Since that dramatic ball-fingering incident , much soiled and slushy water has flown under the London bridge. And the ICC top honchos have been busy indulging in conspiratorial moves , like a bunch of quivering sissies, looking at slimily distancing themselves from the slummy drama , even as they find soft-necked sacrificial scapegoats.
Darrell Hair
Readers are requested to click on my article 8/20 -- CRICKET'S EQUIVALENT OF 9/11, wherein I had categorically stated that ICC should settle this explosive issue with swift cracking efficiency, as the subject matter had the potential to escalate into a an incandesecent ball of burning fire otherwise. That's exactly what is happening even as I write. But let me simplify this bizarre episode:
A QUICK RE-CAP; INZAMAN VS HAIR
In Defense of Darrell Hair
1) Hair was within his rights to assume that there was ball-tampering
2) Hair was within his rights to call the match-off finally
3) Remember, Hair did walk-out after tea, but it was Inzaman-ul-Haq who stayed indoors to register protest. The first clear contravention was by the Pakistan team.
4) Yes, Inzy did walk out later but by then he had violated a cardinal principle, and Hair was technically justified in stating that the game had been forfeited.
5) Hair DID NOT ACT unilaterally as is being assumed just because of his Amazonian proportions; he also had a fledgling rookie second umpire by the name of Billy Doctrove who seconded his mighty opinions.
6) In effect, on account of dual decision-making in pt 5, once again technically speaking, Hair cannot be accused of racial segregation
Inzamam-ul-Haq
The Argument Against Hair
1) Did he have a strong corroborative physical evidence to prove ball-tampering , or was it an instinctive over-reaction? Or was he quite simply-----biased and prejudiced.?
2) What was Mike Proctor doing when the entire Broadway act was being staged; why have we not heard a single prudent comment from this man who was supposed to be a Match referee? Did Hair consult him?
3) Why didn't he explain the ball-tampering suspicions to Inzaman , and prepare him for impending doom, as opposed to slamming him with a hard punch on his rear, which was the reason why Inzaman got flummoxed and furious anyway?
4) Shouldn't he have had the practical good-sense to empathise with the Pakistan skipper's dire straits, and instead of sitting on a technical high-horse and calling the game-off , got back into the match once the Pakistan team had trooped back into the green turf?
HAIR VS ICC
In defense of Hair
1) Hair played by the book in dealing with the ball-tampering issue; so why did ICC start breathing down his neck? In fact, if the ICC rules are nebulous, fuzzy and prone to subjective interpretation , whose fault is it? Shouldn't ICC have looked into these issues and amended these archaic laws prior to it becoming an international scandal? And why didn't ICC prevail upon Hair earlier instead of responding belatedly once the match was officially forfeited?
2) Hair should be complimented for giving ICC the option to seek his resignation in case his actions had unwittingly created serious political repercussions and feelings of racial and religious discrimination.
3) A cricket umpire is not a Who'sWho cash-rich celebrity post-retirement; so what is the big deal if Hair asked for a USD 500,000 to compensate for voluntarily quitting his professional career in order to defuse a potentially inflammatory issue? What would have the sanctimonious Dickie Bird done differently, if umpiring was his only source of income and there were no alternative career opportunities?
4) Hair wrote his letter to ICC after discussions with them; it is as apparent as daylight that Hair was either cajoled or pressurized into writing and making that offer of USD 500, 000 to ICC. So isn't Hair being made into appearing like a quick-fix money-making deal-maker or is it ICC which has actually indulged in playing squalid politics?
5) In fact, Hair has every reason to feel deceived and cheated for by the ICC which has made the " confidential" documents, public.
Malcom Speed
The Arguments against Hair
1) If Hair was so convinced that he was correct and honest of his ball-tampering findings, why did he have to succumb to ICC diktat?
2) Is Hair then perhaps actually guilty, and fearing indictment in inquiry proceedings, is looking for a quick settlement with pecuniary gains to boot to forestall the issue?
In fact, in light of the above factual ( farcical?) issues, it is obvious that ICC has been prevaricating and swinging on a pendulum while being semi-comatose ,andthey are quite evidently in need of a clinical Viagra over-dose.
I ask the following questions to the ICC:
1) Why has it taken ICC so long to get an independent panel-formed to investigate and close out the issue within a maximum of 4 days after the event?
2) Why were they trying to broker a deal with Hair? Why are they hanging him with a thin rope from a calamitous height now?
3) How can Malcolm Speed first state that Hair is correct, and then also make comments that Hair may not officiate anymore? What are the grounds for this sudden turnaround?
4) Hasn't ICC been caught napping by it's own old-fashioned, amorphous and subjective rules?
5) How can a meeting being planned in Dubai being attended by respective country cricket chiefs decide the fair and logical outcome of the Oval match controversy? Won't it further divide the cricket world into separate blocs?
6) If Hair is censured won't it permanently undermine the authority of the umpires?
Mike Proctor
In conclusion, I feel that Mr Malcolm Speed's name is a misnomer ; he is no Michael Schumacher . In fact, the CEO of ICC should have taken a leaf out of FIFA's books and seen how effectively and within days of the controversial World Cup final they doled out justice, penalties and warnings on the famous head-butt involving French superstar Zinedine Zidane. In one sweeping stroke, FIFA eliminated room for idle speculation, political machinations and oppressive uncertainty.
My humble recommendation for resolving the issue are as follows:
1) Pakistan did forfeit the match on technical grounds , and England should be declared as winners.
2) Darrell Hair should be allowed to officiate as an umpire , even in matches involving Pakistan in the future. This should be ICCs call.
3) Inzaman-ul-Haq should be pardoned from being banned for matches as a punishment as an exceptional case , but with a warning.
4) ICC should immediately appoint a Committee to review all sensitive rules and regulations which have now become antiquated and outdated.
My case rests.
Sanjay Jha is the Managing Editor of www.cricketnext.com About the AuthorSanjay Jha Sanjay Jha is a hard-core “Congressi” largely on account of being enchanted by the incredible brilliance of the Gandhi-Nehru mystique, its array of in...Read Morefirst published:August 29, 2006, 13:08 ISTlast updated:August 29, 2006, 13:08 IST
window._taboola = window._taboola || [];_taboola.push({mode: 'thumbnails-mid-article',container: 'taboola-mid-article-thumbnails',placement: 'Mid Article Thumbnails',target_type: 'mix'});
let eventFire = false;
window.addEventListener('scroll', () => {
if (window.taboolaInt && !eventFire) {
setTimeout(() => {
ga('send', 'event', 'Mid Article Thumbnails', 'PV');
ga('set', 'dimension22', "Taboola Yes");
}, 4000);
eventFire = true;
}
});
window._taboola = window._taboola || [];_taboola.push({mode: 'thumbnails-a', container: 'taboola-below-article-thumbnails', placement: 'Below Article Thumbnails', target_type: 'mix' });Latest News
At least currently the most famous Darrell in the universe can boast of hair, but the game's so-called highest governing body , the ICC, has at best revealed it's shining bald plate, bereft of simple common-sense, lacking an iota of basic intelligence, and perhaps most horribly, being egregiously unethical. I personally feel that in the interest of the game at large, on account of abdicating responsibility, delaying prompt justice and encouraging back-door political manouevering , the current ICC management must take full ownership and collectively hang their head in silent shame. Because unlike the two principal protagonists in this War of the Worlds, Darrell Hair and Inzaman-ul-Haq, it is the ICC in fact, through it's unprofessional, incompetent and incongruous dilly-dallying in resolving the ball-tampering issue which has " brought the game into disrepute ".
Since that dramatic ball-fingering incident , much soiled and slushy water has flown under the London bridge. And the ICC top honchos have been busy indulging in conspiratorial moves , like a bunch of quivering sissies, looking at slimily distancing themselves from the slummy drama , even as they find soft-necked sacrificial scapegoats.
Darrell Hair
Readers are requested to click on my article 8/20 -- CRICKET'S EQUIVALENT OF 9/11, wherein I had categorically stated that ICC should settle this explosive issue with swift cracking efficiency, as the subject matter had the potential to escalate into a an incandesecent ball of burning fire otherwise. That's exactly what is happening even as I write. But let me simplify this bizarre episode:
A QUICK RE-CAP; INZAMAN VS HAIR
In Defense of Darrell Hair
1) Hair was within his rights to assume that there was ball-tampering
2) Hair was within his rights to call the match-off finally
3) Remember, Hair did walk-out after tea, but it was Inzaman-ul-Haq who stayed indoors to register protest. The first clear contravention was by the Pakistan team.
4) Yes, Inzy did walk out later but by then he had violated a cardinal principle, and Hair was technically justified in stating that the game had been forfeited.
5) Hair DID NOT ACT unilaterally as is being assumed just because of his Amazonian proportions; he also had a fledgling rookie second umpire by the name of Billy Doctrove who seconded his mighty opinions.
6) In effect, on account of dual decision-making in pt 5, once again technically speaking, Hair cannot be accused of racial segregation
Inzamam-ul-Haq
The Argument Against Hair
1) Did he have a strong corroborative physical evidence to prove ball-tampering , or was it an instinctive over-reaction? Or was he quite simply-----biased and prejudiced.?
2) What was Mike Proctor doing when the entire Broadway act was being staged; why have we not heard a single prudent comment from this man who was supposed to be a Match referee? Did Hair consult him?
3) Why didn't he explain the ball-tampering suspicions to Inzaman , and prepare him for impending doom, as opposed to slamming him with a hard punch on his rear, which was the reason why Inzaman got flummoxed and furious anyway?
4) Shouldn't he have had the practical good-sense to empathise with the Pakistan skipper's dire straits, and instead of sitting on a technical high-horse and calling the game-off , got back into the match once the Pakistan team had trooped back into the green turf?
HAIR VS ICC
In defense of Hair
1) Hair played by the book in dealing with the ball-tampering issue; so why did ICC start breathing down his neck? In fact, if the ICC rules are nebulous, fuzzy and prone to subjective interpretation , whose fault is it? Shouldn't ICC have looked into these issues and amended these archaic laws prior to it becoming an international scandal? And why didn't ICC prevail upon Hair earlier instead of responding belatedly once the match was officially forfeited?
2) Hair should be complimented for giving ICC the option to seek his resignation in case his actions had unwittingly created serious political repercussions and feelings of racial and religious discrimination.
3) A cricket umpire is not a Who'sWho cash-rich celebrity post-retirement; so what is the big deal if Hair asked for a USD 500,000 to compensate for voluntarily quitting his professional career in order to defuse a potentially inflammatory issue? What would have the sanctimonious Dickie Bird done differently, if umpiring was his only source of income and there were no alternative career opportunities?
4) Hair wrote his letter to ICC after discussions with them; it is as apparent as daylight that Hair was either cajoled or pressurized into writing and making that offer of USD 500, 000 to ICC. So isn't Hair being made into appearing like a quick-fix money-making deal-maker or is it ICC which has actually indulged in playing squalid politics?
5) In fact, Hair has every reason to feel deceived and cheated for by the ICC which has made the " confidential" documents, public.
Malcom Speed
The Arguments against Hair
1) If Hair was so convinced that he was correct and honest of his ball-tampering findings, why did he have to succumb to ICC diktat?
2) Is Hair then perhaps actually guilty, and fearing indictment in inquiry proceedings, is looking for a quick settlement with pecuniary gains to boot to forestall the issue?
In fact, in light of the above factual ( farcical?) issues, it is obvious that ICC has been prevaricating and swinging on a pendulum while being semi-comatose ,andthey are quite evidently in need of a clinical Viagra over-dose.
I ask the following questions to the ICC:
1) Why has it taken ICC so long to get an independent panel-formed to investigate and close out the issue within a maximum of 4 days after the event?
2) Why were they trying to broker a deal with Hair? Why are they hanging him with a thin rope from a calamitous height now?
3) How can Malcolm Speed first state that Hair is correct, and then also make comments that Hair may not officiate anymore? What are the grounds for this sudden turnaround?
4) Hasn't ICC been caught napping by it's own old-fashioned, amorphous and subjective rules?
5) How can a meeting being planned in Dubai being attended by respective country cricket chiefs decide the fair and logical outcome of the Oval match controversy? Won't it further divide the cricket world into separate blocs?
6) If Hair is censured won't it permanently undermine the authority of the umpires?
Mike Proctor
In conclusion, I feel that Mr Malcolm Speed's name is a misnomer ; he is no Michael Schumacher . In fact, the CEO of ICC should have taken a leaf out of FIFA's books and seen how effectively and within days of the controversial World Cup final they doled out justice, penalties and warnings on the famous head-butt involving French superstar Zinedine Zidane. In one sweeping stroke, FIFA eliminated room for idle speculation, political machinations and oppressive uncertainty.
My humble recommendation for resolving the issue are as follows:
1) Pakistan did forfeit the match on technical grounds , and England should be declared as winners.
2) Darrell Hair should be allowed to officiate as an umpire , even in matches involving Pakistan in the future. This should be ICCs call.
3) Inzaman-ul-Haq should be pardoned from being banned for matches as a punishment as an exceptional case , but with a warning.
4) ICC should immediately appoint a Committee to review all sensitive rules and regulations which have now become antiquated and outdated.
My case rests.
Sanjay Jha is the Managing Editor of www.cricketnext.com
Comments
0 comment