August 25, 2006

Ball Tampering?

On Sunday the cricketing world was enthralled by the events taking place at the Oval. During the afternoon session, the on–field umpires Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove performed a routine examination of the match ball, and found what they believed to be evidence that some form of 'ball tampering' had taken place, invoking law 42.3 (b) of the 'Laws of Cricket' that "It is unfair for anyone to rub the ball on the ground for any reason, interfere with any of the seams or the surface of the ball, use any implement, or take any action whatsoever which is likely to alter the condition of the ball, except as permitted in (a)" In the event of such an incident law 42.3 goes on to state that the umpires shall change the ball forthwith, inform the respective captains as soon as possible and award five penalty runs to the batting side. All this took place in about five minutes, and the game was swiftly recommenced with the mercurial KP in devestating form, and the audience both in the ground and in the media were enjoying the spectacle again after a largely confusing interlude. The only clue that something was amiss was that Bob Woolmer, the Pakistan Coach was observed striding to the match referee's office rule book in hand.

About an hour and a half later bad light stopped play with England on 298–4 (Collingwood 26*, Bell 9*) and Tea was taken. At about 1620 the umpires and England batsmen were ready to resume play, however the Pakistanis were still in the dressing room, the batsmen and umpires returned indoors, then thirty minutes later amidst frantic discussion and diplomacy the umpires and England batsmen returned to the field and Darrell Hair removed the Bails, apparently signalling the end of the match. Shortly afterwards the Pakistani team did return to the field of play only to be informed that the umpires would not stand as under law 21.3 the match had been forfeited and an England victory declared; England win the series 3–0, this was confirmed late on Sunday evening by the ICC, PCB and ECB.

What is clear is that debacle was played out entirely within the 'Laws of Cricket' and that the on–field umpires had applied the letter of these laws correctly. What is also clear is that the Pakistan team felt sufficiently aggrieved by the actions of umpires Hair and Doctrove to take this stance. Much of this can be attributed to the fact that many 50/50 decsions had gone 'Englands way' during the series, and that Inzamam felt that the integrity and honour of his team and country were being called into question, by a decision which essentially accused them of cheating.

Can any of this be blamed on the umpires? No, as has already been said, in this instance the umpires while perhaps being a little officious applied the laws correctly. However, Darrell Hair has for a long time been a controversial figure on world cricket. It was he who called Murali for 'chucking' in 1995 and also it was he who called Shahid Afridi for damaging the pitch in England's winter tour of the sub–continent. As the senior umpire it was also his 'call' as to the application of the laws and communicating this to the teams. Perhaps on cricticism that could be levelled at the umpires is that their communication could have been clearer at a time when cool heads were needed, the Pakistan dressing room could not have fully understood the ramifications of their actions as I am sure that they did not mean to forfeit the Test. However, much of the blame must sit squarely on the shoulders of the Pakistan team and their Captain Inzamam–Ul–Haq. By ignoring the legitimate methods of appeal after the close of play, when they could quite plausibly have been on the verge of winning the Test, instead taking matters in to their own hands and staging a 'sit in' they left the match officials with little choice but to protect the integrity of the game and obey their set procedures.

The game of Cricket is bigger than one match, thus it was imperative that this conclusion was reached, any other response would have been to undermine the fabric of the game and open up the umpires to 'blackmail' whenever they made a decision that was difficult or contentious. Without doubt the cricket loving public lost out in the short term, the match was after all finely poised, but hopefully the game will have been strengthened by these events and the ICC will be encouraged to review this incident closely. Bring on the Aussies!


- One comment Not publicly viewable

  1. Given Hair’s subsequent actions and the ICC’s reaction to him, are we ever likely to find out what we all really want to know – did Pakistanis cheat or did they not? For me as a non-cricket fan the whole thing has been very damaging of the sport in general in much the same way as the American Grand Prix was for F1 a couple of years back.

    31 Aug 2006, 11:31


Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

August 2006

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Jul |  Today  | Sep
   1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31         

What is RaW Sport?



RaW Sport is the sport department for the University of Warwick’s student station RaW 1251AM. We use our blog to help us communicate with our listeners so if you make a comment, you never know, it may end up going out on air.

Tune in Saturdays 2-6pm and Wednesdays 8.30-10pm to catch the show.

More info at www.radio.warwick.ac.uk/sport

Search this blog

Tags

Galleries

Most recent comments

  • Randomly generated once again ;) Arsenal v Stoke 1 – 3 Aston Villa v Newcastle 3 – 1 Blackburn v Wes… by on this entry
  • Arsenal 3–0 Stoke Aston Villa 1–2 Newcastle Blackburn 1–1 West Brom Fulham 1–0 Everton Hull 0–2 Man … by James Tollington on this entry
  • Bolton v Hull Adam Eley 0–0 Adam Wilbourn 1–1 Mark Streather 1–1 Martyn Turze 0–1 Raj 2–1 Everton v … by on this entry
  • My predictions: Bolton v Hull 2–1 Everton v West Ham 1–0 Middlesbrough v Aston Villa 0–0 Newcastle v… by on this entry
  • If you're a Newcastle fan, or simply a football fan and you have an opinion on Shearer's managerial … by on this entry

Blog archive

Loading…
Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder
© MMXX