ICC rights a wrong

Last July, the ICC wrongly decided that the Oval test of 2006 was a draw. Barely 6 months later, yesterday, the ICC has announced that the original result would stand, i.e. England won the game.

It does seem bizarre that the same organization came to different conclusions. How likely is it that David Morgan, as the ICC President, had his way in return for Sharad Pawar having his way over the ICL being declared 'authorized' cricket?

Instead, the ICC has now left it to individual boards to decide if a game or tournament in its territory was approved or disapproved. What this means is that New Zealand, Pakistan and Bangladesh (the 3 countries mainly impacted by the ICL exodus) can have their players back, but the BCCI will continue to ban ICL players from playing in BCCI-conducted tournaments (& thus be ineligible for national or other representative selection)

Pakistan has been ruled out as the host of the 2009 edition of the ICC Champions Trophy and the new venue will only be decided in April. After the terror attacks in Mumbai in November, India cancelled its tour of Pakistan. Now, Pakistan has responded by barring Pakistani players from playing in the IPL. There's nothing wrong with that. A country has the right (& duty!) to assess threat perception and act accordingly.

But now, we're left with 2 countries being ruled out from hosting the tournament - Pakistan because of the ICC's decision yesterday and India because Pakistani players won't turn up. There's talk of Sri Lanka hosting the tournament, currently scheduled for September-October 2009. But consider that Colombo, the main cricketing centre there with three international grounds, typically has heavy rainfall from end-September all the way till November. The only international cricket venue which will be unaffected by the monsoon is Dambulla, in the centre of the country. Can the pitch handle 15 matches in a span of 17 days? I suspect not!

Do us all a favour - just scrap it!

Labels: 2009 champions trophy, ball tampering, champions trophy, icc, indian cricket league, oval 2006, twenty20

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:47 am | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

ICC gets a few things right at least

The ICC's board met yesterday and there were quite a few significant announcements.

• It emphasized that bilateral series commitments would take precedence over IPL. Now will the WICB do something about Gayle, Chanderpaul and Sarwan who say they will play in the IPL rather than against Australia? I suppose player contracts would have clauses that prevent players from plying their trade elsewhere when they are required to turn out for the national side. That aspect can and should be enforced against Gayle, Chanderpaul and Sarwan. Unlike the bans imposed on ICL players, I don't think this is a restraint of trade situation.
  
• The Zimbabwe Cricket Union gets away scot-free despite the continued scrutiny over the handling of ICC-released funds for over three years now.
  
• The format for the 2011 World Cup is finalized. My post a year ago or so proposed only the top 8 teams having an automatic qualification while the remaining teams play against the ICC trophy finalists in a round-robin manner with the top 2 making it to the main draw. The main draw would have 2 groups of 5 teams each, played in round-robin. The top 3 from each group qualify for a Super Six round with the top 4 being the semi-finalists. There'd be a total of 42 games played, 32 of them being in the main tournament. Subsequent comments argued (rightly) for the second stage being a quarter-final knockout. This'd reduce the number of main draw games to 27. The ICC's thinking is on the lines of all 10 full ODI playing countries being joined by the top 4 finishers from a qualified (presumably the ICC trophy). The 14 teams are split into 2 groups of 7 each. The top 4 from each group go on to play quarter-finals and the winners of the quarter finals play the semis. This means there'd be 28 47 (2 x 7C2 + 4 + 2 + 1) games. Perhaps, in the interest of 'inclusivity' in cricket, the ICC's format is acceptable. That's far too many games!
  
• Player referrals will be trialled from South Africa's tour of England this summer. I eagerly look forward to player revolts, especially by lower order batsmen and part-time bowlers, against captains and team management, who discourage them from appealing against on-field umpire decisions so that the better batsmen or bowlers can benefit, just in case the appeal isn't worth it.
  
• Darrell Hair, who was hung out to dry in around November 2006, has been reinstated and will be eligible to umpire games between full member teams until March 2009, when his contract expires. This was always the right thing to do. Darrell Hair is a good umpire. He isn't incompetent, when you compare him with Bucknor or Benson. He took a harsh decision on 20 Aug 2006, but it was the right decision.
  
• Imtiaz Patel has been 'selected' as the CEO, but the negotiations are not yet done. Last year, we saw a similar situation with the farce around Graham Ford's appointment, and subsequent withdrawal, as India's coach. Why did the ICC put its foot firmly in its mouth by prematurely announcing Imtiaz Patel's name when he hadn't even agreed?!

Labels: 2011, 2011 world cup, ball tampering, forfeit, hair, icc, indian premier league, ipl 2008, oval 2006, pakistan, reviews, scheduling, twenty20, west indies, world cup, zimbabwe

Thus spake Jagadish @ 4:19 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Five runs penalty for Pakistan, again!

One of Inzamam's first acts on returning to the Pakistan team for his farewell test was to accidentally palm the ball onto the helmet behind Kamran Akmal, thereby costing Pakistan five runs.

38.4 Mohammad Asif to Prince, no run, outside off, and he gets the edge at last, falls short of Inzamam at slip, Akmal may have reached that if he had dived, the ball comes off Inzamam's hand, rolls away and into the helmet, 5 penalty runs given

The significance of this is that it was a rather uneventful act in comparison to the last time he/his team were involved in an act which cost five runs.

Delicious irony and coincidence, considering this happened just one day before Darrell Hair withdrew his allegations of racial discrimination by the ICC.

Labels: ball tampering, forfeit, hair, inzamam, oval 2006, pakistan, retire

Thus spake Jagadish @ 2:46 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Pakistan sideline Inzamam

As a result of the pitiful ban he copped after his team's "protest" at The Oval in August following an accusation of tampering with the ball, the Pakistan Cricket Board decided to replace Inzamam-ul-Haq with Faisal Iqbal for the ICC Champions Trophy.

But, this means Inzamam will not be able to play if Pakistan reaches the final, even though he'd have served out a four match ban. Inzamam's ban would only be done and dusted with after the semi-final stage. My guess is that even if Pakistan ensures shows that one of the players got injured during the tournament, they still can't get a replacement. I think replacements are only allowed if an injury was sustained to a member of the 14-man squad before the tournament.

Pakistan may have actually been better off letting Inzamam be part of the squad, hoping that they reached the final (which isn't entirely unlikely!), by when he'd be eligible to grace the occasion. I can't see Faisal Iqbal actually make it to the playing 11, given that the middle order would be pretty formidable as it is (Younis Khan, Mohd. Yousuf, Afridi & Razzaq).

Labels: 2006 champions trophy, ball tampering, champions trophy, oval 2006

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:51 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

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

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:17 am | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Inzamam to be rested too

Though the headline is obviously misleading, that is certainly the impression Shahryar Khan gave when he defended Zaheer Abbas being sacked rested as manager following Pakistan's disastrous "protest" at The Oval and the inevitable forfeit.

He has not been replaced because of what happened at the Oval. We need him as a witness for the ICC hearings later in September. After that, if the need for an appeal rises, then we might need him further so that might interfere with his role as manager. This is not a criticism or indictment of his role. It is no reflection on him.

Firstly, the ICC Champions Trophy, for which Zaheer Abbas has been replaced by Talat Ali, begins in October while the ICC's hearing is scheduled for September 27 and 28.

Secondly, like Ganesh pointed out to me, if Zaheer Abbas is needed for the hearing, and also possibly further in case of an appeal, so is Inzamam. But he has been named as Pakistan's captain for the ICC Champions Trophy.

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that Inzamam is going to be rested sacked as Pakistan's captain for the ICC Champions Trophy. If you believed what Shahryar said, you ought to believe this too!

Labels: ball tampering, forfeit, oval 2006

Thus spake Jagadish @ 5:16 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

"I don't know what's going on out there"

That's exactly what Fred Trueman would have said, were he alive, after a day that saw drama suddenly pop up in the evening, much like it had last Sunday evening.

Just when the ICC was faced with the need to act fast on hearing the charges against Inzamam, a shocking revelation by ICC Chief Executive Malcolm Speed has rocked the boat, big-time.

Malcolm Speed revealed that Darrell Hair had offered to quit as an umpire for a one-off settlement of US $500,000. i.e. he'd offered to take money to not umpire, as opposed to taking money to not play well.

Subsequently, as the emails dated August 22^nd 2006 reveal, he did back down on his protest, but only to the extent that the offer could be revised in the light of racism claims.

So what does this amount to? Is he accepting that his actions were not right? Could this set a precedent now? The next time an umpire gets into a controversy, will he do the same thing, i.e. offer to quit on payment of a huge sum? Isn't Hair in breach of any ICC code of conduct?

Labels: ball tampering, hair, oval 2006

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:49 pm | Sledge/Read 4 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

ICC to think 'out of the box'

Following Ranjan Madugalle's inability to chair the code of conduct hearing against Inzamam for his part in le fiasco à l'Ovale (Try translating 'the fiasco at The Oval' into French), and Pakistan upping the ante by insisting on a quick hearing, the ICC will be hard-pressed to locate a match referee who can handle the hearing.

If Madugalle can't make it, the ICC needs to pick one from Chris Broad, Jeff Crowe, Alan Hurst, Clive Lloyd, Roshan Mahanama, Mike Procter and Javagal Srinath. We can straightaway rule out Alan Hurst and Clive Lloyd since they'd be of the same nationality as one of the umpires involved. We also rule out Mike Procter since he was in charge of the game. Javagal Srinath is far too new to be handling this inquiry.

This leaves us with Chris Broad, Jeff Crowe and Roshan Mahanama. Chris Broad once ensured that his shoes were stuck to the pitch in Pakistan, which explained why he refused to get on his bike and ride away to the pavillion even after being given out.

So who among Jeff Crowe and Roshan Mahanama will it be?

I've got a much better option for them: This chap, who hated umpires may be acceptable to Pakistan!

Labels: ball tampering, match referee, oval 2006

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:46 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

More fun from Woolmer & Madugalle

They [bowlers] could rub the ball on the ground, pick the seam, scratch it with their nails - anything that allows the ball to move off the seam to make it less of a batsman's game.

That was Bob Woolmer's latest comment on the ongoing issue of ball-tampering. Is he talking international cricket or some cricket on the streets? I completely agree that the laws should be revised to make it less of a batsman's game, but not ridiculous rules like the 15 degrees one. But, knowing the ICC, we may soon hear that ball-tampering is legal but the extent of damage to the ball/seam should not exceed 20%

Let's wait for Madugalle to get well soon and hope optimistically that there would be a good decision coming out after the hearing. By the way, does any of you agree with me that Madugalle might not be really ill, given that both Pakistan and Sri Lanka cricket boards officially hate Darrell Hair?

Labels: ball tampering, hair, oval 2006

Thus spake Ganesh @ 3:54 pm | Sledge/Read 6 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Mr. Darrell wasn't wrong at all

I absolutely don't get the point of why so many people blame Hair for yesterday's happenings at The Oval.

I agree that the ICC should have done something to inform the spectators. But, it was completely Pakistan's/Inzamam's/PCB's mistake of staging the protest by sitting in. There should be a counter where you can register your protests and complaints. The way Pakistan did it was awfully stupid. I am surprised that it happened even with so many PCB supremos in the corridor. Even if the players get agitated at times, isn't the board answerable to the ICC? Even Shahryar Khan was blaming the umpire instead of asking his team to get out and play and he seemed to suggest that his team was out there waiting and the umpire didn't turn up. Probably, he was blind on the previous instance when his team was having a meeting instead of setting up field positions out there at the centre.

Every team and every individual has their (un)fair share of decisions going against them. Yes, this was not just a decision going against Pakistan. But, given their history of cheating and not abiding to bowling degrees and rules, they have no right to feel hurt. They can't be hurt today as they didn't seem to be too hurt when one of their notorious team members deliberately damaged the pitch in the previous series against the same opposition and it was not even in a bowling action follow-through. Being religious is not an excuse for cheating - one may be very religious and pray five times a day and still cheat. We cannot be playing the game with saints and priests, Mr. Geoffrey. I thought even your mum could figure this out.

I am shocked to read Inzamam saying that it was a matter of honour. This is the same captain who didn't even know the rules well when he played a defensive shot to a throw from a fielder at the stumps and later claimed that he was given out when he avoided a throw previously.

I hope the ICC does something to ensure that teams just don't take this as a precedent and remain in the dressing room whenever something goes against them. Though I am not very happy about England winning the Test, by whatever means, I feel Pakistan deserved to lose this Test and even face some more punishment for the forfeiture. Teams and individuals have been fined and some players have missed matches due to over-appealing, in spite of being right. Captains have faced suspensions for not bowling overs in time. Batsmen have been fined for showing the bat after an inside-edged lbw decision. Hence, this definitely warrants harsher punishments. And any of you know of any rule that says the umpire should provide video evidence of ball-tampering?

As for what apparently happened, it'll be very interesting to read the autobiographies of some of these players some years later, assuming they do touch upon yesterday's events. After all, Imran Khan said nothing about reverse swing and ball tampering techniques until he'd retired. We'd have a lovely Prisoner's dilemma like situation. If player A's autobiography says that player P was to blame, then player B's autobiography should also mention P's name. Otherwise we'll have to assume that the whole team was involved!

And by the way, if Hair is biased against Pakistan, what about Bucknor's rulings against India?

NB: I'm a qualified state-level umpire and I've umpired district-level games. I'm absolutely certain that Hair was not at fault. He went by the rule book twice - when hauling up Pakistan for altering the condition of the ball and by announcing that by not turning up post-tea, Pakistan had conceded the game.

Labels: ball tampering, forfeit, hair, oval 2006

Thus spake Ganesh @ 6:25 pm | Sledge/Read 38 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Pakistan forfeit test

If you've already read this post earlier, scroll down to the list of columns/articles on the issue. That part keeps getting updated.

Like Matt said, the fourth test at The Oval was awarded to England after the umpires, Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove, reasoned that by not taking the field post-tea, Pakistan had conceded the game.

A joint statement by the ICC, ECB and PCB revealed that the umpires didn't come out when Pakistan did because in their opinion, the game was over. So why didn't they pull out the stumps when they left the field? Like I pointed out yesterday, flicking off the bails doesn't mean game up.

What happens now if video evidence emerges indicating that some Pakistani player(s) did alter the condition of the ball before the umpires asked to inspect it? How about if the 26 cameras around the ground didn't capture a thing? Who has the burden of proof?

What the cricketing world is saying.

• Andrew Miller, "What a horrible mess"
  
• Angus Fraser, "It's just not cricket!"
  
• Blue and Brown, "Darrell Hair - not a diplomat, but he is quite fat"
  
• Christopher Martin-Jenkins, "ICC largely to blame as game is ultimate loser"
  
• Chris (The Burnt Bail), "Darryl Hair's petulance exceeds his trouser size"
  
• Cricinfo Surfer, "The Oval debacle"
  
• Geoff Boycott, "Hair cuts an over-officious figure in the game"
  
• Imran Khan, "Hair the Hitler does it again"
  
• Intikhab Alam, "Umpire Hair should have come up with proof"
  
• Jonathan Agnew, "While I do have some sympathy for Pakistan, staging a sit-in was not the right way to register their protest"
  
• Kamran Abbasi, "Hair-raising row turns Oval Test on its head"
  
• Khalid Hussain, "Hair-raising incident sets fire to a dead Test rubber"
  
• Lawrence Booth, "Isolated Hair's future in doubt as ECB fumes"
  
• Mihir Bose, "Attack on Inzy's "izzat" was the last straw"
  
• Nasser Hussain, "I'd have done the same if I had been in Inzy's shoes"
  
• Pratyush (Sportolysis), "Cricket suffers"
  
• Ramiz Raja, "Pakistan in the crossHair"
  
• Rick Eyre, "First thoughts on the Fourth Test"
  
• Scott (The Corridor), "Oval Test awarded to England"
  
• Stu (STUmpCam), "It's just not cricket....;-("
  
• Ted Corbett, "Ball tampering row in spotlight"

Vote in the poll about who is to blame for the fiasco.

Labels: ball tampering, forfeit, hair, oval 2006

Thus spake Jagadish @ 5:20 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

A lot of questions and no answers

There's been nothing short of high farce played out over the last couple of hours at The Oval after the tea break. Pakistan went into the break facing charges of altering with the condition of the ball. Obviously incensed at the accusation, the team refused to come back on the field.

The only other time I've seen something similar was Ranatunga leading his team to the edge of the ground at Adelaide in 1999 after umpire Ross Emerson had called Murali for chucking.

The umpires, Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove, came out. The two not-out England batsmen, Ian Bell and Paul Collingwood, also came out. After waiting for the Pakistan team, the two umpires chatted with the batsmen and knocked down the bails. The cameras kept focussing on the Pakistan dressing room. Kamran Akmal didn't have pads or gloves on and was reading the newspaper. That was a sure indication that Pakistan weren't playing ball. Shahryar Khan, the PCB chairman and the head of the ECB (I think) went into the Pakistan dressing room and a few minutes later, thumbs up signs were shown, indicating that the issue was close to resolution.

Inzamam then came out with the rest of his side. They went onto the field but then realized that neither the umpires nor the two England batsmen were following them. In fact, they ought to have figured it out earlier. Teams go onto the field only after the umpires do. So they were only making some sort of a point by going on the field although the umpires weren't in sight.

They threw the ball around for a while and then returned to the dressing room. It was obvious that the two umpires were now protesting. Whether it was Darrell Hair who refused to go back or if it was a collective decision by both umpires is as yet unknown. After this, there was really no chance of play, especially since the light had also faded.

So now here're the questions. Where're the answers?

• Was the ball actually tampered with?
  
• If so, did the umpires see someone do it, or were they merely basing their judgement on how they saw the ball at a specific point in time?
  
• Does the act of the umpires, i.e. charging the Pakistan team with altering the condition of the ball, amount to an accusation of cheating?
  
• Do the umpires have to necessarily point out exactly who they saw fingering around with the ball? If the issue were taken to court, could lack of evidence on TV prove that Pakistan didn't tamper with the ball?
  
• If the ICC's code of conduct is applied, will the entire Pakistan team be charged under a Level 2 offence, assuming that there's no evidence against one specific individual?
  
• Should Pakistan have actually just conceded the match, thereby ensuring that their protest was amply reflected?
  
• What did Pakistan hope to achieve by not coming out and then coming back on the field?
  
• Where did they get that ball, which they were playing around with on the field, from? I thought the ball would have been in the possession of the umpires.
  
• Even if the umpires had come back, would they have offered the light to the batsmen?
  
• Why doesn't the ICC rules of mobile phones in dressing rooms apply? We saw so many folks chatting on their mobile phones.
  
• How would some of these players, Mike Atherton, Waqar Younis, Shoaib Akhtar, have felt, given they've been at the receiving end of ball-tampering controversies earlier?
  
• What is match referee Mike Procter's role? Why didn't he get Inzamam, Strauss, Doctrove and Hair together to sort it out rather than wait for Pakistan's dressing room meeting to finish?
  
• Does the umpires' act of taking the bails off indicate the game is over? I think not. The bails being taken off indicate an end/abandonment of play for the moment (rain break/bad light/end of a session etc.). End of the game is when the stumps are uprooted (by the umpires and by the victorious team, if any!)
  
• Why hasn't the ICC even bothered to make some sort of a statement on this issue, at least to let viewers/spectators know what's going on?
  
• Why didn't ESPN go to a single advertisement break?
  
• The last time a ball tampering controversy erupted big-time, an England-India test series was nearly cancelled. What about this match? What about the forthcoming one-dayers?

So who's to blame? Vote in the poll.

Labels: ball tampering, hair, match referee, oval 2006

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:55 pm | Sledge/Read 6 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Controversy brewing

If it's England v Pakistan, can controversy be far behind? Even beginning from my memory of series between the two sides, there've been quite a few issues.

Shakoor Rana v Mike Gatting, Ian Botham's mother-in-law comment, Chris Broad incensed at being given out, the Imran v Botham & Lamb libel case, Aaqib yanking his sweater from an umpire, the whole match-fixing issue where Alec Stewart played for England even as Saleem Malik & Ata-ur-Rehman were banned, ball-tampering & reverse swing by Wasim and Waqar, Mike Atherton calling a Pakistan journalist a buffoon in the 1996 World Cup and and Shahid Afridi's mid-pitch break-dancing last year. I'm fairly sure I've missed more than a few.

In any case, today's incident during the on-going Oval test, saw the umpires (Hair & Doctrove) pull up Pakistan for changing the condition of the ball, as Geoff pointed out just before I began to write this post. The seam was apparently lifted. The ball has been changed.

Mark Nicholas would've said "Ooooh! Massive, this!"

Labels: ball tampering, hair, oval 2006

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:31 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]