Hair cuts an over-officious figure in the game
By Geoffrey Boycott
(Filed: 21/08/2006)
In pics: Fourth Test
Live scoreboard: England v Pakistan
Your View: Can England retain the Ashes?
Audio: The Analyst at the Test
The events at the Oval yesterday were farcical and reflected little credit on the England and Wales Cricket Board or the International Cricket Council.
Hair cut: umpire Hair inspects the ball in question
The biggest farce of all was that no one thought to keep the 23,000 spectators, who had paid a lot of money to watch the game, informed.
The ECB employ a lot of people in their public relations department but the only information spectators were given as they left the ground was to check with the national media as to what was happening.
The ICC don’t come out of it very well, either. Mike Procter, the ICC’s match referee, did not issue a statement until 6.45 pm.
The ICC must be blind or stupid not to have realised that there is history between Darrell Hair, the umpire who accused them of changing the nature of the ball, and Pakistan. There were mutterings after the Headingley Test that Pakistan didn’t like Hair’s attitude.
There were also incidents in the Test series against England in Pakistan before Christmas when Hair warned Danish Kaneria for running on the pitch when he was bowling and Salman Butt for a similar offence while batting.
Inzamam-ul-Haq was given run out when he tried to get out of the way of a shy at the stumps by Steve Harmison. Pakistan thought Inzamam was taking evasive action and that Hair should not have referred it to the third umpire.
Pakistan regard Hair as an officious umpire and they don’t like his style of man-management. It should have been obvious to the ICC that appointing him to this series created a situation like a volcano waiting to erupt.
That happened yesterday. Without seeing the match ball, it is difficult to make a judgment about whether anyone had made an attempt to change its condition.
However, it is quite obvious that Pakistan were deeply hurt and upset by the allegation made by Hair. You could be polite and say that attempting to alter the ball’s condition is an offence against the spirit of cricket. In simple terms, it’s an accusation of cheating and that’s what hurt the Pakistanis.
It is not the first time that such allegations have been made against Pakistan. There were similar claims after a one-day international at Lord’s in 1992 and Imran Khan, the great figure of Pakistan cricket, admitted in his autobiography that he had used a bottle top to tamper with the ball.
Ball-tampering is a sensitive issue for the Pakistanis and that is why they staged their protest yesterday. They wanted to make a statement because the reputation of the team and the integrity of Pakistan cricket had been called into question.** You have to remember that the Pakistan players are deeply religious and pray five times a day, so an allegation of cheating hurts them.**
These days umpires are empowered to inspect the ball at irregular but frequent intervals to ensure no one is altering its condition. Anyone who attempts to tamper with a ball has to be stupid because they are bound to be found out.
Hair might be correct in the strict letter of the law but this is not the same as giving someone out lbw or stumped. This is a matter that needed to be dealt with sensitively and Hair came across as being too officious.
As to what happens now, I don’t know. Pakistan may have forfeited the game when they refused to come out after tea, but they will hope that their protest - because that’s what it was - will make people realise they feel that Hair is biased against them.
www.telegraph.co.uk/boycott