LONDON, 22 August 2006 — Victory by forfeiture. Now there is a new one for the history books of cricket. The ‘gentleman’s game’ on Sunday at The Oval degenerated into an un-gentlemanly fiasco from which no winners emerged.
Instead on a murky day in London when England were struggling against Pakistan, arrogance, pride and prejudice won the day.
The incident at a stroke has exposed the shambolic state of the administration of world cricket and the latent undercurrent of racism (whether real or imagined) that remains prevalent in the modern game.
While the ashes of the match are still burning in London, the International Cricket Council (ICC), the ruling body of the global game, is on holiday in Dubai, its new headquarters. Had the ICC headquarters still been at Lord’s, the home of cricket, the incident could have been nipped in the bud before spiraling out of control.
The Pakistan government has weighed in with its full support of the national team. It is just as well British Prime Minister Tony Blair is still on holiday in Barbados, otherwise he could have been tempted to order another alert. After all, the protagonists are once again of Pakistani-origin.
In the heyday of apartheid, South Africa was accused ad nauseam of mixing politics with sports. The Basil D’Oliveira Affair was a powerful manifestation of this, albeit with the alleged collusion of some members of the then TCCB (Test and County Cricket Board), the body responsible for cricket in England, and which has now been succeeded by the ECB (English Cricket Board).
The Pakistani team through their action have rewritten the books once again. This time they have succeeded in taking sports into politics.
Yes, Pakistani captain Inzaman ul-Haq and his teammates feel aggrieved and insulted at the ball-tampering charges.
Yes, umpire Darrell Hair had no right to be accuser, judge, jury and executioner. This is simply against natural justice and the very fairness which cricket supposedly espouses. If he suspected any interference with the ball, he should have reported it to the match referee, Mike Procter, the former Springbok fast bowler. Instead he unilaterally acted by penalizing Pakistan with five runs.
Yes, the ICC are both gutless and clueless in appointing Darrel Hair, who has a history of ‘bad blood’ with Pakistan over previous decisions.
Yes, ball-tampering is a feature of the modern game. Pakistani players predominantly have been cited in the past. But so have English and other players. As such, did the umpires take their action against Pakistan on the basis of reputation?
Yes, umpire Hair acted too hastily in removing the bails when the Pakistan team failed to appear immediately for the resumption of the game. A few minutes of humility in ascertaining whether the team had any intention of taking to the field would have prevented the ensuing farce.
No doubt the rules of cricket are being stated and interpreted at will.
But for Inzamam and his team, the biggest folly was to delay their appearance on the field by a mere 41 minutes.
There is a basic rule in sport that on the field of play the referee’s or umpire’s decision is final. If there are any protests or disagreements then these should be lodged later. This must remain the cardinal rule.
By taking the action it did, the Pakistani team set a dangerous precedent, which taken to its logical conclusion could turn the sport into anarchy. That is why the ICC will be forced to take punitive action against the Pakistani captain and the PCB (Pakistan Cricket Board).
More importantly, Pakistan at The Oval on Sunday lost the moral high ground and alienated themselves with the true cricket fans. Had they gritted their teeth and proven that Hair was wrong, they could have done the game a great favor - forcing the ICC to remove Hair from its 10-man elite umpires panel.
In sport, there is not room for arrogance and chauvinism, just as in justice you are innocent until proven guilty. For the “old farts” at the ICC, this is a lesson to remember. The decision to appoint Hair was both insensitive and breathtakingly short-sighted.
Perhaps the only good that can come out of this debacle, is that the rules are changed or clarified so as to prevent a similar fiasco from rearing its ugly head in the future.
