08-25-2006, 10:22 AM
Enjoy it ----
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Rights and wrongs in cricket </b>
Najam Sethi's
E d i t o r i a lÂ
Darrel Hair was wrong on all counts, Inzimamul Haq was right in protesting and the ICC was wrong to charge him but should now try to be right for the sake of cricket. Hereâs why.
The great British umpire, Dickie Bird, remarked after this incident: âAn umpire cannot charge a player with cheating without conclusive proof or evidenceâ. All foreign commentators have repeated that there isnât a shred of evidence to suggest that the Pakistanis tampered with the ball that was in its 57th over. Indeed, not one of the 26 Sky TV cameras or the hundreds of still cameras trained on every playerâs smallest movement saw anything remotely like it. Hair did not call Inzimamul Haq for consultation, did not present any evidence to anyone, unilaterally replaced the ball with the sole approval of the England players, and blithely awarded five runs to England as a penalty against Pakistan. He was wrong on every count, especially the final one of awarding the match to England instead of allowing the Pakistanis to resume play.
If Inzimamul Haq had led his team off the field at that time or, as it happened, delayed his return after the tea interval to lodge his protest, the heavens shouldnât have fallen on him. The gameâs history is replete with spats between players and umpires, including walk-offs in protest, without the match being abandoned or the game being âawardedâ by the umpire. In 1970-71, Ray Illingworth, the England captain, and Lou Rowan, the Australian umpire, got into a finger-wagging clash in Australia and Illingworth led his team off the field despite a warning from Rowan of forfeiting the match. But cooler heads prevailed, the match wasnât awarded to Australia and Illingworth led his team back to the field. The same scenario could have been played out last week if it hadnât been for Hairâs arrogance. In 1973, the British umpire Arthur Fagg and the West Indies captain Rohan Kanhai quarreled on the field. Fagg refused to start the third dayâs play and Kanhai refused to apologise. But the match resumed without recriminations or penalties after Alec Bedser, the head honcho of English cricket, persuaded Fagg to return. In 1979-80, the West Indies had problems with umpire Fred Goodall in New Zealand and refused to play after tea. The match wasnât forfeited and they returned to the field to play. In 1987, Pakistanâs umpire Shakoor Rana and Englandâs captain Mike Gatting had a flaming row on the field and Gatting angrily led his boys back to the pavilion. But discreet negotiations broke the deadlock and allowed the match to continue because Rana did not precipitate a crisis by awarding the match to Pakistan. In 1998-99, following a heated argument between Ross Emerson, the British umpire, and the Sri Lankan captain, Arjuna Ranatunga, the Lankans walked off the field in protest. But reason prevailed and the match was resumed instead of being hastily âawardedâ to the other side. Most significantly, Ross Emerson was sidelined by the ICC after that.
Unlike Hair, some umpires in the eye of a storm have behaved with dignity. Frank Chester, the great British umpire, had issues with the Australians from 1948 onwards. In 1953 matters worsened during the Ashes series in England. The Australians objected to him. So he diplomatically stood down in the 1956 series citing bad health. Much the same course was adopted by Tom Brooks, an Australian umpire, who voluntarily quit on the fourth day at lunch in the Sydney Test in 1978-79 between England and Australia after giving a series of controversial decisions.
Under the circumstances, the ICC and its match referees should have played a positive role last Sunday in cooling tempers and nudging everyone back to the field. Instead, the ICC precipitated the worst crisis in cricket history by donning the garb of the prosecutor and judge after siding with Hair and trying to drag Inzimamul Haq to a âhearingâ on Friday. This provoked Pakistanâs captain and coach to warn that if Pakistan were adjudged guilty without evidence and any further punishment applied, the Pakistanis might boycott the ODIs. Hair didnât do his cause any good when he dug his heels in and told the Australian media that he was âready for battleâ. The stakes were suddenly raised when Pakistanâs President General Musharraf and the chief of the Bangla Desh Cricket Board weighed in publicly on the Pakistani cricket teamâs side and the Australian and Pakistani media and players rose to defend their respective compatriots.
But money walks the talk. When the NatWest sponsors of the ODIs, contacted their lawyers on Wednesday to ascertain what damages they could legitimately impose on the ICC in the event of a cancellation of the ODIs, the ICC took the first sensible step in the entire episode. It postponed the Friday hearing on the pretext that one of its members was unwell. The next step is obvious enough: the ICC should do whatever it takes with dignity and diplomacy to keep the ODIs on track. There will be time enough for a full and impartial inquiry later against all the parties. Meanwhile, <b>if Hair insists on being pig-headed, he should be let out to pasture in Australia, or England if he so prefers</b>.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Rights and wrongs in cricket </b>
Najam Sethi's
E d i t o r i a lÂ
Darrel Hair was wrong on all counts, Inzimamul Haq was right in protesting and the ICC was wrong to charge him but should now try to be right for the sake of cricket. Hereâs why.
The great British umpire, Dickie Bird, remarked after this incident: âAn umpire cannot charge a player with cheating without conclusive proof or evidenceâ. All foreign commentators have repeated that there isnât a shred of evidence to suggest that the Pakistanis tampered with the ball that was in its 57th over. Indeed, not one of the 26 Sky TV cameras or the hundreds of still cameras trained on every playerâs smallest movement saw anything remotely like it. Hair did not call Inzimamul Haq for consultation, did not present any evidence to anyone, unilaterally replaced the ball with the sole approval of the England players, and blithely awarded five runs to England as a penalty against Pakistan. He was wrong on every count, especially the final one of awarding the match to England instead of allowing the Pakistanis to resume play.
If Inzimamul Haq had led his team off the field at that time or, as it happened, delayed his return after the tea interval to lodge his protest, the heavens shouldnât have fallen on him. The gameâs history is replete with spats between players and umpires, including walk-offs in protest, without the match being abandoned or the game being âawardedâ by the umpire. In 1970-71, Ray Illingworth, the England captain, and Lou Rowan, the Australian umpire, got into a finger-wagging clash in Australia and Illingworth led his team off the field despite a warning from Rowan of forfeiting the match. But cooler heads prevailed, the match wasnât awarded to Australia and Illingworth led his team back to the field. The same scenario could have been played out last week if it hadnât been for Hairâs arrogance. In 1973, the British umpire Arthur Fagg and the West Indies captain Rohan Kanhai quarreled on the field. Fagg refused to start the third dayâs play and Kanhai refused to apologise. But the match resumed without recriminations or penalties after Alec Bedser, the head honcho of English cricket, persuaded Fagg to return. In 1979-80, the West Indies had problems with umpire Fred Goodall in New Zealand and refused to play after tea. The match wasnât forfeited and they returned to the field to play. In 1987, Pakistanâs umpire Shakoor Rana and Englandâs captain Mike Gatting had a flaming row on the field and Gatting angrily led his boys back to the pavilion. But discreet negotiations broke the deadlock and allowed the match to continue because Rana did not precipitate a crisis by awarding the match to Pakistan. In 1998-99, following a heated argument between Ross Emerson, the British umpire, and the Sri Lankan captain, Arjuna Ranatunga, the Lankans walked off the field in protest. But reason prevailed and the match was resumed instead of being hastily âawardedâ to the other side. Most significantly, Ross Emerson was sidelined by the ICC after that.
Unlike Hair, some umpires in the eye of a storm have behaved with dignity. Frank Chester, the great British umpire, had issues with the Australians from 1948 onwards. In 1953 matters worsened during the Ashes series in England. The Australians objected to him. So he diplomatically stood down in the 1956 series citing bad health. Much the same course was adopted by Tom Brooks, an Australian umpire, who voluntarily quit on the fourth day at lunch in the Sydney Test in 1978-79 between England and Australia after giving a series of controversial decisions.
Under the circumstances, the ICC and its match referees should have played a positive role last Sunday in cooling tempers and nudging everyone back to the field. Instead, the ICC precipitated the worst crisis in cricket history by donning the garb of the prosecutor and judge after siding with Hair and trying to drag Inzimamul Haq to a âhearingâ on Friday. This provoked Pakistanâs captain and coach to warn that if Pakistan were adjudged guilty without evidence and any further punishment applied, the Pakistanis might boycott the ODIs. Hair didnât do his cause any good when he dug his heels in and told the Australian media that he was âready for battleâ. The stakes were suddenly raised when Pakistanâs President General Musharraf and the chief of the Bangla Desh Cricket Board weighed in publicly on the Pakistani cricket teamâs side and the Australian and Pakistani media and players rose to defend their respective compatriots.
But money walks the talk. When the NatWest sponsors of the ODIs, contacted their lawyers on Wednesday to ascertain what damages they could legitimately impose on the ICC in the event of a cancellation of the ODIs, the ICC took the first sensible step in the entire episode. It postponed the Friday hearing on the pretext that one of its members was unwell. The next step is obvious enough: the ICC should do whatever it takes with dignity and diplomacy to keep the ODIs on track. There will be time enough for a full and impartial inquiry later against all the parties. Meanwhile, <b>if Hair insists on being pig-headed, he should be let out to pasture in Australia, or England if he so prefers</b>.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->