Inzi hearing at the Oval

[MRobbo]

Report from BBC website

Chief ICC referee Ranjan Madugalle is chairing the two-day hearing, set to start at 1000 BST, with a verdict expected on Friday.

Inzamam refused to lead his side out onto the field after being penalised for ball-tampering.

He drove into The Oval and was accompanied by coach Bob Woolmer.

Madugalle was the first to arrive at 0830 BST, followed 15 minutes later by umpire Billy Doctrove, who got out of a taxi with match referee Mike Procter and Doug Cowie, the ICC's umpires manager.

Inzamam headed to The Oval just after 0900 BST, just before umpire Darrell Hair turned up in a taxi.

Hair said: "No comment - good to see you all."

After the first day of the hearing, the ICC expects to issue a statement detailing the day's events and an update on when the verdict is likely.

If Inzamam is found guilty of the ball-tampering he faces a fine of between 50 and 100% of his match fee. He could also be banned for one Test or two one-day internationals.

On the second charge, deemed more serious by the ICC, a ban of between two and four Tests or four to eight ODIs is a possibility.

All four umpires on duty for the game between England and Pakistan will attend the hearing.

Hair and Doctrove were the officials out in the middle, with Peter Hartley and Trevor Jesty providing off the field back-up.

Madugalle will consider testimony and written statements from witnesses, many directly involved with events which culminated in the abandonment of the Test after Pakistan were deemed to have refused to play on after tea on the fourth day.

The three England players involved - Kevin Pietersen, Paul Collingwood and Ian Bell - have provided written statements and will not appear in person.

But Oval match referee Mike Procter and ICC umpires and referees manager Doug Cowie, who was at the match on the day in question, will be at the hearing in south London.

Cowie was also the recipient of a subsequent e-mail from Hair, in which he offered to resign in exchange for $500,000 (£263,000).

Pakistan's representatives include coach Woolmer and board chairman Shaharyar Khan as well as Inzamam.

The PCB is expected to call former England batsman Geoffrey Boycott and former player and now analyst Simon Hughes as expert witnesses.

The PCB's legal team will be headed by London-based Mark Gay.

Madugalle will be assisted by David Pannick QC.

Looking back on his actions, Inzamam told the Guardian: "Definitely, I did feel some pressure.

"But inside I resolved that I had done nothing wrong and was satisfied with my actions."

 

[Romeo]

It's hard to imagine how he can't be charged for bringing the game into disrepute. He childishly and petulantly refused to go back on the ground. There is no defence to these actions. The whole ball tampering question is more clouded though. Typical of the ICC to string it out over 2 days.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

The ICC needs to make an example out of him. Four test matches, 8 ODI's.

 

[chapmanmagic35]

It's hard to imagine how he can't be charged for bringing the game into disrepute. He childishly and petulantly refused to go back on the ground. There is no defence to these actions. The whole ball tampering question is more clouded though. Typical of the ICC to string it out over 2 days.

Exactly...

 

[Cooldude]

Both Inzi and Darrell Hair should be charged for bringing disrepute to the game, both of them have to pay

 

[usalion]

Both Inzi and Darrell Hair should be charged for bringing disrepute to the game, both of them have to pay

Sorry, cooldude- show me the evidence that Hair did anything to bring the game into disrepute? Do we have any REAL knowledge of the actions taken on the field that day?

You may not like the guy (a lot of people don't)- but where is the DIRECT evidence of him bringing the game into disrepute? Calling no balls on Murali? Is that not an umpire's interpretation?

I recognise there are questions about what happened at the Oval, but what do we REALLY know about the umpire's actions?

 

[Cooldude]

As I don't believe he had sufficient evidence that the ball was tampered with by the Pakistanis, to pin them for it smacks of prejudice and therefore he brought the game into disrepute by acting on pre-agenda, the worst crime an umpire/referee of any sport can commit. He's had a history of acting on pre-agenda when he no-balled Murali and doing it with an extremely incorrect method

Even if it turns out that the ball was tampered with by the Pakistanis, he dragged the game's reputation and image through the mud by abandoning a Test that if a bit of intelligence, logic and common sense were used, should've continued.

Takes two to tangle, Inzy and the Pakistanis' behaviour deserved a 10 Test ban alone on all of the players, but Darrell Hair played a massive massive massive role in letting that farce took place

 

[usalion]

As I don't believe he had sufficient evidence that the ball was tampered with by the Pakistanis, to pin them for it smacks of prejudice and therefore he brought the game into disrepute by acting on pre-agenda, the worst crime an umpire/referee of any sport can commit. He's had a history of acting on pre-agenda when he no-balled Murali and doing it with an extremely incorrect method

Even if it turns out that the ball was tampered with by the Pakistanis, he dragged the game's reputation and image through the mud by abandoning a Test that if a bit of intelligence, logic and common sense were used, should've continued.

Takes two to tangle, Inzy and the Pakistanis' behaviour deserved a 10 Test ban alone on all of the players, but Darrell Hair played a massive massive massive role in letting that farce took place

I agree there is a history, but remember that Ross Emerson was also on the Murali no balling....and there is a possibility of an agenda, but there is nothing in what we know about the Oval to suggest that.

As for the abandonment, do we know for sure that Hair was the one who forced the forfeit? I agree, it takes two to tango, but what went on at those rooms at the Oval? We really don't know. We do know that the Pakistan players refused to take the field at the required time and that the umpires/match referee therefore awarded the match to England. Inzi is the captain of Pakistan- he needs to answer the questions for what his team did. We need to hear the ICC findings- although they may try to sweep things under the carpet.

 

[Romeo]

Actually this article casts some doubt on Hair's actions

http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/hairs-colleague-harbours-doubt-over-tampering-claim/2006/09/27/1159337221707.html

 

[Extras]

As I don't believe he had sufficient evidence that the ball was tampered with by the Pakistanis, to pin them for it smacks of prejudice and therefore he brought the game into disrepute by acting on pre-agenda, the worst crime an umpire/referee of any sport can commit.

Either you are prejudiced or dont know the laws of cricket. Hair and Doctrove ageed the ball had been tampered with and changed the ball, the charge of tampering with the ball against Inzi was done by the match referee Proctor who after looking at the ball decidied that it had been tampered with. Hair alone could not charge the Pakistanis for tampering because that responsibility is with the match referee.

You may not believe there was sufficient evidence but two umpires and the match referee who looked at the ball disagree now the hard part for us is who to believe, you who has never seen the ball or three experienced international cricket officials who looked at the ball.

 

[Extras]

Actually this article casts some doubt on Hair's actions

http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/hairs-colleague-harbours-doubt-over-tampering-claim/2006/09/27/1159337221707.html

And it also shows that Hairs action were correct.

Excerpt from article

On the Sunday of the test, Doctrove agreed with Hair that the ball had been tampered with, which led to the ball being changed.

 

[Browney2006]

I dont think anyone will get to the bottom of this, ever. There is just to many factors that are hazey, i think everyone will just have to agree to disagree, because the ICC will never get to a solution that will please everyone.

 

[Ricketts]

Indians and Pakistanis sticking up for each other. Big suprise there.

Cheats the lot of em.

 

[Cooldude]

And it also shows that Hairs action were correct.

Excerpt from article

Except you're wrong

Doctrove saying that he's not so sure is as good as saying at present he doubts whether he made the correct decision or not.

Of course Mike Proctor and Darrell Hair will stick to their guns and say the ball's been tampered with, they're at a hearing, FFS. Whether they'll ever have sufficient evidence to prove the ball was tampered with will be revealed in due time

Credit goes to Billy Doctrove for speaking his exact mind on the issue and not be forced to go along with the match referee and his partner.

As of your previous post, the point you made was irrelevent, all the umpires and the match referee would be in huge strife if they charge them for tampering when they haven't. Also, 25 camera did not catch a single mishap from the Pakistani players. They're usually superb at catching ball tamperers.

Also, the even more pointless point that you made about "The umpires saw the ball and knew whether it would've been tampered with or not, and you haven't saw the ball". It doesn't matter whether they think the ball was tampered with or not, they have to actually catch a Pakistan player doing something irregular to the ball in order to prove that they have tampered the ball .

So doesn't matter whether they think the condition of the ball is abnormal, if they didn't catch any one of them on the act, they, as I said, don't have sufficient evidence. You should look at the laws a little more closely next time

 

[Extras]

Except you're wrong

Doctrove saying that he's not so sure is as good as saying at present he doubts whether he made the correct decision or not.

Of course Mike Proctor and Darrell Hair will stick to their guns and say the ball's been tampered with, they're at a hearing, FFS. Whether they'll ever have sufficient evidence to prove the ball was tampered with will be revealed in due time

Credit goes to Billy Doctrove for speaking his exact mind on the issue and not be forced to go along with the match referee and his partner.

As of your previous post, the point you made was irrelevent, all the umpires and the match referee would be in huge strife if they charge them for tampering when they haven't. Also, 25 camera did not catch a single mishap from the Pakistani players. They're usually superb at catching ball tamperers.

Also, the even more pointless point that you made about "The umpires saw the ball and knew whether it would've been tampered with or not, and you haven't saw the ball". It doesn't matter whether they think the ball was tampered with or not, they have to actually catch a Pakistan player doing something irregular to the ball in order to prove that they have tampered the ball .

So doesn't matter whether they think the condition of the ball is abnormal, if they didn't catch any one of them on the act, they, as I said, don't have sufficient evidence. You should look at the laws a little more closely next time

Perhaps you need to look at the laws a little more closely, the umpire does not have to know who did the tampering, all they have to do is agree that the ball has been tampered with.

 

[Cooldude]

And they cannot prove the ball's been tampered with by a Pakistani player unless they saw him do it. Of course they can come to an agreement amongst themselves that they think the ball's been tampered with, but they're in a hearing and this is the court of law (At least for cricket), if you don't have any evidence that the tampering took place rather than just stabbing in the dark that someone might've done it, they were incorrect in coming to that conclusion

So perhaps you need to think with a little more logic and common sense on this matter.

If they deemed the condition of the ball as poor then they could've easily just changed the ball without accusing anyone, if they slap an accusation on someone then they need concrete evidence that they did such-and-such and what-not to the ball.

 

[Extras]

And they cannot prove the ball's been tampered with by a Pakistani player unless they saw him do it. Of course they can come to an agreement amongst themselves that they think the ball's been tampered with, but they're in a hearing and this is the court of law (At least for cricket), if you don't have any evidence that the tampering took place rather than just stabbing in the dark that someone might've done it, they were incorrect in coming to that conclusion

So perhaps you need to think with a little more logic and common sense on this matter.

If they deemed the condition of the ball as poor then they could've easily just changed the ball without accusing anyone, if they slap an accusation on someone then they need concrete evidence that they did such-and-such and what-not to the ball.

Like I said perhaps you need to look at the rules a little more closely, if the umpires agree that the ball has been tampered with they have every right to incur a five run penalty and under the laws of cricket the captain is responsible for the charge as defined in the laws of cricket. They may may be incorrect in their decision but the law has been followed.

 

[Cooldude]

Like I said perhaps you need to look at the rules a little more closely, if the umpires agree that the ball has been tampered with they have every right to incur a five run penalty and under the laws of cricket the captain is responsible for the charge as defined in the laws of cricket. They may may be incorrect in their decision but the law has been followed.

It's like talking to a chimp. You've completely missed the point, it was never about whether they could or could not impose the penalty on Pakistan, it was about whether they were right or wrong in doing it, or whether they had sufficient evidence to come to that conclusion. You were just arguing with thin air by continually bringing it up, either you're too slow to realise what this "evidence" thing is all about or you're taking the piss on purpose

Now do you need a dictionary and check out every word and piece them together so you'd finally get it? Or are you gonna continue to talk about some irrelevant **** that's totally off from the original purpose of the debate?

Yeah the umps and the ref can penalise a team for ball tampering, thanks for telling me that, next time you'll be telling me how the ball is round, the grass is green and the sky is blue

 

[MRobbo]

ICC has called a press conference for 3pm london time (12am AEST) to release Inzi's verdict.

 

[London Adelaidian]

He's been cleared for ball tampering, but has been banned for 4 ODI games for bringing the game into disrepute.

BBC Sport

Edit: Correct link inserted this time - let this be a reason not to drink half a bottle of red at lunch time!

 

[Browney2006]

Pfft, ODI games? So he will miss some of the who cares ICC tournament? Make him miss some tests...

 

[Browney2006]

He's been cleared for ball tampering, but has been banned for 4 ODI games for bringing the game into disrepute.

BBC Sport

That sucks for the people catching those trains

Here is the link to the article on cricinfo

http://wwwc1.cricinfo.com/engvpak/content/current/story/260775.html

 

[London Adelaidian]

That sucks for the people catching those trains

Here is the link to the article on cricinfo

http://wwwc1.cricinfo.com/engvpak/content/current/story/260775.html

Shyte - sorry. Sent that link to someone else in the office just before that.

I've editted my original post with the real link.

 

[Romeo]

Imran calls for action against Hair
Islamabad - Pakistan legend Imran Khan Thursday called for action to be taken against Australian umpire Darrell Hair after Inzamam-ul-Haq was cleared on ball-tampering charges.
Khan welcomed Inzamam's acquittal and dismissed the International Cricket Council (ICC) decision to ban Inzamam for four matches on a charge of bringing the game into disrepute after the Oval Test fiasco last month.
"I welcome the acquittal of Inzamam and the team of ball tampering charges. Pakistan have been cleared of very serious allegations of cheating," Khan told AFP.
"The other offence is quite minor and I think the punishment is also minor."
Pakistan forfeited the fourth Test at The Oval after refusing to take the field after tea on the fourth day in protest at the decision of umpires Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove to penalise them five runs for ball-tampering.
Khan, who branded Hair a "mini-Hitler" in a newspaper column after the Oval Test, added: "Now the next question is what to do with the man who created the whole controversy at the first place.
"If Inzamam is cleared of ball tampering allegations, now clearly some sort of action should be taken against the man who was responsible for such serious allegations.
"That allegation caused the big incident where Pakistan ended up forfeiting the match."
Former Pakistan captain Ramuz Raja agreed that the ICC needed to take action against the umpire.
"The ICC need to pull up their socks and take a firm decision now on Darrell Hair," he said, adding that he thought Pakistan should appeal against the verdict. "Pakistan's lawyers now would be arguing that if he was not guilty of ball tampering, why has he been handed out a four-match ban punishment? I think this case is not over yet and Pakistan should contest this decision aggressively because they are in the right."

 

[Cooldude]

Then Billy Doctrove and Darrell Hair has a lot to answer for as to how in the hell did they conclude that the ball was tampered with

Since from all reports, Doctrove wasn't fully convinced himself, then Darrell Hair has a hell lot to answer for. Should not umpire another Test after this