What really happened that day - by Mihir Bose

[Maranello]

An excellent and insightful account of events last Sunday in the Pakistani dressing room. The whole thing really is worth a read. Link.

[Maranello]

Some excerpts from Bose's article (today's Telegraph):

The realisation that they have forfeited a Test has slowly dawned on the Pakistan cricket authorities and there will be a major investigation into what exactly happened in the Oval dressing room in the moments leading up to the surrender of the fourth Test. For the first time details of what happened in the dressing room can be revealed. A picture has emerged of a confused and angry place where there was a lot of shouting and different advice being thrown at Inzamam.

It is thought that Inzamam did not realise quite what his team had been accused of until he reached the dressing room. His comprehension of the English language is limited and he may not have understood what Darrell Hair was saying to him when he changed the ball. It was only when he returned to the dressing room, and the penny dropped, that thoughts of refusing to take the field again began to form.

Woolmer listed two or three options to the team, none of which involved refusing to take the field when play restarted.

One source, who was in the dressing room, told me: "I am not sure how much of what Woolmer said was understood by Inzamam. Inzi decided the team would not go out."

This, however, was only the first act of the farce. The second, more climactic, act came when Hair, having waited in the middle for the Pakistani team, came back to the pavilion and knocked on the Pakistani dressing room door.

"Are you coming out?" asked Hair. Inzamam said: "Why did you change the ball?" A question that indicates that Inzamam did not fully understand what had happened on the field. Hair retorted: "I am not here to discuss that." He then walked off.

Pakistan sources are insistent that Hair did not tell Inzamam that if he did not take the field this time his team would forfeit the match.

As Hair entered the Pakistani dressing room, his colleague, Billy Doctrove, was doing the same in the English dressing room. But in contrast to the hapless Pakistanis, the England side are well versed in the laws of the game and immediately understood what was at stake.

The two not out England batsmen, Ian Bell and Paul Collingwood, looked across at the Pakistani dressing room, and when they did not see the fielders emerging, they quickly followed the umpires out on the field. The usual convention in cricket is that the batsmen are the last to walk on to the field after the umpires and the fielders, but Bell and Collingwood knew that if they took the field the match could be awarded to England.

I am not surprised that Inzamam did not understand what Hair was saying. He is not a well-educated man, he does not speak much English, reads probably even less and I doubt there are any good Urdu translations to the Laws of Cricket published by the MCC (or others)!

So in the first act, is Hair to blame for not communicating this properly to him? Yes. But Pakistanis are also to blame for not knowing the laws or ensuring they can communicate in English.

Secondly, Inzi is of course to blame for not coming out. And the PCB officials with hi, including Woolmer, are to blame for not realising that this could lead to a forfeiture. But, Hair is also to blame for being so dictatorial and not even bothering to explain the law to the ignorant Pakistanis; is it his job to do it? Probably not. But it is his job to ensure cricket carries on in a harmonious way, and that entailed taking 30 seconds to tell Inzi, "the rules state that if you don't come out, match is forfeited; and as I am a person with limited intelligence and even less common sense, I will follow each letter of the rule without using any thinking or imagination, or even caring one jot for the spirit of the same rules".. or words to that effect

Inzi comes across as an idiot for not knowing the rules and not understanding English; however, those who appointed him, and advised him (ie the PCB officials), come off far worse. And Hair leaves the incident with no credibility or respect whatsoever, the instigator and the main culprit. Bose continues with some historical context:

This is not the first instance of players getting angry with umpires and wanting to walk out.

The most infamous example was in 1981, in Melbourne, when Sunil Gavaskar, then captain of India, now chairman of the ICC committee who approved the appointment of Hair, was so furious at being given out lbw that he as he walked off he ordered his partner Chetan Chauhan to follow him. The India manager, Wing Commander Durrani, immediately understood what was at stake, rushed to the boundary, and ordered Chauhan back. India went on to claim a famous victory by 59 runs.

In 1999, following riots in the Calcutta Test, Indian batsmen refused to come out and Wasim Akram, the Pakistan captain, wanted to claim a forfeiture. Pakistan's manager was Shaharyar Khan, who refused to agree and ordered him to win the match on the field, which they did. No such leadership was on show at the Oval.

Of course there are other examples too; Ranatunga and Murali being one, I think. If only England, or Hair had behaved with the decency and sportsmanship shown by Shehryar Khan that day in Calcutta.

[Mr Hutt]

so in other words we did not need a bowling coach we needed a translator? hehehe waqar can speak english and is not stranger to the ball tampering law why did he not explain things to inzimam?? nah i dont believe this, what i do believe is that inzi was confused as to what form of protest the team should put up and zaheer abbass and the PCB leaned on him to do what the team did, which was obviously pure lunacy

[Lemming]

On the communication aspect. Are there any players in the side who could have translated from English to Urdu for Inzamam if required? There are certainly Law-book that have been translated into Urdu and I believe they are available from Acumen publishers or something like that.

The umpires are required, by the laws, to consult Inzamam if they suspect a Pakistani player(s) is not going to play. If he continues with the action, an umpire should award the game to the opposition. They are required to warn him that he is about to forfeit the game, if they did not then that is a serious mistake. I'm pretty sure that they did warn Inzamam - has anybody said otherwise?

Surely the issue is can the umpires convince the ICC that there is evidence on the ball to enforce the laws they did. I asume that the ICC's panel will have some experience ex-cricketers who can decide whether the umpires have a case. If so, then Inzamam will face tampering charges. If not, then the ICC should (in my opinion) consider the future of the umpires - taking into account who instigated the action (that seems to be Hair).

Although understanding Pakistan's reasoning, they have to be punished for not continuing play. I think they should have come out and finished England off - that was the decent thing, and then argue with the ICC and umpires later. We have to remember that England wanted their chance to save the match and must feel embarrassed with their win.

Who will be on the ICC's panel? I hope some ex-cricketers, who can decide decently whether the umpires have a case, and not some money-grabbing idiots who think about what is good financially.

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Avkar

...what i do believe is that inzi was confused as to what form of protest the team should put up and zaheer abbass and the PCB leaned on him to do what the team did, which was obviously pure lunacy

I think this may be the case Avkar. I think Inzamam's hands were tied when the decision was made to not go out and unfortunately for him he will take the blame.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Avkar

waqar can speak english and is not stranger to the ball tampering law why did he not explain things to inzimam??

The current detailed law is relatively new and was brought in only a few years ago; the law in Waqar's time was very ambiguous and quite brief.

[Wanderer]

Interesting isn't it?

I mean, on Sunday, while this whole thing was unfolding before our eyes, the Sky commentators (can't recall which one now), said something to the effect of: It looks like Inzi's being rail-roaded.

If only he knew how true his words would prove to be...

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Lemming

Although understanding Pakistan's reasoning, they have to be punished for not continuing play.

I don't think anyone can disagree with that; Pakistan did make a monumental error if they forfeited a match without even realising it. Yes, Hair should never officiate a cricket match again if there is any justice in the ICC, but Inzi also needs to take the rap for Pakistan's collective action (or inaction, to be precise). This issue is now too high-profile for it to be allowed to set the wrong kind of precedent.

[greg]

To be honest if Inzi knew then what he knows now i think Pakistan would have played the game as it looks to me like he has been thrown to the lions and left to it.I think it is unfair that Inzi is going to carry the can for everything in this sorry affair which with a little commonsense could have been sorted out within a couple of minutes on the field.

[Mike]

Unlike most of you, I'm not convinced that Inzi really wanted to follow the rules to avoid forfeiture. Once Tea commenced and Inzi fully realized the implications of Hair's ball-tampering allegation his only thought was what to do best for his country - not the Pakistan cricket team. He stated that the honor of his country was more important than winning or losing the match. I can imagine that he was advised to go out and play after Tea but his thoughts were about making the strongest protest possible. That meant delaying their appearance on the ground. When Hair came to the Pakistan dressing room to ask them if they were coming out Inzi didn't answer that question. He simply wanted Hair to clarify why he had changed the ball.

I find it hard to believe that when the Pakistan players came onto the field that they weren't aware that the bails had been removed signifying the end of the match. I think it was a political statement to say they had not deliberately forfeited the game because they were ready to play. In summary, I don't believe Pakistan made a monumental blunder in forfeiting the match without realizing it. There were too many experienced and knowledgeable people in the Pakistan dressing room for that to happen. I have no doubt that Inzi was instructed to resume play after Tea and he deliberately refused - to make a statement knowing that he would bring controversy and the ire of the ICC upon himself.