After more than 24 hours of the ball tampering controversy, we have started to hear from ex-players.
Arjuna Ranatunga has expressed his support for Pakistan where as indian ex- cricketers had a mixed response.
Re: Views of non-Pakistani players on ball tampering controversy
No sympathy for Hair from old foes Sri Lanka
Controversial Australian umpire Darrell Hair was subjected to ridicule and scorn by Sri Lankan cricket experts after accusing Pakistan of ball-tampering in the Oval Test.
Sri Lankans have not forgiven Hair for no-balling spin wizard Muttiah Muralitharan seven times for a suspect bowling action during a Test match against Australia in Melbourne in 1995.
Hair further enraged the Sri Lankans, and many cricket fans within the Indian sub-continent, by b*****ng Muralitharan’s action “diabolical” in his autobiography “The Decision Maker”.
Arjuna Ranatunga, who was Muralitharan’s captain in that Melbourne Test, said he was not surprised by Hair’s ruling against the Pakistanis. The Oval Test against England was cancelled Sunday after the Pakistanis failed to take to the field after the tea interval in protest.
Ranatunga, Sri Lanka’s celebrated World Cup-winning captain in 1996, accused Hair of deliberately targeting Asian teams.
“Can anyone explain to me why Asian teams suffer when Darrell Hair is the umpire?” Ranatunga told AFP on Monday.
**"This man has concluded that someone is a cheat without providing proper evidence. The games reputation is at stake and the International Cricket Council needs to step in and do something about it. **
**"Inzi (Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul Haq) is one of the nicest guys I have come across. If I had been the captain, I would have had no hesitation in walking off. **
**"I think former captains like Imran Khan of Pakistan and Sunil Gavaskar of India would have done the same thing because Hair has something against Asian nations. **
“Hair is a misfit in today’s cricket because he acts in a high-handed manner whenever he officiates.”
Former Sri Lankan cricket chief Thilanga Sumathipala demanded that Hair be removed immediately as a Test umpire.
**“Hair no longer stands in Sri Lanka’s games, I don’t think he should stand against any team,” said Sumathipala. **
"He is an attention-seeker and wants commercial value for whatever he does.
"On that 1995-96 tour of Australia Hair officiated in earlier tour games where Muralitharan played and did not question his action.
"But he chose the Melbourne Test to do it when he knew the whole world was watching.
"He published a book after the Muralitharan controversy, don’t be surprised if he comes out with another book now. He needs a platform for himself at the cost of the game.
“Hair thinks he is bigger than the players, the spectators, officials and above all the game. He should be sacked immediately.”
The ICC accepted Sri Lanka’s request not to have Hair as umpire in their games following the Muralitharan controversy.
SOURCE: http://cricketnext.com/news1/next/afpAug06/afp154.htm
Re: Views of non-Pakistani players on ball tampering controversy
Umpires should have shown ‘flexibility’
The Indian cricket fraternity was on Monday divided in its opinion on the highly controversial abandonment of the Pakistan-England Test at the Oval, but former cricketers and umpires were clear that such a fiasco would push the game into total chaos.
While some justified Darrell Hair’s decision to award the match to England following the ball-tampering episode, there were a few others who felt the on-field umpires should have shown “patience and flexibility” in handling such a grave situation.
Former captain Krishnamachari Srikkanth, without taking anyone’s side, said Pakistan should have come to the field and protested later rather than objecting to the umpires’ decision by not coming to the field of play.
“What the umpires have done is also not right at all. It is a shame that everybody is taking law into their own hands,” Srikkanth said.
"The Pakistan captain perhaps was trying to prove his point while the umpires were trying to give their point of view. Without warning the bowler and then bringing it to the knowledge of the captain, the umpire cannot, as per rule, penalise a team.
“Both indulged in showing their reactions in their own ways without realising that the game is bigger than the individuals.”
Former off-spinner Erapalli Prasanna, however, supported the Pakistan team’s action.
“It is just not right. They (umpires) should have informed the Pakistan captain well in advance that such a thing is being observed and is not acceptable,” he said.
Prasanna felt the umpires should not have penalised the team without informing Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul Haq and without sufficient evidence.
"If the umpires had not informed the Pakistan captain, it is not just right to penalise the fielding side. If they observed something was going wrong, the umpires should give sufficient evidence to the fielding captain. They cannot just add five runs and call it a day.
“Before taking any such decision, the umpires are duty bound to inform the fielding captain. If the fielding side persists with the wrongdoing, the umpires should bring it to the notice of the match referee, who is the ICC’s competent authority to penalise a player(s) or the team, according to the rules,” he said.
Ajit Wadekar, who led India to historic wins against England and West Indies in 1971, said, “History repeats itself,” indicating at past incidences of Pakistani bowlers being caught in ball tampering controversies.
However, on a different note he said: “The crux of the problem is whether it was tampered with.”
Wadekar said the root of the controversy lies in Pakistan not coming to play after the tea break.
"But Pakistan were in the wrong by refusing to come out after the tea interval and play. They should have, instead, played under protest.
"They had a big lead. What big difference would have been made by a penalty of five runs to the overall picture," he said.
“It’s high time the ICC looked into this matter and clearly define that a team can be penalised for such things only after evidential proof is established,” Wadekar said.
Former India paceman Balwinder Singh Sandhu, along with former international umpire Dara Dotiwala, supported the decision of the two umpires while another ex-Test umpire Piloo
Reporter felt some flexibility could have been shown by Hair and Billy Doctrove in dealing with the incident.
Echoing Wadekar’s views, Sandhu said it was high time all the players learned to respect the umpires’ decisions as otherwise chaos would result.
“Somebody has to put a stop to all these things. The umpires have got every right to change the ball if it had been tampered with,” he said.
Sandhu, who was a member of Kapil Dev’s victorious 1983 World Cup winning team, also felt Pakistan team could have carried on playing under protest.
“There are so many instances when a wrong decision is given by an umpire. Do the bowlers protest when a batsman who’s out is not given out or do the batsmen, who know they are out, walk when the umpire does not give them out. The umpires’ decisions should be respected,” Sandhu said.
Dotiwala said the umpires were justified in ordering a change of the ball, having decided it was tampered with, and the batsmen at the crease needed to decide on which different ball was to be used instead from the new lot.
“The umpires are supposed to do constant checking of the balls, in between overs, fall of wickets, intervals etc. What the Pakistanis should have done is to continue to play under protest and then take up the matter with the match referee after the end of the day’s play,” Dotiwala said.
Re: Views of non-Pakistani players on ball tampering controversy
What some shmucks don't understand is that the issue is not if a batsman was out or not, it was far far grave(r) than that, it was insult and accusation of team without providing evidence.
Re: Views of non-Pakistani players on ball tampering controversy
very interesting what the srilankans have to say about hair...this might provide him with another opportunity to sell a book..just like he did after the murali incident
Re: Views of non-Pakistani players on ball tampering controversy
Strenght is in #s. Pakistan should campaign against this hairy dude with support from India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Imagine if these 4 major test playing nations boycott ICC, how long will their arrogance last.
Re: Views of non-Pakistani players on ball tampering controversy
What some shmucks don't understand is that the issue is not if a batsman was out or not, it was far far grave(r) than that, it was insult and accusation of team without providing evidence.
all these pro-Hair idiots say that umpires decision is final, even if its wrong or right, hair saying Pakistan cheated he is right, even tho he is wrong. what a bunch of nonsense, they say that all wrong lbws/catches, no team protests, and if ICC listens to Pakistan than everyone will be protest against wrong lbws/catches. umpiring has been favoring england thruout the series, but have we complained about that? No! idiots can't seem to get thru their thick heads.
Re: Views of non-Pakistani players on ball tampering controversy
[quote]
Originally Posted by 5Abi
Strenght is in #s. Pakistan should campaign against this hairy dude with support from India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Imagine if these 4 major test playing nations boycott ICC, how long will their arrogance last.
[/quote]
When did Bangladesh become a major test playing nation :) In any case I agree with you PCB should already be in touch with three Asian boards trying to line up their support. Heck offer to play a couple of bilateral series with India overseas where BCCI can generate some solid revenue and in exchange ask them for their support and get Hair out of everyone's hair.
Re: Views of non-Pakistani players on ball tampering controversy
As described by most experts in the field, Inzi did the right decision to protest since Hair had been ridiculing Pak team for a long time. I'm very proud that Pak team took a stand. Not only this, you should read Nassir Hussain's comment. According to him, he would have done the same thing that Inzi did.
NO doubt that it brings a black mark on Cricket, but all this was started by Darrell Hair and he should be smashed out of Cricket for ever. Had ICC listened to Pak complaints, this fiasco would never have taken place.
Umer
Re: Views of non-Pakistani players on ball tampering controversy
RICHARDS - ICC PARTLY TO BLAME
West Indies legend Sir Viv Richards believes the game’s rulers should take their share of the blame over the Pakistan ball-tampering fiasco.
Richards admits he does not know the full facts behind the matter but is unhappy with certain aspects of the way the game is policed by the International Cricket Council.
Richards, who played 121 Tests for West Indies, told LBC News 1152: "This Mr Hair fellow seems to have been in the thick of things for some time and maybe he could be a part of the contributing factor to all that happened - but there could be so many different sides to the story.
"I believe there are so many things that contributed to what we saw on Sunday and I am a little dismayed at times with the ICC and the decisions they make.
"Certain things need to be addressed and if we address them in the right manner we can have the sort of camaraderie in the sport which has gained so much respect over the years.
“That is why it is called the gentleman’s game and when you look and see the things happening in today’s cricket it doesn’t seem that gentlemanly anymore.”
Richards concedes he does not know how he would have reacted in Inzamam’s position.
Richards added: "I myself as captain, I’d like to take some strong decisions. It depends on the things that led up to these guys not taking the field.
“We have to find out exactly what is the meat to this story. I think there are a lot of concerns for people who administrate this game, the way it is administrated and the people who administrate it at times.”
Mark Taylor’s Comments
Here we go Aussies backing there man. What do you make of it.
http://www.skysports.com/skysports/article/0,17-1231711,00.html
Re: Views of non-Pakistani players on ball tampering controversy
Warne: Hair is no racist
London - Shane Warne has insisted umpire Darrell Hair is not a racist as the furore surrounding his fellow Australian’s role in the decision to rule that Pakistan had forfeited the fourth and final Test against England at The Oval last week intensified.
No one from the Pakistan touring team or board has branded Hair a racist since he, together with West Indian official Billy Doctrove, ruled that Pakistan’s refusal to take the field after tea Sunday meant they’d forfeited the match - the first time this had happened in 129 years of Test cricket.
However, Hair has repeatedly been accused of being biased against teams from the Indian sub-continent ever since he no-balled Sri Lanka off-spin star Muttiah Muralitharan for throwing a decade ago.
But leg-spin great Warne, currently in Australia for a training camp with the national side, said in a column in Wednesday’s London Times: "I don’t think Darrell Hair is a racist.
"I think that he tries to do the best job that he can, like any other umpire. He goes by the letter of the law and does what he thinks umpires ought to do.
“It is unfortunate that he has been involved in a couple of controversies in his time, but labelling him racist is unfair,” Warne, who has been captaining English county Hampshire this season, added.
“If the umpires have a problem there are clear channels to go through and it looks as though they did it by the book,” Warne said.
SOURCE: http://www.news24.com/News24/Sport/Cricket/0,2-9-839_1986986,00.html
Re: Views of non-Pakistani players on ball tampering controversy
London - Shane Warne has insisted umpire Darrell Hair is not a racist as the furore surrounding his fellow Australian's role in the decision to rule that Pakistan had forfeited the fourth and final Test against England at The Oval last week intensified.
Of course Warne will defend Hair, after all it was Hair who made Warne look better than Murli after calling him 'chucker'.
Re: Views of non-Pakistani players on ball tampering controversy
HAir is a ghun chukar,
Umpires could’ve acted differently - Vaughan (audio)
Latest interview from injured England player Michael Vaughan.
Michael Vaughan says that although the umpires in The Oval Test “went by the book”, he would have handled the row differently.