A ‘HAIR’ -in a China shop
The
revered former English umpire Dickie Bird explained it well over
CNN “When a ball is 56 overs old obviously it has to get scuffed.
At the same time the ball hits the hoardings which are placed just
beyond the boundary lines more often than not. When the ball hits
these hoardings there is a further chance of the ball getting damaged.
Besides that by mid-day the Oval wicket also gets very hard, and
a hard wicket also takes a toll on the ball. Taking these facts
into account they should have been a bit more careful before entering
into a conclusion of this nature”. This little explanation
gives one a fine insight into the circumstances of the infamous
Darrell-Inzi affair.
At the same time the Pakistan skipper Inzamam-Ul-Haq
also explained well enough the happenings just before the whole
scenario took place. “The first I knew of this issue was when
Darrell Hair decided to change the ball. He didn't mention a bowler
who was at fault ... and he didn't mention any evidence, he said
he was changing the ball. At first he refused to show me the ball
and said I would have to ask the match referee for a look at it.
I argued that it was my right to see it and he relented. It looked
like a normal 56-over-old ball which had visited the boundary a
few times".
Though the whole white world may try to white-wash
umpire Darrell Hair it had been a well established fact that his
relationship with South Asian cricketers would not have pleased
even a junior customer relations officer of a Public Relations firm.
Even during his 1995 Muralitharan issue it was
said that before Hair went ahead with his call on Boxing Day, the
plot was first hatched in the Australian Dressing room. Now the
latest Hair episode also reads starkly similar. BBC reported on
Tuesday “A report in today's Daily Telegraph claims that Sunday's
ball-tampering row was triggered by a visit by Duncan Fletcher,
England's coach, to Mike Procter, the match referee, before the
start of the fourth day's play.
|
TICK.... TICK The bomb is about to explode |
An ECB spokesman confirmed that Fletcher had met
with Procter on Sunday morning but denied he had made a "specific
complaint about the state of the ball". However, the newspaper
went on to say that sources close to the team have stated that Fletcher
played a part in drawing the officials' attention to certain issues.
At the same time BBC’s match up date also
comes up with something quite remarkable. It says: 1045: Unusual
optimism from umpire Darrell Hair - he says we're going to start
at 1115 BST. Still looks a bit grey out there, to be honest. After
getting a right soaking on the way this morning, I was convinced
we'd have a feet-up morning of reading the Sunday papers - but Darrell
knows different.
1052: Movement on the England balcony - Duncan
Fletcher is eating a sandwich. He is taking elephant-sized bites
and chewing with his mouth open. It's a far from pleasant sight.
The story can go on and on to fill this whole
page and have more. But, the question is that in matters leading
up to his decision to call the entire Pakistan team a pack of cheats
by singling out Inzamam as captain was biased and based upon some
one else’s insinuations or else they were his own assumptions.
At the same time was his self-appointed straightforwardness being
taken advantage of by unscrupulous cricket officials to make use
of his irrepressible bias against the sub-continent cricketers?
No sooner the incident occurred Pakistan president
Parvez Musharaff phoned the beleaguered Pakistani cricket captain
to express his and his country’s allegiance to the team. This
gesture would have given the entire Pakistani contingent a much-needed
pep. However in the same vein one feels that on issues of this nature
the whole sub-continent must rise as one and see to it that the
ICC umpires panel does not become an exclusive white’s only
club.
Those at the helm say that the sub-continent is
the most influential quarter in the cricketing world. But, just
count how many umpires represent the sub-continent in the ICC elite
panel? Besides the two umpires from Pakistan who are comparatively
new to the game and have not played Test cricket, the rest of the
shelf is bare. However there are three from Australia alone. Then
the two umpires they had in the panel in Asoka de Silva and Srinivasan
Vetkatraghavan from Sri Lanka and India – both who had played
the game at the highest level dropped -- half way. The authorities
may give a hundred excuses but insiders know why.
Meanwhile the ICC’s chief match referee
Ranjan Madugalle who was the original match referee of the series
had to come back home without officiating in the match in question
to be beside his father ‘Lionel’ who was in hospital.
As a result Ranjan was not available for the ICC disciplinary hearing
on Friday. However this move also probably salvaged the troubled
five match ODI series between England and Pakistan.
If the ODI series does not go through the ECB
stands to lose up to 11m pounds.
An ICC release on Wednesday read “The ICC
today announced that Friday's Code of Conduct hearing involving
Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq has been postponed.
ICC Chief Executive Officer Malcolm Speed said:
"The difficulty relates to the availability of Ranjan Madugalle
to chair the hearing as he is dealing with a private and personal
matter that requires his urgent attention.
"Pakistan and England, as the host country,
have both expressed a preference for Ranjan to hear the case and
on that basis we have agreed to the postponement.
"We have looked at potential alternatives
but, as the ICC's Chief Referee and a person with immense credibility
within the game, Ranjan is the most appropriate person to adjudicate
in this matter.
However the ICC also has indicated if Madugalle
is not available on time, they would have a look at appointing former
West Indian captain Clive Lloyd to handle the matter.
Then on Sri Lanka’s stance SLC president
Jayantha Dharmadasa said “Pakistan have stood by us on many
issues, but, on this I still know of what I saw on television only
and I am still to talk to Shahrayar Khan. Once I talk to him and
get to the bottom of the matter we will publicise our official stand”.
As people who love the game and its very structure
we too agree that once an umpire takes a decision that is final
and binding. But, purportedly incidents of this nature which are
hatched outside the boundary lines and plotted to be delivered in
the middle must be carefully analysed and phased out of the game
forever so that this great game could survive for another 129 years.
P.S.: Ha….Ha….Hair has now turned
a blackmailer…..he is demanding $500,000 from the ICC to go
Down Under.
|