Nicholas on David Shepherd's more sensitive handling of ball tampering

[Rachael]

The following is from today's Torygraph: details how Shepherd handled a ball tampering incident in a far, far more sensitive manner than Hair.

Originally Posted by Mark Nicholas

In 1991, Hampshire's overseas player was Aqib Javed. On a beautiful day and confronted by a flat pitch, he began to dry and then gently further scuff the already old, ragged ball in the hope it would reverse swing. Somerset had 300 and plenty for not many at the time and the cricket was hopelessly in favour of batsmen. Suddenly the ball did start to swing and I, as captain of Hampshire, quietly approved of Aqib's efforts. It did not seem a big deal to me, no different from scuffing up the pitch to help your own bowlers, for example. [...]

David Shepherd was umpiring that Hampshire-Somerset match and called me over when he saw the suddenly-swinging ball. "Eh, captain," he said, "have a look at this" and he showed me the ball. It wasn't dramatic but it had altered in condition enough. He said, "we can't have this captain, oh no, you'll have to talk to your bowler, you know", and then he called Aqib over and with a kindly but firm look suggested he return the ball to its original state. This he did and Somerset kept pounding us around the park. The point is, Shepherd's brilliant handling of the situation - thoughtful and sensitive. [...]

Had Shepherd been umpiring at the Oval, where would we be today? Reflecting on the natural end of a Test match, most likely. Even if a man of his stature had gone ahead with such action on the field he would surely have seen the need to get the game back on track at any cost, even his own, and allowed Pakistan to reconsider their protest and play on. Of course, there is a danger of precedent and the possibility of blackmail in the future with umpires held to ransom by aggrieved teams. But that risk had to be taken, given the situation not just at the Oval, where the relationship between the teams was excellent, but around the world. The ICC should have insisted upon it. It was their duty to ensure the show went on and, conceivably, the umpires had to suffer for that, whether right or wrong in their decisions. Whatever else, they had better be right.

See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mai...h22.xml&page=1

[Maranello]

This is precisely what I have been arguing for over the past two days; a little less insensitivity, a bit more tact, a lot less arrogance and a lot more common sense from Hair and we would not have had any of this mess. His overbearing and arrogant attitude and his utter lack of respect for Pakistanis as fellow professionals is what let him down so badly. Other umpires, who are adults, eg Shepherd, Bird or Bucknor would have acted differently. The idiots who argue for slavish implementation of all "rules", for no other reason than the absurdly childish "'cos it says so" would obviously not agree with Shepherd's approach, but I have news for them - this is how mature adults deal with contentious issues. Not by thumping their chests and pointing to obscure passages of law, but by appealing to reason and common sense. I will repeat what I posted elsewhere: "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men". It comes as no surprise to know that Shepherd was indeed a wise umpire and arbitrator.

[greg]

That is why the likes of Shepherd,Bird and Bucknor are held in such high regard and the a man like Hair is looked upon unfavourably.

[Beny]

Preety much sums it up in my oppinion.

[DomainK]

We need umpires like that. Do punish people who tamper with the ball, dont let them get away. But handle the situation with a little more care.

[Alison]

I think that's an excellent and diplomatic way of handling the situation, and it's a shame a similar method of dealing with the matter wasn't used on sunday.

[Mr Hutt]

Its a pity shepherd has retired, i agree absolute correct way to handle the situation.

High handedness never did anyone any good

[Lemming]

How can someone return the ball to its original state? Bowlers the world over are constantly trying to keep the ball in good condition - on one side at least. The shiny side does get scuffed through natural wear and tear, is Nicholas implying that Aqib Javed has a technique to "fix" scuffed balls. If so, swing bowlers would pay a fortune for it - there is only so much conventional shining will do.

I find it hard to compare situations as I've got no idea whether the level of tampering is the same or not. It might be quite possible (although I don't know - no-one on this forum does) that the ball on Sunday had been tampered with to a level far beyond 'fixing'. In that case, Shepherd's method would not be possible to use to sort the situation out.

Nicholas is nice about everyone and anyone. Shephard was a good umpire, but probably also Nicholas's mate. I can imagine Nicholas sitting back, thinking sentimentally about the good old days when he was out in the middle with the fabulous umpire Shepherd.

How do we know that both tampering issues were exactly the same and hence to be umpired similarly? How do we know that Shepherd would not have reacted similarly to umpires Hair and Doctrove on Sunday? These questions are impossible to answer until we know about the ball.

[Collyisamackem]

The application of a little common sense could have spared us all of this. Why didn't Hair and Doctrove just ask Inzi about the ball first instead of just taking action straight away?

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Lemming

How can someone return the ball to its original state?

If the seam was raised it's easy enough (and as I understand it, raising the seam during the over and then flattening it before handing it back to the umpire after the final ball has long been a favoured way of avoiding detection). Polishing out any sign of dust being rubbed into the ball ought to be equally straightforward.

Not that any of the above should be necessary: as virtually all the former players seem to be saying, the above ways of improving the ball should just be made de jure instead of being merely de facto.