**Monday October 2, 2006
By Richard Boock
**
It’s time to accept that Pakistan captain Inzamam ul-Haq was not only right in refusing to continue at the Oval last month, but that he’s also done cricket a great service.
Exonerated on the ball-tampering charge, Inzamam was suspended for four ODIs as a result of the fourth test sit-in but remains defiant, reasoning at the weekend that he was right to steer the course he did.
This might not sit well with the “umpires are always right” brigade but if you consider the evidence in Inzi’s favour during last week’s Code of Conduct hearings, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to disagree.
After all, chief match referee Ranjan Madugalle did find, following a bevy of expert testimonies from all parties, that there had been no breach of the ball-tampering law and that the Pakistan skipper had been wrongly accused.
He also went on the record as saying that he was mystified why the umpires hadn’t taken a more moderate line on the issue, given the seriousness of a ball tampering charge - “it is an allegation of cheating”.
Translated? It means umpires Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove applied the law recklessly, in fact so recklessly it persuaded Pakistan to consider a response that would accurately reflect the extent of their concern.
Inzamam claimed at the weekend that his stopwork decision - which allowed England to win the series 3-0 - helped concentrate minds on the issue and forced the cricketing world to examine the charge more closely.
“If we had just carried on with the game, the world would not have sat up and taken notice of how we had been accused of something we were not guilty of,” he told internet site Bigstarcricket.com
"We felt we had to stand up and protest. Ultimately, I understand the ICC’s decision to ban me. I did what I felt was right - and so did they.
“Although I regret the public were deprived of watching cricket, I don’t regret making the decision to stay off the field - because there are certain things more important than winning and losing, or the rule book.”
There are those who continue to waffle about the game being weakened by Inzamam’s actions; about the umpires being hung out to dry, about them being stripped of their credibility, but from this viewpoint just the opposite has happened.
For a start, world cricket has identified an elite umpire who, through his bloody-mindedness and lack of tact, can be considered more an enemy of the game than a servant of it.
It’s now a matter of record that Hair brings more problems to the table than he solves and last week’s Code of Conduct hearings have gone a long way towards emphasising that.
The game is better off for the information.
Inzamam’s actions are also forcing the ICC to reconsider its laws regarding umpiring protocols, particularly in regard to accusations of ball-tampering and the decisions involving forfeitures.
That too can only be good news.
There’s also a suggestion that Hair’s fall from grace might persuade other, similarly gung-ho type umpires who might have been thinking of taking the same action in similar circumstances, to think again. Hope springs eternal.
But more than anything else, Inzamam showed that despite all the opposition and outrage, there is still a place in sport for protest.
It might not be allowed in law but decent protests seldom are.
The Springbok protesters of 1981 weren’t exactly on first name terms with the Red Squad, and neither can I remember the South Island farmers who released the RCD virus being good mates with DoC.
As Inzamam suggests, sometimes causes are worth fighting for, whether the law is with you or not.
Well well well...the critics of Inzi who were all saying he should have done this ir that, oh what a mess he got us into..they are so going to be sitting with their "foot in the mouth" for iftari ...
If Inzi were to take a stand he would have walked out right when the ball was changed. He should have gone straight to the match referee. Instead, he played on and it wasn't until they started discussing the issue during the tea break that they realized 'something needs to be done'. They didn't have a course of action. A few minutes of protest was nothing more than a chaos in the dressing room.
Inzi didn't have a stand or a protest plan..he just went with the flow. He was a puppet in the hands of Shehryar Khan and the likes. Inzi was never a leader and these chain of events have proved it.
The only reason why ICC buckled in was hiring of lawyers by PCB, had it been just a stupid match forfieture then Iam sure Inzi wud have been singing a very different tune right now.
Its sad that violation of rules is being hailed as a great victory and our moronic captain does not have the sense to know the difference. History will remember Pakistan as the first and only country to forfeit a test match, ball tampering issue will be forgotten and Inzi will be called the village idiot.
Its sad that violation of rules is being hailed as a great victory and our moronic captain does not have the sense to know the difference. History will remember Pakistan as the first and only country to forfeit a test match, ball tampering issue will be forgotten and Inzi will be called the village idiot.
Totally disagree with you...
If they didn't show the balls and went ahead with the game, then it would have been just another 'bad call' by Hair, but protesting did them a lot of good. The whole sky sports team, ex cricketers, ex umpires hailed the decision and at the end of the day, HAIR was ridiculed. And now that the verdict is out and we are cleared of ball tampering charges, it only helps our cause. Whether Hair gets charged or not, everyone in the cricket world knows who the culprit was for the oval fiasco and HAIR made a fool of himself with the letters to icc and all. And yeah, the person you are calling a 'village idiot' is a hero to many, so please refrain from using such language.
you are right, history will always remember Pakistan as the nation who forfeited a test match, but they will also get to know the reasons they stood for and that in itself is BIG as we fought the accusation and came out as victors in that case. inzi said it right, "sometimes causes are worth fighting for, whether the law is with you or not." He is lucky to escape with only 4 match ban.
And yeah, the person you are calling a 'village idiot' is a hero to many, so please refrain from using such language.
Or what?
Jazbaathi na ho bhai, like u others are entitled to their opinions, likes and dislikes...take care...and Inzi is a national/international figure and will be the subject of accolades and ridicule, its part of the package...
Ditto. It was Shereyar’s poor plan to stay inside after tea. Inzi must have complained in the dressing room, but without Khan’s asheerbaad he would have not done this. Inzi would have walked off the ground right away in protest to demand third and TV umpire’s intervention. Khan failed misereably, he should have called ICC’s big guys to create a stand off against Hair’s dictatorship.
It came strongly against Hair, nontheless, but Pakistan and Inzimam also suffered. This battle could have been won without any losses, if Khan had chosen a better way to protest. **A phone call to Dubai, and an evening press conference **(in which Pak will announce that it will no longer play if Hair is on the field after fifth day of the test AND that Pakistan is going to challenge Hair in ICC and in court for ball tempering allegations) would have served the purpose.
Yes you may be right...........but he is still dopey as a leader and a captain. He is equally likely to lose you a match with his decisions on the field.
I have no doubt about Inzi easy going and honest personality, but as far as Oval episode is concern, I am not sure if we should blame or credit Inzi for all this saga.
I firmly believe that everything happened under the instructions of PCB chairmain and a permanent member of the ad hoc committee. I don't see Inzi as a powerful figure like Imran, who could stand for something he believe in. I am sure he does dictate things when it comes to selecting players like Arshad Khan and Mushtaq and not selecting players like Yasir Arafat and Yasir Hameed, but i don't think he is so powerful that he will make such decisions of standing up to an umpire.
If he was that strong he should have challenged Hair and Billy long ago, since they made so many wrong decisions against Pakistan in previous 3 matches. Additionally, he should have reacted at the time when Hair signalled 5 runs. If he waited till tea then the decision of made by others (except Zaheer Abass) especially Sher yar and Ad hoc committee member (forgot his name). And that was the reason PBC went for legal aids to support their actions.
