![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mcgillianaireOn further reflection, it appears as though Darrell Hair applied the law till the t's were crossed and the i's were dotted. Nothing wrong in what he did, but lots of potential discussion on how he went about it.
By deciding to invoke Law 42.3 instead of Law 5.5, Hair was quite simply accusing the Pakistani team of cheating. There appears to be disagreement about how obvious it is to an umpire or anybody else, if the condition of a ball has been unfairly altered.
Law 3.7 explicitly states, "The umpires shall be the sole judges of fair and unfair play." Therefore, regardless of whether the umpires were right or wrong, we assume that the Pakistani team were guilty until proven innocent. Ideally, Pakistan should've resolved the matter at the end of the day's play or preferably, at the end of the match.
By refusing to take the field after tea, Pakistan allowed Hair to invoke Law 21.3, again to the letter of the law, resulting in the forfeiture. Hair was well within his rights to apply the Laws as he saw fit but I am very disappointed in the manner in which he went about it.
Players are regularly reminded to maintain the right 'spirit of the game' but it's about time the sprit also applied to the umpires. I agree the laws are there for a good reason but despite what they might entail, it is not possible to ignore the context in which they are being applied.
Pakistan might have been guilty, and given the context, I think they handled the situation better than other teams might've, especially other subcontinental teams. The protest was not in the spirit of the law but it was a suitable response to a substantial allegation of cheating.
I personally think it is unfortunate we have umpires like Darrell Hair, who may not be a racist, who take the rules too seriously. A good umpire would've had a quiet word with the fielding captain about the condition of the ball and taken necessary action if the issue persisted.
The ball could easily have been changed without accusing Pakistan of cheating, especially in light of their history with ball-tampering accusations and the lack of television evidence. That being said, it is quite possible none of the 26 cameras were able to capture the smoking gun evidence.
If Pakistan is guilty, I still think there were three major problems. Despite the laws not requiring the umpires to highlight a problem to the fielding captain, it would've been within the spirit of the game to have done so. Subsequently, the manner of Pakistan's protest during the game was perhaps ill-timed and the possible mis-communication did not help matters. And finally, the application of the law as though it were gospel by Darrell Hair was simply adding fuel to the fire, insult to injury, you take your pick.
I personally hope Darrell Hair does not officiate in another international match.
By deciding to invoke Law 42.3 instead of Law 5.5, Hair was quite simply accusing the Pakistani team of cheating. There appears to be disagreement about how obvious it is to an umpire or anybody else, if the condition of a ball has been unfairly altered.
Law 3.7 explicitly states, "The umpires shall be the sole judges of fair and unfair play." Therefore, regardless of whether the umpires were right or wrong, we assume that the Pakistani team were guilty until proven innocent. Ideally, Pakistan should've resolved the matter at the end of the day's play or preferably, at the end of the match.
By refusing to take the field after tea, Pakistan allowed Hair to invoke Law 21.3, again to the letter of the law, resulting in the forfeiture. Hair was well within his rights to apply the Laws as he saw fit but I am very disappointed in the manner in which he went about it.
Players are regularly reminded to maintain the right 'spirit of the game' but it's about time the sprit also applied to the umpires. I agree the laws are there for a good reason but despite what they might entail, it is not possible to ignore the context in which they are being applied.
Pakistan might have been guilty, and given the context, I think they handled the situation better than other teams might've, especially other subcontinental teams. The protest was not in the spirit of the law but it was a suitable response to a substantial allegation of cheating.
I personally think it is unfortunate we have umpires like Darrell Hair, who may not be a racist, who take the rules too seriously. A good umpire would've had a quiet word with the fielding captain about the condition of the ball and taken necessary action if the issue persisted.
The ball could easily have been changed without accusing Pakistan of cheating, especially in light of their history with ball-tampering accusations and the lack of television evidence. That being said, it is quite possible none of the 26 cameras were able to capture the smoking gun evidence.
If Pakistan is guilty, I still think there were three major problems. Despite the laws not requiring the umpires to highlight a problem to the fielding captain, it would've been within the spirit of the game to have done so. Subsequently, the manner of Pakistan's protest during the game was perhaps ill-timed and the possible mis-communication did not help matters. And finally, the application of the law as though it were gospel by Darrell Hair was simply adding fuel to the fire, insult to injury, you take your pick.
I personally hope Darrell Hair does not officiate in another international match.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-08-21 11:09 pm (UTC)"No, we haven't tampered with it!" protests Inzamam.
At this point, the umpires are highly unlikely to say, "Quite right, we hadn't thought of that." No, they're going to stick with their opinion, call for a replacement ball and signal five penalty extras. The accusation of cheating remains.
The decision of the umpires to declare that the ball had been tampered with may have been wrong, but the refusal of the Pakistanis to play after tea, twice, was far worse.
I personally hope Darrell Hair does not officiate in another international match.
If an umpire applies to laws to the letter and the results are bad, then the laws should be changed, not the umpire.
This isn't the first time Hair has applied the letter of the law when the spirit of the game suggested he do otherwise - his no-balling of Grant Flower (another subcontinental!) was technically correct, since Flower brought back his arm above the horizontal before bowling. However, it wasn't throwing by any common-sense definition.
Pakistan might have been guilty, and given the context, I think they handled the situation better than other teams might've, especially other subcontinental teams.
I highly doubt that, in this era of neutral umpires, any white team would refuse to take the field because of an umpiring decision.
Teams should not refuse to play because of umpiring decisions. If Pakistan had simply registered their protest and come out angry in the press conference at the end of the day, then the umpires would look like the sole villains (if the ball, upon close inspection, has no signs of tampering). But refusing to play makes them by far the worst party in this controversy.
(I admit to a bit of inconsistency on respecting umpires' decisions. Colin Croft's "accidental" nudge of that terrible NZ umpire in the early 80's was awesome. :))
no subject
Date: 2006-08-22 09:05 am (UTC)"No, we haven't tampered with it!" protests Inzamam.
Umm.. that didn't happen as far as I'm aware. Inzy was told, only after the ball was called for and the five runs awarded. As far as I know, Hair refused to show him the ball, when queried by Inzy.
If an umpire applies to laws to the letter and the results are bad, then the laws should be changed, not the umpire.
No, the laws are fine. Common sense is however desired in other proffesions, why not umpiring?
But refusing to play makes them by far the worst party in this controversy.
Not to me. It was a tragedy of over-reation all round. I don't see Pakistan being by far the worst party.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-22 10:15 pm (UTC)"No, we haven't tampered with it!" protests Inzamam.
Umm.. that didn't happen as far as I'm aware.
I know. I was giving an example of what might have happened if the umpires had told Inzamam why they were changing the ball at the time. The accusation of ball-tampering would have remained.
But refusing to play makes them by far the worst party in this controversy.
Not to me. It was a tragedy of over-reation all round.
Refusing to play, twice, is against the laws and against common sense. The umpires' actions were in agreement with the laws and debatable according to common sense (I certainly agree with the awarding of the Test to England, others don't).
A walk-off in protest at an umpiring decision is always more wrong than a bad umpiring decision.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-24 05:37 am (UTC)I'm surprised there are even people who disagree!
I was giving an example of what might have happened if the umpires had told Inzamam why they were changing the ball at the time.
You are under the impression that it is easy to detect if a ball has been intentionally tampered with in an unfair manner. Due to my lack of hands-on experience, I have to depend on what so-called experts have to say about it, and there doesn't seem to be the same general consensus.
The laws that treat and protect the umpires like they are God needs to be changed. Under the existing laws, Pakistan should not have protested but this was an accusation during international play, without precedent. If I was accused of cheating and I was convinced of our innocence, I would find it very difficult to find the motivation to continue playing. Two tests down, lost series and accused of cheating just when you're in a winning position? By an umpire with a history of controversial decisions, including a few against your team? Like I said in another comment, under any other circumstance, I don't think I would agree with their protest but this was something different. The laws are there for a reason but they are not absolute.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-24 05:19 am (UTC)Yes, the laws have to be changed but Hair has a history of making wrong decisions. His decision to rule Inzi out last winter when taking evasive action was appalling. At this level, if you don't know the rules, you shouldn't be umpiring.
I highly doubt that, in this era of neutral umpires, any white team would refuse to take the field because of an umpiring decision.
"If I had been accused of cheating in this way then, as long as I was sure of our innocence, I would have done exactly the same thing as Pakistan. I wouldn't have come out after tea, either." -Nasser Hussain
:)
That being said, both Miandad and Imran Khan, former Pakistani captains, disagree with Pakistan's protest.
Teams should not refuse to play because of umpiring decisions.
For most decisions I agree with you but not in this case. Accusing a team of cheating and choosing to play is tantamount to accepting guilt, even if under protest. By refusing to play, Pakistan has set a dangerous precedent and I can't think of any reasonable excuse (incl. sympathy) to defend a similar protest for a bad/wrong LBW decision but this was an exception to the rule. The problem of the accusation is exacerbated by the lack of evidence and lack of consensus about how easy it is to prove intentional ball-tampering. You say it's easy and obviously umpires are trained to detect the difference between an innocent scuff mark or deliberate skulduggery. But a number of other so-called experts believe otherwise.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-27 06:21 am (UTC)I forgot about this thread and only now just saw your replies. Hair referred this decision to the third umpire, who gave Inzamam out. It wasn't Hair.
Further, this CricInfo report suggests that the evasive action was entirely irrelevant, though the writer doesn't realise this. Inzamam had left his crease because of the way he played his stroke, not because of evasive action, which happened later. If he didn't get back in his crease (which seems to be debatable), then he's out. It doesn't matter that he wasn't attempting a run. I don't see where the controversy over Law 38.2 could possibly be there.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-21 11:31 pm (UTC)i would appreciate anything you'd have to offer, and if you by any chance have his "between heaven and earth " album i would also appreciate it... ( even if solely that album only )
thanks
Jo
no subject
Date: 2006-08-24 09:45 am (UTC)Roja (http://www.sendspace.com/file/46ahre) (1992)
Roja (http://www.sendspace.com/file/279cgf) (1993) - HINDI (same as Tamil movie: Roja)
Gentleman (http://www.sendspace.com/file/sqq0n8) (1993)
Gentleman - Roop Suhana Lagta Hai.mp3 (http://www.sendspace.com/file/2xiuui) (1993) - HINDI
Karuthamma (http://www.sendspace.com/file/zq63b9) (1994)
Kadhalan (http://www.sendspace.com/file/ew3g7o) (1994)
Bombay (http://www.sendspace.com/file/zxk5l4) (1995)
Bombay (http://www.sendspace.com/file/m6b13v) (1995) - HINDI (same as Tamil movie: Bombay)
Rangeela - Tanha Tanha (http://www.sendspace.com/file/9jadbo) (1995) - HINDI
Muthu - Oruvan.mp3 (http://www.sendspace.com/file/nesbal) (1995)
Indian (http://www.sendspace.com/file/50zj4y) (1996)
Kadhal Desam (http://www.sendspace.com/file/zq63b9) (1996)
Minsara Kanavu (http://www.sendspace.com/file/ac53et) (1997)
Iruvar (http://www.sendspace.com/file/8sarp3) (1997)
Jeans (http://www.sendspace.com/file/8sarp3) (1998)
Uyire (http://www.sendspace.com/file/xg3tid) (1998)
Dil Se (http://www.sendspace.com/file/8zv6w1) (1998) - HINDI (same as Tamil movie: Uyire)
Earth/1947 (http://www.sendspace.com/file/bllujl) (1998) - HINDI
En Swasa Katre (http://www.sendspace.com/file/vj7snx) (1999)
Padayappa (http://www.sendspace.com/file/mo7cyf) (1999)
Taal (http://www.sendspace.com/file/0yqio6) (1999) - HINDI
Kadhalar Dhinam (http://www.sendspace.com/file/nesbal) (1999)
Muthalvan (http://www.sendspace.com/file/kabdl0) (1999)
Alai Payuthey (http://www.sendspace.com/file/nd7m14) (2000)
Kandukondain Kandukondain (http://www.sendspace.com/file/7e2klj) (2000)
Lagaan (http://www.sendspace.com/file/7b6dw6) (2001) - HINDI
Kannathil Muththamittal.mp3 (http://www.sendspace.com/file/o7ztad) (2002)
Baba (http://www.sendspace.com/file/41h88j) (2002)
Boys (http://www.sendspace.com/file/r757gr) (2003)
Meenaxi: A Tale of Three Cities (http://www.sendspace.com/file/eu7hp7) (2004) - HINDI
Aayuthu Ezhuthu (http://www.sendspace.com/file/9z0rq8) (2004)
Yuva (http://www.sendspace.com/file/ao3npb) (2004) - HINDI (same as Tamil movie: Aayuthu Ezhuthu)
New (http://www.sendspace.com/file/hh84qb) (2004)
Swades (http://www.sendspace.com/file/ck6l5j) (2004) - HINDI
The Rising: Ballad of Mangal Pandey (http://www.sendspace.com/file/5xl3m1) (2005) - HINDI
Also, you might want to note that India is a South Asian country, not SouthEAST Asian. :)
Enjoy!
no subject
Date: 2006-08-24 04:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-22 10:44 am (UTC)Hell, I was thinking that well before this hullaballoo. Almost all of those not outs that he and Doctrove gave in this series to Kaneria's bowling were almost criminal. Poor old Kaneria would have been thinking he should probably convert to Islam. Some of those deliveries were quite literaly the definition of LBW.