What is the scoop on this? Was it a bad call? Did Pakistan cheat? Was the Silly Sod Off?
The link pretty much explains what happened. It’s been all over the news programmes in the UK today.
The umpires would have to be fairly sure that Pakistan cheated to change the ball and award penalty runs. The ICC (the world governing body for cricket) has charged Inzamam ul Haq with bringing the game into disrepute, both for ball tampering and for refusing to return to the field after the tea interval.
Pakistan are very sensitive to allegations of cheating, as they have been accused of this before, though it’s never got to the stage of actually causing a match to be called off. They are now saying that Darrell Hair, the Australian umpire, is biased against them and they won’t take part in any more matches with him as umpire. This story will run for quite some time yet.
What’s your personal take on it. Did they cheat?
Here’s the BBC cricket page, which seems to have moved quite fast today. From listening to the radio most of the day, this seems to be evolving into a continuation of older feuds concerning the Umpire, and previous Pakistani behaviour. The concensus on the current instance of the BBC page seems to be that the umpire Darrell Hair has over-reacted. Anyways its a clusterfuck, and doesn’t bode well for the rest of the tour.
Spot on. Either (a) the Pakistani team tampered with the ball, in which case everything that transpired was correct, or (b) they didn’t, in which case both the umpires’ inability to persuade the team to return to the game, plus the ineptitude of the umpires, plus the lack of adherence to the acceptence of decisions which makes cricket possible, all is very embarassing.
The Australian papers seem to back Hair. He has a reputation as a very competent umpire and a hard-ass, not willing to overlook things that others might let slide.
I think the Pakistani team is only hurting itself by their behavior.
Which is hardly a surprise. The Pakistanis’ claims of racism haven’t gone down well: link
I think they probably did, if only because they wanted to be sure of winning at least one Test match in this tour. A 3-0 series defeat would have been embarrassing. (But not half as embarrassing as what’s happened now.)
Having said that, the TV coverage of the match has failed to catch them actually tampering with the ball. Bottom line, Hair is a tough umpire and the Pakistanis aren’t the only side to have had issues with his decisions in the past. Another umpire might well have been more lenient.
Looks like, while Hair may have over-reacted, Pakistan definitley did. Playing the race card, as Pakistan did, is just despicable. Hair is a hardass, but he is one of the most competent and consistent umpires going 'round. He’s also a hero in these parts for no-balling Muralitharin.
When are Pakistan next in Australia? Something tells me they are in for a rough ride from the crowds next time they show their faces here!
mm
I heard former Aussie test player, now commentator, Geoff Lawson on radio today. He stated that Hair’s accusations appear to be very flimsy. It is hard to understand with the number of cameras covering every aspect of play why Hair would not simply report his suspicions to the match referee at the tea break and see if any evidence was forthcoming.
It looks like the England team themselves might have started the (tampered) ball rolling…
I’m Australian and I was there that sad day when Hair called Murali. I certainly don’t back him now and there were plenty at the G that day who didn’t then.
I have never thought of him as a good umpire. He’s about average for the Panel for getting decisions right, but he’s obnoxiously officious and has a long record of getting players’ back up. As well as the Pakistanis and Sri Lankans, he’s also had major run-ins with the New Zealanders and the Sth Africans. If there was going to be a Test abandoned, he was always going to be the senior umpire standing in the match.
That said, of course ball-tampering goes on. And maybe the ball looked suspicious. But the appropiate call was to get the other officials to keep their eyes peeled for evidence of someone doing it (ie, what don’t ask said). Just going on the condition of the ball is unsatisfactory and highly provocative.
…no, not the Pakistanis – the Americans! I am one, and I was intrigued to hear this story on the radio this morning, but having only watched four or five hours of cricket in my life, I confess that I don’t understand the subtleties at play here. My understanding of cricket encompasses the difference between 1, 2, and 6 (or is it 1, 3, and 6?) runs on a hit, a vague comprehension of a wicket and bails, the identity of a bowler and batsman and the silly mid-on, and the knowledge that Test is more prestigious than League. Can someone from the Mother Country (or a sister colony) please explain:
-
What kind of ball-tampering Hair alleged, and how tampering of any sort benefits the bowler / batsman?
-
What is “no-ball” and why was Hair’s previous “no-ball” of Murathi such a big deal?
-
Why Pakistan would cheat if they’d already lost the Test?
Forgive me if I’ve butchered the sport slang.
If you can damage the surface of the ball on just one side, so that there’s higher wind resitance on one side than on the other, you can make the ball move in unusual directions, making it harder for the batter to predict where it will travel.
(The batting side never handles the ball, so they never get a chance to tamper with it.)
Bear in mind that we’re only talking about a five-run penalty - Pakistan’s subsequent petulance was what caused the forfeit of the match.
The change in the rules to allow the bowler to straighten his arm by up to 15 degrees was a direct result of the controversy over Muralitharan’s bowling action. Muralitharan was seen to straighten his arm during delivery of the ball, and Hair’s attitude was that it was an illegal action and he “no-balled” Murali seven times in one match. What made things more awkward was that slow-motion analysis revealed that many other fast bowlers also straightened their arms during delivery, just not quite so much.
They hadn’t lost the Test - they’d lost the series (4 Tests, of which this match was the fourth). They’d lost two and drawn one so far, so the best they could get was a 2-1 result over the series as a whole. But that was still better than 3-0.
To further clarify: When the umpire signals “no ball”, the batsman may still play and score runs. More typically he doesn’t, in which case his team is awarded one run.
There’s a very rough analogy with a balk in baseball.
There’s an analog in baseball, which can be scuffed or doctored with a foreign substance (saliva, traditionally – the spitball). The penalty is ejection of the pitcher (bowler).
The umpire in baseball will generally need more evidence than a scuffed baseball to throw a plaayer out. My reading of this seems to indicate that was the only evidence Hair had. Are they actually claiming they saw the captain scuff the ball?
My understanding is that Hair’s initial decision was to award 5 runs to England, and to bring in a new (but semi-used) ball to replace the allegedly damaged one. He didn’t send any Pakistanis off the field: Pakistan decided to stage a boycott.