Hair and Inzy controversy by Prem Panicker
There is no point in putting various links related to the recent controversy (because there are too many of them) where umpire Hair deemed that someone from PAK team had done ball tampering. He changed the ball, awarded ENG 5 runs. As a result, Inzy and PAK team did not come back to play after Tea. There was a lot of confusion, umpires coming out, waiting, going back, coming out again, declaring the match, PAK team coming out, waiting for umpires, finally every one going back. Funny, sad and completely avoidable incidents. So, here is my take on what happened and how it could have happened differently.
Hair’s conduct:
If Hair thought that the cricket ball had suffered abnormal wear and tear, he should have simply changed the ball after showing the ball to Inzy (highlighting the affected portion). This would not have resulted in any heartburn. Inzy would have seen that ball has detiriorated in its condition and would have agreed to the change. Game would have continued.
BUT, Hair chose to award 5 penalty runs to ENg, thereby indicating that he thought that someone from PAK side had tampered with the ball. This, to me, was compeltely wrong if he had not seen it with his own eyes, or if it had not been brought to his notice by 3rd or 4th umpire or the match refree. They could have seen it on TV and told to him via walkie-talkie that “someone did something to the ball, please inspect it”. On finding scratches or whatever, he could have changed the ball and noted it as ball-tampering.
But he chose to note the changed condition of the ball as “due to tampering” without having proper proof or information to that effect. This is what resulted in extreeme heartburn for Inzy and PAK side. They were being called cheats without any proper proof. They were being punished without proper evidence or trial. It is simply against natural justice. Everyone is considered innocent untill proven guilty. So should have been the PAK team. But Hair chose to do the opposite thing. Since Hair was accusing PAK team of tampering, the burden of providing the proof lies squarely and entirely on his shoulder; and maybe on ICC’s too.
If Hair or ICC is not able to provide concrete and irrefutable proof that someone from PAK team tampered with the ball, the most prudent action would be for Hair to retire immediately OR for ICC to chuck him out of the elite panel. Reason: Hair commited the highest crime of punishing a team without proper proof. This is nothing but gross and delibrate negligence on his part. As I sid before, he could have very well changed the ball without proclaiming ball-tampering and then after day’s play, would have asked for video playback to get any proof of tampering. [case study: ICC changed the no-ball rule because it thought umpires could not be 100% sure of bent elbow and hence it wanted the video replays to be watched for a guarantee that elbow was really bent]]
Inzy’s action:
I feel Inzy was right in forfeiting the game. This was not a simpler charge like No-balling a bowler. In that case, there is no aspersion cast on bowler’s or team’s character or motives. But in a case like ball-tampering, the officials are straight-away casting doubts on the character of PAK team. On their motives. And if PAK team feels that they have done nothing wrong, they have full right to protest.
The main aim of this protest was to bring the incident in everyone’s eyes. The throw it out in the open and make it a burning topic. Had Inzy protested after the day’s play, it’s effect would have been dilluted. At least, now everyone is talking about it and ICC will have to decide one way or the other. Press is covering this incident with extreeme interest because of it’s blatentnes.
I would have prefered if Inzy had left field immediately after Hair awarded 5 runs to ENG. But, even though Inzy protested a little late, it was better than protesting after day’s play.
Many feel that the protest was not right. I say that protest is the only way to make our side of the story known to the establishment. If PAK tells ICC that Hair was unfair, but does so in a very meek and slient way, ICC will simply sit over the complaint until every one forgets about it. But if PAK compaints in a very loud and brash manner, ICC will have to take immediate and quick action on the complaint. Also, ICC will try to fix the issue keeping future in mind as other nations will also complain in a similar manner. This is something ICC will not want to happen.
ICC:
ICC can not exist on its own. It exists because it’s member nations play cricket and from that it earns money. To say that it is not right for PAK to tell ICC that they will not play under Hair anymore, is wrong. As an earning member for ICC, PAK has every right to be treated in a fair manner. If PAK feels that ICC or any of it’s appointed official is not doing a good job, then it has every right to demand firing of that official OR demand that that official be not connected to PAK in any way. If ICC could exist on it’s own, it did not require it’s members to pay for it’s existence, then we could say that ICC can do what it wants. But in current scenario, ICC is not setup to rule the cricket establishments of cricket playing nations. It is setup to administer the game in cricket playing nations under a pre-agreed set of rules. Every member expects that the officials (whose salary member nations are earning) do their job properly and without bias. If not, then as a earning member, it can ask for their firing or their disassociation.
Source: rediff.com
