The darkest day since Bodyline
The 20th of August 2006 will go down as the darkest day in test cricket since Bodyline. I was watching the 4th test between England and Pakistan at the Kennington Oval on the tv admist thunder and lightning in Colombo. About 45 mins after lunch umpire Darrel Hair took the ball from Umar Gul and had a conference with Billy Doctrove who strode in from Square Leg. The ball was changed, much to the confusion and annoyance of Inzamam since it had just begun to reverse swing for Gul. Kevin Pietersen went about choosing a new ball and Hair tapped his shoulder with his hand signalling 5 penalty runs against Pakistan. Umpire Hair had just ruled that Pakistan had tampered with the ball in an attempt to make it reverse swing. The game continued, Inzamam looked perplexed, everyone looked confused, and the replacement ball looked to be rubbish. Hair’s move threw Pakistan’s game plan and 60 overs worth of work on a ball down the drain and had for Ramiz Raja “Ruined the test match and series.” At this point the electricity at home went bust bc the lightning and I couldn’t watch the rest of the game, but when I got home from dinner was startled to see the match had been called off as the Pakistani’s had not come back to the field after tea. The umpires awarded the game to England, in accordance with the law, and refused to come back to the field once the Pakistani’s decided to eventually turn up to the ground.
There are several things that went wrong last afternoon, starting with Darrel Hair’s decision making process. Law 42.3 states the following;
(b) It is unfair for anyone to rub the ball on the ground for any
reason, interfere with any of the seams or the surface of the
ball, use any implement, or take any other action whatsoever
which is likely to alter the condition of the ball, except as
permitted in (a) above.
(c) The umpires shall make frequent and irregular inspections of
the ball.
(d) In the event of any fielder changing the condition of the ball
unfairly, as set out in (b) above, the umpires after consultation
shall
(i) change the ball forthwith. It shall be for the umpires to
decide on the replacement ball, which shall, in their
opinion, have had wear comparable with that which the
previous ball had received immediately prior to the
contravention.
(ii) inform the batsmen that the ball has been changed.
82
(iii) award 5 penalty runs to the batting side.
This is what happened. The umpire looked at the ball at the end of Gul’s over, he assumed that (d), and implemented (d) (i). In assuming (d) he ignored the possibility of wear and tear on the ball due to abrasion as a result of i) hitting boundary boards, ii) hitting the bat hard. The umpires last had possession of the ball during the lunch interval. Between lunch and the inspection of the ball there were 12 overs bowled between Umar Gul and Danish Kaneria. During this time there were 7 boundaries struck, mostly by Kevin Pietersen who hits the ball harder than most. There were also several aggressive strokes that didn’t reach the boundary. The chances of the ball being damaged due to the batting is far greater than what could have been done by fielders whilst hiding from camera’s (given the presence of 26 SKY cameras at the Oval, they would have to be very very subtle). Despite all these factors, Hair made up his mind that the ball must have been tampered with intentionally in an attempt to cheat by the Pakistani’s. There was no warning given to the players, no consultation, just a unilateral decision. Shahrayar Khan, the chairman of the PCB reiterated this fact; “”Nobody was consulted and nobody was told that something was wrong with the ball and they felt deeply aggrieved for the country and for the fans.” (Thanks to Cricinfo).
Umpires play a major role in the game, and it is important that their decisions are respected, which is why in cricket it is said that the umpire’s word is final. However it is also important to remember that umpires are not greater than the game, and more importantly they are not greater than the spirit of the game. An umpire’s decision is often subjective, and this is not a problem since a degree of subjectivity is essential in cricket, the human component is what makes the game what it is. But, when the umpire makes a subjective decision it is usually falsifiable. For instance if an umpire accuses of a bowler of throwing he is making a subjective decision, but the bowler’s action can be viewed on the television replays and one can make an objective decision regarding the legitimacy of the action. But in this case Hair’s decision is not falsifiable, and this is the key. There is no incident which he can point to, a la Atherton’s rubbing of sand on the ball caught on the TV, no evidence other than the condition of the ball. This is a huge assumption, and when this assumption implies that one team is cheating, the implications are huge, and therefore a great deal of care and sensitivity is needed when making decisions. Hair acted within the laws of the game, but his decision lacked any semblence of common sense, care and sensitivity. In sum, he handled the situation appallingly.
Inzamam failed to show the leadership required in that situation. The implication of Hair’s decision was that Pakistan had deliberately cheated. Inzamam carried on with the game with relatively little protest, and in doing so effectively accepted that his team had in fact deliberately cheated. I know for sure that Arjuna Ranatunga would have taken his team off the field and refused to play, and quite right too. If Hair had proof, then it’s a different matter. But making a subjective unfalsifiable decision puts Hair above the law, and that is not acceptable.
Hair could have done several things differently. He should have first warned Inzamam about the condition of the ball and made more regular checks. He could then have taken it up with the match referee after the days play and examined video footage for evidence of tampering by Pakistani players. Billy Doctrove, the other umpire is not above blame either. In complying with Hair’s decision he effectively concurs with how the situation was handled. He could easily have spoken a few words of common sense into Hair’s ear and dissolved what instead became one of the ugliest scenes in cricket’s history.
The laws too need to be reviewed. Law 42 allows such unilateral, unfalsifiable decisions to be made by umpires, and that needs to be changed to bring in some form of evidence based criteria. The match referee should have stepped in during tea time, spoken with the Pakistani players and umpires and come to some form of compromise before what happened after the tea interval transpired.
One may argue that the Pakistani’s let the crowds and their fans down by not playing the game. However there are certain things that are even greater than the game of cricket, and honour is one of them. Darrel Hair insulted the honour of the Pakistani team, and Pakistan as a country, and a game of cricket needs to take second place in such an instance.

