Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq has been cleared of the ball-tampering charges placed against him, but has been found guilty of bringing cricket into disrepute.
However, do you feel that Inzamam’s punishment is justified and, if so, is the penalty imposed on him adequate?
Tell us what you think.
Re: Is Inzamam's punishment justified???
No justice has not been served.Why there is no punishment for the umpires. Are they above the law? How come Hair can persuade Billy Doctrove to change the ball for tampering when Billy was not convinced when approached first. No doubt as almost every commentator found no evidence, the ball was never tampered by any Pakistani player and it was simply in the mind of Hair. Perhaps the only person in agreement with Hair is Bob Willis.
Just imagine in this day and age two umpires can halt the match to the disappointment of millions who were looking forward to an exciting finish.
Re: Is Inzamam's punishment justified???
Well, one can't say what shud have been an ideal decision. ICC has tried to hold the stick from middle. If they had acquitted Inzi of both chages it cud set a bad precedence for future.
However, one thing is for sure, the whole situation was handled badly by Pakistan. There seemed to no one person incharge, though the nation was united in supporting Inzi, the squad and officials were giving confusing messages. I hope PCB learns something from this whole fiasco.
Re: Is Inzamam's punishment justified???
As far as Inzi's ban is concerned, yes it is truely justified. Not showing up for play is not a way to protest. He chose the way which no other captain ever did before. There are several other ways to protest on field and off field.
Umpires got or didn't get the punishement is a totally different matter. Inzi deserved to have this ban (even if PCB chief was the real culprit, Inzi gotta face it as captain). I hope nobody will ever dare to not come to ground to play in future. Game should resume in any case.
Re: Is Inzamam's punishment justified???
^ Smooth while your argument is correct, you are not quite right in saying that he chose the way no other captain ever did before. Ranatunga took his team off against Australia.
Re: Is Inzamam's punishment justified???
Khan Sahib did that against Windies at Barbados in 1987.
Re: Is Inzamam's punishment justified???
Both of them took their team off the field while the play was going on, on the other hand this time around Pakistan under Inzamam did not come out after the tea interval. With Ranatunga and Imran the intention was made clear to everyone. The umpires knew, the crowd knew, the media people knew that the team is coming off field in protest.
This time around everyone was clueless. Pakistan just didnt bother to show up after tea. Later on Mr. Shehryar Khan clearified that the team did not come out under protest but before that people were just wondering what was going on in the Pakistani dressing room.
Coming back to the thread, I think it was a fair decision. Ball tempering charge was not proven and Inzi got punished for not taking the field after tea interval. That is no way to protest. Had Inzi gotten away without any penalty it would have given a green signal to every team in world cricket to leave the field whenever they felt they were hard done by an official. Mistakes and bias both result in bad decisions but one has to live with them and move on with the game.
Pakistan should have protested right there and then when the ball was changed, or if they wanted to protest after tea they should have informed the match refree of their intentions and then came out to the field after 5-10 minutes. Wasting almost an hour (50 minutes I think it was) for protest was childish and Inzi paid the penalty for it. I am sure the decision to stay in the dressing room was not his, or atleast he was one of the few people deciding what to do but in the end being the skipper he had to pay the price for that action. He got the most lenient punishment for bringing the game into disrepute so I guess that pretty much tells and ICC that ICC did take the circumstances in account before dishing out the punishment.