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.
No comments:
Post a Comment