Opinion - Editorials   

Inzy's triumph

The decision to exonerate Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq of the charges of ball tampering — reached by International Cricket Council (ICC) match referee Ranjan Madugalle — has vindicated the stance taken by the Pakistan Cricket Board. A visibly elated Inzamam, who called this a "moral victory," spotlighted the key issue in a thoughtful and moving comment over Pakistan TV: "This was a matter of respect for our team and country. The team's reputation in the past hasn't been great and so this was important. It was important to register our protest because if we didn't then it wouldn't have got this far even and now it has been proved we are not guilty of ball tampering." Ironically, the 36-year-old champion batsman's protest at the Oval that led to Test cricket's first forfeiture drew a four-ODI ban for bringing the game into "disrepute." Inzy's decision not to appeal against the penalty, and indeed his characterisation of it as both fair and lenient, reveals just how highly this gentleman cricketer regards old-world value of honour in this age of big-bucks professionalism. Incidents such as these tend to bring a team together. Pakistan cricket, which in the past was plagued by infighting, will gain from the fact that it stood strongly behind its upstanding leader during a moment of great crisis.

In effect, Madugalle's verdict is a severe professional indictment of the decision taken by Darrell Hair with fellow umpire Billy Doctrove to change the ball and penalise Pakistan — without the slightest proof. "The physical state of the ball did not justify a conclusion that a fielder had altered its condition," is Madugalle's withering finding. "In my judgment, the marks were as consistent with normal wear and tear ... as they are with deliberate human intervention." Hair, who has controversially called Sri Lanka's Muttiah Muralitharan for `chucking,' cannot escape paying a big price for his egregious act at the Oval, which seemed coloured by pre-conceived notions of how certain cricket nations behave on the field. Imran Khan has called for action against him even as the PCB is considering charging him with bringing the game into disrepute. That Doctrove initially disagreed with Hair on the timing of the ball change suggests that the Australian umpire was the prime mover behind the unprofessional act. That Hair powered on unmindful of the consequences of what he was doing and later tried unsuccessfully to do an over-the-top financial deal with the ICC should lead to only one outcome — the end of his international umpiring career. The ICC needs to be more transparent about its thinking and stance on such matters. It needs to spell out how it proposes to deal with officials who suffer from a credibility deficit at least in the eyes of some countries. For cricket's sake the ICC needs to emerge looking decisive, honest, and in control. The stated basis for its decision not to post Hair for the Champions Trophy — security concerns — isn't the best start.

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

Stories in this Section

Discouraging iron ore exports
Inzy's triumph
Reservation in premier institutions
"The goalposts haven't been shifted and they will not be shifted"
India should not join race for biological weapons
Corrections and clarifications
Ethnic hate crimes on the increase in Russia
Appeal for mercy
Mumbai blasts case
Farmers versus SEZs
Junk food menace

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