned 2 instances of penalties issued for ball tampering in the Windies and apart from what Billy and Darrell did the other day in my 42 years playing and watching cricket I can't ever remember umpires having to take this decision before. I would suggest that they didn't take this decision lightly as I'm sure you had sleepless nights when you stopped coaching SA and then deciding upon the Pakistan job. And when you say "their interpretation" you must be only referring to THE UMPIRES INTERPRETATION because it's ONLY the umpires who get a chance to interpret these great laws. Bob, let me bring you down to the level that the rest of us spend most of our time at, and say to you, in fact I'll take you aside and have a quiet word with you as you suggest Darrell should have done, and suggest to you that coaching cricket is your job, and you're very good, very good indeed I might say, but as a rule breaker you are flat useless. Your imaginative response to the delay by the Pakistan team to take the field reminds me of the countless schoolboys failing the time limit to get out of the pavilion and on to the field of play and their pitiful excuses.....wake up Bob this is cricket and you know the rules and so does Inzie and every spectator at that ground knew full well that when the umpire says jump, you bl**dy well JUMP. And none of you did! Your delightful reminiscence of the time that David Constant changed the ball whilst you were acting Captain (for Kent at Bournemouth presumably)because someone had picked the seam just personifies the situation you now find yourself in. You say "we got on with the game" so why didn't you get on with the game on Sunday after tea? You can't answer that BOB because you no longer like the rules. Once a rebel always a rebel! A rebel with a cause. Why I am so beligerent Bob? Because I am a rebel myself.
In your Kent days you were a very good medium swing/seam bowler and I often enjoyed your little skip as you turned back towards the stumps. I recollect that you often used to use sweat and lick to shine the ball..that's fine by me! But let's face it Bob you are or rather were a swing bowler who I recollect held the John Player record for wickets for a few seasons. Then it's not surprising that you are supportive of "converse swing". So long as it's legal that's fine. I agree with your analysis of Simon Jones. A natural swing bowler who managed to get the best fom the ball. But I think you'll agree with me Bob on this. Take 2 bowlers bowling at roughly the same speed in dry english conditions. One swings the other doesn't. Is it the ball or the action? Well, it's the action of course! You know that and I know that. Some bowlers have it others don't. C'est la vie! Some swing from when the ball leaves the arm (even G Boycott could bamboozle at times with his cap in reverse) whilst others when the ball reaches the keeper. Those that can control the swing (like Imran)just before it reaches the batsmen are gods in the annals of the game. So let's face it! This is what this Inziegate affair is all about. It's not about the lousy 5 runs Pakistan lost, it's not about the sit in, it's not about England being awarded the match, it's not about honour, it's not about Pakistan losing, it's not about Inzie, it's not about Hair, nor indeedy Mr "3 times" Billy Doctrove, it's not about Mr Speed, it's not about listening to Atherton and Hussain bleating on tv, it's not about CMJ or MN or AF using up too much copy before going to press, I'll tell you Bob what this is all about.
INTERMISSION
Tony Cozier steps in to the fray
With the lines of engagement drawn in the sand and the supporters of Hair on one side and the antis on the other it's interesting to note that those supporting Hair are mainly Aussies and ex-umpires, club cricketers of various shapes and sizes whilst the antis appear to be made up mainly of wimpish ex-pro cricketers, cricketing journalists who are ex-cricketers (can they all be wimps?)and 50m Pakistanis. Obviously there are millions of others who have a say but their positions in all of this are difficult if not impossible to ascertain as the avalanche of opinion seems to be attacking Hair. Mark Nicholas's Daily Telegraph article published on Saturday springs to mind.
Now get this! The well respected West Indies commentator Tony Cozier has stepped in to the fray with his SPECIAL TAKE on the Hair saga and despite being vociferous in his opinion that the row could have been avoided if bad Mr Hair had been nice to Inzie and his fellow cricketers he again has confirmed that Hair cannot carry on as an umpire in 1st Class cricket. This seems to be the universal running theme amongst all the UK journalists and tv commentators. Lemmings I say! So poor old Mr Hair is being ridiculed because he did his job (properly in my estimate) by penalising Pakistan 5 runs, a law by the way designed to take the sting out of the tail of any bowler mixed up in a verbal accusation of tampering. Let's imagine that the 5 run penalty law wasn't there then and Mr Hair, or any umpire anywhere in cricket for that matter, had suspected a bowler, or fielders of ball tampering. What was he/they to do? Perhaps verbally accuse players of CHEATING. Well, in most places in the sub-continent a riot would have taken place. No this did NOT happen like this because the 5 run penalty law or ruling is designed to take the sting out of the sticky issue because it DOES NOT accuse anybody of CHEATING. That's the whole point which not a single journalist appears to have picked up.
Now to Cozier's alarming observation. As you know he blames Mr Hair for his lack of "flexibility" as he puts it and then discusses to whoever read his article about the 2 occasions, yes twice chaps, when Billy Doctrove penalised 2 West Indies teams on seperate occasions. Incredible this story...quite incredible! Apparently it's only EVER happened twice before in the history of West Indies cricket and our Billy was involved on both occasions. One was a 1995 game involving Barbados U-19 the last a 2004 Carib Cup game involving Barbados again.
Now don't you think that this might take the heat off Hair...not a bit of it because Mr Speed and the ICC Muppet Crew have already stamped their feet and thrown the baby out of the pram.
Now why did it take Tony Cozier till yesterday to report this to the world press. Perhaps Tony you too were fearful that your cushy seat in the tv/radio studio, Lords press centre might be taken by someone else.....
I am beginning to think that cricketing journalists should be forced to wear LIVER coloured blazers from now on.
Now get this! The well respected West Indies commentator Tony Cozier has stepped in to the fray with his SPECIAL TAKE on the Hair saga and despite being vociferous in his opinion that the row could have been avoided if bad Mr Hair had been nice to Inzie and his fellow cricketers he again has confirmed that Hair cannot carry on as an umpire in 1st Class cricket. This seems to be the universal running theme amongst all the UK journalists and tv commentators. Lemmings I say! So poor old Mr Hair is being ridiculed because he did his job (properly in my estimate) by penalising Pakistan 5 runs, a law by the way designed to take the sting out of the tail of any bowler mixed up in a verbal accusation of tampering. Let's imagine that the 5 run penalty law wasn't there then and Mr Hair, or any umpire anywhere in cricket for that matter, had suspected a bowler, or fielders of ball tampering. What was he/they to do? Perhaps verbally accuse players of CHEATING. Well, in most places in the sub-continent a riot would have taken place. No this did NOT happen like this because the 5 run penalty law or ruling is designed to take the sting out of the sticky issue because it DOES NOT accuse anybody of CHEATING. That's the whole point which not a single journalist appears to have picked up.
Now to Cozier's alarming observation. As you know he blames Mr Hair for his lack of "flexibility" as he puts it and then discusses to whoever read his article about the 2 occasions, yes twice chaps, when Billy Doctrove penalised 2 West Indies teams on seperate occasions. Incredible this story...quite incredible! Apparently it's only EVER happened twice before in the history of West Indies cricket and our Billy was involved on both occasions. One was a 1995 game involving Barbados U-19 the last a 2004 Carib Cup game involving Barbados again.
Now don't you think that this might take the heat off Hair...not a bit of it because Mr Speed and the ICC Muppet Crew have already stamped their feet and thrown the baby out of the pram.
Now why did it take Tony Cozier till yesterday to report this to the world press. Perhaps Tony you too were fearful that your cushy seat in the tv/radio studio, Lords press centre might be taken by someone else.....
I am beginning to think that cricketing journalists should be forced to wear LIVER coloured blazers from now on.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Hindustan Times comes to the rescue!!!
Reviled in Pakistan and ridiculed in England, umpire Darrell Hair has been lauded in Australia as the bravest man in cricket for abiding by what he considers to be of paramount importance: the rules.
Hair was described as a "mini Hitler" by Imran Khan and accused of being a racist by people across the Indian subcontinent after he penalized Pakistan for ball tampering, prompting a boycott that resulted in a Test match being awarded to England by forfeit. Former Australian captain Stephen Waugh, while conceding Hair could come across as a stickler for the rules, supported the decision process that resulted in the first forfeit in more almost 130 years of Test cricket.
Waugh posted a hundred in the infamous Melbourne Test in 1995 when Hair called Sri Lanka spinner Muttiah Muralitharan -- now the second-most successful wicket-taker of all time -- for bowling with an illegal action seven times on the first day.
That sparked a hate campaign in Sri Lanka and death threats against Hair.
While Hair has started umpiring matches involving Sri Lanka again, Pakistani cricket authorities are pushing for the Australian official to be barred from their future matches.
However, Simon Taufel, voted the world's top umpire of 2005, agreed with Hair's interpretation that Inzamam-ul-Haq and his Pakistan lineup, by refusing to return for play after the tea interval at The Oval on Day four, had forfeited the fourth Test. "If the fielding side refuses to take the field, there is not much the umpires can do," Taufel told the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper. "Umpires have to follow the laws as they are written. It's hard to fault the umpires in this case."
Besides, Taufel said, Hair came to the decision after consulting with his fellow umpire Billy Doctrove.
"The Darrell Hair I know calls the game the way he sees it without fear or favor," Taufel said. "He knows the laws better than anyone."
Dick French, who stood in 19 Test matches and was a mentor for Hair in the 1980s, said Hair's decisions did not reflect prejudice of any kind.
"There is no allegation of bias or racism, not at all," French said. "There's nothing like that."
French said Hair "rates right up the top" of international umpires and, inside the fraternity, was a highly-respected role model for younger officials.
Two of Australia's leading cricket analysts hailed Hair as a hero.
Robert Craddock, writing in a syndicated column for Brisbane's The Courier-Mail under the headline "bravest man in cricket," said Hair made tough decisions on issues that other umpires were inclined to ignore because of the fuss -- namely ball tampering. "Darrell Hair is prepared to poke his nose into grubby corners of the cricket world where most of his fellow umpires refuse to go," Craddock said. "Over the years he's been called dictatorial and officious and both accusations have at times been correct. "But they should never overshadow the one great strength of his decision-making -- the courage to back his opinion even when the protesting millions disagree with it.
"Cricket needs no-nonsense characters such as Hair who keep the game honest."
Malcolm Conn, writing in The Australian, predicted the 'Asian bloc' of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh would unite to try and force Hair out of the game and the International Cricket Council would relent at its peril.
"Cricket is once again on the verge of disgracing itself by failing to support an umpire who has the courage to uphold the laws of the game," Conn said. "Hair should be considered a hero for his courage, despite being subjected to death threats in the past. "The spirit of cricket is central to the well being of the game and Inzamam crushed that spirit by refusing to play." The support for Hair follows a paradox in Australia, where the gentlemanly ideal of something being considered wrong because its "just not cricket" coexists with an anti-authority tendency that evolved from Australia's convict colony roots.
For the likes of Waugh, a cricket umpire's decision is final, resent it as much as you like, but get on with it. "No one is bigger than the game," said Waugh, whose 168 Test caps is a cricket record. "The laws are there for a reason." While Hair has been pilloried as an attention-seeker in England, Waugh said the umpire was within his rights to stand by his decision and knew there'd be repercussions.
"He would know the storm it could create. He has been through the Murali incident so he knows the ramifications of doing it," Waugh said. "He would not have done it lightly."
Hair "stands by what he believes so you can't ask much more from an umpire."
This blog aka Inziegate agrees wholeheartedly with these views. So much for CMJ, Boycs, CricInfo, Angus Fraser, Mark Nicholas & others upholding the Laws of cricket through their journalism. Most of them couldn't write their way out of a paperbag. I wonder if Dickie Bird or Fagg had been in this fix whether the ICC, MCC, bbc, TCCB or Watch With Mother would have been sympathetic and supportive. With the current makeup of ICC looking a lot like the Muppets it's pretty disastrous for cricket. It's great that Australia are behind Hair but please don't think you're alone. The UK media are a bloody disgrace in my view which is why I started this blog immediately following Speed's arrogant boast that he was defending CRICKET. My ass Mr Speed! One last thought....I suspect that if any of our lads in UK were man enough to support Hair they might think they might lose their valuable seats in the fancy press box at Lords and invitations to the numerous corporate lunches and teas that take place at every Test Match not forgetting their paid for BA 1st Class airtickets to the sunny Caribbean in 2007.
Hair was described as a "mini Hitler" by Imran Khan and accused of being a racist by people across the Indian subcontinent after he penalized Pakistan for ball tampering, prompting a boycott that resulted in a Test match being awarded to England by forfeit. Former Australian captain Stephen Waugh, while conceding Hair could come across as a stickler for the rules, supported the decision process that resulted in the first forfeit in more almost 130 years of Test cricket.
Waugh posted a hundred in the infamous Melbourne Test in 1995 when Hair called Sri Lanka spinner Muttiah Muralitharan -- now the second-most successful wicket-taker of all time -- for bowling with an illegal action seven times on the first day.
That sparked a hate campaign in Sri Lanka and death threats against Hair.
While Hair has started umpiring matches involving Sri Lanka again, Pakistani cricket authorities are pushing for the Australian official to be barred from their future matches.
However, Simon Taufel, voted the world's top umpire of 2005, agreed with Hair's interpretation that Inzamam-ul-Haq and his Pakistan lineup, by refusing to return for play after the tea interval at The Oval on Day four, had forfeited the fourth Test. "If the fielding side refuses to take the field, there is not much the umpires can do," Taufel told the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper. "Umpires have to follow the laws as they are written. It's hard to fault the umpires in this case."
Besides, Taufel said, Hair came to the decision after consulting with his fellow umpire Billy Doctrove.
"The Darrell Hair I know calls the game the way he sees it without fear or favor," Taufel said. "He knows the laws better than anyone."
Dick French, who stood in 19 Test matches and was a mentor for Hair in the 1980s, said Hair's decisions did not reflect prejudice of any kind.
"There is no allegation of bias or racism, not at all," French said. "There's nothing like that."
French said Hair "rates right up the top" of international umpires and, inside the fraternity, was a highly-respected role model for younger officials.
Two of Australia's leading cricket analysts hailed Hair as a hero.
Robert Craddock, writing in a syndicated column for Brisbane's The Courier-Mail under the headline "bravest man in cricket," said Hair made tough decisions on issues that other umpires were inclined to ignore because of the fuss -- namely ball tampering. "Darrell Hair is prepared to poke his nose into grubby corners of the cricket world where most of his fellow umpires refuse to go," Craddock said. "Over the years he's been called dictatorial and officious and both accusations have at times been correct. "But they should never overshadow the one great strength of his decision-making -- the courage to back his opinion even when the protesting millions disagree with it.
"Cricket needs no-nonsense characters such as Hair who keep the game honest."
Malcolm Conn, writing in The Australian, predicted the 'Asian bloc' of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh would unite to try and force Hair out of the game and the International Cricket Council would relent at its peril.
"Cricket is once again on the verge of disgracing itself by failing to support an umpire who has the courage to uphold the laws of the game," Conn said. "Hair should be considered a hero for his courage, despite being subjected to death threats in the past. "The spirit of cricket is central to the well being of the game and Inzamam crushed that spirit by refusing to play." The support for Hair follows a paradox in Australia, where the gentlemanly ideal of something being considered wrong because its "just not cricket" coexists with an anti-authority tendency that evolved from Australia's convict colony roots.
For the likes of Waugh, a cricket umpire's decision is final, resent it as much as you like, but get on with it. "No one is bigger than the game," said Waugh, whose 168 Test caps is a cricket record. "The laws are there for a reason." While Hair has been pilloried as an attention-seeker in England, Waugh said the umpire was within his rights to stand by his decision and knew there'd be repercussions.
"He would know the storm it could create. He has been through the Murali incident so he knows the ramifications of doing it," Waugh said. "He would not have done it lightly."
Hair "stands by what he believes so you can't ask much more from an umpire."
This blog aka Inziegate agrees wholeheartedly with these views. So much for CMJ, Boycs, CricInfo, Angus Fraser, Mark Nicholas & others upholding the Laws of cricket through their journalism. Most of them couldn't write their way out of a paperbag. I wonder if Dickie Bird or Fagg had been in this fix whether the ICC, MCC, bbc, TCCB or Watch With Mother would have been sympathetic and supportive. With the current makeup of ICC looking a lot like the Muppets it's pretty disastrous for cricket. It's great that Australia are behind Hair but please don't think you're alone. The UK media are a bloody disgrace in my view which is why I started this blog immediately following Speed's arrogant boast that he was defending CRICKET. My ass Mr Speed! One last thought....I suspect that if any of our lads in UK were man enough to support Hair they might think they might lose their valuable seats in the fancy press box at Lords and invitations to the numerous corporate lunches and teas that take place at every Test Match not forgetting their paid for BA 1st Class airtickets to the sunny Caribbean in 2007.
Summary on dnaindia.com
KARACHI: The International Cricket Council will hold a disciplinary hearing into Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq's actions in the fourth Test on September 15, Pakistan Cricket Board chairman Shaharyar Khan said on Friday.
The hearing into the ball-tampering controversy was postponed last Friday due to the enforced absence through a family illness of ICC chief referee Ranjan Madugalle. Shaharyar said Sri Lankan Madugalle would now be able to fly to London to adjudicate.
Inzamam could be banned for eight one-day internationals or four tests if he is found guilty of ball tampering and bringing the game into disrepute.
He was charged with both offences by the ICC after his team forfeited the fourth and final test against England at The Oval on Sunday.
Shaharyar, like tour manager Zaheer Abbas, was unwilling to comment on Friday's revelation that Darrell Hair, the Australian umpire at the centre of controversy, had offered to quit top level cricket in return for $500,000.
“We don't want to comment on this issue because it is between Hair and the ICC. But I think everyone agrees there will be implications,” Shaharyar said over the telephone from London.
“I have spoken firmly with the boys and told them we have to fulfill our commitments even if they feel slighted by Hair and believe the hearing should have been held before the one-day series,” added Shaharyar.
So the q everyone would like to know is why was Madugalle's presence so important to the original enquiry date?
Why should the boys from Pakistan feel slighted by Hair & not Hair and Doctrove? It's interesting to note that Shaharyar's tv comments immediately following the forfeited game spoke of unity in the Pakistan camp and yet we're hearing quite the opposite now. I suspect some of the boys were in favour of returning to the field whilst others probably influenced by Zaheer and very possibly Shaharyar sat it out knowing full well that without 11 in the field the umpires would be in a difficult position
The hearing into the ball-tampering controversy was postponed last Friday due to the enforced absence through a family illness of ICC chief referee Ranjan Madugalle. Shaharyar said Sri Lankan Madugalle would now be able to fly to London to adjudicate.
Inzamam could be banned for eight one-day internationals or four tests if he is found guilty of ball tampering and bringing the game into disrepute.
He was charged with both offences by the ICC after his team forfeited the fourth and final test against England at The Oval on Sunday.
Shaharyar, like tour manager Zaheer Abbas, was unwilling to comment on Friday's revelation that Darrell Hair, the Australian umpire at the centre of controversy, had offered to quit top level cricket in return for $500,000.
“We don't want to comment on this issue because it is between Hair and the ICC. But I think everyone agrees there will be implications,” Shaharyar said over the telephone from London.
“I have spoken firmly with the boys and told them we have to fulfill our commitments even if they feel slighted by Hair and believe the hearing should have been held before the one-day series,” added Shaharyar.
So the q everyone would like to know is why was Madugalle's presence so important to the original enquiry date?
Why should the boys from Pakistan feel slighted by Hair & not Hair and Doctrove? It's interesting to note that Shaharyar's tv comments immediately following the forfeited game spoke of unity in the Pakistan camp and yet we're hearing quite the opposite now. I suspect some of the boys were in favour of returning to the field whilst others probably influenced by Zaheer and very possibly Shaharyar sat it out knowing full well that without 11 in the field the umpires would be in a difficult position
Michael Holding confuses the issues in the INZIEGATE saga
Well I must confess I'm surprised by Michael Holding's stance. Having been allegedly heard to say that all fast bowlers had tampered with balls at one time or other in their cricket careers which was surprising in itself as he must have spoken with all of them, dead and alive good old sporting Michael, a man who I have great respect for as a person and a legendary bowler, has trumped all the goings on so far during the Inziegate saga by backing Inzie and effectively comparing the stance of Hair as to someone (presumably you Mike!) parking on double yellow lines, entering a chemists to buy important medication (perhaps steroids Michael!) and then upon returning to his car to sweet talk a nice Parking Attendant out of receiving a Parking Ticket and a presumed trip to Marylebone Police Station to pay his fine. Now Michael you may be talking of your own driving experiences here but I know that most law abiding citizens would disagree with your belief that Parking Attendants/Wardens are lenient and compassionate in any circumstances. Perhaps there are those Wardens who would be friendly towards ex-cricketers or other superstars but to compare umpiring a Test Match with this is fantasy Mike. And anyway Mike no one has accused anyone of cheating (yet) and obviously you don't find it surprising that neither you nor none of your West Indies colleagues ever discovered Reverse Swing. Now this is the nub Michael. Don't you find it at all weird that you, Andy Roberts, the late great Malcolm Marshall (who could swing a ball in any direction at any time or speed I recollect), Courtney Walsh, Curtly Ambrose, Joel Garner, Colin Croft.......dozens of others...none of these great fast bowlers ever reverse swung a ball....never EVER!
Mike, I agree on one thing! Poor old Inzie is perhaps the most innocent party in all this. By purely being appointed Pakistan Captain he has engulfed and been engulfed in the biggest scandal in cricket since bodyline and prior to that when WG himself refused to walk after being given out...on more than one occasion by all accounts.
No, your loyalty to fellow fast & fast/medium swing bowlers is commendable dear Michael but I think you've been drinking too much of the Sky Sport tea which must be contaminated with the same lack of analytical truth chemicals that the Sky News team possess.
To expect one (Hair) or both umpires to quietly take Inzie aside, mention Rule 42.3 or whatever number it is, with 26 Sky tv cameras and take the edge off the sitaution with microphones hidden in stumps is ludicrous. Picture this chaps....Hair and Doctrove or one on his own speaks to Inzie, warns him that a suspect ball tamperer is about, the conversation is picked up by Sky on a microphone, broadcasts occur before the tea break (bad light) where some or other or all asian cricketers commentating take umbrance at this and both or one of the umpires is brought to book after the day's play for failing to apply Rule 42.3 or whatever. Basically what I am saying is that the umpires having suspected a tampered ball were in a no-win situation and quite rightly upheld the Laws of the game.
Over to you Mike.....if you ever get around to reading this blog and find yourself living at ground zero like the rest of us!
But I do like your style Mike!
Mike, I agree on one thing! Poor old Inzie is perhaps the most innocent party in all this. By purely being appointed Pakistan Captain he has engulfed and been engulfed in the biggest scandal in cricket since bodyline and prior to that when WG himself refused to walk after being given out...on more than one occasion by all accounts.
No, your loyalty to fellow fast & fast/medium swing bowlers is commendable dear Michael but I think you've been drinking too much of the Sky Sport tea which must be contaminated with the same lack of analytical truth chemicals that the Sky News team possess.
To expect one (Hair) or both umpires to quietly take Inzie aside, mention Rule 42.3 or whatever number it is, with 26 Sky tv cameras and take the edge off the sitaution with microphones hidden in stumps is ludicrous. Picture this chaps....Hair and Doctrove or one on his own speaks to Inzie, warns him that a suspect ball tamperer is about, the conversation is picked up by Sky on a microphone, broadcasts occur before the tea break (bad light) where some or other or all asian cricketers commentating take umbrance at this and both or one of the umpires is brought to book after the day's play for failing to apply Rule 42.3 or whatever. Basically what I am saying is that the umpires having suspected a tampered ball were in a no-win situation and quite rightly upheld the Laws of the game.
Over to you Mike.....if you ever get around to reading this blog and find yourself living at ground zero like the rest of us!
But I do like your style Mike!
Speed v. Hair- Round 2 to Hair as Hair strikes back......
For those of you who are new to this blog please refer to my previous posts where I have been extremely critical of the actions of Speed since Friday's outrage. It is clear as I summised earlier that ICC set Mr Hair a trap over a potential agreed early termination of Hair's ICC contract. Mr Speed apparently has lied to us, the cricket lovers, to the media and the whole of the world. As I have said from the beginning of this blog it is the ICC who are bringing this great game of ours into disrepute by NOT respecting the Laws of cricket and supporting their umpires in all aspects of what happens from the opening delivery to when the bails are lifted. Venkat, the retired Indian umpire and now the Pakistan Test umpire Mr Dar have spoken in support of Hair. The tide is at last turning in Hair's favour. Quite why the ICC have failed to act is virtually criminal. I believe that the ICC has been got at by PCB and those with vested interests in Pakistan obtaining valid ways to cement their stranglehold on the art of reverse swing bowling. The recent spat between Woolmer and Jarman leaves all cricketers in no doubt that Woolmer's appointment as coach to Pakistan might have been more to do with his appreciation of reverse swing bowling than his recognised all-round superb coaching skills. The dressing room saga as I suspected resulted from differences of opinion between Zaheer (I am sure he engineered the sit in!), Inzie and Woolmer and the recent revelations on an Indian website suggest that Woolmer has considered resigning as a result of major differences of opinion during the sit in and since. Well I'm not surprised especially now that Jarman has entered the ring and our Bob's memory banks are not so good for a certain game that took place in 1997. Yet another ball to lock up Barry J! Here is an extract of today's CricInfo comment.....it makes interesting reading and confirms my reasoning for giving Mr Hair 100% support. Read on chaps....
Darrell Hair, the Australian umpire at the centre of the ongoing ball-tampering controversy, has claimed that his offer to resign if offered US$500,000 was made at the behest of the ICC. In a statement issued through his lawyers last night, Hair stated that he was invited to put his offer in writing by Doug Cowie, the ICC's umpires manager.
Hair said that his offer "was not a spur of the moment thing" and that he had a dialogue with the ICC. This immediately shifted the focus to Cowie, who first responded to the infamous Hair email last Tuesday by suggesting that his resignation offer "may have merit".
But Hair has now claimed that Speed made only a partial disclosure of exchanges three days later. Hair's lawyer also said that his latest statement was designed to "address certain misconceptions that appear to have arisen as a consequence of the release of certain confidential correspondence between Mr Hair and ICC".
"I was encouraged to make the offer that was disclosed by ICC on August 25. During an extended conversation on August 21 with Mr Cowie I was invited to make a written offer. The figure in the e-mail correspondence was in line with those canvassed with the ICC. I would have thought that it was quite apparent from the text of correspondence that I had been in discussions with ICC about the issue. The opening words of my e-mail to Mr Cowie confirm this: 'Just (to) firm up what we discussed earlier this evening ... '"
The ICC quickly rebutted the claim. A spokesman said: "There were many informal discussions between Mr Hair and Mr Cowie between the end of the Oval Test and Mr Hair's first e-mail on Tuesday, including a discussion on the potential impact on his career. Mr Cowie's role was to support and counsel Mr Hair, as his manager, at a difficult time. It is our understanding that at no stage during their conversations was there discussion of a pay-off, nor secrecy, nor deadlines, nor misleading the public over reasons for retirement -- all of which was subsequently laid out in Mr Hair's email."
Speed said he wanted Hair to continue as an international umpire but wasn't sure whether it would be possible after all this. He went on to back Cowie as well. "If he could play it again, Doug would play it differently," Speed said. "When the email came to me, I saw that not for one second could we contemplate it."
Darrell Hair, the Australian umpire at the centre of the ongoing ball-tampering controversy, has claimed that his offer to resign if offered US$500,000 was made at the behest of the ICC. In a statement issued through his lawyers last night, Hair stated that he was invited to put his offer in writing by Doug Cowie, the ICC's umpires manager.
Hair said that his offer "was not a spur of the moment thing" and that he had a dialogue with the ICC. This immediately shifted the focus to Cowie, who first responded to the infamous Hair email last Tuesday by suggesting that his resignation offer "may have merit".
But Hair has now claimed that Speed made only a partial disclosure of exchanges three days later. Hair's lawyer also said that his latest statement was designed to "address certain misconceptions that appear to have arisen as a consequence of the release of certain confidential correspondence between Mr Hair and ICC".
"I was encouraged to make the offer that was disclosed by ICC on August 25. During an extended conversation on August 21 with Mr Cowie I was invited to make a written offer. The figure in the e-mail correspondence was in line with those canvassed with the ICC. I would have thought that it was quite apparent from the text of correspondence that I had been in discussions with ICC about the issue. The opening words of my e-mail to Mr Cowie confirm this: 'Just (to) firm up what we discussed earlier this evening ... '"
The ICC quickly rebutted the claim. A spokesman said: "There were many informal discussions between Mr Hair and Mr Cowie between the end of the Oval Test and Mr Hair's first e-mail on Tuesday, including a discussion on the potential impact on his career. Mr Cowie's role was to support and counsel Mr Hair, as his manager, at a difficult time. It is our understanding that at no stage during their conversations was there discussion of a pay-off, nor secrecy, nor deadlines, nor misleading the public over reasons for retirement -- all of which was subsequently laid out in Mr Hair's email."
Speed said he wanted Hair to continue as an international umpire but wasn't sure whether it would be possible after all this. He went on to back Cowie as well. "If he could play it again, Doug would play it differently," Speed said. "When the email came to me, I saw that not for one second could we contemplate it."
UMPIRE Aleem Dar of Pakistan defends Hair on pakstop.com
Aleem Dar, one of two Pakistani umpires on the ICC's Elite Panel, has said that Pakistan's decision to protest and stay off the field on the fourth day of the fourth Test at the Oval last week, was wrong and may harm the game in the long-term. Pakistan refused to take the field after Darrell Hair penalized them for ball tampering, a decision which ultimately led to the Test being forfeited. But Dar told Cricinfo: "By law Pakistan was wrong. There are other ways of protesting and the avenue they chose I believe was the wrong one." Opinion on Pakistan's decision to protest and refusal to come out after tea has been mixed. The protest galvanized much of the nation; it was seen by many as a protection of their honour. But some ex-players, such as Imran Khan, Javed Miandad and Wasim Akram have struck discordant notes; the latter two agree with Dar in that it shouldn't have happened at all. "The problem is that if one country attempts it, then others will follow and that cannot be good for the game in the long-run," Dar said. Dar also argued that the spotlight has unfairly focused on Hair, after the Test became the first in the history of the game to be forfeited. "It is not about one umpire. It can't be about just one. Both umpires and even those off the field are involved. Those decisions on ball tampering and the forfeit were not taken by Hair alone." Amid scenes like this Aleem Dar has been the voice of reason
indiainfo.com ----new revelations.....
London: Bob Woolmer may soon resign as the coach of the Pakistan cricket team as his relation with the team management has 'descended into acrimony' following the sensational ball-tampering row, a leading British newspaper claims Wednesday (24 Aug, 2006). Woolmer is believed to be angry at team manager Zaheer Abbas' lack of focussed leadership in the fall-out to Sunday's controversial forfeiture of the fourth Test against England.Woolmer is 'reaching the end of his tether' and it will be no surprise if he resigns at the end of the one-day series against England."Woolmer's relations with Zaheer and captain Inzamam-ul-Haq have descended into acrimony," the report says.Inzamam, on his part, feels that he can no longer trust his coach and suspects Woolmer of briefing the Pakistan Cricket Board behind his back.The realization that they have forfeited a Test has slowly dawned on the Pakistan cricket authorities and there will be a major investigation into what exactly happened in the Oval dressing room on Sunday (20 Aug, 2006)."For the first time, details of what happened in the dressing room can be revealed. A picture has emerged of a confused and angry place where there was a lot of shouting and different advice being thrown at Inzamam," it says.It is thought that Inzamam does not quite realize what his team had been accused of until he reached the dressing room.
Jarman v. Woolmer...The plot thickens and the gloves are coming off!!!
LONDON: Pakistan cricket team’s coach Bob Woolmer was forced to defend his reputation on Sunday when it was claimed South Africa players tampered with the ball when he was in charge of the team 10 years ago.
Woolmer’s Pakistan team have been at the centre of the row which has rocked international cricket which began with last weekend’s forfeiture of the fourth and final Test and continued with umpire Darrell Hair’s demand for 500,000 dollars to resign in the wake of the uproar.
Now, on the eve of the Twenty20 international against England in Bristol on Monday, Woolmer reacted to claims that South Africa players lifted the seam.
The claims were made by former International Cricket Council (ICC) match referee Barry Jarman who alleged that during a triangular one-day tournament involving South Africa, Zimbabwe and India in early 1997 a match ball confiscated after just 16 overs - still in Jarman’s possession - bears the ravages of tampering by Woolmer’s team.
At a loss to recall anything of the sort, the coach said: “I just cannot and do not understand why Barry Jarman has said this. As far as I’m concerned, it’s fiction. As far as I know, I don’t ever remember a ball being taken off after the 16th over. I surely would have remembered it.
“I wasn’t ball-scratching. I’m the coach. What does he think ... that I teach ball-scratching?” Woolmer said.
A mystified Woolmer has even taken the step of contacting the officials in the match he believes is in question — and he reports they are unaware of any wrongdoing. “Go and ask the two umpires in the same game that I’m supposed to have done this,” he advised. “They will say that they don’t know anything about it.”
Woolmer’s Pakistan team have been at the centre of the row which has rocked international cricket which began with last weekend’s forfeiture of the fourth and final Test and continued with umpire Darrell Hair’s demand for 500,000 dollars to resign in the wake of the uproar.
Now, on the eve of the Twenty20 international against England in Bristol on Monday, Woolmer reacted to claims that South Africa players lifted the seam.
The claims were made by former International Cricket Council (ICC) match referee Barry Jarman who alleged that during a triangular one-day tournament involving South Africa, Zimbabwe and India in early 1997 a match ball confiscated after just 16 overs - still in Jarman’s possession - bears the ravages of tampering by Woolmer’s team.
At a loss to recall anything of the sort, the coach said: “I just cannot and do not understand why Barry Jarman has said this. As far as I’m concerned, it’s fiction. As far as I know, I don’t ever remember a ball being taken off after the 16th over. I surely would have remembered it.
“I wasn’t ball-scratching. I’m the coach. What does he think ... that I teach ball-scratching?” Woolmer said.
A mystified Woolmer has even taken the step of contacting the officials in the match he believes is in question — and he reports they are unaware of any wrongdoing. “Go and ask the two umpires in the same game that I’m supposed to have done this,” he advised. “They will say that they don’t know anything about it.”
The noble game has been hijacked already chaps!
Aleem Dar - Jhang, Pakistan
Asad Rauf – Lahore, Pakistan
Mark Benson - Shoreham-by-Sea, England
Brent Bowden – Auckland, New Zealand
Steve Bucknor - Montego Bay, St James, Jamaica
Billy Doctrove - Marigot, Dominica
Darrell Hair – Mudgee, Australia
Daryl Harper – Adelaide, Australia
Rudi Koertzen – Knysna, South Africa
Simon Taufel – Australia
For record the above list of umpires are those on the elite panel. With the recent news that Australia apparently want to use only English & Aussie umpires for the upcoming Ashes series down under there is a spat of comments on blogs out of the sub-continent that racism has crept into the game. Interestingly enough the same racist taunts have been coming out of the sub-continent attacking Hair; I notice that Billy Doctrove has not been attacked for his part in all this.
As you know from my previous posts that I am not a fan of ICC, the people involved nor indeed the concept of a world body being run out of Dubai. The 2 main centres, whether others like it or not, of cricket are England and Australia. FACT! ok I will admit that there are many young people playing the game in India etc but for all we know there might be martians playing a mirror game of cricket in another galaxy. No, the game is English and Lords is the home of cricket. Wembley likewise is the home of soccer and look what has happened to soccer since FIFA got hijacked by the South Americans, etc several decades ago. Rules have been changed by FIFA (tackles from behind were quite legal when I was a boy) to the detriment of the english game. I believe the same is happening in cricket! To put it frankly chaps, the Pakistanis feel that they can tamper with the ball because it is their right to as they are good at bowling reverse swing. Anyway that's what Afridi said I believe. Certainly Woolmer has suggested that he feels that the regulations need reexamining. The excessive manipulation going on between PCB and ICC stinks!
Now let's look at the make up of the panel. There are 10 umpires including Mr Hair. Who plays cricket? Let's see! In an approximate order of importance to cricketers for historical rather than playing purposes;-
England
Australia
West Indies
South Africa
India
New Zealand
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
Zimbabwe
Bangladesh
& then
Kenya
Holland
Canada
Now I can see 10 countries with Test Match status here and 3 others (I hope I haven't forgotten anybody!) that are quite good. I have ignored Scotland and Eire because they are mainly English ex-pros and I don't think the French or Russians can find an umpire anywhere. China don't play the game yet and Argentina and Brazil are sidetracked.
If the body governing cricket was fair to everyone regardless of race and competence logic would dictate that there would be at least 10 umpires one from each nation and then possibly 12 umpires giving 2 each from England and Australia who apparently play most 1st Class Cricket. Let's not forget that most overseas players either play in English 1st Class Cricket, English Club Cricket or Sheffield Shield. It is a general common feeling amongst cricket lovers that England produce the most competent umpires and historically that has been the case. Fagg, Bird and recently Shepherd spring to mind...oh I almost forgot Constant! That's the word I've been looking for!
So today England have 1 umpire and I don't believe Mark Benson is our best...competent yes! Australia have 3....why? New Zealand -1...seems reasonable. Likewise SA 1- message to you Rudi!!! (love that song!)....West Indies 2....but wait for it Billy Doctrove is from Dominica. So where is Dominica on this list of Test playing nations. Granted Doctrove couldn't be accused of bias! Let's remember that the Windies cricket team is made up former British colonial islanders, Jamaica, T&T etc so it would appear that in cricketing terms Doctrove is of no fixed abode when it comes to cricket playing nations. That's ok so long as ALL the other big nations are represented. Now for the shock chaps! Pakistan have 2 umpires one of whom is thought by some to be the best in the world BUT India arguably the largest nation of cricket lovers has not a single umpire on this list. This is crazy! Now I can't tell you how many billion/millions play cricket/love cricket in India but for ICC not to to be able to find ONE COMPETENT PROFESSIONAL UMPIRE to be considered for selection to the ICC select panel of umpires just proves that something is seriously wrong with ICC practices. Likewise Sri Lanka are not supported which again is mind boggling.
Now I have been critical of cricket administrators for years, even had a letter published in the Cricketer Mag but the plethora of cricket boards, army of administrators, increase of legal advisers, the arrival of John Major ex-PM who can't even hold a bat properly, well! All this excessive admin/media nonsense is coming to a head and pro-politics has arrived folks.
Asad Rauf – Lahore, Pakistan
Mark Benson - Shoreham-by-Sea, England
Brent Bowden – Auckland, New Zealand
Steve Bucknor - Montego Bay, St James, Jamaica
Billy Doctrove - Marigot, Dominica
Darrell Hair – Mudgee, Australia
Daryl Harper – Adelaide, Australia
Rudi Koertzen – Knysna, South Africa
Simon Taufel – Australia
For record the above list of umpires are those on the elite panel. With the recent news that Australia apparently want to use only English & Aussie umpires for the upcoming Ashes series down under there is a spat of comments on blogs out of the sub-continent that racism has crept into the game. Interestingly enough the same racist taunts have been coming out of the sub-continent attacking Hair; I notice that Billy Doctrove has not been attacked for his part in all this.
As you know from my previous posts that I am not a fan of ICC, the people involved nor indeed the concept of a world body being run out of Dubai. The 2 main centres, whether others like it or not, of cricket are England and Australia. FACT! ok I will admit that there are many young people playing the game in India etc but for all we know there might be martians playing a mirror game of cricket in another galaxy. No, the game is English and Lords is the home of cricket. Wembley likewise is the home of soccer and look what has happened to soccer since FIFA got hijacked by the South Americans, etc several decades ago. Rules have been changed by FIFA (tackles from behind were quite legal when I was a boy) to the detriment of the english game. I believe the same is happening in cricket! To put it frankly chaps, the Pakistanis feel that they can tamper with the ball because it is their right to as they are good at bowling reverse swing. Anyway that's what Afridi said I believe. Certainly Woolmer has suggested that he feels that the regulations need reexamining. The excessive manipulation going on between PCB and ICC stinks!
Now let's look at the make up of the panel. There are 10 umpires including Mr Hair. Who plays cricket? Let's see! In an approximate order of importance to cricketers for historical rather than playing purposes;-
England
Australia
West Indies
South Africa
India
New Zealand
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
Zimbabwe
Bangladesh
& then
Kenya
Holland
Canada
Now I can see 10 countries with Test Match status here and 3 others (I hope I haven't forgotten anybody!) that are quite good. I have ignored Scotland and Eire because they are mainly English ex-pros and I don't think the French or Russians can find an umpire anywhere. China don't play the game yet and Argentina and Brazil are sidetracked.
If the body governing cricket was fair to everyone regardless of race and competence logic would dictate that there would be at least 10 umpires one from each nation and then possibly 12 umpires giving 2 each from England and Australia who apparently play most 1st Class Cricket. Let's not forget that most overseas players either play in English 1st Class Cricket, English Club Cricket or Sheffield Shield. It is a general common feeling amongst cricket lovers that England produce the most competent umpires and historically that has been the case. Fagg, Bird and recently Shepherd spring to mind...oh I almost forgot Constant! That's the word I've been looking for!
So today England have 1 umpire and I don't believe Mark Benson is our best...competent yes! Australia have 3....why? New Zealand -1...seems reasonable. Likewise SA 1- message to you Rudi!!! (love that song!)....West Indies 2....but wait for it Billy Doctrove is from Dominica. So where is Dominica on this list of Test playing nations. Granted Doctrove couldn't be accused of bias! Let's remember that the Windies cricket team is made up former British colonial islanders, Jamaica, T&T etc so it would appear that in cricketing terms Doctrove is of no fixed abode when it comes to cricket playing nations. That's ok so long as ALL the other big nations are represented. Now for the shock chaps! Pakistan have 2 umpires one of whom is thought by some to be the best in the world BUT India arguably the largest nation of cricket lovers has not a single umpire on this list. This is crazy! Now I can't tell you how many billion/millions play cricket/love cricket in India but for ICC not to to be able to find ONE COMPETENT PROFESSIONAL UMPIRE to be considered for selection to the ICC select panel of umpires just proves that something is seriously wrong with ICC practices. Likewise Sri Lanka are not supported which again is mind boggling.
Now I have been critical of cricket administrators for years, even had a letter published in the Cricketer Mag but the plethora of cricket boards, army of administrators, increase of legal advisers, the arrival of John Major ex-PM who can't even hold a bat properly, well! All this excessive admin/media nonsense is coming to a head and pro-politics has arrived folks.
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Just a few googlies to throw in
I was shocked. I thought it was a silly letter-Malcolm Speed talking about the emails between 2 of his employees Hair & Cowie
I don't care what the umpiring is like. In Pakistan and India during the late 1970s and '80s we would never have been on the field if we had thought that way-Geoff Lawson, Australia
Double standards are still alive and well in Test cricket. Where reverse swing is concerned, I don't believe we are cheats and the rest of the world is practising an art form-Wasim Akram
You can ask any fast bowler. If he says he has never tampered with the ball, he either has just started playing, or is lying-Michael Holding
The whole irony and tragedy of this particular story is law 42.3. But law 42.3 is an ass-Bob Woolmer
The media criticism has been hot over here ... that surprises me. But life goes on; nobody died. It is not one of those issues that requires mourning. I have been absolutely stunned by the support I have had-Darrell Hair
If any team does tamper with the ball, I don't think there's anything wrong-Shahid Afridi earlier in 2006
The only time ball tampering became an issue was when Pakistan's bowlers started reverse swinging the ball which was not understood in England. Until then, you would watch bowlers walking to their mark in front of TV cameras and openly getting the seam up. No-one ever commented-Imran Khan
The laws are there for a reason-Steve Waugh
There are occasions when situations could have been handled better. As they have been by other umpires-Bob Woolmer
I am not here to discuss that-Darrell Hair challenged about the 5-run penalty after entering the Pakistan dressing-room to ask if they were willing to resume after not taking the field after tea
I don't care what the umpiring is like. In Pakistan and India during the late 1970s and '80s we would never have been on the field if we had thought that way-Geoff Lawson, Australia
Double standards are still alive and well in Test cricket. Where reverse swing is concerned, I don't believe we are cheats and the rest of the world is practising an art form-Wasim Akram
You can ask any fast bowler. If he says he has never tampered with the ball, he either has just started playing, or is lying-Michael Holding
The whole irony and tragedy of this particular story is law 42.3. But law 42.3 is an ass-Bob Woolmer
The media criticism has been hot over here ... that surprises me. But life goes on; nobody died. It is not one of those issues that requires mourning. I have been absolutely stunned by the support I have had-Darrell Hair
If any team does tamper with the ball, I don't think there's anything wrong-Shahid Afridi earlier in 2006
The only time ball tampering became an issue was when Pakistan's bowlers started reverse swinging the ball which was not understood in England. Until then, you would watch bowlers walking to their mark in front of TV cameras and openly getting the seam up. No-one ever commented-Imran Khan
The laws are there for a reason-Steve Waugh
There are occasions when situations could have been handled better. As they have been by other umpires-Bob Woolmer
I am not here to discuss that-Darrell Hair challenged about the 5-run penalty after entering the Pakistan dressing-room to ask if they were willing to resume after not taking the field after tea
You are a hypocrite Mr Speed!
Just seen on CricInfo site
"There have been other issues in his umpiring career where people have said 'this is the end for Darrell Hair' - after he called Muttiah Muralitharan for throwing in 1996, and he then wrote a book, and people said 'this is the end for Darrell Hair'," Speed told BBC Radio Five Live's Sportsweek programme.
"Darrell survived that and has become a better umpire, he is one of the world's best umpires, so I hope we can find a way for him to continue but I'm not sure that that will happen.
"Why? Because there's a lot of speculation...that Darrell's career is finished, that he's compromised. That's not my wish, I hope we can find a way for him to continue. I would like Darrell Hair to continue umpiring in cricket matches at the top level."
GOLLY GOSH MR SPEED! Forgive me if I've misunderstood your actions but I thought as head of ICC and by publicising the emails between Hair & Cowie that you and your board were the one's who had "compromised" Mr Hair's career as a top 3 umpire. Such hypocrisy Mr Speed!
"There have been other issues in his umpiring career where people have said 'this is the end for Darrell Hair' - after he called Muttiah Muralitharan for throwing in 1996, and he then wrote a book, and people said 'this is the end for Darrell Hair'," Speed told BBC Radio Five Live's Sportsweek programme.
"Darrell survived that and has become a better umpire, he is one of the world's best umpires, so I hope we can find a way for him to continue but I'm not sure that that will happen.
"Why? Because there's a lot of speculation...that Darrell's career is finished, that he's compromised. That's not my wish, I hope we can find a way for him to continue. I would like Darrell Hair to continue umpiring in cricket matches at the top level."
GOLLY GOSH MR SPEED! Forgive me if I've misunderstood your actions but I thought as head of ICC and by publicising the emails between Hair & Cowie that you and your board were the one's who had "compromised" Mr Hair's career as a top 3 umpire. Such hypocrisy Mr Speed!
The Umpires Word is Law & the INZIEGATE update
Well, the weekend press are having a field day. The consensus view appears to be that Speed was quite correct in making the contents of the Cowie/Hair emails 'public' for fear of being accused of lieing. Many respected journalists may be convinced by this but I'm not a journalist and I'm definitely not convinced. I know that if Freddie Flintoff had had an exchange of emails over contract issues with ECB it would have been considered bad form if the Chairman of ECB had made 'public' clear PRIVATE matters relating to issues that might hypothetically have occurred as a direct result of a infringement to do with the Laws of the game. Because of his iconic status the public would have stifled any criticism of our dear Freddie and called for the head of the ECB Chairman and most probably all concerned. Now Inzie may have iconic status in Pakistan and amongst politicians and many cricket lovers but surely the game itself must be protected. The role of ICC and all the other plethora of cricket boards around the world is to administer the game fairly and protect and enforce the Laws of the game. Backing their umpires 100% is a must. Period. I am not convinced that Cowie was the messenger in all this nor even the go between between Hair (who knows Billy may have similar emails too) and Richardson/Speed. Perhaps the trap was set over the numerous phone conversations between Hair & Cowie and then Cowie/Speed & Richardson. This crass engineering goes on all the time in the real world and perhaps cricket administrators are just the same. This cushy idealogical family of cricket lovers is being constantly presented to the public by respected journalists alike and quite often is questioned as eruptions sometimes occur (Mike Gatting's Shaka Rana shakedown springs to mind) and looking at the current make of the board I for one wouldn't trust these slippery law enforcement officials. How on earth did the current President get to where he is today? If I was an umpire in world cricket I would be seriously worried about whether I could trust any of them. Picture this...I am asked to go down to the sub-continent or NZ or wherever and I run into a patch of bother with the fuzzie wuzzies or arch fogies and my colleague and I upset an entire cricket team and a nation from the PM, President or Chief down and then some ass in ICC asks me to consider standing down and suggest PERHAPS that I'd like to think about it for 48 hours and then hastily put it down on email. As it turns out Hair is a lawyer (I had no idea until I read CricInfo this morning) and he didn't for one minute think that anything was amiss for asking for around £265,000 in compensation for getting CRICKET and Mr Speed out of a fix to do with alleged ball tampering etc etc. And you know what Hair's boss did....he shat on him big time.....and fed him to the wolves much to the enjoyment of millions of Pakistanis and officials in trilbees who would rather Hair behaved like an english gentleman on the pitch rather than a typical aussie wanting to uphold the Laws of the game. I'm sorry to be so brutal and crass myself in all this but I don't BUY it Mr Speed.
and another thing
Bob Woolmer's latest admissions that he wants the rules of ball abuse changed are indicative that something more sinister is afoot here. Barry Jarman's revelation that our old friend 'Bob' actually encouraged South African players during his tenure there as coach to 'work' the ball is pretty riveting stuff. Can it purely be coincidence that Pakistan requested his services purely on coaching terms? If as it now appears 'our Bob' has been of the opinion that the laws governing the use of the ball should be reviewed or whatever then it's not surprising that PCB approached him. If PCB can get these Laws changed or even quashed then that's good news for the up and coming asian swing bowlers and could radically shift the balance of power in playing terms towards Pakistan. I'm not going to dwell on Zaheer's role in the sit in but suffice to say that he did participate in a Test Match in Bangalore in similar circumstances a few years back that could have turned very nasty but didn't in the end.
and another thing
Bob Woolmer's latest admissions that he wants the rules of ball abuse changed are indicative that something more sinister is afoot here. Barry Jarman's revelation that our old friend 'Bob' actually encouraged South African players during his tenure there as coach to 'work' the ball is pretty riveting stuff. Can it purely be coincidence that Pakistan requested his services purely on coaching terms? If as it now appears 'our Bob' has been of the opinion that the laws governing the use of the ball should be reviewed or whatever then it's not surprising that PCB approached him. If PCB can get these Laws changed or even quashed then that's good news for the up and coming asian swing bowlers and could radically shift the balance of power in playing terms towards Pakistan. I'm not going to dwell on Zaheer's role in the sit in but suffice to say that he did participate in a Test Match in Bangalore in similar circumstances a few years back that could have turned very nasty but didn't in the end.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Barry Jarman supports Hair
Barry Jarman, the former ICC match referee, has made a startling revelation that he once confiscated a ball from the South African team, which was being coached by Bob Woolmer, because he suspected that it had been tampered with. The incident happened during a one-day international against India in 1997.
Woolmer, the current Pakistan coach, was a part of the controversy at The Oval Test against England recently, when Pakistan forfeited the match after umpire Darrell Hair accused them of ball tampering.
Jarman said he noticed that the ball was being scratched by two fielders who would rub sweat into one side of it, and as a result generate plenty of swing with a ball which was just 16 overs old. His suspicions grew when he noticed the ball being thrown to the same fielders regularly, though he preferred not to reveal their names.
"The ball is only 16 overs old yet one side has been tampered with and you can see where they have run their thumbails down the seam which opens up," Jarman told The Courier-Mail. "The open seam (which caught the sweat) meant one side was heavier than the other.
"I saw Allan Donald (who he insisted was not one of the players tampering with the ball) all of a sudden start swinging the baIl everywhere on the television and I thought 'hullo, what's going on here?'"
Jarman took action immediately and instructed the umpires to replace the ball, much to the displeasure of Woolmer, who stormed into Jarman's room to demand an explanation. "I said 'your guys are stuffing around with the ball, mate'. I told him who it was and he went out with his tail between his legs. I said to him 'if you really want to make something of it I can give it to the press and we'll see what happens then but I will just give you a warning to cut it out'. The two players later came up to my hotel room and apologised."
Jarman confiscated the ball and has kept it with him ever since, producing it yesterday to prove his statements. "I kept the ball by mistake because the game finished and it was just sitting there so I took it back to the hotel."
He also backed Hair's firm stance at The Oval and admired the honest manner in which he had conducted himself in the past. "I really admire Darrell Hair for what he's done in England," Jarman said. "He is a guy who tells the truth and is suffering for it. He is one of the best, an umpire who can lie straight in bed."
Woolmer, the current Pakistan coach, was a part of the controversy at The Oval Test against England recently, when Pakistan forfeited the match after umpire Darrell Hair accused them of ball tampering.
Jarman said he noticed that the ball was being scratched by two fielders who would rub sweat into one side of it, and as a result generate plenty of swing with a ball which was just 16 overs old. His suspicions grew when he noticed the ball being thrown to the same fielders regularly, though he preferred not to reveal their names.
"The ball is only 16 overs old yet one side has been tampered with and you can see where they have run their thumbails down the seam which opens up," Jarman told The Courier-Mail. "The open seam (which caught the sweat) meant one side was heavier than the other.
"I saw Allan Donald (who he insisted was not one of the players tampering with the ball) all of a sudden start swinging the baIl everywhere on the television and I thought 'hullo, what's going on here?'"
Jarman took action immediately and instructed the umpires to replace the ball, much to the displeasure of Woolmer, who stormed into Jarman's room to demand an explanation. "I said 'your guys are stuffing around with the ball, mate'. I told him who it was and he went out with his tail between his legs. I said to him 'if you really want to make something of it I can give it to the press and we'll see what happens then but I will just give you a warning to cut it out'. The two players later came up to my hotel room and apologised."
Jarman confiscated the ball and has kept it with him ever since, producing it yesterday to prove his statements. "I kept the ball by mistake because the game finished and it was just sitting there so I took it back to the hotel."
He also backed Hair's firm stance at The Oval and admired the honest manner in which he had conducted himself in the past. "I really admire Darrell Hair for what he's done in England," Jarman said. "He is a guy who tells the truth and is suffering for it. He is one of the best, an umpire who can lie straight in bed."
Spotted on blogcharm.com
If this blog had an award for hypocrit of the week, then it would surely go to Benazir Bhutto, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, who is quoted in the Times as saying:
“Why should Hair offer to resign rather than face the inquiry? Why ask for money to do so?
“It indicates that Pakistan’s players were right to seek an inquiry in the first place. This revelation will only strengthen the resolve of the players and increase their support within Pakistan.”
This from a woman who has been dogged by allegations of corruption and still has an outstanding case of money laundering in the Swiss courts.
The coverage of the Darrell Hair letters, or more properly emails, has focused on the money. But the decision by the ICC to make the matter public has raised more interesting questions.
The Doug refered to is Doug Cowie, ICC Umpires and Referees Manager, who is Mr Hair's line manager.
The first email begins....
"Doug, just to firm up what we discussed earlier this evening. I appreciate the ICC may be put in a untenable position with regards to future appointments and having taken considerable time and advice, I make this one-off, non-negotiable offer.
I am prepared to retire/stand down/relinquish my position on the elite panel to take effect from 31st August 2006 on the following terms"
This would suggest that the ICC were in discussions with Mr Hair prior to his offer of resignation. And the implication of these discussions were that Mr Hair would not be appointed as an umpire in future.
It also suggests that there were arguements within the ICC about who should umpire matches and how these choices were made. And that Pakistan were refusing to allow Mr Hair to umpire future matches.
Mr Hair is clearly aware of the politics of the situation, and of the need to offer the ICC a facesaving device.
The reply he recieves is enlightening.
"Darrell, Your offer may have merit and is acknowledged and under discussions with ICC management.
Your timeframes seemed impractical at first glance even if agreement were achieved on the suggestion.
Will discuss this further tomorrow,
Doug "
His list of demands seems to have been discussed by the senior management. And there appears to be no serious problem. The sticking point would seem to be the timescale for the payment of money. Hair had asked that the matter be cleared up by August 31st.
This is another point that needs clarification, the email clearly states that the matter was being discussed by the ICC management. In order to understand events more clearly it is necessary that the ICC make clear at what level this matter was being discussed. Because the executive board of the ICC includes Shaharyar Khan, who is also the president of the Pakistan Cricket Board.
Yet, the ICC claim they had to release this private correspondence, three days later, on legal advice, because it would have to be shown to the Pakistan Cricket Board.
This appears to be a canard. In order for it to be believed, it requires that the matter was not discussed by the Executive board, and further that the contents of the email was not shown to Shaharyar Khan, until after it was released to the press.
It also stretches belief that on the same day as the ICC released the correspondence, Pakistan announce that they will play the one day series, and the disciplinary hearing against the Pakistan captain will be put off until after the series has been played.
In reply to Doug Cowie, Hair then changes tack and withdraws his offer to resign.
"Doug, Phones have been ringing off the hook (or out of the mobile charger anyway!) since early this morning - ICC are not the only ones marshalling legal counsel.
It appears from overnight developments that the issue of racism has arisen and from advice I have just received, the sum indicated in my release offer is being revised.
Therefore the offer is withdrawn until I have had the chance to take further advice. Hope to get back to you within the next 24 hours."
Two things about this interest me. The first is that Hair has clearly taken legal advice, and seems to think that he has a very good case, and that his lawyers feel his compensation claim is on the low side. The second is that he appears unaware that people had been calling him a racist. These charges were made both in print and on the radio much earlier. It leaves one to wonder if there had been a formal charge of racism made against him within the ICC.
Perhaps it is Hair's mention of legal advice, but the correspondence is ended by the intervention of the Malcolm Speed, the CEO of the ICC.
"Dear Darrell, I have been given copies of letters that you have forwarded to Doug Cowie today concerning the current issue.
The matters raised by you concerning your future employment are entirely inappropriate. There is a clear process that is to be followed and it is in place. I will call you tomorrow to advise as to progress."
Which brings us back to the issue of constructive dismissal because Speed's attitude is that Hair has no business resigning, when the ICC are in the process of sacking him.
The issues at stake here are far more serious than the Hansie Cronje betting scandal. This case goes directly to the heart of the cricketing establishment.
And what is more, this attempt to besmirch the integrity of a senior umpire, has distracted from the more serious issue of ball tampering and the integrity of test cricket.
But then the Pakistan team have been spinning the story from day one. For instance they claimed that the ball was old and had been hit into the crowd and that this had damaged the ball. The only problem with this argument is that the sixes were not hit until after the ball had been changed
“Why should Hair offer to resign rather than face the inquiry? Why ask for money to do so?
“It indicates that Pakistan’s players were right to seek an inquiry in the first place. This revelation will only strengthen the resolve of the players and increase their support within Pakistan.”
This from a woman who has been dogged by allegations of corruption and still has an outstanding case of money laundering in the Swiss courts.
The coverage of the Darrell Hair letters, or more properly emails, has focused on the money. But the decision by the ICC to make the matter public has raised more interesting questions.
The Doug refered to is Doug Cowie, ICC Umpires and Referees Manager, who is Mr Hair's line manager.
The first email begins....
"Doug, just to firm up what we discussed earlier this evening. I appreciate the ICC may be put in a untenable position with regards to future appointments and having taken considerable time and advice, I make this one-off, non-negotiable offer.
I am prepared to retire/stand down/relinquish my position on the elite panel to take effect from 31st August 2006 on the following terms"
This would suggest that the ICC were in discussions with Mr Hair prior to his offer of resignation. And the implication of these discussions were that Mr Hair would not be appointed as an umpire in future.
It also suggests that there were arguements within the ICC about who should umpire matches and how these choices were made. And that Pakistan were refusing to allow Mr Hair to umpire future matches.
Mr Hair is clearly aware of the politics of the situation, and of the need to offer the ICC a facesaving device.
The reply he recieves is enlightening.
"Darrell, Your offer may have merit and is acknowledged and under discussions with ICC management.
Your timeframes seemed impractical at first glance even if agreement were achieved on the suggestion.
Will discuss this further tomorrow,
Doug "
His list of demands seems to have been discussed by the senior management. And there appears to be no serious problem. The sticking point would seem to be the timescale for the payment of money. Hair had asked that the matter be cleared up by August 31st.
This is another point that needs clarification, the email clearly states that the matter was being discussed by the ICC management. In order to understand events more clearly it is necessary that the ICC make clear at what level this matter was being discussed. Because the executive board of the ICC includes Shaharyar Khan, who is also the president of the Pakistan Cricket Board.
Yet, the ICC claim they had to release this private correspondence, three days later, on legal advice, because it would have to be shown to the Pakistan Cricket Board.
This appears to be a canard. In order for it to be believed, it requires that the matter was not discussed by the Executive board, and further that the contents of the email was not shown to Shaharyar Khan, until after it was released to the press.
It also stretches belief that on the same day as the ICC released the correspondence, Pakistan announce that they will play the one day series, and the disciplinary hearing against the Pakistan captain will be put off until after the series has been played.
In reply to Doug Cowie, Hair then changes tack and withdraws his offer to resign.
"Doug, Phones have been ringing off the hook (or out of the mobile charger anyway!) since early this morning - ICC are not the only ones marshalling legal counsel.
It appears from overnight developments that the issue of racism has arisen and from advice I have just received, the sum indicated in my release offer is being revised.
Therefore the offer is withdrawn until I have had the chance to take further advice. Hope to get back to you within the next 24 hours."
Two things about this interest me. The first is that Hair has clearly taken legal advice, and seems to think that he has a very good case, and that his lawyers feel his compensation claim is on the low side. The second is that he appears unaware that people had been calling him a racist. These charges were made both in print and on the radio much earlier. It leaves one to wonder if there had been a formal charge of racism made against him within the ICC.
Perhaps it is Hair's mention of legal advice, but the correspondence is ended by the intervention of the Malcolm Speed, the CEO of the ICC.
"Dear Darrell, I have been given copies of letters that you have forwarded to Doug Cowie today concerning the current issue.
The matters raised by you concerning your future employment are entirely inappropriate. There is a clear process that is to be followed and it is in place. I will call you tomorrow to advise as to progress."
Which brings us back to the issue of constructive dismissal because Speed's attitude is that Hair has no business resigning, when the ICC are in the process of sacking him.
The issues at stake here are far more serious than the Hansie Cronje betting scandal. This case goes directly to the heart of the cricketing establishment.
And what is more, this attempt to besmirch the integrity of a senior umpire, has distracted from the more serious issue of ball tampering and the integrity of test cricket.
But then the Pakistan team have been spinning the story from day one. For instance they claimed that the ball was old and had been hit into the crowd and that this had damaged the ball. The only problem with this argument is that the sixes were not hit until after the ball had been changed
What is reverse swing?
What is reverse swing?
Firstly let's describe regular swing.
Regular swing is what has been utilised in cricket throughout the history of the game. When a ball is new both sides are shiny and it moves through the air much faster the newer it gets. Through fast bowlers maintaining the shine on one side of the ball and leaving the other side to remain scuffed the ball travels faster on the shiny side and slower on the rough side thus producing a swing movement. Past players such as the late great Fred Truman were exponents of swing and allegedly put Brylcream in their hair (Heh that's a good headline....Brylcream in Hair....mmm) to be applied to the shiny side of the ball through innocuous hand through hair movements. Purist swing bowlers keep the ball pitched up whereas upright seam bowlers using shorter deliveries enabling swing movement after natural seaming taking place. In these circumstances keepers were often kept on their toes. Perhaps the greatest and most spectacular example of regular swing bowling (in perfect overcast sticky english conditions) was when Bob Massie took 16 wickets against England some years back. I watched every ball bowled and I think it fair to say that the conditions were perfect for natural or regular swing bowling.
Generally speaking swing bowlers find english April & May damp conditions (early dew helps sometimes evening dew too) preferable. In dry conditions such as those found in Australia, India & other parts of the sub-continent, South Africa also, regular swing is uncommon as the ball deteriorates faster in dusty, harder and drier conditions.
Reverse swing. What is reverse swing?
It is generally considered that reverse swing never occurred until several Pakistan fast bowlers (Younis & Akram) discovered the merits of fast-medium reverse swing although the roots of reverse swing go back much further. It's well documented that on occasions unplayable jaffer deliveries could be sent down by swing bowlers and I think Massie achieved quite a few on that memorable day without quite realising what he was experiencing. The consensus view, here goes, is that by applying sweat to scuffed side (usually on 1 quarter or one of the cups) weight is added to the ball i.e the leather gets heavier. As the ball travels through the air regular swing is achieved and after a distance of 15 yards + a giro effect begins whereby the extra weight of the heavier cup or 1/4 effects the swing direction and recompensates accordingly by rotating the ball and then moving the ball back in the direction it originated from. In essence if one was looking at the direction from above over 22 yards the ball moves in a long 'S' shape. The later the movement the more effective the delivery.
Now this is the key point. The conventional view is that reverse swing is ok so long as natural sweat is applied although stick-in-the-muds take the view that anything applied to the ball is tampering. Sweat is not artificial and thus I take the view that because sweat has always been used by swing bowlers then this is acceptable and as Waquir Younis said recently, it is important to shine and shine on one side only. The effect usually occurs after 35 overs usage but it takes bowlers from around 5th over to get the ball moving towards a swing and then reverse swing condition but constant effort by all bowlers is essential. Imran Khan confirmed on tv that when he appeared in the High Court during his case he admitted that he once used a bottle top to deteriorate the ball which he said was cheating. He didn't get caught but he admitted he had cheated...on one occasion only. The problem for Pakistan is that reverse swing bowling has become part of their armoury as regular swing does not last in dry conditions. It would appear that the tampering of balls may be endemic in their game which would explain the PCB's reaction to the umpire's decision before tea last Sunday. This is only conjecture but is a widely held view amongst cricket aficionados but in such a dicey subject no-one, especially pro-cricketers, is prepared to admit that the rules are bent (not always by asian cricketers btw). I don't take the view that reverse only happens through excessive shining and automatically happens around 40th over. Some ruination of the ball must take place to the rough side...usually natural bashing from the constant contact with bats and last Sunday Cook & Pietersen gave the ball some pasting. It's known throughout the game and especially amongst bowlers that excessive scratches applied to the surface of the rough side increase the likelihood of reverse swing and accentuates the movement.
Everybody defending the Pakistan position last Sunday is asking for proof of tampering. The fact that reverse swing happened and that the ball was scored or scratched is proof enough. Let's hope Mr Hair or Mr Mike Proctor have the ball under safe lock and key and that the ball is used as part of the prosecution's evidence in support of the umpires decisions. I can't help feeling that a meeting in Dubai, under arab and international law will not receive the same degree of legal attention and duty if the hearing had occurred at the home of cricket. Pakistan's army of lawyers must be lapping up the Hair compensation issue but let's not get carried away about this and focus on the real issue.
Did the ball reverse swing? The Cook delivery certainly swung alarmingly
Did a Pakistan player apply extra deterioration to the ball? Who knows!
Did the ball get scored/scratched during these final overs? Apparently yes (see tv coverage)
There you have it! Reverse swing and why it's in the Pakistan armoury....both Wacquir Younis and Wasim Akram were the finest exponents of reverse swing although it musn't be forgotten that Imran Khan during his hey day had a wicked inswinging delivery that (apart from Darren Gough arguably) few could replicate.
Replication?! That is the biq unanswered q in cricket since memoriam. Why do some bowlers swing the ball & others not?
I'm sure there are those who will not agree with some of this swing nonsense but I have tried to keep it simple.......I never managed to swing a ball ever and I bit my nails anyway!
Firstly let's describe regular swing.
Regular swing is what has been utilised in cricket throughout the history of the game. When a ball is new both sides are shiny and it moves through the air much faster the newer it gets. Through fast bowlers maintaining the shine on one side of the ball and leaving the other side to remain scuffed the ball travels faster on the shiny side and slower on the rough side thus producing a swing movement. Past players such as the late great Fred Truman were exponents of swing and allegedly put Brylcream in their hair (Heh that's a good headline....Brylcream in Hair....mmm) to be applied to the shiny side of the ball through innocuous hand through hair movements. Purist swing bowlers keep the ball pitched up whereas upright seam bowlers using shorter deliveries enabling swing movement after natural seaming taking place. In these circumstances keepers were often kept on their toes. Perhaps the greatest and most spectacular example of regular swing bowling (in perfect overcast sticky english conditions) was when Bob Massie took 16 wickets against England some years back. I watched every ball bowled and I think it fair to say that the conditions were perfect for natural or regular swing bowling.
Generally speaking swing bowlers find english April & May damp conditions (early dew helps sometimes evening dew too) preferable. In dry conditions such as those found in Australia, India & other parts of the sub-continent, South Africa also, regular swing is uncommon as the ball deteriorates faster in dusty, harder and drier conditions.
Reverse swing. What is reverse swing?
It is generally considered that reverse swing never occurred until several Pakistan fast bowlers (Younis & Akram) discovered the merits of fast-medium reverse swing although the roots of reverse swing go back much further. It's well documented that on occasions unplayable jaffer deliveries could be sent down by swing bowlers and I think Massie achieved quite a few on that memorable day without quite realising what he was experiencing. The consensus view, here goes, is that by applying sweat to scuffed side (usually on 1 quarter or one of the cups) weight is added to the ball i.e the leather gets heavier. As the ball travels through the air regular swing is achieved and after a distance of 15 yards + a giro effect begins whereby the extra weight of the heavier cup or 1/4 effects the swing direction and recompensates accordingly by rotating the ball and then moving the ball back in the direction it originated from. In essence if one was looking at the direction from above over 22 yards the ball moves in a long 'S' shape. The later the movement the more effective the delivery.
Now this is the key point. The conventional view is that reverse swing is ok so long as natural sweat is applied although stick-in-the-muds take the view that anything applied to the ball is tampering. Sweat is not artificial and thus I take the view that because sweat has always been used by swing bowlers then this is acceptable and as Waquir Younis said recently, it is important to shine and shine on one side only. The effect usually occurs after 35 overs usage but it takes bowlers from around 5th over to get the ball moving towards a swing and then reverse swing condition but constant effort by all bowlers is essential. Imran Khan confirmed on tv that when he appeared in the High Court during his case he admitted that he once used a bottle top to deteriorate the ball which he said was cheating. He didn't get caught but he admitted he had cheated...on one occasion only. The problem for Pakistan is that reverse swing bowling has become part of their armoury as regular swing does not last in dry conditions. It would appear that the tampering of balls may be endemic in their game which would explain the PCB's reaction to the umpire's decision before tea last Sunday. This is only conjecture but is a widely held view amongst cricket aficionados but in such a dicey subject no-one, especially pro-cricketers, is prepared to admit that the rules are bent (not always by asian cricketers btw). I don't take the view that reverse only happens through excessive shining and automatically happens around 40th over. Some ruination of the ball must take place to the rough side...usually natural bashing from the constant contact with bats and last Sunday Cook & Pietersen gave the ball some pasting. It's known throughout the game and especially amongst bowlers that excessive scratches applied to the surface of the rough side increase the likelihood of reverse swing and accentuates the movement.
Everybody defending the Pakistan position last Sunday is asking for proof of tampering. The fact that reverse swing happened and that the ball was scored or scratched is proof enough. Let's hope Mr Hair or Mr Mike Proctor have the ball under safe lock and key and that the ball is used as part of the prosecution's evidence in support of the umpires decisions. I can't help feeling that a meeting in Dubai, under arab and international law will not receive the same degree of legal attention and duty if the hearing had occurred at the home of cricket. Pakistan's army of lawyers must be lapping up the Hair compensation issue but let's not get carried away about this and focus on the real issue.
Did the ball reverse swing? The Cook delivery certainly swung alarmingly
Did a Pakistan player apply extra deterioration to the ball? Who knows!
Did the ball get scored/scratched during these final overs? Apparently yes (see tv coverage)
There you have it! Reverse swing and why it's in the Pakistan armoury....both Wacquir Younis and Wasim Akram were the finest exponents of reverse swing although it musn't be forgotten that Imran Khan during his hey day had a wicked inswinging delivery that (apart from Darren Gough arguably) few could replicate.
Replication?! That is the biq unanswered q in cricket since memoriam. Why do some bowlers swing the ball & others not?
I'm sure there are those who will not agree with some of this swing nonsense but I have tried to keep it simple.......I never managed to swing a ball ever and I bit my nails anyway!
Friday's ICC Press Conference
Like millions of viewers I was transfixed yesterday afternoon by the "revelations" of Malcolm Speed, Richardson and the President of ICC. It all started off most promisingly with most of the cricket writers present and viewers expecting a statement along the lines of...."... we support the actions of the umpires and stand by their decisions....the reason for the ICC enquiry delay is....ICC have requested the PCB to continue the tour.....la di da!" Instead we got assurances from the ICC CEO that he had consulted 3 legal advisers seperately who all agreed along with the President who was a lawyer himself that the contents of PRIVATE correspondence between a representative (Doug Cowie...where were you Doug?) of ICC and Mr Hair (employed and paid by ICC under a rolling contract expiring in 2008) should be made public to safeguard the interests of the game and not effect the outcome of the "ball tampering enquiry" as well as the issue of "Inzie bringing the game into disrepute". Incredible! I shall repeat this....encroyable (sorry I live in France these days and my french is improving slowly). Well I have been a stockbroker and businessman for 30 years and in my experience when a client, employee or consultant writes or speaks privately it means that the contents must remain PRIVATE. I wouldn't give twopence for the views of these legal advisers on the basis that they advised publication of private emails which by all accounts were confirmations of a discussion that may have been instigated by Mr Cowie not Mr Hair as prescribed. Although it's commonly felt that the game lacks financial clout (see soccer) administrators and players at the top of the game can earn around £100,000+ p.a and Mr Hair as a top 3 umpire in the world of cricket probably earns in excess of £70,000 p.a touring the world and in the main doing a very good (if not stern job) so what I don't understand is why the media should think that a demand (don't forget it must have been discussed with Cowie for it to appear in the email and anyway Hair consulted someone, presumably an employment lawyer) for $500,000 (around £265,000 approx) for losing 2 years income, keeping his mouth shut about the "ball tampering incident", stress caused by ICC's lack of urgency in dealing with the matters, etc is unreasonable. It's possible that with next year's World Cup he may have been in greater demand in OCI's too.
The actions of the ICC are bewildering........
It's quite possible that Cowie suggested to Hair that he should fall on his sword. Certainly the q's from those present, most notably Christopher Martin Jenkins of The Times, implied that there was nothing unusual in trying to obtain a one-off payment for breaking a contract early. This occurs almost daily in soccer so wake up cricket....and wake up media!
It does look suspiciously as if the ICC have been got at by the PCB and other asian members, supported by politicians alike and that they have tried to distance themselves from Hair.
Let's not forget Hair is the innocent party here. Hair shared responsibility with other umpires, did a good job, was paid and employed by the ICC. It is not Hair in the dock. It is Pakistan and Inzie. Maybe it should be the PCB for their sly approach to what happened last Sunday.
As Nasser Hussain is now saying today...the ICC needs to get their act together and call a meeting asap to clear this mess up.
It's my view that ICC needs an overhaul. Being based in Dubai is crazy. Cricket is an english game and it should be run in London by people who are competent not political dummies.
The actions of the ICC are bewildering........
It's quite possible that Cowie suggested to Hair that he should fall on his sword. Certainly the q's from those present, most notably Christopher Martin Jenkins of The Times, implied that there was nothing unusual in trying to obtain a one-off payment for breaking a contract early. This occurs almost daily in soccer so wake up cricket....and wake up media!
It does look suspiciously as if the ICC have been got at by the PCB and other asian members, supported by politicians alike and that they have tried to distance themselves from Hair.
Let's not forget Hair is the innocent party here. Hair shared responsibility with other umpires, did a good job, was paid and employed by the ICC. It is not Hair in the dock. It is Pakistan and Inzie. Maybe it should be the PCB for their sly approach to what happened last Sunday.
As Nasser Hussain is now saying today...the ICC needs to get their act together and call a meeting asap to clear this mess up.
It's my view that ICC needs an overhaul. Being based in Dubai is crazy. Cricket is an english game and it should be run in London by people who are competent not political dummies.
Media coverage following the day's play
Since last Sunday night many retired test cricketers have appeared on tv. A few of them have talked sense to a degree but none of them have given the umpires the support they deserve. None of them accept of course the main man......a certain G Boycott. Interviewed on the field of play in dim light he was asked whether the game should be restarted on Monday. Impossible! The game was over. Pakistan had failed to take to the field thus breaching Law 21. England were the victors!
Mike Atherton, a past England captain has been vociferous in his support for Pakistan and his criticism of Mr Hair. Scandalous I say! This viewpoint and action typifies what is happening. Atherton, like Boycott has been, should be supportive of the umpires views instead he has fallen for the Pakistan defence which appears to be along the lines that because Pakistan and other asian cricketing countries had fallen foul of Hair in the past it is ok to tamper with the ball and show complete disregard to the paying public, millions of viewers by refusing to play because they had simply disagreed with the decisions made which are cemented in the Laws of the game. I wonder if it's because a certain Mike Atherton tampered with a ball himself that he has taken this stance in support of Inzie....hmmmm.....smells like it to me Mike!
Mike Gatting...solid stable as was Allan Lamb's comments.
But the best of all, the legendary Sussex & Pakistan Captain, he of political ambitions, good looks, Mr Imran Khan stated clearly on tv that he felt Inzie was wrong not to take the field after tea but even he spoilt this by a mild criticism of Hair by saying Hair (not both umpires you understand but Hair as senior umpire) had been too rash in making the pronouncement of ball tampering.
The common consensus amongst past pro-cricketers is that Hair (not Billy & Darrell by the way----unanimous in this regard) should have taken Inzie aside and politely (have you ever met a polite Aussie anyone?) enquire as to whether he (Inzie rarely bowls and sees the ball in the field; in fact I think he hides in the long grass) had wait for it......tampered with the ball. I ask you all out there..."have you heard anything so ridiculous?" So boys and girls imagine this....you have just been caught red-handed on world television with a doctored ball and you're supposed to say "Yes, officer, I have doctored the ball....you have me nicked" or even better still.."look officer, it wasn't me, it was the fast medium swing bowler over there...he touched the ball...it was him who (possibly) tampered with the cherry"....
With the game in Pakistan's favour there was no need to tamper with the ball. No-one has admitted it but both umpires saw the ball, both english batsmen saw the ball, most if not all the fielders saw the ball and no-one has said that the ball was NOT tampered with so logic dictates that the ball must have been tampered with.
I do not believe that for one minute both umpires did not consider their actions. Cook's dismissal was as a result of acute reverse swing which had just occurred and the ball was scratched. Draw your own conclusions!
Mike Atherton, a past England captain has been vociferous in his support for Pakistan and his criticism of Mr Hair. Scandalous I say! This viewpoint and action typifies what is happening. Atherton, like Boycott has been, should be supportive of the umpires views instead he has fallen for the Pakistan defence which appears to be along the lines that because Pakistan and other asian cricketing countries had fallen foul of Hair in the past it is ok to tamper with the ball and show complete disregard to the paying public, millions of viewers by refusing to play because they had simply disagreed with the decisions made which are cemented in the Laws of the game. I wonder if it's because a certain Mike Atherton tampered with a ball himself that he has taken this stance in support of Inzie....hmmmm.....smells like it to me Mike!
Mike Gatting...solid stable as was Allan Lamb's comments.
But the best of all, the legendary Sussex & Pakistan Captain, he of political ambitions, good looks, Mr Imran Khan stated clearly on tv that he felt Inzie was wrong not to take the field after tea but even he spoilt this by a mild criticism of Hair by saying Hair (not both umpires you understand but Hair as senior umpire) had been too rash in making the pronouncement of ball tampering.
The common consensus amongst past pro-cricketers is that Hair (not Billy & Darrell by the way----unanimous in this regard) should have taken Inzie aside and politely (have you ever met a polite Aussie anyone?) enquire as to whether he (Inzie rarely bowls and sees the ball in the field; in fact I think he hides in the long grass) had wait for it......tampered with the ball. I ask you all out there..."have you heard anything so ridiculous?" So boys and girls imagine this....you have just been caught red-handed on world television with a doctored ball and you're supposed to say "Yes, officer, I have doctored the ball....you have me nicked" or even better still.."look officer, it wasn't me, it was the fast medium swing bowler over there...he touched the ball...it was him who (possibly) tampered with the cherry"....
With the game in Pakistan's favour there was no need to tamper with the ball. No-one has admitted it but both umpires saw the ball, both english batsmen saw the ball, most if not all the fielders saw the ball and no-one has said that the ball was NOT tampered with so logic dictates that the ball must have been tampered with.
I do not believe that for one minute both umpires did not consider their actions. Cook's dismissal was as a result of acute reverse swing which had just occurred and the ball was scratched. Draw your own conclusions!
Join this blog.....
If you would like to join this blog and become a blogger for Support Darrell Hair please email the administrator immediately. It is intended that this blog gives credence to the decisions of the umpires during the episodes that unfolded solely during the 4th Day's play of the forfeited Test Match. A balanced approach is intended and any comments slandering the umpires or others mentioned on this blog will be erased immediately. Likewise it should be noted that ALL content on this blog is being monitored by the blog's legal advisers lawboutique.co.uk.
No contact with the umpires nor with any members of the ICC, nor current professional cricketers has been made. This blog is intended for all cricket lovers and the blog welcomes the attention of all cricketers of all nationalities, bowlers batsmen & keepers, and other sportsmen women & children.
The Umpires word is law......there were 4 of them last Sunday so Support Darrell Hair now and don't get sidetracked by the $500,000 compensation issue which will be dealt with shortly.
Skype Name (chat only) inziegate.....
No contact with the umpires nor with any members of the ICC, nor current professional cricketers has been made. This blog is intended for all cricket lovers and the blog welcomes the attention of all cricketers of all nationalities, bowlers batsmen & keepers, and other sportsmen women & children.
The Umpires word is law......there were 4 of them last Sunday so Support Darrell Hair now and don't get sidetracked by the $500,000 compensation issue which will be dealt with shortly.
Skype Name (chat only) inziegate.....
Darrell Hair & Inziegate
This blog has been created today, 26th August 2006 exactly 6 days after the most controversial story that has ever unfolded in the history of cricket. Although it has not been given a name like "Watergate" or the "Monika Lewinsky Affair" it is clear after the torrent of disinformation and misinformation from the world media that before long a name will be forever associated with the extraordinary events that began to unfold at The Oval, Kennington, London last Sunday. For the sake of the good name and nature of cricket I shall call it the "Darrell Hair Affair" thus avoiding any claims of racism if I called it "Inziegate" which has a nice ring to it. Quel domage?
The spin doctoring that is occurring is unbelievable and the sole object of this site is to get support for Mr Hair, a man whom I've never met, a man whom I do not have any particular affinity or allegiance to, a man who has had 'previous form' with Pakistan Cricket and a man who has allegedly been involved in more fracas on the cricket pitch than I have.
Cricket is a game between two teams and rarely does any game pass by at any level without some controversy. Standing up to umpires with LBW decisions, dodgy run outs, poorly called wides are every day occurrences and umpires often receive verbal abuse for their alleged poor decisions. This is all part of the game but CHEATING per se is frowned upon by all who participate.
In a nutshell the Umpires (there are two of them in case the media have forgotten) administer the game and punish offenders accordingly. The Umpires word is law! Basically it can be said that an action or offence occurs and the umpire (with the knowledge & support of the other umpire) shares the management of each over and acts as both judge, jurer and executioner.
The "Darrell Hair Affair" or incident is NOT an "alleged ball tampering act" as the media keep reporting (I have been watching Sky News and this keeps being repeated thus missing the point of the role of umpires in conjunction with the Laws of Cricket).
Darrell Hair and his colleague noticed unusual ball movement midway through the afternoon session of the 4th day's play at The Oval in the last Test Match of the Series between England and Pakistan. What is so incredible about the events (which I do not propose to get into in minute detail) is that Pakistan were odds on to win the game at this juncture with a day & innings to spare.
Perhaps the events as they unfolded tell us more about the psyche of Pakistani cricketers although this is mere conjecture. With an english coach at their helm any compulsion to win at all costs thus saving face despite losing the series must surely have been balanced towards a more sane approach to the task in hand which was to clear up the remaining English wickets and rack up the runs in the Test Match to win it convincingly.
Back to the unuual movement in the ball. No-one can say for sure when the umpires noticed adverse swing (reverse swing ; I shall come back to the subject of what constitutes as reverse swing later but for now just wish to lay the key elements of the events as I saw them on the day & since) but it is customary for both umpires to examine the conditions of any cricket ball at any time, usually between overs, and always after the fall of any wicket. This may not happen on the village green but former professionals have stated this is the case and as a mere amateur (who played and won in the Financial Ashes at the HAC on a number of occasions) who I am to disagree. If there were suspicions before Cook was dismissed LBW for 83 then there must have been high suspicions at the fall of Cook's wicket. From the tv replays it was clear the ball reverse swung and Cook was absolutely plumb LBW. Fact! Now the ball was examined then again and some 15 mins later the game was delayed as Inzie the Pakistan captain, the batsmen Collingwood and Bell, and other Pakistan fielders listened attentively to the umpires comments ultimately leading to a ball change due to tampering of the ball and a 5 run penalty (effectively given to England).
From television coverage it was clear the ball was marked, scratched and worse than a normal scuffing. If the ball had been simply scuffed (i.e through action with the turf) the whole surface both sides of the seam would have been damaged but clearly the scratches or marks were located on one side of the ball and in one significant area.
Although 5 runs were added to the England score as far as I can see no formal protest or allegation by the umpires of ball-tampering was made against Pakistan at this juncture or during any period prior to coming off for bad light which led to an early tea break.
Ball-tampering is an unusual event for all levels of umpires and rarely gets penalised by the 5 run penalty. Suffice to say that with a crowd of 13,000 and several boundaries clearing the ropes it is not inconceivable that the ball had been tampered by a spectator but again this is only conjecture.
The fact of the matter is that at this juncture the ball was changed, the umpires awarded 5 runs to England and the game recommenced until the batsmen came off for bad light. Although Inzie and his 10 playing colleagues may have been unhappy with the situation they got on with the game and no major verbal exchange between players (fielders and batsmen) and umpires was seen.
Around this time one unusual thing happened which I believe had a bearing on what was to follow. The Pakistan coach, Bob Woolmer (someone who used to teach me soccer and hockey at my prep school during his early days as a Kent player and even respected then as a dynamic and forward thinking coach) was followed on camera visiting the 3rd & 4th umpires room. No-one has suggested that this is unusual. Maybe Woolmer wanted clarification from the non-pitch umpires as to what had happened but whether he visited them of his own accord will only come out in an enquiry (which has been conveniently delayed).
Now to the tea break. As any and every cricketer past and present, professional, amateur and schoolboy (sorry ladies I forgot Heyhoe-Flint and her crew) knows full well that after tea it is the duty and responsibility of every captain to round up his players and return to the playing area if indeed they are the fielding team. A period of 35 to 45 mins occurred between the time Pakistan were due to take the field and the time they actually did which anyway was well after the game had been forfeited by them due to their failing to take to the field in the prescribed few minutes directly after tea.
Throughout the ball tampering incident and the tea break and subsequent events whereby only the umpires and Collingwood & Bell, the english batsmen, took to the field both umpires upheld the laws of the game. I am in no doubt that both umpires, indeed all 4 umpires have acted properly so quite why Mr Hair has been singled out and not been given adequate support by his employer, the ICC is quite bewildering and outrageous. The code of silence from all the umpires is applaudable whilst yesterday's treacherous revelations from Malcolm Speed show scant loyalty to Mr Hair and by implication perhaps the other umpires.
Political pressure from Pakistan was to be expected and by all accounts there has been a virtual torrent of pressure applied to and from within the ICC camp ably supported by pc journalism of the most banal quality.
Before examining the events since the game ended let me leave you with a few more observations and possibilities. Let's imagine that when the dressing room door closed behind the Pakistan team during the tea break there were others present or if not present certainly in mobile contact with Inzie. We can say safely although not for certain that Bob Woolmer was present , likewise the acclaimed former test cricketer Zaheer Abbas who is Tour Manager, maybe others such as Shoaib Akhtar the fast bowler recovering from injury and I am sure all had their say as what else could have happened that took over 1/2 an hour to discuss. Now comes my bolt of lightening! This has not been mentioned before but I believe is quite relevant.
On Sky News after the game had or had not been forfeited the coach Bob Woolmer was interviewed for his comments. I wont quote word for word but to summarise, Woolmer said that "the umpires word is law" and yet backed up the Pakistan players in their quest for reconcilation and demands that the game be continued the next morning despite knowing that the umpires had called the game off and awarded the game to England after his own team had broken Law 21 and forfeited.
This in itself made little sense to me. Surely Woolmer would have instructed and/or persuaded Inzie and his team to take the field at the prescribed time and once the bails had been removed indicated to his team that the game had been forfeited. Now I haven't spoken to Bob Woolmer for over 35 years but I know that he is extremely knowledgeable, forthright and honest. So why didn't the Pakistan team exit the dressing room? The answer can only be that various members were in dispute as if they had all been in agreement then Woolmer would have instructed his team to leave the dressing room. He stated on Sky that he had asked them all to swear that they had not tampered with the ball. What was the point to this q? After all the penalty was irreversible. The honour of the Pakistan team would have been best maintained if Inzie had held his chin up and taken to the field. The body language over the last 6 days suggests to me that there was an element of guilt in the dressing room and rather shame the culprit the Pakistan Cricket Board have turned swiftly on the one thing that they can address. That is to apportion 100% blame for the saga with their old umpiring nemesis, Mr Darrell Hair.
Support Darrell Hair for the good of cricket!!!
...because Malcolm Speed and his cronies at ICC are bringing this game of ours into disrepute.
The spin doctoring that is occurring is unbelievable and the sole object of this site is to get support for Mr Hair, a man whom I've never met, a man whom I do not have any particular affinity or allegiance to, a man who has had 'previous form' with Pakistan Cricket and a man who has allegedly been involved in more fracas on the cricket pitch than I have.
Cricket is a game between two teams and rarely does any game pass by at any level without some controversy. Standing up to umpires with LBW decisions, dodgy run outs, poorly called wides are every day occurrences and umpires often receive verbal abuse for their alleged poor decisions. This is all part of the game but CHEATING per se is frowned upon by all who participate.
In a nutshell the Umpires (there are two of them in case the media have forgotten) administer the game and punish offenders accordingly. The Umpires word is law! Basically it can be said that an action or offence occurs and the umpire (with the knowledge & support of the other umpire) shares the management of each over and acts as both judge, jurer and executioner.
The "Darrell Hair Affair" or incident is NOT an "alleged ball tampering act" as the media keep reporting (I have been watching Sky News and this keeps being repeated thus missing the point of the role of umpires in conjunction with the Laws of Cricket).
Darrell Hair and his colleague noticed unusual ball movement midway through the afternoon session of the 4th day's play at The Oval in the last Test Match of the Series between England and Pakistan. What is so incredible about the events (which I do not propose to get into in minute detail) is that Pakistan were odds on to win the game at this juncture with a day & innings to spare.
Perhaps the events as they unfolded tell us more about the psyche of Pakistani cricketers although this is mere conjecture. With an english coach at their helm any compulsion to win at all costs thus saving face despite losing the series must surely have been balanced towards a more sane approach to the task in hand which was to clear up the remaining English wickets and rack up the runs in the Test Match to win it convincingly.
Back to the unuual movement in the ball. No-one can say for sure when the umpires noticed adverse swing (reverse swing ; I shall come back to the subject of what constitutes as reverse swing later but for now just wish to lay the key elements of the events as I saw them on the day & since) but it is customary for both umpires to examine the conditions of any cricket ball at any time, usually between overs, and always after the fall of any wicket. This may not happen on the village green but former professionals have stated this is the case and as a mere amateur (who played and won in the Financial Ashes at the HAC on a number of occasions) who I am to disagree. If there were suspicions before Cook was dismissed LBW for 83 then there must have been high suspicions at the fall of Cook's wicket. From the tv replays it was clear the ball reverse swung and Cook was absolutely plumb LBW. Fact! Now the ball was examined then again and some 15 mins later the game was delayed as Inzie the Pakistan captain, the batsmen Collingwood and Bell, and other Pakistan fielders listened attentively to the umpires comments ultimately leading to a ball change due to tampering of the ball and a 5 run penalty (effectively given to England).
From television coverage it was clear the ball was marked, scratched and worse than a normal scuffing. If the ball had been simply scuffed (i.e through action with the turf) the whole surface both sides of the seam would have been damaged but clearly the scratches or marks were located on one side of the ball and in one significant area.
Although 5 runs were added to the England score as far as I can see no formal protest or allegation by the umpires of ball-tampering was made against Pakistan at this juncture or during any period prior to coming off for bad light which led to an early tea break.
Ball-tampering is an unusual event for all levels of umpires and rarely gets penalised by the 5 run penalty. Suffice to say that with a crowd of 13,000 and several boundaries clearing the ropes it is not inconceivable that the ball had been tampered by a spectator but again this is only conjecture.
The fact of the matter is that at this juncture the ball was changed, the umpires awarded 5 runs to England and the game recommenced until the batsmen came off for bad light. Although Inzie and his 10 playing colleagues may have been unhappy with the situation they got on with the game and no major verbal exchange between players (fielders and batsmen) and umpires was seen.
Around this time one unusual thing happened which I believe had a bearing on what was to follow. The Pakistan coach, Bob Woolmer (someone who used to teach me soccer and hockey at my prep school during his early days as a Kent player and even respected then as a dynamic and forward thinking coach) was followed on camera visiting the 3rd & 4th umpires room. No-one has suggested that this is unusual. Maybe Woolmer wanted clarification from the non-pitch umpires as to what had happened but whether he visited them of his own accord will only come out in an enquiry (which has been conveniently delayed).
Now to the tea break. As any and every cricketer past and present, professional, amateur and schoolboy (sorry ladies I forgot Heyhoe-Flint and her crew) knows full well that after tea it is the duty and responsibility of every captain to round up his players and return to the playing area if indeed they are the fielding team. A period of 35 to 45 mins occurred between the time Pakistan were due to take the field and the time they actually did which anyway was well after the game had been forfeited by them due to their failing to take to the field in the prescribed few minutes directly after tea.
Throughout the ball tampering incident and the tea break and subsequent events whereby only the umpires and Collingwood & Bell, the english batsmen, took to the field both umpires upheld the laws of the game. I am in no doubt that both umpires, indeed all 4 umpires have acted properly so quite why Mr Hair has been singled out and not been given adequate support by his employer, the ICC is quite bewildering and outrageous. The code of silence from all the umpires is applaudable whilst yesterday's treacherous revelations from Malcolm Speed show scant loyalty to Mr Hair and by implication perhaps the other umpires.
Political pressure from Pakistan was to be expected and by all accounts there has been a virtual torrent of pressure applied to and from within the ICC camp ably supported by pc journalism of the most banal quality.
Before examining the events since the game ended let me leave you with a few more observations and possibilities. Let's imagine that when the dressing room door closed behind the Pakistan team during the tea break there were others present or if not present certainly in mobile contact with Inzie. We can say safely although not for certain that Bob Woolmer was present , likewise the acclaimed former test cricketer Zaheer Abbas who is Tour Manager, maybe others such as Shoaib Akhtar the fast bowler recovering from injury and I am sure all had their say as what else could have happened that took over 1/2 an hour to discuss. Now comes my bolt of lightening! This has not been mentioned before but I believe is quite relevant.
On Sky News after the game had or had not been forfeited the coach Bob Woolmer was interviewed for his comments. I wont quote word for word but to summarise, Woolmer said that "the umpires word is law" and yet backed up the Pakistan players in their quest for reconcilation and demands that the game be continued the next morning despite knowing that the umpires had called the game off and awarded the game to England after his own team had broken Law 21 and forfeited.
This in itself made little sense to me. Surely Woolmer would have instructed and/or persuaded Inzie and his team to take the field at the prescribed time and once the bails had been removed indicated to his team that the game had been forfeited. Now I haven't spoken to Bob Woolmer for over 35 years but I know that he is extremely knowledgeable, forthright and honest. So why didn't the Pakistan team exit the dressing room? The answer can only be that various members were in dispute as if they had all been in agreement then Woolmer would have instructed his team to leave the dressing room. He stated on Sky that he had asked them all to swear that they had not tampered with the ball. What was the point to this q? After all the penalty was irreversible. The honour of the Pakistan team would have been best maintained if Inzie had held his chin up and taken to the field. The body language over the last 6 days suggests to me that there was an element of guilt in the dressing room and rather shame the culprit the Pakistan Cricket Board have turned swiftly on the one thing that they can address. That is to apportion 100% blame for the saga with their old umpiring nemesis, Mr Darrell Hair.
Support Darrell Hair for the good of cricket!!!
...because Malcolm Speed and his cronies at ICC are bringing this game of ours into disrepute.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)