Or as every subeditor the wide world over has been tempted to headline it, It’s Just Not Cricket.
England wins due to Pakistani forfeit declared by controversial Australian umpire Darrel Hair.
Pakistan was adjudged to have forfeited the match when it refused to take the field after the tea interval.
The tourist was incensed that it had been accused of ball- tampering by Hair and penalised five runs.
The decision that Pakistan should forfeit the game in these circumstances is unprecedented in the 129-year-history of Test cricket.
There is much harrumphing amongst commentators and ex-criketers, many of whom have no love for Darrel Hair.
Hair, whose refusal to rescind his decision, taken alongside West Indian Billy Doctrove, to penalise Pakistan five runs for ball-tampering, is something a love-hate figure within the cricket world.
To his supporters the 53-year-old is one of the last top-flight umpires confident enough to back his own judgment and uphold the game’s laws in full, whatever the cost.
To his critics, he is a spotlight-seeking pedant.
In 1995-96 he was centre stage at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, where he called Sri Lanka off spinner Muttiah Muralitharan, whose career has been dogged by questions over the legitimacy of his action, for throwing.
Howzat then?
I think it’s important that crap like refusing to take the field, from any team or captain, is nipped in the bud but I’m not sure complete forfeiture of the game is the way to do it. Forfeit their match fees perhaps, but it’s the fans who miss out when the whole game is called off.
Daryl was in the right.
Whilst Muralitharan should have been called for throwing EVERY time he threw ( he has indeed changes the rules of cricket as now one CANNOT call a chucker for throwing. What a joke) Daryl should never have called him for throwing at the BOWLER’S end. It is at the square leg where one Used to be allowed to call throwing.
Pakistan has a long history of ball tampering. This time they got caught, and didn’t like it.
Very petulent attitude.
Certainly, the team should be fined match payments, and the captain suspended for atleast 5 matches.
Things would be so much simpler if the players did the playing, the umpires did the umpiring, and the administrators upheld the umpires’ authority to call things as they see them.
What a disaster. The umpires were clearly not doing their job if they suddenly noticed that the ball had been tampered with, then sprung it and the five run penalty on the Pakistanis without even the courtesy of consulting with Inzamam Ul-Huq. The close up shots of the ball on TV appeared pretty normal – bearing in mind that it just been smacked around by Petersen. It is also significant that none of the 26 (?) TV cameras that closely scrutinise everything that takes place in a cricket field picked up any sign of the ball being tampered with. This just illustrates the extent to which umpires go beyond making determinations of the laws of cricket to the point where they are influencing the outcome of the game. Given that they get most LBWs wrong, there isn’t any way that it is possible to have a great deal of confidence that the umpires have made the correct call.
Cheers…
Darryl was absolutely right to award the game to England on forfeit when Pakistan refused to take the field, but the original decision to accuse them of ball-tampering was a very bad one. The ball was not that badly damaged to begin with, Kevin Pietersen had just hit multiple sixes (where the ball could have struck concrete in the stands), and most importantly Darryl could not be specific as to which player he thought had tampered with the ball.
When you accuse Pakistan of ball tampering you had better be pretty sure, because the mud is going to stick, as evidenced by weekbyweek’s comment above. I think they were unfairly dealt with and had every right to protest. It all just became a balls-up after that point but Hair was right to not go back out after he had adjudicated the game over.
Mindy has got it right the game should have continued and they could have dealt with the sanctions later. If the two umpires refused to come out they should have been replaced by another two officials. Hair certainly is getting little support in the English press today and he shouldn’t either because this was a case where common sense would have saved a whole lot of trouble.
Trenton: So we should tear up the laws of cricket whenever it doesn’t suit the TV broadcast demands?
The game was over. The umpires had asked the team to take the field, they refused to do so. The bails were removed and the game awarded to England.
There simply isn’t anywhere to go from that position. Game Over. Hair did exactly the right thing by refusing to go back out – he wouldn’t be upholding the laws if he went back.
The mistake he made was citing the Pakistanis for ball-tampering in the first place.
I think this will probably be his last test match. The “special comments” by Rameez Raja while the incident was going on were very, very unfavourable towards Darryl Hair, and I doubt that any subcontinental teams will accept him as an umpire in the future after this.
Rules are usually made in the hope that they are applied with common sense but in Hairs case it was clearly used in a punitive manner which in essence gave him the last word. If the game had been allowed to continue then I’m sure we wouldn’t be hear suggesting he tore up the rule book. I hope he has umpired his last game because imo he is a poor umpire with a an authoritarian streak who has done more to inflame situations rather than solve them.
“Rules are usually made in the hope that they are applied with common sense”
Cricket doesn’t have rules. It has laws, which are available in a book called “the laws of cricket”. English commentator David Lloyd was reading from the book at the time Darryl Hair made his decision, and his action followed the law to the letter.
That is why Hair led the England batsman back onto the pitch and radioed to the Pakistan dressing room before taking the bails off and declaring the match forfeit.
The laws of cricket are irrefutable.
This is why such things as Bodyline, Underarm etc were allowed to take place. The laws at the time did not specifically prevent them, so the umpires’ hands were tied. The laws were later amended to prevent it from happening again.
The umpires’ sole responsibility is to uphold the laws of the game, which is exactly what Hair did in the second instance. The task of creating and modifying the laws lies with the ICC. It is not possible to change the laws while a match is in progress. The laws that stand at the time the game commences are the laws that will be applied for the duration of the match.
Darryl Hair is actually a very good umpire, when it comes to things like making judgement calls on LBWs and the sort of thing that is most commonly required of umpires. In that respect he is the best umpire the ICC has.
His downfall is that he has very little patience for stunts pulled by certain captains and unfortunately those captains have always happened to be from 2 countries – Sri Lanka and Pakistan. He is also by all reports a fairly blunt sort of person who doesn’t ever take a backward step.
This has led to the common belief that he is biased in a racial manner towards those sides.
This obviously isn’t true because he has never had any problems with India – but the perception is very strong throughout Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Arjuna Ranatunga and Inzamam himself are as much to blame for the Darryl Hair situation as Hair is, but Hair certainly didn’t do himself any favours with the ball-tampering call last night.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20200463-2722,00.html
I know this isn’t a Cricket blog, but I’m a little disappointed that this story didn’t get more than 2 paragraphs of comment here – as this is probably the biggest cricketing story since Murali was no-balled in Australia.
This is the first time in the history of test cricket that a match has been forfeited because a refusal to take the field. I’ll blog about it on my own site later today.
Darrell Hair might be “a very good umpire, when it comes to things like making judgement calls on LBWs – the best umpire the ICC have got” but overall, umpires routinely get a significant number of LBWs wrong. As they do with many catches close to the wicket. The advent of the close-up slow motion reply has revealed how appalling umpiring is when it comes to getting it right. My best guesstimate is that getting on for 50% of LBWs are simply wrong – the batsman is given out when he shouldn’t be, or given not out when he is. I know they are only human, and all that sort of stuff, and I know that in theory the bad decisions supposedlhy even each other out so as not to advantage one team or another, but…. Truth is that with new television technology, umpiring could, and should, be done from the third umpire position…. The two clowns on the street can settle down to their real job – holding the bowlers hat/sun glasses and calling drinks and other breaks.
Cheers…
Whether it be laws or rules I stand by what I said previously. Everybody was prepared to play except the umpires. His umpiring standard is a matter of opinion and in my opinion he has generally been a very poor umpire and his handling of this test can only reinforce that opinion. By the way if the ICC are forced to choose between Darryl with his book of laws and the money that TV rights bring in then be under no illusion who would win out.
Overall, yes. Alim Dar, Rudi Koertzen and Steve Bucknor in particular are terrible. But as I said, Hair is consistently the best in this area. He makes a lot fewer incorrect decisions than any other Umpire going around.
Technology is an option in the future but at present the process is just too slow to apply to each decision and still have the required number of overs bowled in a day.
Who are the people that decide. I’m not sure I can put it any more clearly than I already have:
The game was over.
The decision has been made.
There is no allowance under the laws of cricket for the forfeit to be reversed after the fact.
Umpires do not have the discretion to modify or ignore any of the laws of cricket. Their job as umpires is to enforce the laws of cricket.
They could have kept playing, but it would not have been an ICC accredited test match, a win would have been awarded to England and they would have played out an exhibition match for the benefit of the fans. Maybe Nasser Hussein and Ian Botham could have umpired the rest of the game, because the 4 ICC umpires present would not be allowed to under their employment contracts.
It’s really not. Hair is undoubtedly the best judge of LBWs and catches on the ICC panel. If you say otherwise you are quite simply only saying so because you disagree with other aspects of his demeanor.
If you believe otherwise perhaps you could name another ICC test umpire who you believe is a more reliable judge of such things than Darryl Hair.
Well you are entitled to your opinion on Hair and so am I and I certainly have no desire to get into some long winded argument with you about who is better who is worse. From my point of view cricket will be better off when this bloke is forced to retire.
So the ball was 56 overs old and had copped a battering from Peterson? Hair does need to explain his reasons for AFAIK there was no evidence other than the condition of the ball.
Even is Hair was incorrect Rod Marsh summed it up perfectly on the 7:30 Report. Pakistan should have copped it and then done their best to win the game.
But Inzamam Ul-Huq’s reaction was childish and not befitting an international cricket captain. Credit should to to the umpires for not calling Pakistan’s bluff. While the incident is already damaging allowing a team to hide in their dressing rooms would hurt the game more.
I’d like to see Inzy playing 8th grade up here on the Coast. He’d forfeit everygame.
Hair made his name by doing the same thing against Sri Lanka when he (correctly) no-balled Muralitharan. Sri Lanka (especially under Ranatunga) and Pakistan (under Inzamam) have a history of protests of this nature.
Inzi actually had a point this time though.
Nevertheless, I don’t think anyone expected anything else from Hair after Inzi made the decision to not come out after tea.
Would Inzi have done the same thing if the series was still alive? I doubt it but you never know. Honour is more important than winning to most sportsmen, and I doubt Inzi is any different. But then you have to balance that against the wishes of the rest of the team, some of whom have probably never played in a winning test series.
Other great Inzamam moments: A spectator in an India-Pakistan game repeatedly heckled Inzamam when he was fielding yelling out “In-za-mam, Muta Alu!” (Inzamam is a fat potato). Inzamam jumped the fence and chased him around with a bat until wrestled back onto the oval by security. http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/columns/content/story/245024.html?wrappertype=print
Heres a video of Inzi attacking the spectator: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2202243578254447315&q=inzamam&pl=true
I didn’t know Pakistan played cricket, I thought terrorism was their bag.
Im going back to watch the paint dry much more entertaining.
I’ve never seen that video Yobbo. Thanks for the link.
Inzy does seem to be in the Javed Miandad mold though maybe not a canny as Javed was.
Inzy has a right to be aggrieved based on what evidence we (don’t) have but his actions brought no honour to himself or the game. Getting on with the game and trouncing England would have been the best option.
In the interests of attention to detail, care to corroborate that assertion?
See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/england/5268250.stm
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/england/5269492.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/shared/fds/hi/statistics/cricket/scorecards/2006/8/12226/html/scorecard.stm has him scoring two sixes in the entire innings, both after the ball was changed (timestamp 15:09 in the first link above).
I hate this stuff where blogs are just used for personal invective and trying to show how clever you are.
Phill
should shut up if this is all he can offer to a thread like this. Some us like cricket – recognise that it is by far the most subtle and complex outdoor sport ever devised. And we despair a bit when an incident like todays occurs. Mind you, I personally think that this is a function of umpiring – the emergence of TV has made it all too clear that they are out of their depth, and couldn’t make a decision to have a (excuse the old colloquism (sic)) root in a brothel. The decision to arbitrarily find Pakistan guilty of ball tampering (David Hicks got due process by comparison) was the cause of all this. Hair should be docked his match fees and made to explain himself before some sort of inquiry. Quis custodiet ipsos custodies, eh?
Finally, cricket is clearly worthy of a fine serious discussion. It embodies almost everything that is interesting (and boring) about contemporary culture.
Cheers…
Black Knight, whether its a 4 or 6, the ball can still be easily damaged by hitting concrete walls or metal advertising signs on the boundary.
The point is that anything could have damaged the ball, it shouldn’t be assumed that it was deliberate tampering.
There isn’t really an 8th grade up on the coast is there Shaun?
I pretty much agree with Yobbo. Bodyline and Underarm were scrubbed out of the game pretty quickly (underarm is illegal right?) Maybe this case will act as a detterant, maybe new laws need to be written…
Underarm is illegal now, yes. It wasn’t when the Chappells did it (although arguably “against the spirit of the game”, as was bodyline).
It should be noted though that modern pace attacks are far more often aimed at the head and shoulders and at greater speed than they were during the Bodyline series. The difference now is that
a:) Players now have access to all sorts of effective protective equipment.
b:) Pitches are of better condition and the bounce is more consistent
c:) Umpires now have the discretion to take the bowler off if he believes he is trying to cause injury rather than using short-pitched bowling as a strategy.
D:) You can now have no more than 2 fielders behind square on the leg side.
The whole point of Bodyline was not to hurt people, but that if you bowl short at the body, there is only 1 place you can reasonably hit it – which is behind square on the leg side. Jardine would put 6 fielders there and instruct Larwood and Voce to bowl at the body. “Fast Leg Theory” he called it.
If you did that now you’d just get hit for 20 an over because you can’t cover the area with fielders.
Bradman effectively countered the strategy by stepping towards leg and hitting the ball on the offside, but he was a freak and no other batsman was talented enough to do the same.
Jardine was a brilliant strategist. He did cricket a service in the end by finding a weakness in the rules that could have damaged cricket permanently in the same way the flood has damaged AFL.
“Fast Leg Theory” was cricket’s equivalent of the Tic-Tac-Toe solution. If they didn’t change the rules then every cricket game would just be 2 sides taking turns bowling Bodyline at each other.
Jardine was the first person to approach cricket from the “win at all costs” angle rather than as a pastime between gentlemen. Even though he was a “Gentleman” Amateur himself, he was really the prototypical modern professional sportsman in the way he would take any advantage within the rules to win.
If he did the same thing today nobody would bat an eyelid, but the 1930s was a much more polite era.
Yobbo, you’re just bitter that Sydney played a superior all-round game of football than West Coast last September. Bah!
The flood isn’t damaging to the game—it isn’t even an effective strategy. Bring on two half-forwards with forty-metre kicks, and a team has everything it needs to break a flood.
Don’t buy the Robert Walls propaganda, Yobbo!
Your post featured here
Actually Liam, being a Fremantle supporter, nobody was cheering harder than me for the Swans to beat the Eagles last year. But that doesn’t change the fact that the game itself was far from a great spectacle with the exception of the last 10 minutes.
Yes there is Micheal G.
Played last year and will play again this year (my body is in pain after Sunday’s first pre-season practice). While most of the teams approach it in good fun you get the odd team that treats 8th grade as even more vital than the Ashes.
The point is, Yobbo, you’ve made an error of fact (see Agnew’s last two paragraphs) that calls into question your argument.
You can admit you were wrong, or misled, and try to find something else to support your position, or you can bluster on and make everyone here doubt the veracity of anything else you say. Which is the position Hair finds himself in.
As for me, I wasn’t at the Oval. I didn’t see the ball. I’d love to see any evidence you have that the umpires were wrong.
the Umpires are the SOLE arbiters of ball tampering.
They do not need to see who was tampering the ball merely that the ball was tampered with.
Any person who queries LBW decisions is a complete idiot.
Only a person standing from the Bowlers end can adjudicate that.
Most umpires stand far too far back these days to make an exact decision.
It seems to me that Hair applied the laws of cricket without fear or favour. Some are now calling on Hair to prove that the ball was tampered. Stuff and nonsense, I say. The opinion of the umpire is all that counts.
That being said there should be, as in rugby league, a system whereby umpires themselves have their performance of every game reviewed and coached. I’m not sure whether cricket has any such provision.
Imran Khan seems to want to have a situation where a bit of tampering is OK until the umpire warns you.
But the whole thing is complicated by the role of cricket in particular societies. It was being said today that cricket in Pakistan is part of the glue that holds the whole society together.
It’s a fair bet now that Hair won’t get anymore games involving the four Asian teams. Such are the realities of cricket politics. I’m sure he sees it as just a game, not as an essential part of national idenity.
Sorry about that, Yobbo. Still, not every post need be analytical commentary.
I don’t know enough about the rules of the game to offer more informed commentary, but I knew there’d be LP regulars who were interested in it, so I popped up a quick thread-opener to stimulate discussion.
At least when the longer commentary posts are leavened by discussion-starters like this, the commentariat can have their chance to shine. I’ve certainly learned heaps that I didn’t know about the way that the rules work from the comments in this thread.
So, Yobbo. Fremantle, eh?
If you’re in Melbourne this Sunday, boot up and come down to Edinburgh Gardens in Fitzroy for the inaugural biannual Dockers fans vs Eagles fans pre-derby grudge match.
It’s shaping up like real life – we’ve got lots of heart and dedication, they’re a bunch of shiny jocks. We will smash them! Hopefully twice.
Heh BB.
It srtikes me that in the case of ball tampering, as opposed to, say, run out decisions or dodgy tries (*cough*Elsom*cough*), the umpires on the ground are best placed to make such a decision.
Armchair umpires are —
but this is teh interweb. I should not really be surprised.
You’re just being a dickhead now Black Knight. I was wrong about when Pietersen hit the sixes. That doesn’t change the fact that Hair based his accusation purely on the condition of the ball, which is very sketchy evidence on which to base such an inflammatory accusation.
You are not Tim Lambert in disguise are you?
Probably not, which means his career as a test umpire is over. He also can’t umpire Australian matches because of the requirement for umpires to be from neutral countries, so from now on he can only umpire New Zealand/South Africa/England games, which doesn’t give him a lot of work.
There are two separate points at issue here:
- was the initial decision about ball tampering justified?
I dunno, and neither do any other commentators because we ain’t seen the ball. But the only indication we’ve got is that the ball very suddenly started reverse swinging strongly (after playing straight in previous overs), and that the other umpire was consulted, inspected the ball, and agreed with Hair.
- were the umpires right to enforce the forfeit?
Absolutely – so much so that I can’t see the counterargument at all. Whether the original decision was right or wrong, Inzi should have copped it sweet and saved any protest for later.
As opposed to the colour of his underpants? I’m assuming that if you look at enough cricket balls you can tell the difference between ‘this is a scuffed ball because Pietersen just whacked it’ and ’someone has picked at this seam’. I mean, come on, the guy knows that the eyes of the entire cricketing world are upon him.
I could be wrong of course, and he was being deliberately inflammatory.
There are three issues here, as I see it.
The first is whether the ball was tampered with, or Hair’s accusation that it was. This is arguably the least important.
Second, how Hair handled that accusation.
This is dubious. Perhaps he had seen someone doing something dodgy. I doubt any umpire has their eye on the ball at all times. Perhaps the sudden (I get the impression it was sudden) reverse swing was enough cause to examine the ball. Either way, I do think he should have handled it better, been more open, because it is a serious accusation.
And the third issue is the Pakistan captain behaving like a schoolboy.
“As opposed to the colour of his underpants?”
No, as opposed to having seen someone doing something to it, which is what usually brings about allegations of ball tampering.
The reason the Pakistanis were pissed off is because Hair couldn’t or wouldn’t say who he thought had tampered with the ball, and the cameras found nothing either.
The other point is that they didn’t really have any motive to tamper with the ball, as they were already flogging the piss out of England in what was a dead rubber anyway.
I think the point in the end is that the ball, if damaged, could have been replaced under the rules without having to go the extra step of awarding 5 runs to England (and by definition, accusing Pakistan of tampering). Damaged balls are replaced all the time without penalties being imposed on the fielding side.
“Damaged balls are replaced all the time without penalties being imposed on the fielding side.”
Precisely, Yobbo. This indicates (not racism, which is a silly accusation) that he’s considering form. Pakistan, having been found guilty of ball-tampering before, are assumed to be responsible for the condition of the ball.
The presumtion of innocence has gone out the window.
Or maybe the batsmen got the benefit of the doubt LOL.
Anyway, did you see my Dockers comment above?
And Phill – shut up you knob-jockey.
I won’t be in Melbourne this weekend given that I live in Perth.
Phill: What is the point of dribbling on about a topic that you obviously don’t know anything about and dont care about if not to simply annoy everyone else in the thread?
This effeminate wanker cricket player would quite happily challenge you to a bare-knuckle fist fight if you think you are some kind of hero. Otherwise – shut the fuck up.
Yobbo a bare knuckle fist fight you are indeed a man of many skills.A raconteur,and a brawler.I would not normally retort on such an assinine comment as that.Look dick head my daughter could give you a quilting so spare me the fist fight bollicks.You have been watching to many movies.
And they say football fans get rowdy!
Perhaps this thread should be restricted to light beer only in the stands.
Phill, Yobbo a reminder of the LP comments policy. Both of you tone it down.
“Readers are most welcome to comment and debate. Rational disagreement and civil interchange is thoroughly encouraged. However, please keep discussion civilised.
…
Vexatious and purely abusive comments may be deleted at the discretion of moderators, and repeat offenders may have their IP address placed in moderation, or be IP banned from the site.”
I heard it said this morning that Hair in a former life used to be a fast bowler and would know what it takes to tamper with a ball.
I agree 100% with d derider above.
The Guardian on-line edition http://sport.guardian.co.uk/englandpakistan2006/story/0,,1855526,00.html accompanies its coverage of the cricket farce with the following links:
Special reports:
Pakistan
War in Afghanistan
Attack on America
Kashmir
World news guide:
Pakistan
India
Useful links:
Pakistan government
Dawn news
Pakistan TV
Pakistan military – official site
Pakdef.com
CIA world factbook on Pakistan
I’ve just heard on the radio that Inzi says that if he is not cleared they will pull out of the tour. It is impossible for his players to play if they are considered cheats, he says.
That would cost the authorities a cool $25 million.
Ban him forever, I say!
Didn’t Thommo get a life ban for slugging a soccer umpire? Interrupting the flow of money is clearly as bad.
J. Random Victim: My house has been burgled. I know this because my TV is missing.
PC Yobbo: Did you see anyone actually take it? No? It’s not a burglary then.
An umpire’s job is to see things, BK.
This is the only example I’ve ever heard of where an umpire has seen evidence (of something), and chosen an explanation for it which is one of many possible explanations. In this situation, the umpire is no longer acting as an enforcer of laws with discretionary powers (e.g. policeman) but as judge and jury.
Where’s the defence counsel?
But surely the umpire (or ref, or whatever – it holds for all sports) is judge and jury? The umpire does not blow the whistle and hand you over to the magistrate; he makes a decision there and then in the heat of the moment. (We could debate the merits and COMPLETE KILLING OF THE SPORT of video refs and 3rd umpires if you like. I don’t.)
The umpire (or ref, or whatever) does not defend himself at the point of calling the infringement. Yes, where it is possible he can say (for example) ‘that was a no ball’ (or the linesman in other games can point out an infringement); but with ball tampering the evidence (I contend) is the ball itself. No end of times have I seen players picking at the ball, presumably removing fluff or ‘roaches — and the umpire has not called them. Come on, you’re not going to make it obvious that you’re deliberately picking the seam, are you? “It’s a fair cop guv, you got me bang to rights”.
You have to remember that both umpires made the tampering decision; to look at it another way (and to give your metaphor some weight) then the umpire’s first call is policing, and the consultation of the umpires is jurying.
But you also have to realize, as I’ve just said, that ultimately the umpire is the judge. I’ve seen rugby teams pushed back 10 yards for arguing with the ref. I’ve seen football players given yellow cards for arguing with the ref. And now I’ve seen (well, read about it at least) a team forfeit a test match for arguing with the ref. If you don’t like it, don’t play the game.
No, what I’m suggesting is that both umpires acted like a rugby ref who, on seeing someone unconscious after a scrum, decides it wasn’t an accident and then cites whoever he reckons might have done it with rough play.
Black Knight: The difference here is really that the umpire is not just ruling on whether or not someone is out – they are ruling on whether or not a team is deliberately cheating. If you can’t see the difference between the two then we don’t really have anything else to talk about.
And Shaun – give me a break. I know LP’s comment policy is mainly in place to give you guys an excuse to delete right-wing comments, but how the hell else am I supposed to respond to an obvious troll who has no interest at all in discussion but just enjoys being a fuckhead and spoiling other’s fun?
By being the adult you are instead of resorting to school yard taunts of who can beat up who and excuses of “he started it.”
Simply grow up both of you.
FDB: I understand you. I don’t think you’re right, though; I contend that the ball itself is evidence, that the pattern of distress on the ball is symptomatic. As we seem to be groping for metaphors, let me add another one: someone is lying dead on the kitchen floor. Did they just have a heart attack or did someone put cyanide in their coffee? The state of the body — the evidence — can distinguish between the possibilities.
Naturally, I might be completely off base here and it might turn out that it is not possible to tell by examination of the cricket ball whether it has been tampered with or not. In which case yes (obviously!), the umpire needs further evidence to make a decision. But Hair has not come out and said whether or not there was further evidence (as far as I can tell he’s said nothing at all about the incident), so we have to wait for the ICC inquiry.
Having said that, http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/5273582.stm is interesting.
Yobbo, you have successfully evaded all attempts at sensible conversation. I wish you all the best for your career in politics.
1. He did start it.
2. I can beat him up.
Black Knight: You have pretty much ignored everything I have said on this thread after you became so happy with yourself after proving me wrong on Peitersen. At no stage have you acknowledged anything else I have said, instead relying on the Tim Lambert defense “he made an error once, so everything else he says is wrong forever.”
I don’t really understand what it is you want from me. I’ve tried to argue in good faith but you just pay no attention.
This is quite obviously true. How can you tell by sight if a scratch on the ball was caused by a metal bottle top in the hand of a player, or a metal fence on the edge of the ground?
It is impossible for anyone except a forensic scientist, which Darryl Hair is not. This is why they typically need more evidence than just ball damage to make a call of tampering.
Eh, no, I don’t think I ignored everything you said. I even quoted it in places.
I thought I made a valiant attempt to point out what I thought were flaws in your argument, except where (a) you said something not relevant to the point and (b) it had already been covered by derrida derider on 22 August 2006 at 10:55 am (who posted while I was still composing, by the way).
Have a nice day.
PS. Your assertions are as baseless as mine. Does that make you happy?
I’m telling you from experience that it’s impossible to tell what damaged a cricket ball. Try it yourself if you like. Get someone to damage 2 cricket balls in two different ways and see if you can tell what method was used in each case.
But I really have no more to say to you. You were being a dickhead 20 comments ago, and you are still being a dickhead.
Almost FDB, except that he can’t cite anyone willy nilly so he just awards a penalty and presumably the match review committee will pick up the miscreant. But maybe not in cricket in this case.
In this case I think a five run penalty should end the matter. I note that Inzi has been charged with bringing the game into disrepute which Speed says is a far more serious charge. I’d agree with that too. Inzi is basically defying the ump and you just can’t do that in sport. He had the opportunity of saying something about the incident in his match report as captain. Also if there were any mitigating circumstances they should have been picked up in Mike Proctors report as referee.
Just some conjecture to throw into the mix:
Reverse swing is in part brought about by the way that the seam of the ball lies. If the seam has consistently been picked at, it would be pretty easy to see that the ball has been tampered with. It’s not neccessarily that one side of the ball has been scuffed up, as would have happened from the ball being hit into the stands or into the advertising.
If I had to guess at what made Hair decide that the ball was tampered with, it would be the seam that tells the tale.
In any case, Hair consulted with the other umpire and they both decided that the ball had been tampered with. It’s not necessary to actually catch someone in the act of tampering with the ball to come to the conclusion that the ball would have naturally ended up in the shape that it is in.
Another thought on the ball going into the stands or advertising:
Wouldn’t suspicion of ball tampering come up with the umpire if only one side of the ball was scuffed up (because this is what creates the reverse swing effect)?
What are the chances that if the ball went into the advertising or into the stands that only one side of the ball would get scuffed up?
Seems pretty unlikely that the umpires would make a decision like this unless they really really thought that there was something untoward going on.
Orright. Its ages since Oztralia played and so i’m having a hard time getting worked up about Cricket. And so i’m gonna take a few tangents.
1) Why is bat shit boring, instead of, you know, disgusting,
2) What is a Knobjockey? It rolls off the tongue pretty good i’ll admit, but what is the origin?
3) Yobbo: Ignore him. Or marvel at his lack of punctutation. Actually, i’m not sure whether to put quotation marks around marvel or not.
Yobbo rants:
Spoiling for a fight are you, Yobbo?
When I have I ever said anything of the sort?
What are the chances that if the ball went into the advertising or into the stands that only one side of the ball would get scuffed up?
50%, give or take?
‘Dickhead’?
That the best you can do?
I’m not surprised, given your evidenced level of (il)literacy. Bah, I’m too short for this shit.
Jaems,
reverse swing has more to do with scuffing or roughing up one side of the ball whilst the other remains shiny.
Oictures of the said ball confirm it had been roughed up.
BBEP – I’m aware that the point is to rough up one side of the ball.
My argument is that if the ball was consistently being hit into the stands/advertising then chances are that both sides should be banged up. Thus Yobbo’s argument that the umpires mistook a tampered with ball for one that had just taken a shelacking would probably be wrong.
the ball was hit into the stands ( by Pieterson) AFTER the ball was changed.
The Umpires do NOT need to observe the ball being damaged merely view a ball that has been damaged obviously.
A lot of comments here from people who have obviously never played cricket.
Not really. For one thing, the only part roughed up would be the face of the ball that impacts the concrete/metal. If this happens 4-5 times, it’s not too unusual for it to be on the same side each time. Besides, the type of damage we are talking about doesn’t happen EVERY TIME a boundary is hit, it is the sort of thing that happens every so often when the cricket ball hits something hard or sharp in a certain way.
Secondly, the fielding team will be shining one side of the ball and not the other (which is legal), which will mean that even if both sides are equally roughed up during play, they won’t both remain roughed up.
All that being said, I did hear that Hair had been a fast bowler himself so presumably he’s familiar with all that stuff.
It’s not as though he hasn’t seen a cricket ball that’s being belted around before, or polished, or whatever.
As someone who watches cricket only when I have absolutely no say in the matter, this has been a mildly entertaining dispute. It’s certainly led to one of the best headlines I’ve seen in a while:
Gold star for the sub-editor there. That’s just brilliant.