Inzi Cleared of ball tampering

[flanflinger]

I thought this was likely.. it would have been very very difficult to prove

It does prove that Inzi did the right thing to protest, but I get the feeling they will still find him guilty of bringing the game into disrepute.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cric...an/5388402.stm

[greg]

He has been banned for 4 one day games for bringing the game into disrepute.

Glad the ball tampering affair has been cleared up though.

[Mr Hutt]

3 cheers for ALU...!!!!

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

It does prove that Inzi did the right thing to protest,

Not neccesarily. What it does prove is the Umpires decision no longer means anything and lawyers now rule the roost. It is Doctrove and Hair's word against Inzamam's. While Inzimam got off due to insufficient evidence, there is also insufficient evidence to prove that Doctrove and Hair are liars.

Terrible precedent this. Once the lawyers are involved, then it is no longer is a game - cricket as we know it is now dead IMO. Be prepared for more and more legal action to take place against umpires in the future. I cannot think of any other sport where this b/s has taken place.

Exit, the noble umpire. Enter the scum sucking lawyer.

[Orchid]

Originally Posted by Seamer

Not neccesarily. What it does prove is the Umpires decision no longer means anything and lawyers now rule the roost.

Or it proves that if you want to go and accuse someone you better have a damn good evidence rather than work on your hunch. Just because you don a white coat, you shouldn't have to leave your common sense at the door.

You also make it sound like the presence of lawyers were the deciding factor without giving much credit to Ranjan's intelligence. Maybe this line from his findings is worth reading:

Having regard to the seriousness of the allegation of ball-tampering (it is an allegation of cheating), I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there is sufficiently cogent evidence that the fielding team had taken action likely to interfere with the condition of the ball.

In my judgment, the marks are as consistent with normal wear and tear of a match ball after 56 overs as they are with deliberate human intervention.

Having played a little cricket himself, he should know a thing or two about the normal wear and tear.

While Inzimam got off due to insufficient evidence, there is also insufficient evidence to prove that Doctrove and Hair are liars.

Wow, but it would have been ok for Inzi and his whole team to be labelled cheats without sufficient evidence?

Exit, the noble umpire. Enter the scum sucking lawyer.

You make it sound like this is the first time that lawyers have been allowed. And hopefully, before calling the lawyers names, you'll spare a second in remembering all those wrongfully accused who were rescued by these lawyers.

And finally since Pakistan is not going to appeal the ban for the forfeiture, they have shown to the world that their postion has always been against the label of cheats and not against the forfeiture. Hopefully, those who have been harping about how bringing the game to disrepute is the much bigger issue can now rest for a while

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Seamer

Be prepared for more and more legal action to take place against umpires in the future.

Two thoughts

1. It proves that Inzi was right to protest
2. But the guilty verdict on disrepute proves that he went about it in the wrong way

Also, no legal action has been taken out against the Umpire, so I am not sure where that comment came from.

The fact is that Doctrove was not convinced that they needed to act there and then. There has never been any evidence to back up the claim, so to award five penalty runs and penalise the Pakistani team seems a little unfair. Should they just have accepted the decision, one that because of historical circumstances, was particularly sensitive to the Pakistani team. Or should they have made a stance? If this has been an Aussie XI, would they have just said OK then, that's the rules? I doubt it.

The fact remains that Inzi did get it wrong in how he complained, and for that he got punished for, but he was certainly justified in making a complaint...

[Mike]

I've added a poll to this thread because I'm wondering which charge is actually the more serious. Some sources say the charge of ball-tampering is more serious but why? Which do you think is more serious? This is a public poll.

Bear in mind that the penalty for bringing the game into disrepute is a maximum ban of four to eight ODIs or two to four Tests.

However, the penalty for ball-tampering is 5 runs!

[Andy Mellon]

Originally Posted by Mike

Bear in mind that the penalty for bringing the game into disrepute is a maximum ban of four to eight ODIs or two to four Tests.

Personally, I think the outcome of the verdict was correct - not guilty of ball tampering, guilty of disrepute. However, I think the sentance on the disrepute charge was too lenient. I don't think there have been many cases of disrepute that have been more damaging to the game of cricket - maybe the Gatting/Rana incident. I think Inzamam should have been banned to the limit that the charge allows (as I would have recommended for Gatting in the other instance I mentioned). The light sentance has probably been given to reflect the fact that Madugalle probably thought some kind of protest was warranted under the circumstances, but it may give the green light to future similar protests under the knowledge that (unless your next 4 ODIs are World Cup games) little harm would be done to your career.

Also, given that the incident happened during a test match, surely a ban for test matches should have been given, rather than ODIs?

[Rachael]

The more serious charge for teams like England and Australia would be bringing the game into disrepute: getting a slap on the wrist and five run penalty for affecting the condition of the ball would be met with a "fair enough, guv" and few would get any more wound up about it than they would about the side fielding a player like Pratt as a substitute fielder.

I do think the Pakistan case is different. Cricketing sensitivities in this area are high due in part to a unique history of cricketing allegations associated with Wasim, Waqar and reverse swing. That's not the biggest deal though: many Pakistanis appear acutely suspicious of the motives of any criticism in any walk of life, perhaps fearing (in may cases rightly) that prejudice lies behind anything said / done... and perhaps conscious that any allegation (whether well founded or not) has ramifications in terms of bolstering prejudice.

In this case, the ball tampering charge has been taken as impugning the honour of an individual, a team and a nation. Pakistanis may be divided over how Inzi should have handled the matter but most seem agreed that outrage was the right response and many (including the Pakistan Cricket Board) seem quite clear that the charge is so serious that forfeiting a match and having a captain suspended for bringing the game into disrepute is neither here nor there.

Upshot? I'm not going to vote: I want to vote both ways!

[Mike]

Obviously the ball-tampering law wasn't defined with individual country sensitivities in mind. As an Australian, I wasn't aware of the hurt caused to the Pakistan nation by the frivolous allegations of ball-tampering against Wasim and Waqar. I can also understand Inzamam's frustration with Hair after that diabolical decision of being given out when evading a throw from Harmison. I understand now that Inzamam thought this latest "slur" on his team would further hurt the pride of his country and needed a strong protest. However, the penalty for ball-tampering is far less hurtful to the team than the penalty for bringing the game into disrepute. Inzi's protest cost the Pakistan team a Test match and now their fortunes in the ICC Champions Trophy may suffer due to Inzi's absence. Surely, that is a far greater penalty than giving away 5 runs which is nothing when you consider how many extras are awarded in the course of a match.

If ball-tampering is such a serious charge why not award the match to the other team when ball-tampering is detected? Even Ranjan Madugalle said "Having regard to the seriousness of the allegation of ball-tampering - it is an allegation of cheating - I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there is sufficiently cogent evidence the fielding team had changed the condition of the ball." If the charge is so serious then the penalty should be much stiffer.

Wasim Akram said the ICC should make it binding on the umpires to warn the captain at least once if they suspect the ball is being tampered with. "The problem at the Oval arose because Hair didn't bother to deem it fit to at least once warn Inzamam what his suspicions were. All good umpires could do this at least once to avoid any unpleasant situation", said Wasim. Do the umpires warn the team captain or bowler before they call no-balls and wides? These actions aren't related to cheating but they incur penalty runs nonetheless. The point of giving penalty runs is to discourage the action. The point of giving penalty runs for ball-tampering is to discourage it. Why does the captain need to be warned before a penalty for ball-tampering is given? I'm just playing the devil's advocate here because there is obviously a difference between no-balls and ball-tampering but the law as written doesn't really highlight the seriousness of the ball-tampering charge by awarding a penalty of just 5 runs.

Let me use an analogy based on our forum rules. Plagiarism is cheating but a member caught posting plagiarized material usually gets off with a caution. Someone posting racist remarks can be banned permanently because it brings the forum into disrepute.

Originally Posted by Jonathan Agnew

But this is a serious issue, and is fundamental to all sport. It is simply unforgivable for any sportsman to refuse to play because he objects to a decision.