Ball Tempering Controversy-News and Articles
.
Re: BBC Hard Talk Interviews
Mean while Steve Waugh has praised Hair, but when it came to the accusations of ball tampering he really had a selective approach, he mentioned that Hair must have seen something thats why he acted in that way but conveniently forget to mention that Hair (according to the rule) must warn the skipper of fielding side.
Re: PCB Chairman Shahryar says Darrel Hair is a good umpire
This is called shooting ourselves in the foot! Why would he undermine his own case by praising Hair. Most of us know that Hair is NOT a good umpire. His actions reek of malice. He could show all the attitude he wants and nobody would give a rat's ass if his decisions were correct, which isn't the case here. For the longest time, he's acted as if he had an axe to grind with Pakistan. He deserves to be shown the door immediately.
Him and several of his paltu cheelay have made it their continuous habit of flying round-the-globe on all expenses paid holiday trips with the sorriest excuses mankind has ever seen, bringing their entire khandaan and maa behnain alongwith them for a good measure, since there supposedly is not a single store left in Pakistan from where these archenemies can satisfy their window shopping streak hunger from. They then have the audacity to come in front of the media and rub the nation's name in the mud from the same place where that racist bigot left us by throwing away statements left and right without even fully knowing the complications behind it. This is the time where one need to quietly sit behind close doors and discuss these issues in team meetings and whatnot. These namroods will always find a way to make it in the media single-handedly stealing the limelight from the actual issue at-hand. Extremely disappointed at Shaharyaar's statement above. "Good" umpire? You have got to be kidding me.
Re: Ball Tempering Controversy-News and Articles
I was pleasantly surpsise when I saw this article in THE AUSTRALIAN. This article is A MUST READ!
_____________________________________________
SO NOW we know it. Officials are more important than players, laws are more important than people, one man?s vanity is more important than the pleasure of millions, principles are more important than common sense, intransigence is better than decency, vindictiveness is better than compromise, trouble is much more fun than peaceful co-operation and a fat man?s dignity is more important than mutual understanding between nations.
These are all conclusions we can draw from umpire Darrell Hair’s disruption and destruction of the fourth Test between England and Pakistan at the Brit Oval.
The question of whether or not Pakistan were guilty of tampering with the ball is no longer relevant. **The point at issue is how a single man’s pigheadedness was allowed to disrupt the fun of millions, to give cricket a terrible, gaping wound and to add to the tensions between Muslims and white Westerners at this, of all moments in history. **
Hair decided that Pakistan had tampered with the ball and meted out the punishment for this crime. This is a serious accusation in cricket and he knew that it would cause a huge amount of trouble. But then trouble is what Hair attracts. If this had not been the case, the way to compromise would have been open. As it is, the rejection of compromise has done far more to damage cricket than any amount of ball-tampering could.
The Pakistan players were hugely upset by Hair’s judgment and by his punishment, the award of five penalty runs to England and the changing of the ball to one of the England batsmen’s liking. Pakistan played on until tea, but clearly, when the players got together in the dressing-room, the anger and resentment came out.
All the same, after a long while of parleying between various parties, Pakistan were, belatedly, prepared to carry on. England, equally, were prepared to play. The two cricket boards were also happy for the game to continue. **In fact, the only person who wanted the game to stay stopped was Hair. In his mind, he had called the game’s conclusion and awarded victory to England, with the agreement of his increasingly hapless sidekick, Billy Doctrove. Therefore, the game was ended: Thus Spake Darrell. To continue would have been a direct insult to Hair. **
Hair will argue that he was just standing up for the laws of cricket, that he was not foolish but brave, a voice crying in the wilderness against the too- often ignored crime of ball- tampering, just as he insisted on making a public fuss about Muttiah Muralitharan’s bowling action when there were ways of furthering the whole matter without melodrama. But melodrama is what Hair attracts.
He will also argue that he was standing up for the laws of cricket when he stopped the match and refused to restart it. If you read the laws, you will find that he is right. **If you park on a double yellow line for two minutes outside the chemist to get some urgent medication for your dying wife, the policeman who fines you is also acting according to the law. He is also acting without humanity and common sense. **
Hair’s philosophical stance is that the most important issue in cricket is the authority of the umpire. There are those of us who believe that there are other, wider issues that carry a greater weight.** There are more important issues in society than the authority of policemen. In truth, this stance of Hair is not principle but pout. **
**It seems as if Hair sees himself as a man with a mission: his opposition to Muralitharan was ill-timed, but not half so ill-timed as this warfare on Pakistani sensibilities. **
Hair might — just — have some kind of right on his side after he made his judgment on the matter of ball-tampering. There are no pictures to support him, though. Did he see someone working on the ball? Did he make his decision from the mere look of the ball? Big matters to decide on a guess. But if — if — he was correct in his view, he was right to make the judgment.
But he forfeited all claim to any favourable review of his day at the office on Sunday when he refused to allow the game to carry on. His belief that umpiring decisions are more important than cricketing action, is a heresy. It was, in truth, idiotic to appoint him as an umpire in this series. England and Pakistan have a history of trouble, Hair has a history of trouble. And trouble between Muslim countries and Britain is precisely what is to be avoided right now.
So thank whatever god you worship that the players have done so well in this series. They have duelled without quarter and without acrimony. They have played cricket as cricket is meant to be played — fiercely, uncompromisingly, decently, to the limits of individual ability, but without rancour, resentment and sulks. The rancour, resentment and sulks have been left to the umpires and so has the trouble. The first decision for the ICC to make is that Hair never stands in another international match.
This series has showed us that white Westerners and Muslims can get on in sporting opposition, or, for that matter, on the same team. The shame of it all was that one man’s overweening vanity had to spoil it.
SOURCE: http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20213254-2722,00.html
Re: Ball Tempering Controversy-News and Articles
**Pakistan put tour match in doubt **
Pakistan players may skip Thursday’s match against Middlesex at Uxbridge, on the day before skipper Inzamam-ul-Haq’s disciplinary hearing.
And there are fears the whole one-day series against England could be in danger if Inzamam is banned.
“I have spoken to Inzamam and some players who are contemplating not playing any matches until the hearing is held,” said manager Zaheer Abbas. A spokesman told BBC Sport Middlesex are “preparing as normal” for the game.
SOURCE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/5274452.stm
Re: Ball Tempering Controversy-News and Articles
INZAMAM DEMANDS 4TH TEST RESULT CHANGE
PAKISTAN captain Inzamam-ul-Haq today called for the result of the controversial fourth Test to be wiped out.
He has urged the International Cricket Board not to credit England with a win and declare a “no result match” in light of the ball-tampering row.
“Pakistan were in a winning position but England were declared the winners, so our disappointment is very natural,”
“Now our effort is to change the result of the match. Pakistan will request the ICC that instead of awarding it to England it should be declared a no-result match.”
Re: Ball Tempering Controversy-News and Articles
A case of over-reacting to an over-reaction
Tim de Lisle
August 22, 2006
When is a win not a win? When it’s a forfeit. The Oval Test was awarded to England because Pakistan were adjudged to have forfeited it by refusing to emerge promptly after tea on Sunday. So England go down as having won the series 3-0. Suddenly, the fact that they were behind in this match makes no difference. But cricket isn’t tennis, where a winner is needed to go through to the next round and forfeits are part of the game. The England players know they didn’t dominate this series to the tune of 3-0. Seldom can a Test victory have tasted so sour.
**The result isn’t the most important aspect of this bizarre episode, but it is a revealing one, because it confirms the suspicion that justice wasn’t done. The officials - Darrell Hair, his immediate superior Mike Procter, and their ultimate boss Malcolm Speed - seem to have based their decisions on the laws, specifically Law 21.3. But that just shows that this law is an ass.
**
**Sport increasingly recognises that it is part of the entertainment world, and the first rule of entertainment is that the show must go on. The International Cricket Council exists to stage cricket matches. Here, it ended up calling one off when nearly all parties were willing to get on with it. Something went seriously wrong. But what, exactly?
First, Darrell Hair got heavy-handed. Where many umpires would have used a quiet word, Hair reached straight for the biggest weapon available to him, the five-run penalty. The five runs are nothing - if a team is really ball-tampering, the penalty ought to be more like 50 - but the statement was a loud one. The ball looked pretty normal to the television audience. Did he really need to change it? Couldn’t he have issued a warning, with the threat of a referral to the referee if it wasn’t heeded?
For me, Hair over-reacted. His behaviour was inflammatory, and the fact that he has a history of it made it more so. And as the laws of physics almost state, to every over-reaction there is liable to be an equal and opposite over-reaction.**
At first, Pakistan didn’t over-react - they just got on with it, quite rightly, and were rewarded with the wicket they most wanted, Kevin Pietersen. But then, over tea, they did over-react. They were entitled to protest but, as many commentators have observed, not taking the field was the wrong way to go about it. It was forgetting what they are there for. It was taking it out on the fans. To read Inzamam’s interview with Andrew Miller yesterday was to feel much sympathy for a likeable man, but it was noticeable that he didn’t once mention the fans.
The Pakistanis’ main line of defence was that Hair’s accusation of ball-tampering was an insult. But they have often been accused of this. Waqar Younis was found guilty of it in 2000, and he is now their bowling coach. They have also been accused of worse - of match-fixing. Inzamam himself did not emerge spotless from the Qayyum inquiry. But he coped with the implied insult and carried on batting as serenely as before, showing the thick skin that an international sportsman needs. At The Oval, his skin mysteriously turned out to be the only part of him that was thin.
**Hair, in turn, over-reacted to Pakistan’s over-reaction. He was too quick to whip off the bails, inflaming matters when he should have been defusing them. Pakistan are not the first team to stage a sit-in, and they won’t be the last. Officialdom should have the tact and flexibility to cope.
Several components of the game were found wanting at the Oval. The elite umpiring panel behaved like its amateurish forefathers at their worst. The match referee failed in his most central duty, to let the game take place. The ICC put the letter of the law before the interests of the fans.** And the ECB, which began the saga as an innocent bystander, soon committed the cardinal modern sin of terrible public relations. It wasn’t cricket’s darkest day, as some have suggested. But it was a lot more than a bad Hair day.
Re: Ball Tempering Controversy-News and Articles
CRICKET has a problem with Darrell Hair. There is only one of him. If there were a few more Hairs available to stand in matches around the world then cricket would be in less of a mess than it is right now.
Hair has acted at all times not on the colour of a cricketer’s skin but on the letter of the law. Had cricket itself followed Hair’s lead the game would not be so compromised. At the very least bowling would not be an action shared by javelin throwers. If other umpires had been as strong as Hair then bowling would not have been corrupted in the manner it is now.
Those who support Pakistan’s brooding boycott argue that the rule is a poor one and that the umpires should have consulted Pakistan skipper Inzamam-ul-Haq. Neither umpire had seen Pakistan players work on the ball so the evidence - the state of the ball - was only circumstantial.
But both umpires have officiated in enough Test matches to spot damage that was different to the normal wear and tear consistent with whacking a ball about for 56 overs.
If a ball is changing drastically before their eyes, the umpires must step in and have it changed. Ball tampering is cheating.
It is not enough that Pakistan has been made to forfeit the fourth Test in a series already won by England. Further action should be taken, for Inzamam and his men have acted shamefully.
Splitting Hairs over questions of tampering - Patrick Smith in The Australian](http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20206341-12270,00.html)
Re: Ball Tempering Controversy-News and Articles
Source: The News
*PCB seeks British firm’s help to resolve tampering row
*
London: Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) Chairman, Shaharyar Khan said on Tuesday that they were consulting a British firm to represent Inzamam at the hearing.
"The firm which specialises in sports law may ask the ICC to delay the hearing and first produce evidence, the cricket ball and other documents on the basis of which they have charged Inzamam," he told media.
Re: Ball Tempering Controversy-News and Articles
they shud al burn in HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL Esp Darrel the prick............
Re: Ball Tempering Controversy-News and Articles
Speed supports Hair and Doctrove
Two days after The Oval fiasco Malcolm Speed, the ICC chief executive, has said the conclusion to the fourth Test was “hugely regrettable”, but he insisted it was not the organisation’s role to overrule any umpiring decision. As expected, Speed has supported the umpires Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove in their “correct” move to award the game to England when Pakistan did not return to the field after tea following a five-run punishment for ball tampering.
“It is not the role of the ICC to overturn the decisions of on-field umpires, the ultimate arbiters of the game,” Speed said in a statement. “In this instance the decision to award the match to England was the correct one under the Laws.”
Speed also confirmed the ICC had received a letter from the Pakistan Cricket Board expressing its concerns over the appointment of Hair to matches involving the country. “This is the first time they have put them in writing, even though they have previously been invited to do so,” Speed said. “However, it remains the role of the ICC and not our members to appoint umpires to Tests and one-day internationals.”
Sunil Gavaskar, the chairman of the ICC’s cricket committee, and Speed select the officials for each series on recommendations from the body’s cricket department. “The appointments are made without fear or favour and are based on the performances of the umpires in international matches,” Speed said.
Speed also said it was important to remember that Friday’s hearing, when Inzamam-ul-Haq will face ball tampering and disrepute charges, was purely a playing issue. “It is not a political, racial or religious matter but a cricketing one,” he said. “We have no vested interests in the outcome of the hearing but what we expect is that it will be fair and will illustrate our processes are suitably robust to deal with these issues.”
SOURCE: http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engvpak/content/current/story/257482.html
***Here are audio links of the phone interview of Malocolm Speed at ICC HQ in Dubai. ***
The interview was conducted by South Asia Correspondent of Australian Broadcasting Coorporation (ABC), Peter Llyod
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200608/r102159_312547.asx
Re: Ball Tempering Controversy-News and Articles
[quote]
"It is not the role of the ICC to overturn the decisions of on-field umpires, the ultimate arbiters of the game," Speed said in a statement. "In this instance the decision to award the match to England was the correct one under the Laws."
[/quote]
Bullsh!t. Whos role is it to keep umpires under check? Checks and balances? It seems ICC is an hitlertorian organization without any clear set of rules and laws for racist and wrong umpires.
[QUOTE]
"It is not the role of the ICC to overturn the decisions of on-field umpires, the ultimate arbiters of the game," Speed said in a statement. "In this instance the decision to award the match to England was the correct one under the Laws."
[/QUOTE]
So it is role of ICC to appoint the umpires and the leave them to ruin the game for everyone because of their personal hate/racist mentality?
Re: Ball Tempering Controversy-News and Articles
people like HAIR are black spots on game of cricket
Re: Ball Tempering Controversy-News and Articles
Just as I suspected, ICC will take side of the umpires. This is the opportunity for us to say to the ICC that it is not about taking sides rather than being objective and fair. They have to understand that umpires are human and can make mistakes. I hated when PCB asked ICC to remove Darrel from umpiring Pakistani games because when you are a cricket board you cannot act like judge and jury, take it to court, make a case that this guy has made several mistakes just in this series. We have lost confidence in him; rather make the decision of bias.
ICC wants Pakistan to back off so that they do not have to pressure Darrel. Just look at the interview, they are not talking about ball tampering allegation which means they are also not sure whether the allegation is true. The case is for us to win only if PCB executes it well.
Re: Ball Tempering Controversy-News and Articles
Doctrove is another incompetent and biased buffoon, his role in this and other past fiascos cannot be understated...if we have these morons in the elite panel, going after just Hair, is not going to change anything....
Re: Ball Tempering Controversy-News and Articles
ENGLAND CHIEF IN PAKISTAN TALKS
England and Pakistan’s cricket top brass were locked in a meeting at a west London hotel this afternoon as progress was sought in the ongoing ball-tampering crisis.
England and Wales Cricket Board chairman David Morgan spoke for more than half an hour with Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq and Shahriyar Khan, the Welshman’s opposite number on the Pakistan Cricket Board.
When Morgan finally emerged from the meeting he was unable to clarify its exact purpose or how successful it had been.
“I am always available to my counterparts with the Pakistan board, and that was the case today,” he said, adding only that he was in no position to comment further.
The meeting followed today’s decision by the International Cricket Council to postpone Friday’s disciplinary hearing with Inzamam, who faced charges relating to ball-tampering in the final Test.
The announcement earlier today that senior match referee Ranjan Madugalle, who was due to chair the hearing, is unavailable for personal reasons has forced the ICC to postpone the hearing indefinitely with both England and Pakistan insisting on his involvement.
“The difficulty relates to the availability of Ranjan Madugalle to chair the hearing as he is dealing with a private and personal matter that requires his urgent attention,” explained Malcolm Speed, the ICC’s chief executive.
“I should stress that the reason for the postponement is related solely to Ranjan’s availability. We would ask that his privacy is respected at this time.”
Re: Ball Tempering Controversy-News and Articles
I heard in BBC Urdu a while ago that Pakistan/PCB has asked ICC to resolve the issue/allegation by Monday, Has anyone got any news on that?
Re: Ball Tempering Controversy-News and Articles
lagta hay update nahin mille abhee tuk
here you go
http://www.paklinks.com/gs/showpost.php?p=4351626&postcount=33
Re: Ball Tempering Controversy-News and Articles
Pakistan board demand advancing hearing
Cricinfo staff
August 24, 2006
The Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) has demanded that the ICC hold a disciplinary hearing on charges faced by Inzamam-ul-Haq for ball tampering and bringing the game into disrepute before Monday and added that they will not have a problem if Clive Lloyd is appointed to deal with the case.
However, contradictory reports are emerging from the Pakistan camp with Zaheer Abbas, the Pakistan team manager, telling journalists that it had been decided that they would wait until the end of the one-day series, on September 10, for the hearing to take place. "The board will have no objection if ICC appoints Clive Lloyd for the case hearing," a PCB spokesperson was quoted as saying on Geo TV, a Pakistan news channel.
But a spokesman for DLA Piper, the legal firm appointed to represent Inzamam, said: "We want the original bloke. Clearly he has problems to deal with, but the situation has not changed."
Abbas, however, offered another different view: "There was an opinion we should ask the ICC to have the hearing before the one-day series to close this issue but since both boards have agreed on having Ranjan Madugalle as the adjudicator it has been decided to wait until he is available. Madugalle's sister has had a serious accident and the reasons for postponing the hearing are genuine." Rather confusingly, he concluded: "Our legal advisers also felt it was best to wait."
He added that Thursday's fixture against Middlesex would go ahead as planned. "We are definitely playing that match and the remaining ones also. The players are now just concentrating on the cricket and winning the one-dayers."
Earlier, ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed, who is flying to London in the next two days to tackle the crisis first hand, said Friday's planned hearing had been postponed since Pakistan and England preferred Madugalle to act as adjudicator.
Meanwhile, The Guardian reported that David Morgan, the chairman of the ECB, took part in a 45-minute meeting on Wednesday with Shaharyar Khan and Inzamam at the team's hotel near Heathrow. Morgan said he had been invited to the meeting by Khan, who said he was "very keen that the one-dayers are not disrupted". The newspaper speculated that Khan may have been trying to use Morgan's influence to persuade Inzamam to carry on with the tour.