Cricket India

The Pakistan-Darrel Hair incident is strictly speaking
beyond the purview of this blog. But it has assumed
such a huge proportion that so many non-cricketing
issues are likely to influence the resolution of this
issue. And it is very likely that this particular
development in the wake of a few similar things in the
past, may have a lasting sway over the future course
cricket equations may take.
Let us go through the incident. During England's second
innings in the fourth test, umpire Darrell Hair felt
that the ball had been tampered with. He must have
consulted umpire Billy Doctrove also on this development.
Anyway, Hair who was convinced that some ball-tampering
has taken place, changed the ball and penalized Pakistan
by giving five runs to England. That was before tea on
the fourth day. Pakistan, though unhappy. continued to
play till tea. It was after tea the Pakistani protest
assumed such strong dimensions. They refused to play as
they viewed took Hair's decision as an insult. The
umpires waited for some time on the field and not seeing
the Pakistanis, awarded the match to England.
You can't blame Hair as he has gone by the rules. An
umpire is authorized to punish the culprits if he is
convinced that the ball has been tampered with. Since
the umpire has been given the power to use his discretion,
he is technically correct in his decision.
But what about Pakistan? Was their response to Hair's
decision something condonable according to cricket
rules? Their decision to remain outside the ground
amounts to refusal to play and whatever is their
reason for their indignation, they deserve the punishment.
Now that is the position technically. There are several
shades of emotions in the background especially in the
relationship between Hair and the Asian teams, especially
Sri Lanka and Pakistan. They have a feeling that Hair is
blatantly prejudiced against them. But is thatperception
something which you can prove just like Hair's decision
regarding the ball tampering? Hair is perceived to be a
tough person who does not show any reluctance to take
hard decisions and stick to them. But that doesn't make
him an Asia-hater. The previous instance where he invited
the anger of the Sri Lankans was when he called Murali
a chucker. Well, under the rules of that time he was
bowling with an illegal action. When Hair's calling of
Murali snowballed into a first class crisis, ICC
chickened out and changed the rules so that a 15 degree
bend of the elbow was made legitimate. Hair then was being
strict, even undiplomatic but correct. Remember it is not
the duty of a cricket umpire to dabble in international
diplomacy.
The Pakistanis had several avenues open before them to
register their protest. Instead they chose the law-breaking
one. Now Woolmer is reported to have said that that
Pakistan may keep away from the one-day series if Inzy is
punished for his irresponsible action.
To be frank, I am at a loss to comprehend the direction
such a attitude takes. All teams should realize that they
are playing a game within a well-established framework
of rules. These rules unfortunately are to be interpreted
by human beings. So to reduce the potential damage, we
opt for the best equipped persons for the job. But if
they err in their judgment? All that we can do is prevent
its repetition. Instead such a judgmental response by the
aggrieved party is not going to restore the correct
interpretation of the law concerned. Cricket is essentially
a game which is controlled by two persons who are qualified
to do so. They are among the best in the business. So one
party with a vested interest, in this case Pakistan can't
hijack the power the umpire is invested with.
Another dimension this issue has been given by Inzy is that
it is an insult to the nation. If an individual errs, how
can that be an insult to their nation? Indian weightlifters
or Marion Jones or Landis have been charged with doping.
do the concerned countries consider this a national insult
heaped upon them by the inspecting authority? Or look at
the suspect catches syndrome in cricket. There are
instances where a fielder takes a bump-ball and perhaps
unintentionally, perhaps not, claims a catch. When the
third umpire rules against him, does he take it as a
personal insult? Do the other members of his team show
their solidarity with him by resorting to pressure
tactics?
You may say there is a difference between these situations
as in one case the error is established beyond doubt.
I accept it. But in ball tampering, the umpires' perception
alone can be depended upon as they alone are the best
judges. And obviously that is why the rules have been
framed in such a way. Will any team which has done some
mischief on the ball admit to it?
Hair of course could have done things in a different way
also. He could have talked to Inzy plainly that the ball
needs replacement and gone ahead with his decision and
then reported the matter to the authorities. He may have
been accused of shying away from the rules in the strict
sense but he would have saved the day without harming the
essence of the rules.
I am not ignoring the strong sense of mistrust these
teams have against Hair. The ICC should make an honest
study of the complaints and act on the basis of it. But
you can't expect such an upright course of action from
ICC as it is embroiled in the politics of money and
power.Just because Hair has powerful nations as his
opponents, he should not be left unsupported.

Tags: Pakistan-Hair, ball tampering, ICC, Inzy, Hair

After about a month's rest, Indian cricket team has got
the extra rest for more than ten days in the rain-soaked
Sri Lanka. This uncomfortable, forced rest was a foregone
conclusion for those who were even in a distant way
familiar with the pattern of the monsoon. The south-west
monsoon sets in during the first week of June in Kerala.
It should hit Sri Lanka at least a couple of days earlier.
It is still raining in various parts of India. So Sri Lanka also
should be having rains at this time of the year.
This cricket series looks like a still-born. All that was
required to make the South Africans take the first flight
back home, was a bomb explosion in the vicinity of a
shopping mall which they used to frequent. That meant it
was going to be a Sri Lanka-India three-match series. That
too because India was sensitive to its backyard problems
of the same nature. But such last minute adjustments made
no effect on the rains, It continued to pour. In fact it
continues to pour. The first match of the series was washed
out after just 21 balls were bowled. If you go by the weather
forecast, the next two matches too may go the same way
unless the rain god relents. The BCCI could have been a little
more careful about scheduling the fixtures. Sri Lanka during
monsoon is a big no-no. Worse than India during June-August
period.
Now about the team selected by India for the first match.
Romesh Powar in place of SriSanth was a strong message by
the team management about its reading of the pitch. They were
probably trying to steal a page from the Sri Lankan strategy
book, of using the spinners-both genuine and makeshift- to
suffocate the rival batting during the middle overs supported
by some sharp fielding in the inner ring. This has been their
plan A for the last several years. Even outside Sri Lanka.
Chappell and Dravid were probably trying to borrow that
plan by inducting Powar in the team leaving out SriSanth,
a more than useful bowler.
The same plan also must have influenced them to decide
in favor of batting first. That was a big gamble taken by
Dravid. Either they read the pitch correctly of luck was
with them. The pitch looked much better than what it was
described to be by the experts. But in a truncated match
-even a schoolboy could have guessed that much- batting
second unless dictated by strong reasons has its own
advantages.
Well, all that now is in the realm of discussions. More so
because not much is going to happen most probably during
the next few days to enable you to say I said so.