Imran Khan on the issue

[Naveed33]

Hair the Hitler does it again


By Imran Khan
It was indeed a farce most sordid. What we all witnessed at the Oval Sunday was nothing short of shameful and it had many players involved in it, with the Australian umpire Darrel Hair having a lead role.
Hair is one of those characters when he wears the white umpire’s coat, he metamorphoses into a mini Hitler.
During my career I had seen such umpires who want to make their presence felt on the field and who go out of their way to stamp their authority on the game. You could say these are umpiring fundamentalists who believe in the literal application of the rules of the game.
By their penchant for display of authority at the drop of a hat, such characters court controversy without ever realising that umpires are not to pose like that. Their first job is to judge and second to see that the game is played in the best of spirits, in a genial atmosphere. In a way, they must try and act as healers. Dicky Bird was one such umpire who would go out of his way through his charm and the ability to compromise to avoid a controversy from developing.
Hair on the other hand decided to level such a huge allegation of ball-tampering, which is cheating, on the Pakistan team without making any effort to assess the situation, give them a chance to explain their side of the story or even warning them.
His brash and provocative manner makes him the main culprit in letting things go out of hand.
But Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq should have reacted far sooner than he did. Had I been in Inzi’s place, I would have taken a stand right there and then when Hair decided to change the ball and accused the Pakistanis of ball-tampering. I would have insisted on the managers of the two teams and the match referee to come to the field to post my protest. I would never have meekly accepted Hair’s judgement the way Inzamam did.
And I certainly would not have made a protest by not coming out after tea. And even if I did that (I must make it clear that I would never have done that) I certainly would not have come out again on the field as Inzamam did. And then once the umpires came out and gone back again, it was even more ridiculous.
But I suspect, judging by the number of officials including the chairman and other officials of the Board milling around, that there was complete chaos in the Pakistani dressing room. Clearly there was no leadership in that crisis. And hence first the bizarre decision to stay in and then go out once the umpires had trudged back into the pavilion.
Knowing the chaotic way Pakistan cricket functions I imagine that all sorts of opinion were flying around and that led to this weird decision.
Above all, if I were Inzamam, my prime objective would have to squash England and win a handsome victory. Every successful captain has to have a killer’s instinct. Where once they have the opposition down, it should never allow it to get off the mat again.
So while I would have made a strong protest against Hair’s most unfair judgement, I would have done so on the field, in full view of the whole world. It would have been far more effective and yet I would not have lost valuable time to let England get away from my grasp.
The worst thing about it was that the PCB chairman giving this terrible mess of an interview after the umpires had refused to come out. It was deeply embarrassing.
First of all it was not his job to give an interview. What is the point of sending a manager who is supposed to responsible for these matters? What has the PCB chairman got to with the on-field matters? It’s simply not his job.
Where do we go from here? Even if the match starts today, Pakistan would have lost two vital hours. They might still win but why give the opposition breathing space?
To ensure that such incidents do not recur, the ICC has to sit down with these very expensive international umpires and drill it into them that their job is not to court controversy in order to grab the limelight and the centre stage. In other words, their job is not to put out fire with gasoline.
And there should be an independent inquiry on Darrel Hair. And if it is found that he made the allegation without some solid evidence (so far none has been presented and, let me say, it is impossible to tell from where the scuffing came – a rough surface, a contact with a hoarding or from a player’s nails), he should be taken off the international panel of umpires.
And the Pakistan cricket team should also sue him for defamation unless he offers an unconditional apology.

Taken from The Nation
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/augus.../21/index3.php

[greg]

You have to agree with everything Imran has put there.Both parties were too stubborn for there own good but pakistan should have beaten England which was looking likely and then dealt with the issue.Just my opinion but that is what i would have done.

[Ernest]

Can you please supply a link to your article Naveed33? so we can all read what Imran has to say.

EDIT:Thank's Naveed.

[Django]

How do we know that the article in the link provided was actually written by ex-cricketer Imran Khan and not by any other person with same name?

But the article does raise some good points, particularly the option for the Pakistan team to take legal action against Hair if he (Hair) cannot prove his accusation (or should I say his "decision").

[Lemming]

On what grounds could they take legal action? He is a cricket umpire and while umpiring a game, he has exercised his right to make a well-defined umpiring decision. He has not publicly branded the Pakistan team 'cheats', he has made a cricketing decision. There are no possible legal ramifications solely on that decision made by not Hair, but Hair and his partner Doctrove.

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Django

But the article does raise some good points, particularly the option for the Pakistan team to take legal action against Hair if he (Hair) cannot prove his accusation (or should I say his "decision").

The laws of cricket do not require him to have proof. A court of law would have no interest in this.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Django

How do we know that the article in the link provided was actually written by ex-cricketer Imran Khan and not by any other person with same name?

umm..because The Nation would not publish a hoax? And because everything in that article is what you would expect Imran to say - even if I hadn't read that article, I could have told you most of its contents.

[Speedboy Salesman]

I think labelling Hair a "mini Hitler" is a bit strong I mean comparing an Australian umpire to the leader of the fascist Nazi Party of Germany until 1945 is a bit too much!

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Speedboy Salesman

I think labelling Hair a "mini Hitler" is a bit strong !

Oh come on, we don't need to be sensitive to the feelings of one dead German Nazi! So what if he is being compared to Hair?!

[Rachael]

My best friend was dubbed "little Hitler" for simply wanting some peace and quiet around her room and a tidy kitchen in the halls of residence: it's a convenient figure of speech and not out of place in this context.