Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Inzamam charged with ball tampering, maligning game

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Inzamam charged with ball tampering, maligning game

    Tuesday, August 22, 2006 E-Mail this article to a friend Printer Friendly Version

    Inzamam charged with ball tampering, maligning game

    DUBAI: The International Cricket Council (ICC) charged Pakistani cricket captain Inzamamul Haq with bringing the game into disrepute after his team forfeited the fourth test against England.

    “The umpires brought forward two charges, one for changing the ball’s condition and the other for bringing the game into disrepute,” said a Dubai-based ICC spokesman.

    Both charges were brought against Inzamam for his role as captain of Pakistan following the incident that rocked the fourth day’s play. “The charge laid on Sunday was a level two charge, under the ICC code of conduct, of changing the ball’s condition,” said ICC Chief Executive Malcolm Speed.

    “The charge brought forward by umpires on Monday was for bringing the game of cricket into disrepute — this is a charge under level three of the code of conduct,” he added.

    Pakistan refused to take the field following tea on Sunday after the team was penalised five runs. The team took to the field later, but the umpires awarded the match to England after a meeting. If Inzamam is found guilty of ball tampering, he will be fined his entire match fee, and/or banned from playing one test match or two one-day matches, whichever is played earlier.

    The charge for bringing the game into disrepute was brought forward following a meeting on Monday, said an ICC release. The penalty for bringing the game into disrepute, if found guilty, would be a ban between two to four tests, or four to eight one-dayers, it added. The penalties will apply with immediate effect, and an appeal would have to be made in 24 hours of the notification, but the player will be allowed to play till a final decision. A hearing will be held on Friday. reuters
    http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...2-8-2006_pg1_1
    Cricket is no longer a game played by gentlemen.

    And umpires are no longer what they used to be. And they are not gentlemen either. I am sure this could have been resolved on the field in a gentlemanly way rather than in the imperious style it was done.

    Inzzy maybe faulted for whatever he has done, but Hair is a prized oaf! He msut remember Australia was never a colonial power and so he must shed his colonial hangups.

    He has always been in controversy with the Asian teams as if the non Asians were made of sugar and spice!

    I am not being a racist, but this Hair has really got into my Hair and given everyone a bad hair day!


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

  • #2
    Tuesday, August 22, 2006 E-Mail this article to a friend Printer Friendly Version

    EDITORIAL: Cricket doomed by a ‘Hairy’ incident


    In the opinion of all experts present, the International Cricket Council (ICC) mishandled the tiff between umpire Darrel Hair of Australia and the Pakistan cricket team Sunday over allegations of ball tampering, leading to forfeiture of the fourth Test match by Pakistan. Umpire Hair thought Pakistan had scuffed the ball and proceeded to impose the
    five extra runs against them plus choice of an old ball to England. Thus accused of cheating, Pakistan did not protest immediately but took their time coming out to play after tea, which gave Umpire Hair the opportunity to award the match to England under Law 42.3.

    The ICC had its match referee Mike Proctor sitting in the pavilion and he did not take the proceedings in hand when the row developed. As he avoided making an on-the-spot decision to get the game going, cricket experts on TV networks were united in their dislike of the manner in which Hair had imposed the penalty on Pakistan without warning or proof. In fact Mike Atherton, the former England captain, said he had looked at the TV coverage archives of 26 on-the-ground cameras and had found no one tampering with the ball, implying that Hair’s position was quite untenable. Former England captains Ian Botham and Nasser Hussein were furious over the delay allowed by the ICC team as the crowd awaited a decision from them. They heard the rules read out to them demanding that the umpires must ascertain beyond a shadow of doubt that the protesting team was unwilling to play, before awarding the match to England.

    The unfortunate incident was politicised immediately, given the current community relations in the UK, featuring in particular the Pakistani community. The ICC has already charged Inzamam ul Haq, the Pakistan captain, with “bringing the game into disrepute” and changing the condition of the ball. The “hearing” is on Friday, when the Pakistan captain could conceivably be banned from a few or all of the upcoming one-day internationals. This means that the incident may well take a nasty political turn. Already, Sarfraz Nawaz, the former Pakistan cricketer, has made the unfortunate comment that Pakistan coach Bob Woolmer is part of a conspiracy to ruin the good relations with the UK built up by President Pervez Musharraf. Then there is former opening batsman Mudassar Nazar, who thinks that the ICC is affected by racism and wanted Pakistan to go down when they were about to win the Oval Test. And so on.

    Meanwhile, former Pakistan captain Imran Khan had some choice remarks to make about Hair, calling him a mini-Hitler and an “umpiring fundamentalist” who ruined the match simply to show that his authoritarian “literalism” could win against the example of such great umpires as England’s Dickey Bird. He thought Inzamam should have protested immediately but not refused to come out after tea because the Oval match was within his grasp. Others have disagreed with this suggestion as this could have paved the way for Pakistan getting penalised further during the one-dayers. But there is consensus in Pakistan and those who watched the match that Pakistan did the right thing. In the post-match scenario at the ICC, The Pakistan team’s decision to return to the field will stand them in good stead.

    The Pakistan team’s relations with Hair did not go sour suddenly at the Oval. In fact both sides were under the psychological effect of a series of incidents in the past that the ICI, it now appears certain, ignored to the detriment of the very spirit of the game that it is now trying to defend rather hypocritically. Repeatedly, the teams of India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka had complained to the ICI about Hair’s peculiar style of umpiring. Observers had gone to the extent of saying that he was personally prejudiced against the teams from South Asia in general. In the current series, Pakistan had once again approached the ICC in respect of a few bad decisions by Hair at the Headingley Test that seemed more than just human error. These days, bad decisions are no longer controversial because of close-up TV coverage. Pakistan players have reported certain incidents with Hair on the pitch that also point to personal animus.

    The ICC has stubbornly stuck with its panel rather than the players who actually sustain the game of cricket and allow the national boards and the ICC to become the well-heeled authorities they have become. What happened at the Oval therefore was expected; only an incident was required to ignite it. In one past incident, India walked out of an entire series with New Zealand because it didn’t like the decisions handed down by ICC’s referee, Mike Dennis. After an inquiry, Dennis was fired, but the game suffered in terms of its spirit and the funds it would have generated for everyone concerned.

    Will the ICC remain inflexible in the face of the overwhelmingly negative opinion expressed by former England captains at the Oval? Will it do nothing about Hair whose presence on the field will now be a source of permanent uncertainty for South Asian cricket? Its worst hour will come if, following its supine acceptance of the forfeiture of the Test match, the ICC also punishes Pakistan or its captain Inzamam ul Haq for the coming one-day series. Then all hell will break loose. If that is what the ICC wants, to bite the hand that feeds it, then it will be a sorry day for cricket. *
    http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...2-8-2006_pg3_1


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

    Comment


    • #3
      Mr. Hair has said in his report to ICC that there is no evidence of any player involved in ball tampering.

      Changing the ball was one thing and its up to the umpire to take necessary steps when he feels that the ball has been changed but awarding England 5 penalty runs was to say Pakistani team has cheated. Commentators were stunned at the umpires actions. There was no commentary for few minutes and they did not know what to say.

      This is not the first time Darrel has taken such action. He wants to be in news and this time he chose the wrong way.
      Nisaar main teri galiyon pe aaye watan, ke jahan
      Chali hai rasm keh koi na sar utha keh chaley

      Comment


      • #4
        A matter of honour, says Inzamam

        Exclusive by Andrew Miller

        August 21, 2006

        Inzamam-ul-Haq has confirmed that the Pakistani stance on their forfeited Test at The Oval is a matter of honour, after the match ball was changed by umpire Darrell Hair midway through the afternoon session.

        "This game is about more than winning and losing," he told Cricinfo, "it's about respect and countries come first. If someone says to me you are a cheat and Pakistan is doing wrong things, my first priority is to my country."

        Play was held up for 45 minutes after tea, following Pakistan's initial refusal to take the field, but Inzamam insisted: "We were ready to play. The main issue was not whether we were going onto the field, it was whether the ball had been tampered with or not.

        "We had lodged our protest and after that we came [down] to the ground as normal as if we are playing. But then the umpires were not coming. It is up to them, and we await the referee's hearing committee."

        It is not the first time that Pakistan has crossed swords with the controversial figure Hair, and Inzamam was unequivocal in his stance. "This allegation is mean," he said. "He's not saying what his allegation is, he's just saying your guy is cheating. In my personal opinion, TV will show if anyone is tampering.

        "It's very simple," he continued. "There are 26 cameras there [from Sky Sports] and nobody's picked anything. This hearing will not take place in the [referee's] room, it's on the front of the media, everything is on the media."

        Inzamam ran through the chain of events in his on-pitch confrontation with the umpires. "They did not warn me," he said, "and then they gave five [penalty] runs. [Hair] did not talk to me, he wasn't telling me when he's changed the ball, he didn't ask me 'can we change the ball?'"

        The discussion continued when Hair went up to the Pakistan dressing-room to ask if they would be taking the field. "Personally I asked him: 'why did you change the ball?'", said Inzamam, adding that Hair responded that the ball had been tampered with, but then refused to show Inzamam the ball when he was asked, saying that it was in the referee's room.

        "I said it is in my rights to see the ball," he added, "to show that the ball is doing nothing. I wanted to say it's ok, the condition of the ball has not changed, but Hair says 'It's my decision.'"

        When asked if Pakistan felt persecuted by Hair, Inzamam responded: "Yes definitely. It's not once [with Hair], it's lots of times, we've already sent a letter before this to the ICC, asking that he does not umpire in Pakistan games. But still he is doing it. The controversy is always there.

        "It's a big disappointment for me and my team and especially for cricket, the way this game was going. But I don't think we could carry on like this. If someone like this says "cheat" then this game is not on.

        "There is definitely no problem with the England team," he confirmed, after last night's joint statement had confirmed that both teams had been willing to resume the game. "We know people were coming to watch today and we are sorry the game is not on," he added. "But we are sticking on to our decision because it's not the right thing that is going on."

        In Inzamam's opinion, at this moment in time the five-match one-day series is not under threat.

        Andrew Miller is UK editor of Cricinfo
        A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

        Comment


        • #5
          A case of over-reacting to an over-reaction
          Tim de Lisle
          August 22, 2006

          When is a win not a win? When it's a forfeit. The Oval Test was awarded to England because Pakistan were adjudged to have forfeited it by refusing to emerge promptly after tea on Sunday. So England go down as having won the series 3-0. Suddenly, the fact that they were behind in this match makes no difference. But cricket isn't tennis, where a winner is needed to go through to the next round and forfeits are part of the game. The England players know they didn't dominate this series to the tune of 3-0. Seldom can a Test victory have tasted so sour.

          The result isn't the most important aspect of this bizarre episode, but it is a revealing one, because it confirms the suspicion that justice wasn't done. The officials - Darrell Hair, his immediate superior Mike Procter, and their ultimate boss Malcolm Speed - seem to have based their decisions on the laws, specifically Law 21.3. But that just shows that this law is an ass.

          Sport increasingly recognises that it is part of the entertainment world, and the first rule of entertainment is that the show must go on. The International Cricket Council exists to stage cricket matches. Here, it ended up calling one off when nearly all parties were willing to get on with it. Something went seriously wrong. But what, exactly?

          First, Darrell Hair got heavy-handed. Where many umpires would have used a quiet word, Hair reached straight for the biggest weapon available to him, the five-run penalty. The five runs are nothing - if a team is really ball-tampering, the penalty ought to be more like 50 - but the statement was a loud one. The ball looked pretty normal to the television audience. Did he really need to change it? Couldn't he have issued a warning, with the threat of a referral to the referee if it wasn't heeded?

          For me, Hair over-reacted. His behaviour was inflammatory, and the fact that he has a history of it made it more so. And as the laws of physics almost state, to every over-reaction there is liable to be an equal and opposite over-reaction.

          At first, Pakistan didn't over-react - they just got on with it, quite rightly, and were rewarded with the wicket they most wanted, Kevin Pietersen. But then, over tea, they did over-react. They were entitled to protest but, as many commentators have observed, not taking the field was the wrong way to go about it. It was forgetting what they are there for. It was taking it out on the fans. To read Inzamam's interview with Andrew Miller yesterday was to feel much sympathy for a likeable man, but it was noticeable that he didn't once mention the fans.

          The Pakistanis' main line of defence was that Hair's accusation of ball-tampering was an insult. But they have often been accused of this. Waqar Younis was found guilty of it in 2000, and he is now their bowling coach. They have also been accused of worse - of match-fixing. Inzamam himself did not emerge spotless from the Qayyum inquiry. But he coped with the implied insult and carried on batting as serenely as before, showing the thick skin that an international sportsman needs. At The Oval, his skin mysteriously turned out to be the only part of him that was thin.

          Hair, in turn, over-reacted to Pakistan's over-reaction. He was too quick to whip off the bails, inflaming matters when he should have been defusing them. Pakistan are not the first team to stage a sit-in, and they won't be the last. Officialdom should have the tact and flexibility to cope.

          Several components of the game were found wanting at the Oval. The elite umpiring panel behaved like its amateurish forefathers at their worst. The match referee failed in his most central duty, to let the game take place. The ICC put the letter of the law before the interests of the fans. And the ECB, which began the saga as an innocent bystander, soon committed the cardinal modern sin of terrible public relations. It wasn't cricket's darkest day, as some have suggested. But it was a lot more than a bad Hair day.

          Tim de Lisle is a former editor of Wisden and now edits www.timdelisle.com
          A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

          Comment


          • #6
            Jay i was also going to post the same article
            Nisaar main teri galiyon pe aaye watan, ke jahan
            Chali hai rasm keh koi na sar utha keh chaley

            Comment


            • #7
              Hair has acted in haste and without informing the team.

              He is an idiot and unfit to umpire.

              He has ruined the game of cricket.

              There were 35 cameras to monitor. Were they checked. If so, why not come clean?


              "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

              I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

              HAKUNA MATATA

              Comment


              • #8
                Lahori,
                :)

                But what ever said and done Inzy shudve took the field and then complain about the decision and take Hair's a$$ outta the field for ever. He lost the initiative now.

                Inzy will defn be penalized for not taking the ground. But we will have wait and see what they do for Hair.

                Aussies are supporting the idiot, coz they see Hair is the one who can defend "white" cricket from the "brown's". They were all fuming at the monetary power of South Asian cricket boards and their hold over ICC.
                Last edited by Jay; 23 Aug 06,, 19:09.
                A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Jay
                  Lahori,
                  :)

                  But what ever said and done Inzy shud take the field and then sudve complained and take Hair's a$$ outta the field for ever. He lost the initiative now.

                  Inzy will defn be penalized for not taking the ground. But we will have wait and see what they do for Hair.

                  Aussies are supporting the idiot, coz they see Hair is the one who can defend "white" cricket from the "brown's". They were all fuming at the monetary power of South Asian cricket boards and their hold over ICC.
                  I agree that Inzi can get away with the ball tampering but he wont get away with the charge of bringing disrepute to the game. Thats a very serious charge.

                  What Inzi did was wrong or right i dont know but the thing is and everyone (old criketers Pakistani and a few britishers) agrees he should have protested. Imran Khan, Shakur Rana, Wasim Akram, Intikhab Alam, Amir Sohail all said he did wrong by not returning after tea but at the same time they insist Inzi should not have continued right from where the ball was changed. Seems like they are confused. What difference it would have made.
                  Nisaar main teri galiyon pe aaye watan, ke jahan
                  Chali hai rasm keh koi na sar utha keh chaley

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Lahori,

                    Why are you avoiding answering the issue of Aziz money laundering in the thread of the alleged money laundering by Aziz?


                    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                    HAKUNA MATATA

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Ray
                      Lahori,

                      Why are you avoiding answering the issue of Aziz money laundering in the thread of the alleged money laundering by Aziz?
                      Because i have no idea of that news. Currently the hottest issue is PSM privatization which also has Aziz involved in it.
                      Nisaar main teri galiyon pe aaye watan, ke jahan
                      Chali hai rasm keh koi na sar utha keh chaley

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Did he just assume someone tempered with the ball or he actually saw someone doing it. Btw India cricket board refused to back either side.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          ICC itself is one of the biggest racist mo fckers(sorry for using the expletive) council. did you guys know that england australia newzeland and South Sfrica can nominate 2 umpires to ICC council where as the remaining poor brown and black countries are allowed to nominate only one umpire(i am not sure if the rule is still there, but this rule used to be during year 2000)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Australian Cricket Board chief executive James Sutherland yesterday was moved to carpet his national side in the middle of a Test, reinforcing criticism that Steve Waugh's team does not behave well under pressure.

                            Following another ugly incident in an ill-tempered Test against the West Indies in Antigua, Sutherland phoned Waugh after play and told him the team's behaviour was not good enough, damaging to the image of the game and that they needed to "have a good look" at how they play "when things are not going your way".

                            The ugliest incident once again involved fast bowler Glenn McGrath, who triggered two nasty scenes with young West Indian vice-captain Ramnaresh Sarwan.

                            The verbal clash during the fourth Test on Monday looked bad from the outer and on TV - and it was all because McGrath over-reacted to a sledging exchange that he had initiated.

                            After being hit for 21 runs in two overs, McGrath fired a barb at Sarwan, then erupted angrily when the West Indian replied.

                            Microphones picked up McGrath complaining seconds later to umpire David Shepherd that Sarwan had made a reference to his wife Jane, who is having treatment for cancer.

                            However, rumours Sarwan - a player well liked by the Australians - had callously turned Jane McGrath's serious condition into a piece of on-field psychology were later proved incorrect.

                            Sources confirmed McGrath had baited Sarwan with a lewd taunt alleging relations with his captain Brian Lara, and Sarwan had fired back with an equally well-worn comeback, by bringing McGrath's wife into the argument.

                            Soon after, McGrath's second approach to Sarwan was caught in a television close-up, in which it was clearly visible to viewers that the Australian fast bowler raged: "If you ever f---ing mention my wife again, I will f---ing rip your f---ing throat out."

                            McGrath was understood to have been embarrassed to have reacted the way he did.

                            Some of McGrath's teammates, who heard his conversation with Sarwan, felt he may have over-reacted. Matthew Hayden and Justin Langer shook Sarwan's hand when he reached his century three overs later.

                            The ACB found the matter sufficiently worrying for Sutherland to speak to Waugh.

                            Although Sutherland said he did not blame the Australian players for the "ugly" incident, he said he had spoken with Waugh about the need for his world champion team to improve its behaviour when a match was not going its way.

                            But Sutherland said he had given the Australian captain no specific directions.

                            "What we do agree on is that it's all very well to be playing the game in the right spirit when things are going your way but if things don't go your way, that's when the real test is on," he said.

                            "And if you can't carry yourself in the right fashion, in the true spirit of the game at those times, then perhaps you need to have a good look at yourself."

                            Sutherland said the ACB had no further role to play because the Test fell under the jurisdiction of the International Cricket Council, its umpires and match referee.

                            He was not so much concerned about what was said between McGrath and Sarwan "as to the messages that it sends back to the cricket-viewing public".

                            Although it was the captain's responsibility to ensure his players behaved appropriately, members of the Australian team were experienced enough to know their responsibilities.

                            "The players are very aware that there are millions and millions of people watching the game of cricket on television, they are ambassadors for their country and the game of cricket, and they need to carry themselves in an appropriate manner," he said.

                            Asked whether he believed McGrath was justified in his response to Sarwan's comment, Sutherland said: "I don't think that there was a defence forthcoming in the circumstances."

                            Just three weeks ago, the ACB met in Bowral to discuss its "spirit of cricket" initiative - known to be one of Sutherland's pet projects. The initiative, which deals with the history of the game and the conduct of current players, aims to boost participation at cricket's grassroots and enhance the game's image commercially.

                            "It's a major preoccupation for James," ACB spokesman Peter Young said.

                            "Defending the spirit of cricket is one of our four major initiatives."

                            During this year's World Cup, West Indian great Vivian Richards criticised Australia for lashing out during emotional on-field confrontations.

                            "I still feel that when it is dished out to them, they don't handle it too well," said Richards, also chairman of West Indies' selectors.

                            Former Sri Lankan skipper Arjuna Ranatunga added: "When we gave it back to the Australians, they didn't seem to like it at all."

                            Somewhere amid a ball-chucking scandal, a bottle-chucking scandal and invective hurling from the players, there has been some fine cricket in St John's during the enthralling fourth Test.

                            It was a wild fourth day, on which a series of astonishing incidents added to a startling core plot - that the young West Indies, flayed and hapless in the first three Tests, had made impressive progress.

                            Away from the scoreboard, there was the throwing imbroglio which surrounded West Indian quick Jermaine Lawson, who was placed on report by the umpires for a suspect action.

                            There was a break in play for several minutes on Monday as dozens of bottles rained onto the field after wicketkeeper-batsman Ridley Jacobs's unlucky dismissal.

                            But through it all the local batsmen made a steady and determined charge towards their imposing target of 418, and they did not need a miracle from Brian Lara to do so.

                            With Lara scoring 60 and Sarwan a deserved century, the West Indies rose to their enormous challenge.

                            After a comfortable position of 4-288 turned grave through the loss of Sarwan and Jacobs in successive balls, they then fought back through another century-maker, Shivnarine Chanderpaul, and youngster Omari Banks to be 6-371 with a day left, with Chanderpaul unbeaten on 103 and cool off spinner Banks on 28 in only his second Test.

                            It set up an absorbing final day, with 47 runs required to eclipse India's 28-year-old world record of scoring 406 to win a Test match.

                            With the new ball two overs old, Brett Lee caught Sarwan off his own bowling following a rash attempt at a pull shot, then Jacobs was given out caught behind off the next delivery by umpire Shepherd, though the ball struck him on the elbow.

                            The large crowd, sensing their hopes of an epic victory had been pulled from under them, let their loathing be known after the replays, and Lee had to wait several minutes for his hat-trick bid while bottles were cleared from the field.

                            Banks survived the delivery and on two had a let-off when Martin Love spilled an unremarkable first-slip chance off Lee.

                            Chanderpaul stepped up after Sarwan's dismissal, bringing the target under 100 with a hooked six off Jason Gillespie, and raised the 17th century of this series off 140 balls soon before stumps.

                            http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...591796226.html
                            Was Mcgrath fined for this NO! not a penny

                            ICC needs to ensure uniformity in enforcement of laws

                            The last Test between West Indies and Australia has become famous or should I say infamous for many reasons. Of course West Indies made history by chasing what has now become a world record test chase, 418 runs after being pretty much down and out at 70-3 and at a later stage 165-4, the fourth wicket being that of Brian Lara. Despite being in precarious positions West Indies showed amazing guts to pull out an improbable victory, to in the end make things quite comfortable reaching the target with the loss of just seven wickets.

                            Unbelievable as that victory was that is not why I am writing this article. The point of this article is to point out certain incidents that took place on the field, incidents that have no place in the game of cricket. Glenn McGrath's verbal tirade against Ramnaresh Sarwan was the most disturbing of those incidents.

                            At one stage, it appeared as if the verbal tussle would result in something much worse. Later on, McGrath apologized to Sarwan, for it seems his response to Sarwan was supposedly brought about what McGrath though Sarwan had said, a reference to his wife (who just recently underwent a treatment for a cancer relapse.) Later on, Justin Langer and Mathew Hayden confirmed that Sarwan had made no comments about McGrath's wife at all.

                            The sad thing about this whole episode was that the umpires, two people with considerable experience and the Match Referee, Mike Proctor, took no action against Glenn McGrath.

                            The Australians through the years have been known to exhibit such behaviour on the cricket field. One such incident was during the 1998 Australian tour of India when Michael Slater appealed for a catch of Rahul Dravid. Dravid who was in some doubt of the cleanness of the catch, waited for the umpires to confer about the decision.

                            For some reason Michael Slater went totally berserk and started hurling expletives at Dravid. He walked all the way from a shortish midwicket right up to the batsman, at no time ceasing his tirade against Dravid. The end result of it all was that the replays showed the catch was not cleanly taken and Michael Slater, if my memory serves me right, got off with the most lenient of reprimands.

                            In the last England tour of Australia where there were several instances of Australian fielders appealing for catches against the English batsmen. The England batsmen on instances waited for confirmation of the cleanness of the catch and on every such occasion the fielder in question went on verbal tirades against the batsman.

                            I can, from the top of my head, name numerous more occasions that shows the egregious nature of Australian behaviour. The thing is there is never any action taken against the Australian players for such vile and contemptuous behavior. The ACB says they leave the undertaking of any action on the Match Referee and nothing comes of it. Why? Because such things supposedly happen in the heat of the moment, in any sport, at least that is the argument the Aussies would have you believe.

                            This unfortunately is a view shared by most of the Australians, even the Australian Prime minister, a self-confessed cricket fanatic went so far as to show his support for Glenn McGrath by saying, that he completely understands the reason for his verbal assault on Sarwan. Unfortunately, his support of McGrath's actions was made in extremely poor light, as he did not have the complete facts about the incident. Later on, numerous Australian players made it quite clear that Sarwan had in fact made no reference to McGrath's wife and that the Aussie bowler had over-reacted.

                            Its not as if the other cricket playing nations do not play with heart and spirit. No one, absolutely no one in any sport likes to lose, everyone plays to win, you cannot argue that people from country X are more driven, and have a greater competitive spirit than that from country Y. It is up to all sportsmen to maintain their composure at all times.

                            It is true that there are instances where players from numerous countries have exhibited behaviour that has bordered on and at times crossed the limit of acceptable behavior, but of late Australians appear to be taking it to a different level, and getting away with it too. Brian Lara, the West-Indian captain has on numerous occasions been accused of taunting the Australian fielders; in fact, it happens on almost every Australia-West Indies Series.

                            Brian Lara does not have an immaculate record when it comes to discipline, but have you ever wondered why he gets a little antagonistic with the Australians. It's because they give him a lot of verbal stuff as soon as he comes out to bat, cause they know he is the key wicket, the Australians use this tactic against many of the top batsman in every team. They use it against Sachin Tendulkar when he walks out to bat.

                            Tendulkar does all his talking back with the bat; Lara uses both bat as well as mouth. He does not do it against any other team and only the Australians, because they have been known to give a hard time to all new players in a team and at times the sledging gets too personal. Some Australian players themselves have accepted that fact. Brian Lara does what he thinks is right in such an instant, he stands up for his team and its players.

                            By no stretch can one call Lara an antagonistic player by nature, but at times when the situation calls for it, he does not hesitate from treading that path.

                            Australians are a great team, no doubt about it, they are the best team in cricket right now, and things almost always go their way on the field, but once in a while when things do not, they get frustrated and resort to questionable tactics.

                            I feel that there still is racism and double standards in cricket. Why, you ask. Well because if such a verbal assault had been carried out by say an Indian, Sri Lankan or West Indian player, you can bet your socks that he would have ended up getting a swift and considerable suspension from the game. The explanation would have been that there is no room for such behaviour in any sport. The media would have said, gee, he seems like such a well-mannered person, a great role model, you would never expect him to do something like that.

                            Even Australian umpires have over the years dished out harsh treatment towards cricketers from certain countries (Darrell Hair's no-balling of Muthiah Muralitharan is one example.) Even after the ICC clearing Muralitharan, Darrell Hair still maintains that if he is umpiring while Muralitharan bowls he shall not hesitate from no-balling him for chucking.

                            It is time to put an end to such behaviour and double standards that follows it. The ICC has to ensure that laws are enforced uniformly, with no room for leniencies. If someone behaves inappropriately, punishment should be swift and decisive. Things do not always go according to plan on the field and there are times when players will get frustrated, but such frustration should never ever result in on the field melees.

                            Cricket is an immensely popular game and its worldwide audience is all the time increasing. If the audience gets to see such behaviour on a regular basis, they might get the impression that it is all part and parcel of the game. This is not a belief you would want people to adopt.

                            Ananth V Kini([email protected])

                            http://www.cricketnext.com/interacti...est.asp?id=126
                            Nisaar main teri galiyon pe aaye watan, ke jahan
                            Chali hai rasm keh koi na sar utha keh chaley

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by raj
                              ICC itself is one of the biggest racist mo fckers(sorry for using the expletive) council. did you guys know that england australia newzeland and South Sfrica can nominate 2 umpires to ICC council where as the remaining poor brown and black countries are allowed to nominate only one umpire(i am not sure if the rule is still there, but this rule used to be during year 2000)

                              Your are right raj and here is the proof

                              ICC rejects Pakistan's Hair plea


                              The International Cricket Council has refused a request from Pakistan to stop umpire Darrell Hair from standing in future matches involving their team.
                              Chief executive Malcolm Speed said: "It remains the role of the ICC and not our members to appoint umpires.

                              "The appointments are made without fear or favour."

                              Pakistan were incensed by Hair's decision to penalise them for ball tampering during the fourth Test against England last Sunday.

                              And the team's decision to remain in their dressing room instead of taking the field following the tea interval resulted in Hair and colleague Billy Doctrove awarding the game to England by forfeit.

                              Speed said it was "hugely regrettable" that the game at The Oval, in which Pakistan had the upper hand, did not end with a "great finish in front of a full house."

                              But he reiterated that on-field umpires were the "sole judges of fair and unfair play, the ultimate arbiters" as "enshrined in the laws of cricket".

                              He continued: "In this instance, the decision made by Billy Doctrove and Darrell Hair to award the match to England was the correct one under the laws."

                              Speed and Sunil Gavaskar, the chairman of the ICC's Cricket Committee, are responsible for appointing umpires for Tests and one-day internationals.

                              "This process has been approved by the ICC's Executive Board, which includes representatives of all Test-playing teams, and has proved successful," Speed added.

                              The Pakistan Cricket Board has expressed concerns about Hair's umpiring in the past, but this was the first time they had done so in writing.

                              The Australian is not scheduled to stand in the forthcoming one-day series against England.
                              Nisaar main teri galiyon pe aaye watan, ke jahan
                              Chali hai rasm keh koi na sar utha keh chaley

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X