Serious flaw with Law 42.3 (Fair and unfair play)

[admin]

Here is the Law which guided Darrell Hair to take the initial course of action to penalize the Pakistan team 5 runs and change the ball:

3. The match ball - changing its condition
(a) Any fielder may
(i) polish the ball provided that no artificial substance is used and that such polishing wastes no time.
(ii) remove mud from the ball under the supervision of the umpire.
(iii) dry a wet ball on a towel.

(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.
(iii) award 5 penalty runs to the batting side. See 17 below.
(iv) inform the captain of the fielding side that the reason for the action was the unfair interference with the ball.
(v) inform the captain of the batting side as soon as practicable of what has occurred.
(vi) report the occurrence as soon as possible to the Executive of the fielding side and any Governing Body responsible for the match, who shall take such action as is considered appropriate against the captain and team concerned.

(e) If there is any further instance of unfairly changing the condition of the ball in that innings, the umpires after consultation shall
(i) repeat the procedure in (d)(i), (ii) and (iii) above.
(ii) inform the captain of the fielding side of the reason for the action taken and direct him to take off forthwith the bowler who delivered the immediately preceding ball. The bowler thus taken off shall not be allowed to bowl again in that innings.
(iii) inform the captain of the batting side as soon as practicable of what has occurred.
(iv) report this further occurrence as soon as possible to the Executive of the fielding side and any Governing Body responsible for the match, who shall take such action as is considered appropriate against the captain and team concerned.

So, what is the serious flaw? Nasser Hussain asked: "Did Darrell Hair actually see a member of the Pakistan team tampering with a cricket ball? Has he got proof?" I'm afraid Nasser, if you study the rules above, you'll see that there is no requirement for the umpire to have seen the person responsible actually tampering with the ball. The umpire is required to regularly check the condition of the ball (43.3c) and look for evidence that the ball was unfairly tampered with by any method described in 43.3b. A further flaw with this process is that it requires the umpire to have a good knowledge of what a tampered ball would look like. At this stage we don't know whether the tampering related to lifting the seam or scratching the ball but, in Darrell Hair's opinion, the ball quickly changed condition from the time Cook got out. However, the ball was already reverse-swinging when Cook was dismissed. If the ball-tampering was done to make the ball reverse-swing then it's likely to have happened before Cook's wicket. Why wasn't it picked up then? Given that the condition of the ball must have been well scuffed on one side to allow reverse-swing how could a change be detected just 4 overs later when the ball was replaced? There is also a flaw with the rule concerning the replacement ball [43.3d(i)]: if the effect of the tampering was gradual, say, over a period of 4, 5 or even 10 overs how does the umpire know what condition the replacement ball should be? In fact, a box of balls is brought out and the batsmen choose the replacement ball.

There is also a serious flaw with 43.3e(ii): if there is further ball-tampering detected on the replacement ball the bowler who had last use of the ball can be banned from bowling again in that innings without proof that he tampered with the ball. In summary, the general flaw with the ball-tampering rules is that there is no requirement that an individual is spotted tampering with the ball. In otherwords, Darrell Hair's report can say that someone in the Pakistan team tampered with the ball as the ball shows evidence of ball-tampering. This generalization fully complies with this flawed rule.

[Mongoose]

I think this emerged from some of the comments that said the umpires were within their rights to act as they did, as they were adhering to the laws of the game. I think there is already a discussion develoing in the media on this topic. I sense a movement calling for the laws to be changed.

[Ernest]

According to the rules the umpires have the say in what is fair play, and what is not.

If there is a flaw it is not the fault of the umpires IMO, as the rules clearly state,

2. Fair and unfair play - responsibility of umpires
The umpires shall be the sole judges of fair and unfair play. If either umpire considers an action, not covered by the Laws, to be unfair, he shall intervene without appeal and, if the ball is in play

"Without appeal" well the problem for Inzi with this is that he must have been aware of the laws before he decided not to play within the given times, I don't know if the ball had been tampered with or not, but any flaw lies with the cricket administators who make these rules.

[Ernest]

How can the laws be changed Mongoose?, I mean are we to change the laws to allow ball tampering (a TMS commentator advocated just that) - failing that I don't see how any laws can be changed without undermining the umpires to such a degree that they are not in charge anymore.

I feel that the game to some extent has been damaged, I just hope time is taken before attemping to change any laws - which have served us well until this week, in fact I think this Forfeit is the first ever in cricket.

Hurried changes will without doubt lead to making a bad situation worse IMO.

[admin]

Rashid Latif said: "So many people are involved, thousands are at the ground and millions are watching at home but one man has so much power." It seems to me that, according to the way the rules are currently written, the ICC will have to back Hair's decision if the ball looks like it was tampered with. Given that Doctrove was consulted before the decision was made it seems highly likely that the ICC will agree with the assessment that the ball does look like it was tampered with. As Rashid Latif righly says, without a Pakistani player being caught red-handed tampering with the ball it's a big call to besmirch the reputation of a team and its nation. Is this another rule that will depend on video evidence to call? If so, how does the rule apply where there is little or no camera coverage of the game?

Where Rashid is wrong, I feel, is that he focuses the blame solely on Darrell Hair. But the rules state that the two umpires must consult each other so that the final decision is mutual. Many critics say that Hair acted unilaterally which isn't the case.

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by Ernest

How can the laws be changed Mongoose?, I mean are we to change the laws to allow ball tampering (a TMS commentator advocated just that) - failing that I don't see how any laws can be changed without undermining the umpires to such a degree that they are not in charge anymore.

I think the law actually exposes the umpires somewhat, Ern. I don't think they should be placed in a position where they are expected to take action without maybe having seen an actual indiscretion take place. If the law had said that the umpires should be aware of an actual indiscretion, rather than just a change in the state of the ball, before making an allegation of ball-tampering, then yesterday's situation would not have arisen.

[admin]

I think this is also problematic, Mongoose. If an umpire fingers an individual without anyone else seeing the incident or without video evidence to back up his claim then the accused player can deny it and spark a huge diplomatic row similar to this incident.

[Ernest]

With respect Mongoose we have not seen that ball for ourselves - and if the umpires did not have their powers, then a team (if they wish) could scratch away at will.

Like everyone else I have thought about this matter, and I keep thinking being that everyone knows that Hair and the Pakistani's don't get on - why would Hair risk making a false call.

But I can't say this enough times, the present laws have done the job for so many years, this has never happened before.

If a mistake has been made, it was appointing Hair to officiate in this series in the first place.

We need strong umpires or cricket will become like soccer IMO.

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Like everyone else I have thought about this matter, and I keep thinking being that everyone knows that Hair and the Pakistani's don't get on - why would Hair risk making a false call.

I don't think Hair is the sort who would care a jot how people consider his relationship with Pakistan. He is very much his own man and will make his own decisions, regardless of common perception with regard to his relationship with Pakistan.

Originally Posted by Ernest

But I can't say this enough times, the present laws have done the job for so many years, this has never happened before.

The tampering law that allows the umpires to penalise the fielding side, though, is a recent introduction - unless Colly and myself are mistaken.

Originally Posted by Ernest

If a mistake has been made, it was appointing Hair to officiate in this series in the first place.

Again, I'll refer to another thread where I've discussed this here

Originally Posted by Ernest

We need strong umpires or cricket will become like soccer IMO.

And for the umpires to be strong they have to be fully independent. Hence why the ICC needs to be fuuly independent in appointing them.

[Occasional Fan]

Mongoose, the tampering law is as old as the hills - but you and Colly are right regarding the five penalty runs: can't remember when that came in, but it was recent. The other point which is older than Ern is that the umpires are the sole authority in determining fair and unfair play. I simply can't see that being changed as a result of this incident.

If the ICC looks into the matter of the tampering ruling, it would be improper for them to consider the decision which the umpires actually made. The role of the referee and the ICC more broadly would (or should) simply be to consider whether the umpires acted properly in exercising a discretion: and that is a fairly easy review, I would suggest, since the discretion is clearly (and solely) the umpires'.

Many comments have been made in other threads suggesting that the umpires "have no right" to accuse Pakistan of unlawfully altering the condition of the ball without presenting evidence. Well, that may be true in terms of natural justice - but it is not true in terms of what the Law says, and both teams know or should know what the Law says before they start playing. Any ICC review therefore should, in my view, simply find that the umpires (not just Darrell, but both of them) acted within the Law and legally exercised the power vested in and discharged the duties imposed upon them. That's the end of the matter, and it would be improper for the ICC then even to examine the ball. For a start, there is no way that an examination will reveal anything other than the ball's present condition - it won't show how the ball looked an over before it was changed; and secondly, the ICC, in my story, has just determined that the decision as to whether there had been an unlawful alteration was for the umpires to make, not the referee or the ICC.

Wandering off the subject a bit, there are plenty of other areas of life in which administrators/civil servants are given executive powers which are not reviewable in courts of law, so this is not a complete affront to all that is decent about society. A case which comes to mind concerns a Czech lady (pre-EU membership) who was denied entry to the UK despite having a valid visa and an air ticket to leave the country within the period of the visa's validity. She had been denied entry by a senior immigration officer working at Heathrow, was understandably aggrieved and took the immigration service to the High Court to seek judicial review of the decision not to admit her. The High Court opined that the senior immigration officer had discretion under the law of the land to make the decision which he did (the lady had not even contested that, as her advice was that the law was clear in that regard - just as our Law 42 is). Having gone that far, the High Court refused to consider the substance of the decision itself, because to do so would be to fetter the discretion which the law gave to the senior immigration officer.

The analogy is clear, I think: if the ICC reviews Hair and Doctrove's initial ruling on the Law 42(3) infringement, it will be interfering with the discretion of the umpires. That would not be proper.

(None of this is to campaign against a change in the Law. My knee jerk reaction is that a Law which has worked for 300 years probably won't need changing because of this one incident, but I've not really thought that through. However, if the Law is to be changed, it should be done by the MCC - maybe in consultation with the ICC - through the appropriate channels. A referee's review of one incident would not, in my view, be an appropriate channel.)