Any comments on the alleged ball tampering by Pakistan and subsequent abandon of the play against England?

Answer 1

The scene was the ugliest of of the cricket histrory. It was like some children were playing cricket and one bully was trying to get his way.

Inzy, and the team ofcourse, should not have protested, in the way they did, in the middle of the match. This was indeed against the law, and I would say spirits as well, of the game. They could have done it in a better way. So, as per the rule, they did wrong, thus reprimanded. You can't question Hair, other umpire, or for that matter ICC for the forfeiture.

Hair 'Raiser' in my opinion is a bully. I would say he has got some qualities of Hitler. He, too, wants importance and doesn't like standing in the ground mere as an umpire. He has a dubious track record and was once expelled from the elite panel. Pakistan did ask ICC, before the series, for not to stand him as an umpire in the series. They have complained many times earlier against the umpire; and this could the revenge of him for those complaints.

The game could have carried on, even after Pakistan delayed their appearance, had it not been the EGO of the 'so called' firm Hair 'Raiser'. He just denied to come on the field if Pakistan takes the field, as if Pakistanis have killed some of his close ones. Come on man - it was a game and you are just an official and not a active participant.

When it comes to Pakistan then they, too, a very bad track record for ball tampering. Recently Afridi even gave a statement about the issue an interview, in which he said - no game can be won without tampering and ICC should allow some level of tampering. In all earlier cases, though, umpires used to have some sort of proof, but here they have none. And that's their fault.

I would say that the match should be declared as abondoned. Hair's performance should be reviewed critically and, if required, should be removed from the elite panel. Lets enjoy the cricket and not the drama by one or two stupid person.

Answer 2

There were 26 cameras installed to cover the match. None of those captured the slightest of a hint that the ball was tempered. In todays technology, where you can show how many times the ball rotated after it left the bowler's hand (at the speeds averaging 75 kms/h), how could none of the cameras capture the ball tempering?

Hair has a history of making his "own" judgements against South Asian Cricketers in the past also (Muralli, Shoaib, and Ganguly are the examples victimized by him).

As far as Inzimam's reaction is concerned, he actually is to be praised for not walking out straight after the change of ball took place. He stayed there and kept his team play under the stress. It was only after the cabin meeting; during tea, where the umpires passed darogatory remarks and blamed Inzimam of cheating, that made them not to return to the field. This is totally justified as Hair had no reason to pass such remarks against a person like Inzimam, who has a clean playing history and is known as Mr. Cool.

Answer 3

England – Pakistan Test Cricket Series – 2006.

The present controversy, in the 4th Test of this series, is appalling. Apart from, Inzamam-Ul-Haq & Darryl Hair, Billy Doctrove, Mike Proctor, Duncan Fletcher and Bob Woolmer, are equally responsible. We cannot, discount, the conspiracy, hatched by Proctor, Fletcher & Hair. Who ever conducts the inquiry, should not, come under ICC pressure, for any compromise solution. All the above gentlemen, apart from, Inzamam & Hair should be thoroughly inquired, for their role, in this fiasco. Forfeiture, of a game, in Cricket history, has never happened.

Secondly, a board should choose, as Captain, only level headed person, apart from cricketing abilities. Inzamam had shown his temper in one of the earlier matches, also, in Canada. It is always better and good for the game, only if, Captains of both the teams and the umpires and the referees are level headed, unemotional and unbiased. One should understand, no official or player is above the game or watching public. The whole episode, has not only, left a bad taste, but also, and deprived, the viewers, of their rightful entertainment.

Finally, whoever & however, shout from rooftops, the racism does exist, in whatever sublime form, it may be. The ICC, till now, has shown, its inability, to bravely address it, leave aside eliminating it. The way, this episode has been handled, by ICC, till now, one wonders, whether, we will get any fair decision.

Answer 4

inzi was perfectly roght...he dint harm the spiirit of the game...i bet had there been any other captain...he would have walked off straight away...but inzi dint wanna insult bllody daryl hair...daryl hair is YET 2 PROVIDE EVIDNCE...and the law says that u cannto judge just by looking at the state of the ball that is has been tempered...one has 2 provide evidnce and nam a player or 2....and my point is that when cook got out...the ball was reversing and then it was in poisession of the umpires..were the umpires blind at that time...??and just in 2 overs time...they found a big scratch and accused the team of tempering...this is shameful umpiring...agree or not...but both billy and hair have always been against apakistan...i have dozens and dozens of proofs of thier biasness against team pakistan...and had that been planned...inzi would have been oprating with 2 fast bowlers rather than kaneria at one end...or did he expext kaneria 2 rverse swing the ball with the so called tempered ball?? the rules imply that if a team efuses 2 play the umpire must go 2 the captain n iform him b4 h puts the match 2 n end...but what hair did...was taht he awarded the win and went away...and if u say that hair is the man of laws...does nay1 remmeber thr run out decision at faisalabad against inzi...according to the law...he shouldnt have refred it 2 the 3rd umpire even...and what will u say upon strauss and peitersen talkin on moboile sets when the match was not called off yt!!!! were they talking 2 som booikies..?? coz i am sure had that been pakistani player talkin on mobile in the dresseing room...he would have been accusd of match fixing...bloody malcom speed is an australian...therefore hell always support hair!!! hate HAIR...hate ICC

Answer 5

When a ball is bowled and it goes to the keeper. the keeper tosses it to a close fielder who wipes sweat from his brow and rubs it on the shiny side of the ball. That fielder tosses it to another fielder who does the same thing and then he tosses it to yet another who does the same thing. Finally it gets back to the bowler who does the same thing.

The ball on the shiny side is damp with sweat and that makes that side heavier than the drier untouched side. This creates reverse swing and the Pakistanis have been getting away with it more decades. It isn't magic it is ball tampering and illegal.

Some of you should get your heads out of the sand and look at the laws of cricket relating to the ball and what can or can not be done to it.

Answer 6

Ball tempering really a issue but this is only allegation of hair over pakistan without any proof you must proof if your allege other wise you are lier and racist and jeleaous

Answer 7

Hair is bigoted and a racist.This is by the way not the first time that he has created problems for Asian Teams.If he goes by the book why does the book get thrown only at Asian Teams.

Answer 8

HAIR RAISED AN ISSUE.
LET IT BE A TRUE OR FALSE ONE.

A RESPONSIBLE CAPTAIN SHOULD CONTINUE THE PLAY.
COZ, MANY SPECTATORS CAME IN FOR ENJOY A GOOD CRICKET.
THEY MIGHT SKIP MANY WORKS FOR THIS,
YOU'VE NO RIGHT TO MAKE THEM DIS-APPOINT.

YOU HAVE MANY WAYS TO PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE AFTER THE MATCH.
YOU COULD ASK FOR EVIDENCES.IF THE ACCUSERS FAIL, YOU MAY TAKE ACTIONS AGAINST THEM.

BUT,
YOU DESTROYED ALL HOPES.
THATS NOT FAIR.

Answer 9

Inzy was right and the Umpires are foools

Answer 10

To say Hair is racist is stupidity. Inzamam cheated, then had a sook when he got caught.