My sympathies in the standoff between umpires and the Pakistan team at the Oval, are with Inzamam-ul-Haq. There have been many people, including some former Pakistan players and captains, saying that he was wrong in forfeiting the match. But given the way the drama unfolded, I would have refused to carry on unless umpire Darrell Hair named the bowler who had tampered with the ball.

I still cannot fathom why with so many influential people present at the match, including the umpires, the captains, the match referee, the PCB chief, matters came to such a pass that Pakistan forfeited a Test match.

Travesty

In my opinion, what happened was a travesty of the game. Going by the book is one thing, looking at the bigger picture and spirit of the game quite another. That is where umpire Darrell Hair's approach was flawed. He not only had to believe but also had to show that the game was paramount, bigger than the players, Inzamam-ul-Haq and himself.

I'm afraid the big Aussie made a hash of it with his tough approach. In this day and age when technology is available at the click of a mouse, I see no reason why Hair did not use it to his advantage. In fact, had he referred the matter to the third umpire or the Match Referee, the issue could have been settled within minutes.

It was apparent that without any proof, Hair was skating on thin ice. Thereafter, his ego and stubborn personality took over, complicating the matter to a degree from where it became extremely difficult to come back. By contrast, Inzamam was humble and stayed calm. I believe the Match Referee Mike Procter should have stepped in then, because it was rapidly becoming one man's whims against the conduct of the game.

Wonderful umpires

I know of a few umpires in my time who would have handled the situation differently. Dicky Bird, David Shepherd, M. Gothoskar, to name only three, were wonderful in the middle simply because they were interested in ensuring that a game was played smoothly. Of course, it was a difficult situation for Hair. But if umpires are unable to resolve such crises, they would not be needed.

Yet, I am surprised that Procter, with years of experience as player, coach, manager and referee, played such a passive role in defusing the crisis.

As the supreme representative of the ICC, Procter should have stepped in as soon as he saw Hair penalise Pakistan five runs. He should have pulled up both Hair and Inzamam at tea time and had a serious dialogue which clearly suggested that whatever the problem, egos had to be buried and the show had to carry on.

This has been a sad controversy which has only maligned the name of cricket. With Hair coming out as he has done in the past few days, clearly there are dimensions to the issue which were not apparent on the fourth day of the Oval Test.

I can't see Hair having any leg to stand on after this, which means the ICC is like to review his appointment in the Elite Panel soon. — PTI

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