When in trouble, stage a "protest"
The ICC's decision to let Inzamam get away nearly scot-free (4 one-dayers for making a mockery of the game!) after the events of a few Sundays ago at The Oval where Pakistan, after being charged with altering the condition of the ball, staged a "protest" and eventually forfeited the test, will undoubtedly embolden other cricketers to follow suit.
If a side, say India, wants to ensure that an umpire, say Steve Bucknor, who has been quite hopeless several times against India, never does duty in a game featuring that team, then all they need to do is to alter the condition of the ball, be accused of ball-tampering, stage a farcical protest and forfeit the game. Then the ICC steps in and plays good-cop bad-cop a few times and rules that although the team didn't tamper with the ball, they were wrong in protesting and that due to 'security reasons', the umpire won't bother turning up for games involving the said team!
So, if Australia wanted to ensure that Billy Bowden doesn't umpire games involving Australia, given that he isn't rated too highly by Aussie players, what Aussies in their right mind would do is to warn Bowden not to set foot in Australia, or else ... Promptly there'd be a security concern about it and Bowden wouldn't umpire.
Ranjan Madugalle, who couldn't make it for the earlier scheduled date of the hearing, after hearing arguments from all sides, decided that Pakistan (and thus Inzamam) was not guilty of altering the condition of the ball. But he was guilty, as captain, of bringing the game into disrepute. Hence the ban for 4 one-dayers, even if the maximum permissible was 4 tests or 8 one-dayers. Inzamam will miss Pakistan's next 4 one-dayers, some of which will be played during the ICC Champions Trophy. Apparently, the PCB has convinced the ICC to bend some more rules to let them name a replacement at short notice.
Darrell Hair, who was left hung out to dry when the ICC's sudden fixation with transparency came to the fore, will not umpire in the ICC Champions Trophy.
Labels: ball tampering, forfeit, hair, oval 2006
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed -
| its not inzamam that got away that darell hair made a mockery of cricket game and still is in icc elite empire panel
By 
(29 Sept 2006, 10:27:00 am)
Pamthee: Four one-dayers ban for not turning up on the cricket pitch is pitiful, especially when the maximum ban is 4 tests or 8 one-day internationals. This is why Inzi has got away scot-free. As for Hair, I'm fairly sure he's on the way out. My prediction a couple of days after the fiasco has turned out to be spot-on. I wrote "Like I also pointed out, I fully expect the PCB, BCCI and SLC to gang up. The ultimate result will be that Inzy will get a ban for not more than 4 ODIs. While the ICC won't explicitly admit to it, Hair will be conveniently ignored for series involving Pakistan & Sri Lanka. That'll satisfy all parties."
By 
Jagadish (29 Sept 2006, 6:00:00 pm)
We'd prefer if you posted comments with your real name to add more credibility to your opinions. However, the moderators reserve the right to delete comments, especially those containing offensive or unsuitable language. The opinions in the comments are your own views. You are welcome to provide a URL to your own cricket blog, but the moderators reserve the right to delete comments which only reference sites for viewing live streams.
Links within entries open in a new window. Some of the links may now be broken/not take you to the expected report since the original content providers may have archived/removed the contents. Some of the sites linked may require registration/subscription.
All opinions expressed are those of the authors alone. The authors' respective employers (past, present or future) are in no way connected to the opinions expressed here.
All pictures, photographs used are copyrights of the original owners. We do not intend to infringe on any copyright. Pictures and photographs are used here to merely accentuate and enhance the content value to our readers.
|
|
|
|
Post a Comment