The ICC’s line of defence that they cannot allow member countries dictate the Umpires they would play with should not be brought in any attempt to save Hair or the likes of him. Let ICC make good use of this affair to nip in the bud the ugly head of racism in cricket, writes M Serajul Islam
The hearing on the infamous Darrel Hair decision to punish Pakistan for ball tampering that resulted in Pakistan forfeiting the fourth Test match and Captain Inzi facing a charge of bringing the game to disrepute will now be held in the end of September. In a way this delay is good for the game because it will allow the one-day series between England and Pakistan to go on as scheduled. It will also allow everyone upon whom the task of adjudicating and assisting in that adjudication to be dispassionate about an event that had, and still has, potentials to divide the cricket world along racial lines, bringing back memories of the apartheid days when South African team was banned for racial policies of its government.
Looking back to the incident and facts revealed thereafter, it is hard to imagine how a man described as one of the game’s best Umpires could take such an appalling and atrocious decision. At the time the incident occurred, cricket was at its best. The Pakistan team that badly lost two of the three previous Test matches was playing for pride and doing exceptionally well. On the three previous days of the Test, Pakistan had outclassed England almost completely, bringing out their undeniable potentials. On that eventful fourth day, England team was fighting back and, although Pakistan still held the whip hand, it looked like England could save the game. They were just 33 runs short of wiping a huge 321 runs first innings deficit with six wickets remaining and a day and one session to go. On the field, except for intensely positive cricket, there was not even the thinnest layer of any cricketing cloud that hinted at the drama that was to unfold. At one end, Pakistan’s leg spinner Danesh Kanneria was making very good use of the rough patches on the wicket made by bowlers’ foot marks and constantly threatening the English batsmen. At the other end, Omar Gul and Asif were bowling alternatively. The English batsman Cook was just out, lbw to Umar Gul, after playing a lucky innings of 83 during which he was always at sea against Kanneria. Cook fell to a ball that happened to reverse swing that was normal because the ball was then nearly 60-over old. Balls naturally reverse swing when that old because the fielding team polishes it, as legally permitted, on one side, allowing the other side to deteriorate by wear and tear which distributes weight unevenly on the ball to make it swing in reverse. When the fielding team deliberately damages the ball using sharp instruments or their nails, that act becomes illegal as ball tampering.
When Cook fell, none watching the game saw anything untoward. Pakistan captain Inzi saw Cook’s dismissal as a normal fall of a wicket and did not bother to change Kanneria for despite the Gul wicket, the ball was not reverse swinging enough for him to change the leg spinner who has no use for a ball that reverse swings. The TV commentators also saw Cook’s dismissal as just a wicket for Gul and praised his delivery. The commentators were Botham, Atherton, Lloyd, Ramiz and Michael Holding, all past master cricketers and undoubted cricket authorities. None of them were even remotely thinking what was going on in the mind of Umpire Darrel Hair around the time of Cook’s dismissal. TV footages have now revealed that Hair was glancing a few times at Asif when he was rubbing the ball on his trouser, a normal act by itself. But at that time, there was none who was prepared for what happened when Hair suddenly took the ball in his hand with England’s score reading at 298/4 (Cook fell when score was 277) and went to his fellow Umpire Doctrove and then motioned to the Third Umpire who was then seen running to the field with a set of old replacement balls. The cricket commentators started to feel uneasy only when Hair took the ball to the English batsmen. The public and those watching the game at home thought that the Umpire was replacing a ball that had lost shape, a normal affair in cricket these days. That assumption was first dispelled as Inzi was seen walking to Hair and apparently proTesting. The Pakistan players gathered around were silent but glum hinting something ominous was developing. It was only when Hair took his position and raised his hand to signal 5 penalty points that the commentators begin to express their surprise and dismay. Hair, on his part by raising innocuously his hand over his shoulder, publicly passed a judgment upon the Pakistan team that they had tampered with the ball and hence had cheated. At that point, the commentators were all convinced that they had seen no evidence of ball tampering and praised Inzi for his dignified handling of Hair’s unilateral, almost dictatorial judgment. Hair had acted as a one-man judicial system, where he was prosecution, judge and jury, an unbelievably arrogant posture for a man who happened to have been a lawyer before becoming a Test match Umpire.
The accusation and judgment part of the Hair affair was enacted in public view. Thanks to modern technology, every second of that part of the drama was recorded on TV footages. The second part of the drama that has brought Inzi in the stand was enacted behind scenes. Here the enactments of the drama, the role of the people and issues have come to public knowledge in bits and pieces. This part began at the tea interval and by that time, events passed on like wildfire from the cricketers concerned to the cricket authorities and very importantly to the entire Pakistan nation where even that country’s President together with millions of his countrymen were watching events live. Hair’s decision was just not an award of 5 penalty runs; seen in Pakistan, it was an accusation that reflected upon the entire nation. On scene at Lords at that time was Pakistan’s Cricket Board’s Chairman Shahryar Khan, a former Foreign Secretary of his country. Quite naturally he, together with Manager Zaheer Abbas and Coach Bob Woolmer, decided to proTest the decision but left it to the Captain to begin the process of proTest. Inzi, though a great player and successful captain, is not known for articulating his thoughts well enough in speech in English. He was allowed to face an opponent (by then Hair was that to the Pakistan team) who is an astute lawyer well conversant with the laws of the game. When Hair and his fellow Umpire came to the field with the English batsmen after tea break, the Pakistani team had decided to stay back in the dressing room for sometime to show their proTest, undoubtedly under instructions of their management. Hair, on his part, took every step thereafter as a lawyer and went to Inzi to ask his team to take the field. Unaware of the laws of the game in the relevant details, Inzi inquired from Hair instead why his team had been accused of ball tampering. Hair responded correctly that he had not come to discuss the ball tampering but to ask Pakistan Team to take the field and then walked back to the wickets. On not finding the Pakistan Team on field, he took the bails off and, going by the laws of the game, forfeited the game to England, the first such instance in Test cricket’s 123 years’ history. The forfeiture automatically implied guilt which fell on heavy shoulders of Inzi who now faces an eight match ban for bringing the game to disrepute. Although Shahryar and his colleagues later sent the Pakistan team to field, Hair was unimpressed and remained unmoved on his forfeiture decision.
The match referee Mike Proctor, who was standing by for Ranjan Madhugale for the Test, was one key official who failed to impose his authority on the development of events. It is true that in cricket, the Umpires on field have great authority on interpretation of the laws of the game. That responsibility was Hair’s but then there was another Umpire Doctrove on field who was not even second fiddle to Hair when the latter was taking the decisions and appeared no more than a sidekick to him. As match referee, Mike Proctor also had authority that he failed to use as the drama evolved and went out of hands. Hair was the dominant one, controlling the events like he had more than absolute authority over the proceedings. So overbearing was he that even his manners as seen on TV made him look like he had utter disdain on what his insensitive decision was leading to. Up to the point when Inzi delayed his decision to take field, there was wide consensus articulated by the cricket commentators that Hair’s decision was unfair because there was no physical evidence at all that the Pakistan team had tampered the ball.
The events started to drift considerably once it became known that Inzi had refused to take the field and Hair had awarded the game to England. Then, there was a conscious move by the white-dominated cricket administration, led by Hair’s fellow Australian ICC Chief Malcolm Speed, to let Hair off the hook by putting heat on Inzi and charging him for bringing the game to disrepute by refusing to play. Even on Indian sports programmes, commentators were leaving Hair and going after Inzi. At that moment, it looked like Hair was on clear and the noose of an insensitive cricketing administration was fast tightening around the neck of Inzi.
It was Hair’s arrogance again, and stupidity this time, that brought about another dramatic twist to the sordid saga. Hair, perhaps aware in his own mind that he had done grave wrong, and convinced that the ICC would bail him out, sent to Malcolm Speed an email asking a payment of US$ 500,000 to step down from the Panel of Test Match Umpires. For Speed this was too much to digest for he too knew that in the end, Hair would be found guilty. So he released the email to the press, despite Hair’s request for confidentiality, called the email a ‘stupid act’ and in saving has own skin, has proven to the world that Hair was guilty of his original act and the email was another clear proof of his guilt.
So why did Hair take such an astounding decision on no evidence at all? Why did he not consult fellow Umpire Doctrove? Why not Match Referee Proctor who had TV footages before him? Why did he not warn the Pakistan team before his decision? In all that have transpired since the event, there are no answers to these important questions in defence of Hair. Hence, those analysing the affair have looked into Hair’s past and there evidences are galore to reach a few conclusions. Hair has a history of problems with South Asian cricketers. He was the one who called Murlitharan for throwing many times when his fellow Umpire did not despite pressure from him. He gave Inzi out once when he was protecting himself for a fielder’s direct throw at him. He pulled Kanneria out from bowling for walking to the pitch without warning as required under the law. The Sri Lankans have given in writing that they would not want him to Umpire their games. Pakistan has expressed similar views about Hair. Second, as an Umpire he places his authority too high and rules out flexibility for which he also ran into trouble with the Indians and teams outside South Asia. He was already well known for his arrogance that the ICC wrongly termed as competence.
In the Australian and British media, subjective and unfair conclusions are often reached about cricketers from South Asia. Based on one or two players’ indiscretion, teams are branded as cheats, match fixers, etc. Sometimes, such aspersions are insensitively placed upon nations as in this Hair case where the Umpire’s action has pointed a finger upon Pakistan as a nation of cheats. However, when such indiscretion is found in the Australian, British or South African cricketers, those are often passed on as individual indiscretions. In that context, Australian cricketers and cricket authorities seem to get the maximum benefit. Indiscretion by Warne and the Waugh brothers; Dennis Lily kicking Javed Miandad in public view, or cricketer turned commentator Dean Jones’ racial comments never reflect upon the Australian team or upon Australia. Michael Holding made the most pertinent comments on this bias while supporting Inzi against Hair. Writing for India Today, Holding said that Hair was both wrong and insensitive in accusing Pakistan because he had no evidence at all to prove his accusation. Holding further wrote that today in cricket there is a clear double standard favouring the “first world” teams. When English bowlers used reverse swing to beat Australia last year in the Ashes series, the English sport scribes were ecstatic and called their bowlers very skillful. When Pakistan does this they become cheats. Holding called this “first word hypocrisy” adding that when a bomb blasts in Colombo or Karachi, there are instant calls to cancel the tour. When bombs go off in London, no one says anything. The other crucial point in the Holding article was that to say that cricketing law is absolute and Umpires are final authorities are pointless arguments and there should be flexibility. With Umpire like Hair around, it is either flexibility or beginning of the end of cricket as a gentlemen’s game.
The Hair decision was premeditated, taken on no physical evidence. In his arrogance, he even did not consider consulting sources he could and should have consulted. His offer to settle for money to quit cricket should leave no one in any doubt about his guilt. If those who would decide upon the fate of cricket and sit on the Inzi case, Ranjan Madhugale in particular, have any love and respect for cricket being a gentleman’s game, they should unequivocally dismiss the case against Inzi and decide upon Hair as unwanted for the fair game of cricket and ban him for life. The ICC’s line of defence that they cannot allow member countries dictate the Umpires they would play with should not be brought in any attempt to save Hair or the likes of him. Let ICC make good use of this affair to nip in the bud the ugly head of racism in cricket.
No comments:
Post a Comment