INZI's Hearing Articles/Discussion Thread

Entertainment Cricket and Other Sports
21

Re: INZI’s Hearing Articles/Discussion Thread

Lawyers put umpires to the test

Pakistan’s lawyers had the upper hand after the first day of witness statements at the Oval, where Inzamam-ul-Haq faced an interrogation as part of his code of conduct hearing.

In the course of the hearing, it became clear that Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove — the umpires at the centre of last month’s ball-tampering storm — had not fully followed protocol during the emotional and chaotic afternoon of Aug 20. Insiders say this has weakened their case substantially.

The mood of the meeting is reported to have been largely sympathetic towards Pakistan. While it has been acknowledged that Inzamam’s sit-in protest was inappropriate, the umpires’ conduct has provided Pakistan’s lawyers with an opportunity to argue extenuating circumstances.

The ball was produced in court for Ranjan Madugalle, the International Cricket Council referee in charge of the hearing, to analyse. There are substantial scrapes on the surface of the kind that could be produced legally only if the ball made contact with a hard object, like the corner of a boundary board. But Pakistan’s lawyers have argued that the marks do not provide clear evidence that the ball was tampered with.

In the absence of any damning video footage, it remains likely that Inzamam will be acquitted on the charge of ball-tampering. As for the charge of bringing the game into disrepute, Pakistan’s lawyers have argued that if the umpires’ decision is shown to be dubious, it would be unfair to penalise Inzamam for subsequent events.

Extended to its logical limits, this argument could be used to support a change in the result of the game, which would then become a draw or no-result rather than an England win. But this will not happen, if only because of the upheaval it would cause within the betting industry.

The chances of Inzamam being acquitted on all counts also remain slim.** It may be viewed as politically necessary for him to receive a short suspension on the grounds of bringing the game into disrepute.**

The hearing made unexpectedly fast progress. If all continues to go smoothly, the closing speeches will probably be delivered this afternoon. Madugalle may then decide to deliver his verdict tonight, though the terms of the hearing allow him to ruminate over the evidence for up to 24 hours if he chooses.

English lawyer Mark Gay led Pakistan’s legal team. He was well supported by his witnesses, especially Pakistan coach Bob Woolmer, who spoke eloquently in defence of his players.

Insiders said the umpires were very united in their statements, despite reports that they had initially disagreed over what course to follow when they discovered those suspicious marks on the ball. However, they were reported to have given ground under cross-examination

SOURCE: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/sport/2006/09/28/scbrig28.xml

22

Re: INZI's Hearing Articles/Discussion Thread

^^ excellent news...lets pray things pan out as they seem to be headed

23

Re: INZI's Hearing Articles/Discussion Thread

Hair looked very happy in the pictures of him leaving the hearing...so Inzi ban a couple of tests and a couple of ODIs.

24

Re: INZI's Hearing Articles/Discussion Thread

Is he looking happy because he will get $$$$$$% which he is demanding for all the mess he has created.

25

Re: INZI's Hearing Articles/Discussion Thread

Inshallah, Inzi will be acquitted of all charges.

26

Re: INZI’s Hearing Articles/Discussion Thread

JUST IN ON CRICINFO…
Inzamam handed four-match ban
Found guilty on disrepute charge
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engvpak/content/current/story/260775.html

:hehe:

mashAllah…this clearly shows the pathetic state muslims are into these days…u get penalize for reacting to actions [unjustified…stupid and racist] but the gora sahib is free to do anything n everything they like…bravo…i’m sure hair got something if not everything his heart desired but inzi got banned for reacting to something which should not have been there to begin with. oh well…i don’t think ban will be lifted even if PCB decides to appeal against the decision. :shoaby:

so this is a golden chance for younis to prove wht a lousey n unreliable captain he is by not winning the ICCCT…:k:

27

Re: INZI's Hearing Articles/Discussion Thread

^^ you never know for sure, it is after all "cricket"
I do agree that this will be the test of a life time for younis becuase CT is mini-world cup...
so I think we should still consider this as a good chance to see our weaknesses for the WC and
I also agree that yes muslims are in a terrible shape these days, mostly due to our weak leaders who have pretty much set the precedence of cowering infront of goras ka bachas....

Are you coming to my Iftar party Saieen?

28

Re: INZI’s Hearing Articles/Discussion Thread

ICC may be the real victims
By Mihir Bose
(Filed: 29/09/2006

The fiasco at the Oval could result in a complete reshaping of the International Cricket Council. The cracks which the forfeited Test revealed have widened to the point that by the time the ICC executive board meet in India in November the organisation must find a way to retain their credibility as a world body.

The decision by chief referee Ranjan Madugalle to overturn the decision of umpires Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove means that for the first time a governing body have said the umpires’ decision is not final.
Madugalle acted as a court of appeal and upheld Inzaman-ul -Haq and Pakistan’s claim that it was monstrous for his team to be labelled cheats.

In sport the cardinal principle has always been that the umpire is always right. Now a governing body have said the umpire may not be right. Pakistan were allowed to claim this victory by fielding a first-rate legal team led by the redoubtable Mark Gay and summoning expert witnesses of the calibre of Geoffrey Boycott, John Hampshire and Simon Hughes. The effect was to turn the hearing on its head. Instead of Inzamam being in the dock, it was Hair who found himself having to justify his decision to punish the Pakistan captain.

One of the most devastating points made during the hearing was by Hampshire, the player turned umpire, who termed Hair’s decision to act immediately on his suspicions that the ball had been tampered with as “pedantic”. Hampshire suggested the Australian had forgotten the cardinal rule of umpires, that they must keep the play going.

In their evidence, Hampshire and Boycott made much of the fact that a good umpire must have played at the highest level, which Hair has not. Gay was also helped by the fact that Hair’s partner, Doctrove, was not fully behind Hair as The Daily Telegraph revealed even before the hearing began. This became very evident during the hearing. While Hair insisted he had to act the moment he felt the ball had been altered, Doctrove felt that the ball could still be played with. While things were suspicious, the whole issue could have been more calmly considered.

The divide was further underlined after the hearing. Hair held a press conference, but Doctrove was nowhere to be seen, which made it appear as if Hair was the only umpire at the Oval. But then Hair was not only divided from his umpiring partner. He was also alienated from his employers, the ICC, and this was emphasised by the fact that at the hearing Hair had his own barrister, John Beveridge. This clearly indicated that, unlike the other ICC witnesses, he could not rely on the ICC lawyers. This is hardly surprising, given that he clearly feels very hurt by the way the ICC revealed to the world his e-mails to his boss asking for $500,000 to quit umpiring.

Nor could Hair have been pleased that just before he held his own press conference the ICC effectively cut their links with him by saying he would not be umpiring in the Champions Trophy. The reason given was the very lame one that his security cannot be guaranteed. Given that this is an ICC tournament, awarded to India, it says little for the ICC that they cannot demand that India ensure Hair’s safety. If India cannot protect an umpire then how can it be entrusted with the security of a tournament?
In making this decision the ICC are trying desperately to reclaim ground they lost at the Oval on that Sunday night.

This was when Malcolm Speed, the ICC chief executive pleaded with Hair to restart the match but failed. In many ways much more than ball tampering, it was the decision to forfeit the match, for the first time in cricket history, which has been at the centre of this crisis.It led to an extraordinary situation. This was a Test series between England and Pakistan. The ICC supplied the match officials but could not overrule one of their officials who decided the match was over. The ICC will now have to look at the powers of match referees and give them the authority to overrule the umpires in such circumstances.

If this is not done many Test-playing countries will begin to question whether the whole system of ICC match officials is worth it. As it is, cancellation of the match could lead to Englan demanding more than $1milllion and Pakistan in turn asking the ICC to pay.

The ICC will have to come up with better answers than they did during ‘Hairgate’ if they are to retain their authority as the game’s governing body.
www.telegraph.co.uk/bose

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2006/09/29/scbose29.xml

Really good article.

29

Re: INZI's Hearing Articles/Discussion Thread

Its good to know that Inzi (and Pakistani team) is cleared of ball tampering accuastion but I am disgusted by the ban, Hair's false accusation (now proved alread) was the root cause of Inzi's reaction (however wrong) they should've taken that into account!

30

Re: INZI’s Hearing Articles/Discussion Thread

Hair has a big ego, says Boycott](http://cricketnext.com/news/hair-has-a-big-ego-says-boycott/20993-13.html)

London: Darrell Hair has been ridiculed and lambasted by former England skipper Geoff Boycott who said the Australian umpire had a “big ego” and was still not willing to learn anything from his mistake.

In a scathing criticism of the ICC elite umpire, Boycott, none of the expert witnesses at the hearing of Pakistan skipper Inzamam-ul Haq, said Hair had shown no understanding of what his action had cost cricket.

**After the verdict clearing Inzamam, Boycott said he was amazed to see Hair “so bullish”, even thought the decision had gone against him.

“Hair showed no understanding at all of what the incident has cost cricket. To start with, there is the huge financial loss… Then there is the damage to the name of cricket, never mind the feelings of the Pakistani players and people,” Boycott wrote in his column for Daily Telegraph.**

The former England opener said Hair was entirely wrong in penalising Pakistan for ball tampering and declaring the fourth Test forfeited.

**“It astonishes me that he could sit there, with absolutely no sign of contrition, implying that he would do the same thing again. He seems to have learnt nothing.”
**
Boycott said Hair was a stickler for rules and often ended up offending players, especially those from Asia.

**“He’s a book-learner, with a big ego. He has studied the rules of cricket, and insists on his right to interpret them as he sees fit, whether there’s anyone to back him up or not. He offends players, particularly Asian players. He gets up their noses with his abrasive and abrupt style. Not surprisingly, they feel he has abused his authority,” Boycott wrote.

Boycott said after the Oval fiasco, there was a danger that whenever Pakistan make the ball reverse-swing, people will automatically think they must have been doing something to the ball.

“We all know there is a history there. Bowlers like Wasim Akram and Imran Khan have admitted that they used tampering techniques in the past. Last year, though, England beat Australia with reverse-swing, used superbly by Andrew Flintoff and Simon Jones. That was treated as fair play simply on the basis that they were white men. But it would be unfortunate if people went around assuming that Pakistanis cheat and white men don’t.”

Boycott also called for a change in the laws, saying the umpires must give a team warning before handing out any punishment and they should not be allowed to forfeit a match without consulting the match referee.

“At the Oval, the whole thing was done and dusted in 11 minutes. I’m sorry, but it’s too big a deal for that. We don’t want umpires to be allowed to play God like this ever again,” he said.**