PDA

View Full Version : Inzamam charged with ball tampering, maligning game



Ray
22 Aug 06,, 19:19
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.asp?page=2006\08\22\story_22-8-2006_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!

Ray
22 Aug 06,, 19:24
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.asp?page=2006\08\22\story_22-8-2006_pg3_1

Lahori paa jee
22 Aug 06,, 20:12
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.

Jay
22 Aug 06,, 20:23
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

Jay
22 Aug 06,, 20:25
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

Lahori paa jee
22 Aug 06,, 20:27
Jay i was also going to post the same article

Ray
22 Aug 06,, 20:30
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?

Jay
22 Aug 06,, 20:57
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.

Lahori paa jee
22 Aug 06,, 21:31
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.

Ray
22 Aug 06,, 21:48
Lahori,

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

Lahori paa jee
22 Aug 06,, 21:51
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.

stone_cold
22 Aug 06,, 22:45
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.

raj
22 Aug 06,, 22:55
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)

Lahori paa jee
23 Aug 06,, 11:33
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/2003/05/13/1052591796226.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(ananthkini@hotmail.com)

http://www.cricketnext.com/interactive1/guest.asp?id=126

Lahori paa jee
23 Aug 06,, 11:48
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.

gilgamesh
23 Aug 06,, 11:51
Aussies and Pakistanis are the most unsporting of all the cricketing nations. This in-your-face style of gamesmanship simply cannot blend with cricket. Maybe in other sport, but not in cricket. I am not surprised that the Umpire is from Australia.

Karthik
23 Aug 06,, 12:45
At the risk of sounding biased, I daresay that most racist incidents in the game of cricket involve Australians.

Leeman termed Muralitharan a 'black dog' after getting out to the bowler. Steve Waugh is famous for his spats with Ganguly, offering his needless comments on many issues.

The Australian Prime Minister, incapable of drumming anything original on any foreign policy initiatives, seems to think that he is the Lord of cricket.

We also had Dean Jones calling a South African cricketer as a terrorist.

Darrel Hair has long had a history of controversies involving people from the subcontinent.

Cricket must be purged of these racist pigs.

In so far as cricket is concerned, Australia is the most racist.

Parihaka
23 Aug 06,, 13:28
I disagree with Pakistans decision to not return to the field, by doing so they bring the game into disrepute. Any sport requires that the players obey and do not unreasonably question the umpires decisions, any questioning must be done off the field and away from public view. Pakistan deserves to have it registered that they 'lost' the game.
That said however, they have every right to dispute Hair's ruling in private and call his professionalism into question. He has demonstrated a bias against Asian teams for some time and they should insist he no longer adjudicates their games. Unfortunately while many Australians are anything but racist, Australia in general is gaining a deserved reputation for racism and he doesn't help.

Lahori paa jee
23 Aug 06,, 17:24
I disagree with Pakistans decision to not return to the field, by doing so they bring the game into disrepute. Any sport requires that the players obey and do not unreasonably question the umpires decisions, any questioning must be done off the field and away from public view. Pakistan deserves to have it registered that they 'lost' the game.
That said however, they have every right to dispute Hair's ruling in private and call his professionalism into question. He has demonstrated a bias against Asian teams for some time and they should insist he no longer adjudicates their games. Unfortunately while many Australians are anything but racist, Australia in general is gaining a deserved reputation for racism and he doesn't help.

As i said changing the ball was ok and the umpire has every right to do that.

Imagine for a sec that ball was changed, 5 penalty runs were awarded and Pakistan loses the game. But later on it is found that the ball tampering thing was wrong. What would that do. Nothing!!! That match wont be awarded to Pakistan no matter what happens.

Tronic
23 Aug 06,, 17:30
yes... and that is Pakistan's fault... refusing to play was the stupidest decision made by your team... it would've been so much better if Pakistan played on and still kicked England's ass despite the racist umpire... because you guys were totally set to win that game...

Ray
23 Aug 06,, 19:04
Tronic,

That maybe true.

But Hair is a racist and no Asian team should accept him as an umpire.

He is fat and is a blasted sloth!

Yes, I am angry.

One must be fair when one is an umpire.

Tronic
23 Aug 06,, 19:10
Tronic,

That maybe true.

But Hair is a racist and no Asian team should accept him as an umpire.

He is fat and is a blasted sloth!

Yes, I am angry.

One must be fair when one is an umpire.
yes, true... he is a racist... but disrespecting the umpire's decision takes the whole sanctity from the game... no matter how many bad decisions the umpire makes, the team should've respected them and protested AFTER the game... besides Pakistan was all set to win that game anyways... they chose to loose...

Lahori paa jee
23 Aug 06,, 20:39
yes... and that is Pakistan's fault... refusing to play was the stupidest decision made by your team... it would've been so much better if Pakistan played on and still kicked England's ass despite the racist umpire... because you guys were totally set to win that game...

What if we were losing and this thing had happened? Everyone would be saying they did this cause they were losing. Wht you are suggesting is after thoughts

Tronic
23 Aug 06,, 20:41
What if we were losing and this thing had happened? Everyone would be saying they did this cause they were losing. Wht you are suggesting is after thoughts
no... thats why they shouldn't have done it!!! winning or loosing... respecting the decision of the umpire has always been the sanctity of the game...

Ray
23 Aug 06,, 20:43
Lahori,

Tronic has a point.

That would have been terriffic if Pakistan had won inspite of everything.

But then, in the heat of the moment, Pakistan did what it thought is right.

And I can't get over Hair being a total horse's posterior!

Lahori paa jee
23 Aug 06,, 20:44
Tronic,

That maybe true.

But Hair is a racist and no Asian team should accept him as an umpire.

He is fat and is a blasted sloth!

Yes, I am angry.

One must be fair when one is an umpire.

Thanks Ray

Lahori paa jee
23 Aug 06,, 20:48
no... thats why they shouldn't have done it!!! winning or loosing... respecting the decision of the umpire has always been the sanctity of the game...

I agree with you that umpires decision should be respected but i will try to find out news from past where umpires decision was challanged

Secondly even if Inzi and his boys were wrong Umpires give warnings to the captain and then take such a decision.

I remember in a match Mr. Hair stopped Danish Kaneria from bowling without any warning for running on the pitch

Tronic
23 Aug 06,, 21:03
I agree with you that umpires decision should be respected but i will try to find out news from past where umpires decision was challanged

Secondly even if Inzi and his boys were wrong Umpires give warnings to the captain and then take such a decision.

I remember in a match Mr. Hair stopped Danish Kaneria from bowling without any warning for running on the pitch
yea.... Hair is a racist... no doubt...

Lahori paa jee
24 Aug 06,, 10:17
Emerson's moment of fame

SO Muthiah Muralitharan has been called again for throwing. Nothing new there, the man in question Ross Emerson has done it before. So has the man who stood with him, Tony McQuillan. Their hero, Darrel Hair, the one who wrote a premature biography, led the way. And as usual, there seems to be more heat than logic being applied to dissect the situation.

The Sri Lankans and their supporters are up in arms and see the whole episode as a plan to tarnish the reputation of a bowler who has been a key part of their ascent to the pinnacle of one-day cricket; Australians seem to feel that only umpires from their country have anything remotely resembling guts. The issue runs deeper than this and there are certain facts which are being conveniently being omitted in all this media coverage.

To go back in time a bit, Emerson called Muralitharan in Brisbane in 1996. So did McQuillan. Hair had opened the innings, literally speaking, by calling Muralitharan at the MCG in 1995; all the matches were part of the same tour, Sri Lanka being the third team to compete in the one-day series that is traditionally played as part of the Australian summer programme.

On that occasion in 1996, Emerson called Muralitharan when he was bowling leg-spinners. And anybody with any knowledge of cricket would be aware that you cannot throw a leg-break. This means that Emerson's act was a premeditated one. This does not do wonders for his reputation but he was never questioned about this. Many people have pointed to the fact that Emerson has called an Australian bowler in the domestic competition for throwing, apparently feeling that this means he is some kind of individual with more than 20-20 vision, one of the rare few who can spot a throw. It means nothing of the sort; in fact, it could indicate that he has a bee in his bonnet about throwing.

On Saturday, Emerson at square-leg called Muralitharan's 10th delivery of the day. Uptil that point and even after the Lankan team had come back and continued the match, Emerson could not find a ball to call. That strikes me as rather strange. Is it possible that a man who bowls seven overs throws just one delivery? Does he have such a range of balls to bowl? When McQuillan observed Muralitharan from square-leg, he apparently did not see anything wrong with his action. How come? Was it a combination of one incompetent umpire and one competent umpire out there in the middle?

One must point out here that Emerson, with his amazing vision, was unable to rule on a run-out (that of Nick Knight) without referring to the third umpire; it was clear to all, except the visually impaired, that Knight was a good many inches short of the crease. McQuillan's sight was also remarkable; Hick got an edge the size of a meatloaf and was caught behind but he could not see that one.

Why did Emerson not stand back when Muralitharan came back and bowled? Umpires normally adjust their position according to the bowler's needs. Instead, he stood in a position which obstructed the bowler's path. He then had to be asked to move a bit forward, something which led to more unnecesary exchanges with players. Will the Australian board quiz him about this un-umpire like behaviour? The Sri Lankan captain goes before a disciplinary committee soon, and rightly too, for all his finger-wagging; I think Emerson should have to explain this latter part of his conduct to a panel as well.

There is one more point to be considered. Hair came out with his book just before the Sri Lankans arrived in order to capitalise on the fact that he was the sole umpire to call a bowler in international competition for over three decades. He was checkmated by his own board and asked to opt out of matches involving Sri Lanka. He had no choice but to obey his employers.

Understandably, he must have been angry. He probably sees himself as a knight in shining armour, one of the few men in the umpiring world who is trying to weed out chuckers. One does not fault him on this score; we all have our little delusions which help to make life worth living. Anger over Hair's chastisment would probably not have been confined to the man alone; the entire umpiring community would have been annoyed over this laying down of the law.

To my mind, the very fact that the Australian board went ahead and posted Emerson and McQuillan -- both men who had called Muralitharan -- in a game was a way of challenging the pair. In short, saying to them, " you know the way the wind is blowing, let's see if you have the guts to challenge it". And the board must have felt that they were more or less certain to abide by what it wanted. Remember, the talk about Muralitharan began much before the Sri Lankans even set foot in Australia.

Emerson chose to thumb his nose at the board. Whether the delivery he called was thrown or not only expert judgement can tell. That is for minds which are far more technical than yours or mine, dear reader. I guess folk like Mike Holding and Kapil Dev will be able to give a fair idea; they are two members of the august committee that decides on the fairness of a bowler's action.

As per the relevant law, Emerson has the right to call any bowler for throwing if he thinks the bowler has contravened the law and its footnote which defines throwing. This is not a subjective thing; there is an objective criterion outlined. He can also report the bowler to the match referee, the latter would pass on the report to the ICC and then this august body would have to act. Emerson chose to have his moment of fame. Whether he has to soon start looking for alternative employment, we will, I hope, know fairly soon.

http://www.gnubies.com/australia/taylor30.htm

Ray
24 Aug 06,, 19:38
The whole issue has been messed up.

And cricket is the loser.

starsiege
25 Aug 06,, 15:12
as a student of a college that has a history of more than 130 years of cricket, i am horrified that nowadays people have forgotten that cricket is a gentlemans game.players and the administration of cricket should do a housecleaning. its so sad that bad manners are kinda encouraged in the game nowadays! :mad:

Tronic
25 Aug 06,, 15:14
as a student of a college that has a history of more than 130 years of cricket, i am horrified that nowadays people have forgotten that cricket is a gentlemans game.players and the administration of cricket should do a housecleaning. its so sad that bad manners are kinda encouraged in the game nowadays! :mad:
and how exactly are bad manners encouraged??? Pakistan didn't respect the decision so they lost the game... despite being on a track to whoop England's little behind...

starsiege
25 Aug 06,, 15:33
and how exactly are bad manners encouraged??? Pakistan didn't respect the decision so they lost the game... despite being on a track to whoop England's little behind...

im making a general observation. such as questioning the umpires decision, or using bad words at the opposing team..they are all good examples of bad breeding.

Karthik
25 Aug 06,, 16:28
and how exactly are bad manners encouraged??? Pakistan didn't respect the decision so they lost the game... despite being on a track to whoop England's little behind...

Dude, Pakistan screwed up, but what about Darrel Hair?

How many Australian players are punished for sledging? Gillespie and McGrath?

Tronic
25 Aug 06,, 16:35
Dude, Pakistan screwed up, but what about Darrel Hair?

How many Australian players are punished for sledging? Gillespie and McGrath?

yea... that guy is a racist ass and he should be fired... too bad I don't run ICC... :frown:

Karthik
25 Aug 06,, 16:42
too bad I don't run ICC...

Malcom Speed does and he's as nice as the back side of a baboon.

Lahori paa jee
25 Aug 06,, 17:09
My Dear Fellowmembers,

The case is solved


Darrell Hair offered to resign as a member of the ICC's Elite Umpires Panel in return for a payment of $500,000, Malcolm Speed, the ICC chief executive, told a press conference near Lord's.
Speed said Hair's resignation letter was forwarded to Doug Cowie, the ICC's umpire manager. A copy of that letter was also made available to the Pakistan Cricket Board.

In the letter, Hair asked for "a one-off payment to compensate for the loss of future earnings and retainer payments over the next four years, which I believe would have been the best years I have to offer ICC and world umpiring."

Speed said that he was shocked and "thought it was a silly letter." He continued: "This issue has been marked by a series of unfortunate and entirely avoidable overreactions," adding that he believed that Hair did not have any malicious intent.

"I am confident, as is David Richardson (the ICC's general manager - cricket), who has been intimately involved in these matters, that Darrell had no dishonest, underhand or malicious intent. He was seeking to find a solution that was in the interests of the game."

Speed admitted that he was surprised by Hair's letter and consulted three lawyers independently before making the contents of the letter public. "When I received the letters I was extremely surprised by the content, as was David. I was concerned as to how I should deal with it and in part whether I was required to disclose the contents."

"I then consulted three lawyers. They were consulted independently of each other and didn't know I had consulted other lawyers."

Speed said he was distressed that the issue had created lot of speculation and misinformation in the media as well as allegations of racial bias. "This issue has created unprecedented media and public issue... There is a huge amount of misinformation, speculation and conjecture in different parts of the world. There have been accusations of racism.

"It involves two separate issues. Did the Pakistan team change the ball in an illegal manner? Secondly, when Pakistan refused to take the field, did that bring the game into disrepute? They are cricket issues. The ICC Code of Conduct provides a mechanism to dispense justice on cricket issues and that's the process we are trying to achieve here."

The letter, a copy of which was released to the media, quoted Hair as saying that he was willing to relinquish the umpire's job from August 31. "I am prepared to retire/stand down/relinquish my position on the elite panel to take effect from August 31, 2006. This payment is to be the sum of $500,000, details of which must be kept confidential by both parties.

"ICC may announce the retirement in anyway they wish but I would prefer a simple "lifestyle choice" as this was the very reason I moved from Australia to settle in the UK three years ago."

http://wwwc4.cricinfo.com/engvpak/content/current/story/257781.html

Lahori paa jee
25 Aug 06,, 17:13
His contract with ICC was to end by 2008. In this letter to ICC he says he would resign if the amount is transferred in his account so that he may have a simple life style for the next 4 years.

After reporting Murli he wrote a book and that was a best seller. This time again, keeping in mind his retirement, he would write another and who knows that mey be a best seller too. But his days are over now.

I wish someone could sue him for defamation as Imran khan said.

Akshay
25 Aug 06,, 17:18
His contract with ICC was to end by 2008. In this letter to ICC he says he would resign if the amount is transferred in his account so that he may have a simple life style for the next 4 years.

After reporting Murli he wrote a book and that was a best seller. This time again, keeping in mind his retirement, he would write another and who knows that mey be a best seller too. But his days are over now.

I wish someone could sue him for defamation as Imran khan said.

This has become a norm for some of the english/Australian umpires to sensationalize certain issues so as to make money by writing autobiographies after retirement. It is simple as that if you don't have any controversies to sell,you would probably go down just like India's Piloo Reporter who was once considered the best umpire in the world but doesn't even have a proper 2 bedroom house.

Neo
25 Aug 06,, 17:24
This has become a norm for some of the english/Australian umpires to sensationalize certain issues so as to make money by writing autobiographies after retirement.
Its sad that such a great sporting nation like Australia tollerates racisits like Hair. :mad:

Tronic
25 Aug 06,, 17:24
wtf!!! the guy is a racist!!! and now they have to pay $500,000USD to a racist to kick him out of umpiring... I dun wanna sound racist or anything, but it seems like they are covering for each others back...

Neo
25 Aug 06,, 17:26
My Dear Fellowmembers,

The case is solved

Darrell Hair offered to resign as a member of the ICC's Elite Umpires Panel in return for a payment of $500,000, Malcolm Speed, the ICC chief executive, told a press conference near Lord's.
For the sake of International cricket, pay him the money and get over with him.
He's a sad chapter! :mad:

Tronic
25 Aug 06,, 17:40
I say cancel his contract and just five him the kick... he doesn't deserve to be paid.. he clearly failed his duties as an umpire...

Lahori paa jee
25 Aug 06,, 19:55
He should be charged for bringing the game into disrepute rather than Inzamam

Ray
26 Aug 06,, 11:11
I believe he wants money now! :shock:

Lahori paa jee
26 Aug 06,, 11:26
Full text of e-mails between umpire Darrell Hair and the International Cricket Council, made public by the ICC when it revealed Hair offered to quit in exchange for cash.
From: Darrell Hair
Sent: Tuesday 22nd August 2006
To: Doug Cowie
Subject: The way forward

Doug, just to firm up what we discussed earlier this evening. I appreciate the ICC may be put in a untenable position with regards to future appointments and having taken considerable time and advice, I make this one-off, non-negotiable offer.

I am prepared to retire/stand down/relinquish my position on the elite panel to take effect from 31st August 2006 on the following terms:

1. A one-off payment to compensate the loss of future earnings and retain a payment over the next four years which I believe would have been the best years I have to offer ICC and world umpiring.

This payment is be the sum of US $500,000 - details of which must be kept confidential by both parties. This sum to be paid directly into my account by 31st August 2006.

2. ICC may announce the retirement in any way they wish, but I would prefer a simple 'lifestyle choice' as this was the very reason I moved from Australia to settle in the UK three years ago.

3. No public comment to be made by me as to possible reasons for the decision.

4. This offer in no way precludes me taking legal action and/or instigating libel suits against various sections of the electronic and print media for comments made either previously or in the future.

5. This in no way precludes me taking civil action (and exercising my rights as a resident of the UK in any court of law and by any other avenue open to me) against any organisation or persons currently part of ICC and in particular, members of the Pakistan cricket team and the Pakistan Cricket Board.

I reiterate this is a once only offer and if I fail to obtain your agreement I shall continue to be available under the terms of my current contract till March 31 2008 to fulfil umpiring appointments as and when ICC sees fit in any country at any time in any series or matches involving any affiliated teams.

I would also insist that my ongoing contracted employment continue in its current form until such time as an ICC performance assessment deems me to be no longer able to perform the duties to the high class expected of an international umpire.

Would you please let me know at your earliest convenience of your acceptance or otherwise of this offer.

Sincerely, Darrell Hair.

From: Doug Cowie
To: Darrell Hair
CC: David Richardson
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Subject: Re: The way forward.

Darrell, Your offer may have merit and is acknowledged and under discussions with ICC management.

Your timeframes seemed impractical at first glance even if agreement were achieved on the suggestion.

Will discuss this further tomorrow,
Doug

From: Darrell Hair
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006
To: Doug Cowie
Subject: Re: The way forward

Doug, Phones have been ringing off the hook (or out of the mobile charger anyway!) since early this morning - ICC are not the only ones marshalling legal counsel.

It appears from overnight developments that the issue of racism has arisen and from advice I have just received, the sum indicated in my release offer is being revised.

Therefore the offer is withdrawn until I have had the chance to take further advice. Hope to get back to you within the next 24 hours.

Cheers,
Darrell.

From: Malcolm Speed
To: Darrell Hair
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Subject: Letters

Dear Darrell, I have been given copies of letters that you have forwarded to Doug Cowie today concerning the current issue.

The matters raised by you concerning your future employment are entirely inappropriate. There is a clear process that is to be followed and it is in place. I will call you tomorrow to advise as to progress.

Yours sincerely,
Malcolm

From: Darrell Hair
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006
To: Malcolm Speed
Subject: Re: Letters

Thanks Malcolm, I have revoked the email.

As you say it is inappropriate and we will see how things unfold over the next few days. It would appear that life will go on regardless.

I have just sent Doug another message with you and David (Richardson) copied in about events under my control and some others that are not!

Cheers,
Darrell.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/5286994.stm

What about the claims of Australian Captains who said Hair is a brave man and he has done the right thing and that Inzi would have to life with this for the rest of his life.

Even their PM said that players should respect Umpires decision...........Bull&hit

Karthik
26 Aug 06,, 12:04
This payment is be the sum of US $500,000 - details of which must be kept confidential by both parties. This sum to be paid directly into my account by 31st August 2006.

Thats about the calibre of this atrocious man. He must be sued for being a racist! Instead the racist wants a fortune and that too in secret!

Darrel Hair is an absolute twit.

Tronic
26 Aug 06,, 18:13
What about the claims of Australian Captains who said Hair is a brave man and he has done the right thing and that Inzi would have to life with this for the rest of his life.

Even their PM said that players should respect Umpires decision...........Bull&hit
i'm not sure about this, but I heard Aussies are quite racist... like in general...

Karthik
26 Aug 06,, 19:36
Parihaka was saying that most Australians are anything but racist.

May be he could tell us a little more about this perception.

But you're right tronic, their behavior on the pitch and outside is quite nasty sometimes.

Ray
26 Aug 06,, 20:35
Australians, well most of them, are brash and crude.

Now it turns out that they can kill their "honest, upright and brave" stand for good money!

Like to hear what that alleged molester Steve Waugh and the good, handsome, palcid looking umpire, Taufel has to say now!

I dislike overweight men.

Karthik
27 Aug 06,, 09:04
Waugh backs decision

ROBERT CRADDOCK
August 22, 2006 12:15am

TEST legend Steve Waugh has supported umpire Darrell Hair's decision to abandon a Test match following a Pakistani player rebellion in England.

Waugh said although Hair could be "stubborn and a bit hard-nosed" no team could expect to get away with not turning up on the ground as Pakistan did in protest over a ball tampering charge laid by Hair in the fourth Test at The Oval.
"I definitely agree with that (Pakistan losing the Test on forfeit). If they don't go back on the field when they are supposed to the Test is over," Waugh said.

"That's quite simple. (India's) Sunil Gavaskar tried that one on the umpires in Australia (in 1981). No-one is bigger than the game.

"The laws are there for a reason. You can't determine when you go back on the field. It's embarrassing for the umpires to be waiting and having no-one turn up."

The former Australian captain said it would be interesting to see whether a camera had unearthed proof of the ball tampering but said Hair would not have made such a serious charge without some evidence.

"He is not going to say it for no reason. The umpires don't need the grief. Cricket does not need the grief. What's the benefit in Darrell whipping it up if nothing was happening? I'm sure he doesn't need the threats which could come his way."

"He would know the storm it would create. He has been through Murali so he knows the ramifications of doing it so he would not have done it lightly.

"If there's proof and they have done it then Pakistan have to face the consequences. It is quite clear you cannot tamper with the ball.

"No-one needs this to happen. You would like to think - as was the case with the Muralitharan thing - it could have been averted rather than make a massive scene of it, but if the guy is tampering with the ball I fully agree with the penalty," Waugh said.

And this test 'legend' has the gall to assume that his opinions are really needed !

Jay
27 Aug 06,, 23:24
Oops.... :biggrin:


ICC chief says Hair's career may be over
Press Trust of India

London, August 26, 2006

International Cricket Council Chief Executive Malcolm Speed has said Australian umpire Darrell Hair's international career might be over as a fallout of the Oval Test controversy.

Speed said that Hair, unlike in the past when he "survived" many controversies and continued to stand in international matches, might have crossed the point of no return this time.

"There have been other issues in his umpiring career where people have said 'this is the end for Darrell Hair' - Darrell survived that and has become a better umpire ... So I hope we can find a way for him to continue but I'm not sure that will happen," 'Cricinfo' quoted Speed as saying on BBC Radio Five Live's Sportsweek programme.

Hair offered to quit as ICC Elite umpire for a payment of $500,000 following the ball-tampering row which lead to Pakistan forfeiting their final Test against England last on Sunday.

Speed had said during the media conference while making public Hair's offer on Friday that no action would be taken on the Australian.

He, however, said he would like to see Hair continue. "That (terminating Hair) is not my wish, I hope we can find a way for him to continue. I would like Darrell Hair to continue umpiring in cricket matches at the top level."

Speed said Doug Cowie, ICC Umpires and Referees manager, regretted his initial response to Hair. Cowie had replied to Hair on August 22: "Your offer may have merit and is acknowledged and under discussions with the ICC management."

"That was Doug Cowie's response and I think if he could play it again he would play it differently," Speed said.

"When it came to me I saw that not for one second could we contemplate it. At no time did I ever consider paying Darrell any amount."

Speed said it was up to the ICC adjudicator to decide whether Hair's actions affected the charges against Inzamam-ul-Haq of ball-tampering and bringing the game into disrepute.

Inzamam refused to take field in the post-tea session after Hair and his colleague Billy Doctrove's decision to penalise them five runs for ball-tampering.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/htcricket/14_1779192.htm

Jay
27 Aug 06,, 23:35
For the sake of International cricket, pay him the money and get over with him.
He's a sad chapter! :mad:
No way, he shud not be paid a dime. If we pay him, we are agreeing to all his commotion and his whole idea of knight in a shining armour, on the contrary, he is just like a hooker.

bull
28 Aug 06,, 07:08
I think ICC "killed his carear" by leaking out the email

Parihaka
28 Aug 06,, 09:42
I've met quite a few Aussies and as far as I can see they are no more racist than any other people, but they have an element which is very vocal and tends to characterise the others. Their treatment of aboriginals, the Tampa boat people and their anti-Asian immigration policies are definitely portraying the country in a bad light. You just have to remember that their are many good people there, but they are overshadowed by the organised minority.

Ray
28 Aug 06,, 17:12
On Australians being racists. My comments are in general and not in reply to any post.

I am sure that there will be excellent Australians. However, those that project the image of Australia appear a trifle boorish and crude. Take Waugh. The media made light of his crude sexual peccadilloes. Take the PM, Howard. He had the temerity to comment on Murlitharan as if he was some Wizard of Oz! Brent Lee is a chuckker too. How much humiliation has he gone through? Can it match Murlitharan's humiliation? Where was the Wizard of Oz PM of Australia in this case? Take the various commentators from Australia. They are obnoxiously crude - calling the Moslem bearded South African cricketer as a terrorist and the media valiantly covering him up. Sidhu had used sexual terms in general and he was hounded! Had he been an Australian, he would have surely been rescued on some flimsy ground or the other. The Australian sledging and its crudeness is legend. Remember the ruckus with Sarwan or was it the other chap?

Darell Hair was uppity and snobbish. Yet, one should have seen the defence of this bloke from all over Australia. The coot Waugh has the temerity to write a column. And what is extraordinary is that they are trying to cover the highhanded attitude as a quirk. Had this been an Asian, I am sure sinister reasons would have been attributed!

Take the case of match fixing. The world came down heavily on Asians, but they were magnanimously sweet about the poor South Africans, though their Board admitted the same and so did the Captain! That was the saving grace to an otherwise vociferous wishy washy, namby pamby defence of the white cricketers in the scandal! But then they were South Africans!

Now this Hair's "cash for resignation" scandal. The bloke wanted money! As good as asking for a bribe. Having been caught stealing the cookie from the Jar, he pleads that the ICC has led him to it. Where is all the moral indignation of Hair that was so vociferously bandied by the media when criticised for his action of calling the match off and awarded 5 runs to England? The man is no better than a common crook of a blackmailer and he blames the ICC. If the ICC had indeed asked him, he should have drawn the reference to the ICC's contention as anyone who is replying would and that too in such a sensitive case! Therefore, it shows that Australians and the media have feet of clay and its all a question of the pot calling the kettle black.

Can anyone suggest that a man who can take such an tough independent decision as to whip the bails off without reference to anyone is such a babe in the woods that he does not know how to make an official correspondence. And the press is so pathetically highlight the sad state of this man of how wronged he is! Utter tommy rot!

It is not my aim to hurt any sentiments but one should see it in the light of the requirement to have a level playing field in dealing with issues.

Tronic
28 Aug 06,, 17:19
I've met quite a few Aussies and as far as I can see they are no more racist than any other people, but they have an element which is very vocal and tends to characterise the others. Their treatment of aboriginals, the Tampa boat people and their anti-Asian immigration policies are definitely portraying the country in a bad light. You just have to remember that their are many good people there, but they are overshadowed by the organised minority.
Anti-asian immigration policies??? I didn't know that...I always thought Australia and Canada were the two easiest countries for people to immigrate to especially since both these countries are starved of people and want to increase their population...

Ray
29 Aug 06,, 05:49
The Anti Immigration or Keep Australia White was very strictly implemented in the early days.

Now, with the requirement of technical people, unskilled labour and even skilled labour, as also to beat the zero population trend, Australia requires manpower.

With the money given for the work, Asians are preferred since they can work for a song!

New Zealand, on the other hand, is very tolerant and has a more accommodating attitude. It even has a Mayor, that too a woman, of Indian Origin.

Their treatment of the Maoris (the original inhabitants) is something that is excellent, unlike Australia's treatment of the Aborigines.

Parihaka
29 Aug 06,, 06:01
Give me a break here Ray! I'm trying in noble-minded fashion to defend the honour of my erstwhile neighbours, and find myself in the extremely odd position of claiming that they're not all that bad.
Nah, bugger it, your right, they cheat at cricket (the underarm bowl in the world cup springs to mind) and they bloody cheat at Rugby as well. :biggrin:
As one of our Prime Ministers remarked when questioned about NZ'rs emmigrating to Aus, "it improves the I.Q. of both countries."

Parihaka
29 Aug 06,, 06:04
It even has a Mayor, that too a woman, of Indian Origin.

Suki Turner has retired, but our new Governor General (an ethnic Indian from Fiji) was sworn in yesterday. Much more importantly the gentleman who owns our local corner shop, or dairy as we call them, is Indian and runs a truly excellent shop. ;)

Archer
29 Aug 06,, 06:13
Give me a break here Ray! I'm trying in noble-minded fashion to defend the honour of my erstwhile neighbours, and find myself in the extremely odd position of claiming that they're not all that bad.
Nah, bugger it, your right, they cheat at cricket (the underarm bowl in the world cup springs to mind) and they bloody cheat at Rugby as well. :biggrin:
As one of our Prime Ministers remarked when questioned about NZ'rs emmigrating to Aus, "it improves the I.Q. of both countries."

There definitely is a first workld vs third world thingy when it comes to (say) western cricketers visiting India/ Pak etc and getting shocked by poverty, poor infrastructure, huge populations etc...that to a certain extent explains their condescension, but as cricketers and gentlemen cricketers at that, they are supposed to rise above such things and be more gracious...unfortunately, the reverse is true most times...Aussies for eg sledge...they routinely curse out opponents...in the filthiest language, its passed off as "part of the game, mate, nothing to take seriously, have a beer then!"...and so for generations, our more british than the british themselves cricketers went abroad, faced all this, mostly lost, created a few records, and behaved like pucca sahibs, when the sahibs themselves chewed out the native wogs.

But the new Generation in India etc isnt like that...they've grown up with Tendulkar, Kumble, basically icons who were amongst the best there are....so when Waugh or GRath sledges, they respond in equal vein...but whats amazing is how the Aussies close ranks on the topic. All the stuff about the bloody Asians who are using their money power to dominate the ICC starts coming out...well thats the way it is...the most cricket crazy nations in the world are now in Asia...and they bring the most money in too..so the balance of power is shifting.

Lahori paa jee
29 Aug 06,, 11:40
“Darrell Hair was under great stress when he wrote these letters, and I am confident that Darrell Hair had no dishonest, underhand or malicious intent - he was seeking to find a solution in the interests of the game. I’ve been concerned I was over-reacting to the content of these letters but I have been assured I am not.”

Source (http://dawn.com/2006/08/26/top2.htm)

Malcolm Speed (australian) is putting his full weight behind his friend Darrell Hair (australian). if this was not malicious God knows what else is

Ray
29 Aug 06,, 15:11
Suki Turner has retired, but our new Governor General (an ethnic Indian from Fiji) was sworn in yesterday. Much more importantly the gentleman who owns our local corner shop, or dairy as we call them, is Indian and runs a truly excellent shop. ;)

That's why I want to visit NZ and not even overfly your neighbour.

Ray
29 Aug 06,, 15:23
“Darrell Hair was under great stress when he wrote these letters, and I am confident that Darrell Hair had no dishonest, underhand or malicious intent - he was seeking to find a solution in the interests of the game. I’ve been concerned I was over-reacting to the content of these letters but I have been assured I am not.

Like the match fixing cricketers were doing nothing underhand or dishonest.

They were merely ensuring that the matches outcomes are so regulated and having breath taking finishes that it keeps the excitement going for the spectators and that the spectators get more than their money's worth! :biggrin: :tongue:

One may still trust the Britishers to some extent, but an Australian are the mafia and they feign hurt indignation on top of that. One should read what Ponting said today! :eek:

Tronic
29 Aug 06,, 17:40
Like the match fixing cricketers were doing nothing underhand or dishonest.

They were merely ensuring that the matches outcomes are so regulated and having breath taking finishes that it keeps the excitement going for the spectators and that the spectators get more than their money's worth! :biggrin: :tongue:

One may still trust the Britishers to some extent, but an Australian are the mafia and they feign hurt indignation on top of that. One should read what Ponting said today! :eek:

yes Aussies will always be Aussies in cricket... (ehm, meaning cheaters)

Lahori paa jee
29 Aug 06,, 21:03
Holding blasts First World hypocrisy

Legendary West Indian fast bowler Michael Holding wants Pakistan absolved of ball tampering charges, saying ‘First World hypocrisy’ was to blame for cricket's present crisis.“I have absolute and all sympathy with Inzamam-ul Haq. If you label someone a cheat, please arrive with the evidence,” Holding wrote in the latest issue of India Today weekly magazine.

Inzamam stands accused of bringing the game into disrepute after his team refused to take the field in the recent Oval Test match against England in protest at umpires Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove reporting them for ball tampering.

The umpires later awarded the match to England, triggering the biggest upheaval in the sport since the match-fixing row in 2000.

Holding, now a popular and respected television pundit, wrote it was ‘insensitive’ of the umpires, Hair in particular, to penalise Pakistan for ball tampering.

“Most other umpires would have said something to the captain, given the offending team a warning of some kind. Then if the tampering continued, they would have been totally justified in taking action,” Holding wrote.

“There is a double standard at work in cricket and this episode has only highlighted it.

“When England used reverse swing to beat the Australians in the 2005 Ashes, everyone said it was great skill. When Pakistan does it, the opposite happens, no one thinks it is great skill. Everyone associates it with skullduggery.

“When bombs go off in Karachi and Colombo everyone wants to go home. When bombs go off in London, no one says anything.

“That is first world hypocrisy and we have to live with it.” Holding said he was astonished that both teams and match referee Mike Procter were willing to resume play on the final day, but the umpires cited rules and insisted the game was already over.

“Being the senior umpire, Hair was probably leading the way in that decision,” wrote Holding.

“Today, Hair is being defended in Australia but that is just a matter of friends sticking together, the Aussies defending an Australian umpire.

“Everyone now citing the cricketing law as the absolute and final truth is talking absolute rubbish. Every law has room for flexibility.

“I read a prime example recently in the British press. It said that by law, you can be fined for parking within the yellow lines in England. If you do that to run into a chemist to buy emergency medicines, a sensible policeman would more than likely tell you about the law but it's unlikely a ticket would be forthcoming.”—AFP

Source (http://dawn.com/2006/08/29/spt4.htm)

Parihaka
04 Sep 06,, 04:56
That's why I want to visit NZ and not even overfly your neighbour.LOL, missed this one. Of course you can overfly them, just do as I do and save your visits to the toilet until you're over their territory. ;)

gilgamesh
04 Sep 06,, 05:07
LOL, missed this one. Of course you can overfly them, just do as I do and save your visits to the toilet until you're over their territory. ;)


Richard Hadlee is the greatest cricketer ever. Agreed? :cool:

Parihaka
04 Sep 06,, 05:15
Richard Hadlee is the greatest cricketer ever. Agreed? :cool:Dunno about the greatest but he was certainly up there.
Ranked 4th by Wisden
Ranked 4th greatest player (6.47) behing Sir Donald Bradman (8.63), Sir Garfield Sobers (7.00) and Imran Khan (6.70) by a statistical equation


this was my favourite

Most Wickets in a Match

15-123
NZ v Australia
The Gabba, Brisbane, November 8th-12th, 1985.


Best Bowling

9-52
NZ v Australia
The Gabba, Brisbane, November 8th-9th, 1985.

Tronic
04 Sep 06,, 05:37
what do you think your countries chances are at the next cup???

Parihaka
04 Sep 06,, 05:41
what do you think your countries chances are at the next cup???I'd like to say our current poor ranking is all a master plan to take everyone by surprise, but somehow I don't think so :biggrin:

Tronic
04 Sep 06,, 18:04
I'd like to say our current poor ranking is all a master plan to take everyone by surprise, but somehow I don't think so :biggrin:
lol... only if the cup didn't take place in the west indies, I would've liked to say our chances our good... but we won a series their recently after more then 30 years!!! lol... I just hope the Aussies don't take this one again... :frown:

gilgamesh
05 Sep 06,, 03:38
Dunno about the greatest but he was certainly up there.
Ranked 4th by Wisden
Ranked 4th greatest player (6.47) behing Sir Donald Bradman (8.63), Sir Garfield Sobers (7.00) and Imran Khan (6.70) by a statistical equation.

I wouldn't give too much emphasis to stats. Hadlee played for a modest team. Bradman's and Khan's teams had other greats as well. This guy single handedly won matches for NZ. Okay, maybe Bradman's the greatest.



this was my favourite

Most Wickets in a Match

15-123
NZ v Australia
The Gabba, Brisbane, November 8th-12th, 1985.


Best Bowling

9-52
NZ v Australia
The Gabba, Brisbane, November 8th-9th, 1985.

I followed that match. Just six months before, Kapil had clobbered him around MCG in Benson & Hedges World Series Cup. If that match had been played in Brisbane, things would have been different. :)

Parihaka
05 Sep 06,, 03:52
I wouldn't give too much emphasis to stats. Hadlee played for a modest team. Bradman's and Khan's teams had other greats as well. This guy single handedly won matches for NZ. You misunderestimate the power of the mighty Ewan Chatfield (chats) A remarkably coservative bowler who was very difficult to take runs off.
More especially, coming in to bat at the death with a appalling lack of style he would somehow manage to stay at the wicket for hours without scoring a single run unless they were byes. Such stickability is a treasure, and in this country 'chats' is still much loved.

gilgamesh
05 Sep 06,, 04:07
You misunderestimate the power of the mighty Ewan Chatfield (chats) A remarkably coservative bowler who was very difficult to take runs off.
More especially, coming in to bat at the death with a appalling lack of style he would somehow manage to stay at the wicket for hours without scoring a single run unless they were byes. Such stickability is a treasure, and in this country 'chats' is still much loved.

:biggrin:Yup, he was kinda like spinner Phil Edmonds. Very stingy. Bracewell was another dangerous fellow. Martin Crowe was fabulous.

Ray
05 Sep 06,, 18:52
Daily Times

Tuesday, September 05, 2006 E-Mail this article to a friend Printer Friendly Version

Keep your mouth shut, ICC tells Inzi, PCB

By Muhammad Ali

SOUTHAMPTON: The International Cricket Council on Monday warned Pakistan captain Inzamamul Haq and the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) to keep their mouths shut and stop making public comments regarding the ball tampering hearing that will be held after the conclusion of the ongoing one-day series against England.

ICC Chief Executive Malcolm Speed said anyone commenting on the ball-tampering hearing could face charges. “I have been very disappointed by some of the public comments that have been made by members of the PCB, team management and captain Inzamam following the Oval Test,” Speed said in a statement.

“Over the course of the last two weeks there has been a stream of unnecessary and inappropriate public comment from the PCB, much of which could be seen as prejudicial to the pending code of conduct hearing,” he added. Speed said he had raised the matter twice in the past 10 days with PCB Chairman Shaharyar Khan and had asked ICC match referee Mike Procter to do the same with the Pakistan captain and team management.

“We have in place a fair and independent process for dealing with the matters that arose out of the Oval Test and all concerned parties will have an opportunity to present their evidence during the hearing later in September,” he said. “There will be plenty of opportunity for Pakistan to put its side of the story in the fair environment of the code of conduct hearing. That is the appropriate forum for its views on these matters,” Speed said.

“The acute international diplomatic and political sensitivity of this issue has persuaded me not to lay a charge to date but despite the exceptional circumstances I will not hesitate to lay a charge should further inappropriate public comments be made ahead of the hearing.”

Inzamam faces charges of ball-tampering and bringing the game into disrepute after a public row with Australian umpire Darrell Hair. The Pakistan team were penalised for alleged ball-tampering during the fourth day of the final Test against England at the Oval last month. Pakistan refused to carry on playing after tea after Hair and fellow umpire Billy Doctrove decided to change the ball and penalise them five runs.



:rolleyes:

Lahori paa jee
08 Sep 06,, 08:59
MALCOLM Speed has warned the Pakistan Cricket Board and Captain Inzamam-ul-Haq against issuing public statements regarding the Oval Test issue.

There have been statements from Simon Toufel, Aleem Dar, Shane Warne and many other players and official who are also under obligation not to make any comment as long as they have contracts with International Cricket Council or their respective boards, but no one has issued them any warning.

I strongly condemn Mr Speed for his biased and policeman-like attitude towards Pakistan cricket.

This also shows that our cricketing body is being controlled by people who are incompetent to handle such matters.

Muttiah Muralitharang’s throwing issue was also a big one but the Sri Lankan board took a firm stand and as a result Murali continued bowling in the same innings.

My dads letter (http://www.dawn.com/2006/09/08/letted.htm#6) in Dawn

Ray
08 Sep 06,, 14:25
Indeed, your father has a point and a solid one at that!

Lahori paa jee
30 Sep 06,, 02:47
Lessons appear lost on bullish Hair

After giving evidence at Inzamam-ul-Haq's ball-tampering hearing, I was amazed to watch the press conferences on TV. Darrell Hair was so bullish, even though the decision had gone against him. He was still acting as though he was not aware of what he had done.

Hair showed no understanding at all of what the incident has cost cricket. To start with, there is the huge financial loss. Television and radio will want some compensation, on top of the refunds due to ticket-holders on the Sunday and Monday, and the cost of the hearings. Then there is the damage to the name of cricket, never mind the feelings of the Pakistani players and people.

Hair is the first man to apply the five-run penalty for ball-tampering, and he got it wrong. He is also the first man to call a Test match forfeited, and I believe he got that wrong too. It astonishes me that he could sit there, with absolutely no sign of contrition, implying that he would do the same thing again. He seems to have learnt nothing.

We are all told when we start cricket as youngsters that the umpire's decision is final. We all accept being given caught behind when we haven't nicked it, or lbw when the ball would have missed leg stump. But this is bigger than that — this is huge. It shows that the umpire is not always right. If he is going to make a huge decision, which affects the whole fabric of the game, he had better have some evidence to back it up.

Hair doesn't understand that his man-management is just not up to scratch. He's a book-learner, with a big ego. He has studied the rules of cricket, and insists on his right to interpret them as he sees fit, whether there's anyone to back him up or not. He offends players, particularly Asian players. He gets up their noses with his abrasive and abrupt style. Not surprisingly, they feel he has abused his authority.

I can't praise Ranjan Madugalle highly enough for the way he handled this case. In the final conclusions of his 4,000-word report, the International Cricket Council's chief referee emphasises the importance of "tactful diplomacy" — something I do not think Hair would recognise if it came up and smacked him on the nose.

Madugalle's report suggests two guidelines, if and when this situation should recur. The first is that "the umpires should do everything possible to try to defuse tensions in the dressing room by explaining that a team is entitled to raise any grievances through the ICC". And the second is that the umpires "should not return to the field of play and then declare the match to be forfeited unless and until they are absolutely sure that the team is refusing to play the rest of the match".

These are sensible, common-sense suggestions. I'm sure most umpires would have applied them at the Oval. Now all cricket can do is try to get it right next time. I hope that these points will be incorporated into umpires' guidelines for the future.

In my evidence, I drew Madugalle's attention to the preamble which Colin Cowdrey added to cricket's laws. This applies to every level of the game, from schoolboys to Test stars. It states: "In the event of a player generally behaving in a manner which might bring the game into disrepute, the umpire should report the matter to the other umpire and to the player's captain and instruct the latter to take action." My point was that Hair never made any such instruction to Inzamam. He may be a book-learner, but he still got it wrong.

All Hair had to do was go up to Inzamam and say: "We're not too sure whether the ball has been tampered with, but if anybody is messing around, they had better cut it out. We will be watching the ball carefully every over." That is what most former players would have done in Hair's position. If he comes back into the game, and carries on in the same way, there will be more trouble.

After all this, there is a danger that whenever Pakistan make the ball reverse-swing, people will automatically think they must have been doing something to the ball. We all know there is a history there. Bowlers like Wasim Akram and Imran Khan have admitted that they used tampering techniques in the past.

Last year, though, England beat Australia with reverse-swing, used superbly by Andrew Flintoff and Simon Jones. That was treated as fair play simply on the basis that they were white men. But it would be unfortunate if people went around assuming that Pakistanis cheat and white men don't.

One knock-on effect is likely to be a change in the laws. I expect them to go back to the system where umpires had to examine the ball every over. There should also be a requirement for a warning to be given, along with an explanation to the captain on the field, before any action is taken. It seems ridiculous to me that a bowler gets two warnings for running on the pitch while a ball-tampering penalty can be handed out so perfunctorily.

Another change I expect to see is that the umpires will not be able to award the match to one team without involving the match referee. At the Oval the whole thing was done and dusted in 11 minutes. I'm sorry, but it's too big a deal for that. We don't want umpires to be allowed to play God like this ever again.

Source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2006/09/30/scboyc30.xml)

Lahori paa jee
30 Sep 06,, 03:00
This would not have been possible without the cooperation of Srilankan and Indian cricket boards