Let's go over to the arcane world of cricket - even though I am a fan of the game myself, and, stranger still, more a fan of the five day traditional type than any bastardized shortened version, I can admit that it can often seem bizarre and weird. Especially this week.
Flashback to last Sunday, and an exciting - keeping it all relative - fourth day of the England v Pakistan test at the Oval in London. England had hammered the Pakistanis in two of the previous tests, but this one Pakistan were well on top, with England fighting to avoid the follow on. Umpire Darryl Hair had a close look at the ball, said it had been tampered with by the Pakistanis, awarded five penalty runs to the English, got the batsmen to choose a new ball, and continued play.
The pendant in me is wondering what those five penalty runs are classed as, byes, no balls or something different? Will have to go have a look at the scorecard sometime or other, but anyways, this happened in the early morning Australian time, so when I logged online and read the news, the penalty runs had been swept aside by something much more strange.
The Pakistanis were a bit unhappy about it all, but played on until the tea break. They didn't return once the tea break was over, even though the English batsmen and umpires had gone out. The umpires went and asked the Pakistanis what was going on, but were asked in return why the ball tampering decision had been made. The umpires went out to the middle again, and took the bails off.
After a half hour or so protest, the Pakistanis came back onto the field, but the English and the umpires weren't out there. Chaos ensued, and the 23,000 spectators were told not a hell of a lot about what was going on either. It seems that both the English and the Pakistanis wanted to keep playing, but the umpires wouldn't come out - technically, taking the bails off when both teams aren't on the field means the end of the match. Technically, Pakistan had forfeited the game.
There have been walk outs by teams from cricket grounds before of course, but none had lasted as long as the Pakistanis on Sunday. Sure, make a protest, sure, ditch an entire session, but surely everyone could have slept on it overnight and catch up some of the wasted time on the final day? Apparently not, and what with Darryl Hair's form for stubborness, he has been the one that has gotten most of the stick.
Hair of course being the one that no balled Muralitharan in 1995. He has hardly umpired a Sri Lankan game since, and the Pakistanis weren't too happy with him late last year for giving a run out when the batter was in his crease but off his feet avoiding the bowler throwing the ball at him. The accepted wisdom on the Indian subcontinent is that Hair is biased against Asian teams.
Pakistan's captain, Inzaman Ul-Haq, was put up on two charges of bringing the game into disrepute - on the ball tampering itself and the protest leading to the forfeiture, and there was talk that if he was banned from the game for up to the eight game maximum, the whole team could leave England. Much scrambling by the English board trying to get replacement teams lined up, either South Africa or the Windies.
I read the news this morning, and Thunderstruck by AC/DC is playing in my head. The most appropriate word, considering what happened in England overnight. The International Cricket Council (ICC) had a press conference in which they stated that Darryl Hair had offered to quit the game, for a non-negotiatiable, not to be publicised fee of half a million dollars (best spoken a la Dr Evil, with little finger at the side of your mouth - or Ren talking to Stimpy would also work).
For about ten minutes there I was laughing out loud thinking 'you dickhead' of Hair's request. On deeper inspection, he would probably make about that much in the four years he was proposing giving up, but the initial reaction was that he was trying his hand at blackmail. You give me money, I go away, or some such.
In discussion with at least three lawyers, the ICC decided to forward the email to the Pakistan Cricket Board as it would likely have an impact on Inzamam's disrepute hearing, and decided to release it to the public because it would likely get leaked anyway.
The gist of further correspondence to that request for money was Hair saying that racism was accused as well, the amount would be reconsidered, Malcolm Speed, the ICC head replying saying the request was inappropriate, and Hair replying back saying yes, he withdrew the request because on further consideration it was inappropriate.
Hair has no chance of ever umpiring another international game ever again, and I would doubt the lower grades will take him either. For the somewhat musty world of test cricket, it has been an insane week.
Funny old game, innit.
Paul
Flashback to last Sunday, and an exciting - keeping it all relative - fourth day of the England v Pakistan test at the Oval in London. England had hammered the Pakistanis in two of the previous tests, but this one Pakistan were well on top, with England fighting to avoid the follow on. Umpire Darryl Hair had a close look at the ball, said it had been tampered with by the Pakistanis, awarded five penalty runs to the English, got the batsmen to choose a new ball, and continued play.
The pendant in me is wondering what those five penalty runs are classed as, byes, no balls or something different? Will have to go have a look at the scorecard sometime or other, but anyways, this happened in the early morning Australian time, so when I logged online and read the news, the penalty runs had been swept aside by something much more strange.
The Pakistanis were a bit unhappy about it all, but played on until the tea break. They didn't return once the tea break was over, even though the English batsmen and umpires had gone out. The umpires went and asked the Pakistanis what was going on, but were asked in return why the ball tampering decision had been made. The umpires went out to the middle again, and took the bails off.
After a half hour or so protest, the Pakistanis came back onto the field, but the English and the umpires weren't out there. Chaos ensued, and the 23,000 spectators were told not a hell of a lot about what was going on either. It seems that both the English and the Pakistanis wanted to keep playing, but the umpires wouldn't come out - technically, taking the bails off when both teams aren't on the field means the end of the match. Technically, Pakistan had forfeited the game.
There have been walk outs by teams from cricket grounds before of course, but none had lasted as long as the Pakistanis on Sunday. Sure, make a protest, sure, ditch an entire session, but surely everyone could have slept on it overnight and catch up some of the wasted time on the final day? Apparently not, and what with Darryl Hair's form for stubborness, he has been the one that has gotten most of the stick.
Hair of course being the one that no balled Muralitharan in 1995. He has hardly umpired a Sri Lankan game since, and the Pakistanis weren't too happy with him late last year for giving a run out when the batter was in his crease but off his feet avoiding the bowler throwing the ball at him. The accepted wisdom on the Indian subcontinent is that Hair is biased against Asian teams.
Pakistan's captain, Inzaman Ul-Haq, was put up on two charges of bringing the game into disrepute - on the ball tampering itself and the protest leading to the forfeiture, and there was talk that if he was banned from the game for up to the eight game maximum, the whole team could leave England. Much scrambling by the English board trying to get replacement teams lined up, either South Africa or the Windies.
I read the news this morning, and Thunderstruck by AC/DC is playing in my head. The most appropriate word, considering what happened in England overnight. The International Cricket Council (ICC) had a press conference in which they stated that Darryl Hair had offered to quit the game, for a non-negotiatiable, not to be publicised fee of half a million dollars (best spoken a la Dr Evil, with little finger at the side of your mouth - or Ren talking to Stimpy would also work).
For about ten minutes there I was laughing out loud thinking 'you dickhead' of Hair's request. On deeper inspection, he would probably make about that much in the four years he was proposing giving up, but the initial reaction was that he was trying his hand at blackmail. You give me money, I go away, or some such.
In discussion with at least three lawyers, the ICC decided to forward the email to the Pakistan Cricket Board as it would likely have an impact on Inzamam's disrepute hearing, and decided to release it to the public because it would likely get leaked anyway.
The gist of further correspondence to that request for money was Hair saying that racism was accused as well, the amount would be reconsidered, Malcolm Speed, the ICC head replying saying the request was inappropriate, and Hair replying back saying yes, he withdrew the request because on further consideration it was inappropriate.
Hair has no chance of ever umpiring another international game ever again, and I would doubt the lower grades will take him either. For the somewhat musty world of test cricket, it has been an insane week.
Funny old game, innit.
Paul
No comments:
Post a Comment