Sometimes being right is wrong.
No one else knows this better than Darrel Hair. In 1996, he was the first umpire in the world to actually call a bowler with around 200 test wickets for “throwing”. The whole of Asia called him racist. The Sri Lankan’s wanted to make sure he didn’t umpire in any of their future matches. Basically, Hair was considered a villain in Asia and an idiot in other parts of the cricketing world.
But, ask anyone in their sane mind with decent knowledge of cricket rules, and you’ll know why Darrel Hair was right. Murlidharan did “chuck” under the old rules of throwing. Then ICC actually decided to modify the throwing rule to accommodate people like Murli who actually had a deformed arm. But Darrel Hair was still the villain. I would say Darrell Hair’s decision has reduced the number of chuckers in international cricket. Nowadays, other umpires have the courage to report suspect actions; the ICC takes chucking seriously and punishes players who throw. Is it not fair to say that Darrell Hair started this whole trend? Ofcourse a Brett Lee here and a Shahid Afridi there get away scot-free for obvious reasons.
Now , Hair has moved on to his next controversy - ball tampering. Everyone knows ball tampering always happened in international cricket. Everyone knows who started this whole trend. But not a single umpire actually had the courage to punish a team for ball tampering. Darrell Hair suspected some cheating in the Pak Vs Eng test and penalized Pak five runs. Irrespective of whether Pak tampered with the ball or not, Inzamam ul-Haq diverted attention away from the actual issue by forfeiting the match. Why is Pak so obsessed with postponing the hearing? If they are that confident they didn’t tamper with the ball, why not confidently go through the hearing immediately? Hair might have ended his umpiring career with this strong reaction to some half-baked assumption that Pakistan tampered with the ball. But this incident is definitely going to reduce the amount of ball tampering that happens in international cricket. We have already seen that "just-a-talk with the captain" hasn't made any difference.
But will Darrell Hair continue to be the villain just because he used Murli and Pakistan as opposed to Bret Lee and England to make his point? Or is ICC going to amend the rules again to accommodate teams/cricketers that cheat?
Darrell Hair is never going to get the support of the media or the ICC or any of the cricketing boards, but all that is fine. The sad part is none of the umpires are coming out in front and supporting him. After all, Hair was right in Murli’s case and we still don't know if he is right or wrong in Pakistan's case. But is the ICC even trying hard enough to find that out...
But, ask anyone in their sane mind with decent knowledge of cricket rules, and you’ll know why Darrel Hair was right. Murlidharan did “chuck” under the old rules of throwing. Then ICC actually decided to modify the throwing rule to accommodate people like Murli who actually had a deformed arm. But Darrel Hair was still the villain. I would say Darrell Hair’s decision has reduced the number of chuckers in international cricket. Nowadays, other umpires have the courage to report suspect actions; the ICC takes chucking seriously and punishes players who throw. Is it not fair to say that Darrell Hair started this whole trend? Ofcourse a Brett Lee here and a Shahid Afridi there get away scot-free for obvious reasons.
Now , Hair has moved on to his next controversy - ball tampering. Everyone knows ball tampering always happened in international cricket. Everyone knows who started this whole trend. But not a single umpire actually had the courage to punish a team for ball tampering. Darrell Hair suspected some cheating in the Pak Vs Eng test and penalized Pak five runs. Irrespective of whether Pak tampered with the ball or not, Inzamam ul-Haq diverted attention away from the actual issue by forfeiting the match. Why is Pak so obsessed with postponing the hearing? If they are that confident they didn’t tamper with the ball, why not confidently go through the hearing immediately? Hair might have ended his umpiring career with this strong reaction to some half-baked assumption that Pakistan tampered with the ball. But this incident is definitely going to reduce the amount of ball tampering that happens in international cricket. We have already seen that "just-a-talk with the captain" hasn't made any difference.
But will Darrell Hair continue to be the villain just because he used Murli and Pakistan as opposed to Bret Lee and England to make his point? Or is ICC going to amend the rules again to accommodate teams/cricketers that cheat?
Darrell Hair is never going to get the support of the media or the ICC or any of the cricketing boards, but all that is fine. The sad part is none of the umpires are coming out in front and supporting him. After all, Hair was right in Murli’s case and we still don't know if he is right or wrong in Pakistan's case. But is the ICC even trying hard enough to find that out...
Labels: controversy, cricket
posted by Prem at
8/28/2006
7 Comments:
I strongly disagree. Hair's defenders often come up with the argument that 'he had the guts to do it' which in my opinion is complete hogwash. The ICC has procedures and channels to deal with irregularities and critical situations like chucking and ball-tampering. Hair has always had a penchant for 'le dramatique' - this coupled with his insufferable ego has made the situation worse than it is.
Let us take his actions on a case by base basis. Murali first. I admit that Murali has an unconventional action that might very well be seen as chucking. But as you point out the fact in your post, it was not if he produced a' chuck' now and then, he bowled every ball of his career including deliveries accounting for his 200 wickets upto that point. Now, I agree that the ICC is pretty much a spineless organization concerned with milking money and also that there are a lot of umpires who let a lot of irregularities slide, just to not have to put up with the mess they create afterwards. But Hair, if he had concerns could have bought them up in the Umpires conference or put it forth before the ICC to conduct a formal review of Murali's action, instead of his theatrical calling of Murali before everyone. Let me remind you that he too, sidestepped convention when he called Murali from the non-striker's end instead of respecting the leg-umpire's stand on the issue. Under such circumstances, from Murali's/Ranatunga's/Sri Lanka's point of view, it was bewildering to see that call come out of the blue (after scores of tests with hundreds of wickets) and they were justified in taking their stand against Hair who provided no explanation whatsoever.
Fast forwarding to the Oval issue. I admit that Pakistan has had a history with ball tampering. But if histories and allegations are to be considered in deciding the issue, then Darrell Hair is no saint and has had an equally marred past with accusation ranging from racism to contempt of players and impractical officiating. To color your comments and argue based on a prejudice against Pakistan strips credence from your points.
Hair saw something wrong with the ball, but according to all reports, neither he nor the 26 cameras, nor the thousands of spectators - including the English dressing room armed with field glasses saw anything to suggest foul play. As an international umpire, Hair should show what every 2-day old cricketer knows that in the middle there are a million situations that can alter the appearance of the ball. In fact, let us give him the benefit of the doubt and conclude that he did consider all possibilities and in his vast experience, decide that the alteration to the ball could not have possible been natural. At that point, having no evidence of misconduct, the most logical thing for him would be to approach the fielding captain - aka Inzamam and express his concerns. But No! Enter Darrell's penchant for the theater and he as the judge and jury pronounces Pakistan guilty and lays down his verdict. It is very well that under the ICC rulebook an umpire does not have to be accountable. But this is no LBW decision. This is a very serious allegation against the integrity of a team. Inzamam was on firm ground to take the stand he did. According to all reports, he demanded an explanation from Hair, but none was forthcoming as usual.
Also, to correct your facts, I have come across nowhere that Pakistan wanted a delay in hearings. By all accounts, they were eager for it and pushed the ICC to have it before the one-day series. The ICC as usual after coming out in support of the umpire and quoting the laws as to his decision being final, realized that Darrell did not have a hair to stand on nor did he have a hair's worth of evidence (puns definitely intended). They foresaw what could be an ugly hearing and chickened out - I guess, with pressure from the ECB to save their millions from the one-day series.
This whole controversy is not a result of over or unjustified reaction by the Pakistani team. It is a direct result of Darrel Hair's passion for playing God on the cricket field with no regard to pragmatism. Darrell Hair has done nothing to improve the game or draw attention to its shortcomings. All he has done is draw repeated attention to himself and flouted cricketing conventions himself while accusing others of doing so.
By
Anonymous, at 1:17 PM
Srikanth:
As I have already said, "just-a-talk with the captain" doesnt help. Over the years, this talk has happened over and over again, but nothing has changed. Ball-tampering hasn't stopped/reduced. Like it or not, this incident is going to reduce the amount of ball-tampering that happens in international cricket. And Hair needs to given credit for this.
Murli was called after 200 wickets cos no other umpire wanted to be part of any kind of controversy whatsoever.
Why did Pakistan create a scene? Its highly probable they did it to divert attention from the ball-tampering issue.
Camera's dont catch everything that happens on the cricket field. If that were the case, why do we need umpires?
By
Prem, at 1:36 PM
Srikanth:
"The ICC has procedures and channels to deal with irregularities and critical situations like chucking and ball-tampering."
Do you really think so???
By
Prem, at 1:39 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Rudra, at 5:27 PM
Prem, you keep saying that Pakistan had a hidden agenda in creating the scene that they did-namely to divert attention away from the real issue of ball-tampering by politicizing and blowing up the issue. There are two fundamental flaws in your reasoning:
1) As you yourself said, the loss of respect is pretty much a non-issue. Your own example-Dravid and Tendulkar. They do not have these allegations dangling over them everytime they walk onto the cricket field or while signing a lucrative sponshorship deal. And there is no reason to suspect otherwise in this case.
2) Inzamam was accused of the offense 'because' no charges could be brought against any particular member of the Pakistani team. In such a situation, the 'loss of face' would have been even less severe. In fact he could have garnered quite a bit of public sympathy for the scapegoat he was turned into.
So, even if we set sidestep the issue of whether Pakistan really tampered with the ball, if they had taken the field after tea, the damage to them, punitive or otherwise, would have been minimal even if they were declared 'guilty' at a later time, by an ICC constituted panel.
However, Inzamam decided to take a stand against 'what he perceived' to be blatant discrimination and double standards. He decided to take the stand because of, rather than, in spite of, Pakistan's chequered past. His reign has been free of such slanderous controversy. This is in stark contrast to the Pakistani teams of the past. And one could argue that he was completely within his rights to react in moral indignation, at his name being sullied in this manner.
Also, Hair refused to entertain any questions regarding his decision when Izi approached him 'after' the ball had been changed, thus behaving in a way that violates common tenets of decency in interacting with a fellow human being, let alone an experienced world class sportsman of international repute. In other words Inzamam could have felt that he was being treated like a criminal by Hair, a right which even Hair's hallowed status as international umpire does not bestow upon him.
So he decided that forfeiting the match was a small price to pay for highlighting these issues that might have otherwise faded into the background.
Also, I do not believe that Hair needs to be given credit for anything- no more credit than Harshad Mehta is given for the new trading rules in the Bombay Stock Exchange.
Lastly enforcers of laws are human beings first. This is especially true in sports, where a healthy respect for the 'enforcees' and bit of sensitivity and humility can go a long way in subverting a potential catostrophe.
This is the fundmantal difference between a cop and an umpire.
By
Rudra, at 5:35 PM
Hi Rudra,
Your whole write up makes a lot of sense. But, these are some things you should think about.
Though, we know that loss of respect is pretty much a non-issue, its possible that Inzi didnt realize that.
Going by your analogy with Harshad Mehta and Hair- it seems like you agree with the fact that Hair's decisions are forcing some changes for the good(though indirectly). Thats exactly the point I am trying to make.
Consider the 2 possible scenario's
a) Hair has a word with Inzi without penalizing him. Its totally forgotten after this test match. All teams continue to tamper with the ball.
b) Hair does what he did. Teams are going to think twice about tampering with the ball.
Which is better?
Looking at the big picture- ball-tempering the issue is going to reduce.
By
Prem, at 7:37 PM
Prem, The issue here is 'whether the ball was tampered with in the first place'. Your end-justifies-the-means argument is out of place. Do you mean to say that an umpire can make a ridiculous decision with no shred of proof just to get the ball rolling for enforcing tighter regulations? If that were the case, 'chaos' would be the only word that would describe a cricket match (or any sporting event)
Any umpire of official, if he feels that there is some ambiguity about laws or loopholes that are being unjustly abused, can direct a report to the match referree and to the ICC councils set up specifically for such considerations. This is what the match referee and the ICC is for. An umpire cannot choose to sidestep them to bring about what he perceives to be 'a good change'
By
Anonymous, at 4:59 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home