Opinion - Editorials   

Behind Test cricket's first forfeiture

The first forfeiture in Test cricket's 129-year history has sparked acrimonious reactions, with the key players in the drama taking opposite positions. The Pakistan cricket establishment has construed the allegation of ball tampering, and the subsequent decision by the umpires to award the fourth Test at the Oval to England when its players refused to take the field in protest, as unfair — and a slur on the nation. Cricket's governing body, the International Cricket Council, has backed its umpires, the Australian Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove from the West Indies. The drama highlights the tension between the spirit of the game — a nebulous area — and its laws. By the letter of the law, the umpires did no wrong. The forfeiture was brought on by the interpretation of two statutes: Law 42.3, which deals with changing the condition of the match ball, and Law 21.3, which deals with awarding the match. Law 42.3 states: "In the event of any fielder changing the condition of the ball unfairly ... the umpires after consultation shall change the ball forthwith." It adds that the umpires shall inform the batsmen of the change, award the batting side five penalty runs, and inform the fielding captain that the cause for the change was "unfair interference with the ball." Hair and Doctrove deemed that the quarter-seam of the 55-over-old ball had been raised, and initiated the prescribed actions. The case being made out against the umpires revolves round evidence, or rather the lack of it. Was Pakistan being judged by its controversial past? The fact that none of Sky's TV cameras caught any human being in the act, that no individual was identified, should have normally ruled out a finding of guilt. The general principle of fairness in common law is that the benefit of doubt goes to the accused.

The assertion by skipper Inzamam-ul-Haq, who is widely regarded as a gentleman cricketer, that the game is about respect is a perfectly acceptable way of framing the issues. But then Pakistan's protest should have been better managed. Inzamam and his men continued with the game after the ball was changed. Then, in staging a sort of sit-in dressing room protest after the tea break, and not offering a clear reply when Hair asked him whether he intended to come back on the field, the Pakistan skipper left himself and his team vulnerable. Forfeiture became inevitable when the umpires applied the guillotine, which they did officiously and with a conspicuous lack of sensitivity. Not for the first time, the ICC was caught napping. The time for constructive, statesmanlike action was the crucial period when Pakistan was refusing to come out, and the umpires were clearly contemplating removal of the bails. Given Hair's controversial umpiring background, it is easy to fall into the mindset of branding him `anti-Asian.' Viewing the latest decision that way (which would not explain why Doctrove went along with the decisions that shockingly ended the Test) would be the same as pre-judging the Pakistan team on the basis of a past clouded by ball-tampering charges.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Responding to Karnataka's needs
Behind Test cricket's first forfeiture
Right to information: first principles & sound practice
A film sparks an Internet phenomenon
The new high-growth sector
The EU influx into U.K.
How lighthouse keeper saved Bismarck
Corrections and Clarifications
Telangana issue
This round to RTI
Vande Mataram row
Down but not out, leading reformist looks ahead

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu