Skip to main content

Giving the game a bad name

On 21st August, it was published on the ICC website:

Changing the condition of the ball

Inzamam has been charged, as captain, with a breach of Level 2.10 of the ICC Code which relates to changing the condition of the ball in breach of Law 42.3 of the Laws of Cricket.

This charge was brought by the on-field umpires Billy Doctrove and Darrell Hair on Sunday.

If Inzamam is found guilty of breaching this provision he faces a fine of between 50 and 100 per cent of his match fee and/or a one Test or two ODI ban.

Bringing the game into disrepute

Inzamam has also been charged, as captain, with a breach of C2 at Level 3 of the Code which relates to conduct that brings the player or the game of cricket into disrepute.

This charge was brought by the on-field umpires Billy Doctrove and Darrell Hair along with the third and fourth umpires Peter Hartley and Trevor Jesty following a meeting on Monday morning.


----

If the ICC rewards Hair for keeping quiet, it means Pakistan is guilty and the ICC is covering up. Shouldn't Billy Doctrove also get paid for keeping quiet?

The umpire at the heart of cricket's ball-tampering scandal who demanded $500,000 (£254,000) to resign is likely to be paid off but to be banned from talking about the affair.
By refusing to take to the field after the tea break, Inzi and his boys made a big mistake. Later on, Inzi and his players made to the ground to continue playing... just that the umpires had by then awarded the game to England.

If it was everything about national pride which Inzi and PCB is talking about, why did they come back to the ground to continue playing without resolving the ball-tampering issue?

Looks like the ICC do not wish to punish Inzi or Hair. They want everyone to smile and be happy. The only way the ICC will ever achieve it is by punishing themselves by disbanding the organisation. Cricket needs a better authority to administer it, and a better adjudication system to deal with charges such as ball-tampering, doping and bringing the game to disrepute.

Strictly speaking, if one of the international players were to call Percy Sonn an idiot -- it can be construed as bringing the game to disrepute.

In India, if you criticise a court judgment or even a judge-- you can be arrested and put behind bars on charges of 'contempt of court.' The judge considers himself to be the justice itself; hence he is an untouchable. If you appeal successfully and get the judgment overturned by a higher court -- there is absolutely no contempt.

Laughable isn't it?

By delaying the 'hearing' on the issue and letting the media circus go on and on. Imran Khan called Hair a Hitler, some journalists called Hair a racist (everyone conveniently forgets poor ole Billy who has a 50% share in the decision making "This charge was brought by the on-field umpires Billy Doctrove and Darrell Hair on Sunday.")

The ICC brought the game to further disrepute by disclosing internal emails; the email correspondence between the ICC and Darrell Hair.

Are all the ICC internal emails archived on the ICC website for public consumption? Speed's speed for setting new levels of transparency is pretty much similar to the king wearing the transparent attire.

Not everything that matters to the public is made available: the ICC has a certain Umpire Assessment system, which is not published on the website or given to the media.

In this whole tampered ball controversy, the current ICC management has discredited itself and the game of cricket.

Charges of 'bringing the game to disrepute' and 'covering up a crime' has to be levelled against the current ICC management. In fact, before the trial, thee entire top management should be kicked out and fresh elections have to be held.

Former Scotland yard chief - Sir Paul Condon should be asked to search for the ball in question, and the ball has to be sent to the university in Perth to verify whether it has been tampered or not.




Darrell Hair finds some support

Under-fire Darrell Hair received support from a former Indian colleague S Venkatraghavan, who said it was unfair to doubt the Australian umpire's integrity as he did not seek controversies purposely.

"Umpiring is a tough job, decisions are to be made in split second and you have to go by what you've seen by eyes," said Venkatraghavan, who retired as an Elite umpire a couple of years back.

"Hair does not seek controversy purposely, but yes his decisions are controversial sometimes as he gives an impression that he is arrogant on the field," he told a TV channel on Saturday.

Venkatraghavan justified Hair and his fellow umpire Billy Doctrove's action which led to Pakistan's forfeiture of the fourth and final cricket Test against England a week ago.

"What happened on the field that day was Pakistan refused to play and the umpires had no other way to go about... (But) it is difficult to comprehend and the episode is difficult to forget," he said.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Arundhati Roy: The 2004 Sydney Peace Prize lecture

The 2004 Sydney Peace Prize lecture delivered by Arundhati Roy, at the Seymour Theatre Centre, University of Sydney.

Peace & The New Corporate Liberation Theology

It's official now. The Sydney Peace Foundation is neck deep in the business of gambling and calculated risk. Last year, very courageously, it chose Dr Hanan Ashrawi of Palestine for the Sydney Peace Prize. And, as if that were not enough, this year - of all the people in the world - it goes and chooses me!

However I'd like to make a complaint. My sources inform me that Dr Ashrawi had a picket all to herself. This is discriminatory. I demand equal treatment for all Peace Prizees. May I formally request the Foundation to organize a picket against me after the lecture? From what I've heard, it shouldn't be hard to organize. If this is insufficient notice, then tomorrow will suit me just as well.

When this year's Sydney Peace Prize was announced, I was subjected to some pretty arch remarks from those who k…

Where the People Voted Against Fear

by Eduardo Galeano; Inter Press Service; November 18, 2004

A few days before the election of the President of the planet in North America, in South America elections and a plebiscite were held in a little-known, almost secret country called Uruguay. In these elections, for the first time in the country's history, the left won. And in the plebiscite, for the first time in world history, the privatization of water was rejected by popular vote, asserting that water is the right of all people.



* * *

The movement headed by President-elect Tabare Vazquez ended the monopoly of the two traditional parties--the Blanco and the Colorado parties--which governed Uruguay since the creation of the universe.

And after each election you would hear this exclamation: 'I thought that we Blancos won but it turns out we Colorados did"--or the other way around. Out of opportunism, yes, but also because after so many years of ruling together, the two parties had fused into one, disguised as two.