Verdict gives umpire and ICC chiefs a slap

Outraged Pakistani cricket fans show why Darrell Hair should abandon any thoughts of standing in Lahore again. Picture / Reuters

Spare a thought for match referee Ranjan Madugalle as the fur continues to fly over the ructions at the Oval.

Not only did the Sri Lanka official yesterday go against his employer's philosophy when he acquitted Inzamam ul-Haq of ball-tampering, he then imposed the lightest penalty possible on the charge of bringing the game into disrepute.

Inzamam, the Pakistan captain, was yesterday suspended for four ODIs for his actions in the fourth test against England last month, when he refused to return to the field on the fourth day as a protest against the actions of umpire Darrell Hair.

Hair had earlier accused the Pakistan side of ball-tampering, changed the ball for one of inferior quality and imposed a five-run penalty, actions that enraged Inzamam and his fellow players.

When, a short time later, Pakistan twice refused to take the field as a protest, Hair awarded the match to England - the first forfeiture in test cricket's 129-year history.

Madugalle revealed yesterday that the ICC - his employer - believed he should overturn the umpire's decision only if he thought it was perverse, involved bad faith, or was the result of a misinterpretation of the laws.

The ICC believed the umpire's finding of ball-tampering was correct and that Madugalle should agree with them because of Law 42.2, which states "The umpires shall be the sole judges of fair and unfair play ... ".

But Madugalle said he could not accept the ICC's position. He felt he should form his own view, as the Code of Conduct made it clear that his role was to "investigate and adjudicate upon alleged breaches of the Rules of Conduct notified to him".

"There is, in my view, a distinction between the umpires being sole judges of events on the field of play ... and the hearing of a disciplinary charge," he said.

"If such a charge is brought, my role is to determine the facts and decide accordingly.

"It would be very odd indeed, and very unfair ... were I obliged to find guilty a player who is the subject of a serious disciplinary charge and then punish him, even if I am satisfied on all the evidence that he is not guilty, but where I cannot say the umpires were perverse."

Madugalle then said he found it striking that, with all the technology available for modern-day coverage of a test match, there was no evidence of any fielder acting in any suspicious manner.

If the ball was in an acceptable condition after the 52nd over, as Hair and colleague Billy Doctrove claimed, he thought it highly unlikely its condition could have been changed so substantially in four overs without some suspicious conduct being noticed.

"Given that the physical state of the ball did not justify a conclusion that a fielder had altered its condition, and neither of the umpires had seen a fielder tampering with the ball, there was no breach of Law 42.3," he found.

"The course of action I would have expected from umpires ... would have been to draw Mr ul-Haq's attention to the marks and to tell him they intended to keep a close eye on the ball after each over."

The findings have cast a pall over the future of Hair, who was much the senior partner on duty at the Oval, and who has already been ruled out of the upcoming Champions Trophy tournament in India, apparently on the grounds of safety and security.

Pakistan chairman Shaharyar Khan has urged the ICC to take action against Hair, claiming the decision proved he wasn't fit to stand in any game involving Inzamam's side.

What they said

"On the first charge of ball-tampering under paragraph 2.9 of the ICC Code of Conduct, I find Mr Ul-Haq not guilty."

Chief match referee Ranjan Madugalle cuts to the chase.

"Having regard to the seriousness of the allegation of ball-tampering ... 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 interventions."

Madugalle again.

"We had Darrell Hair for four series in a row. He was a timebomb waiting to happen. We have already told the ICC that we would not like to have Darrell Hair umpire our matches."

Pakistan chairman Shaharyar Khan.

"We were totally vindicated by the not-guilty verdict and we are happy that it has removed the slur on the good name of our team and our country."

Khan explains the depth of feeling in hiscountry.

"It was a matter of the team's reputation, and ball-tampering allegations meant that we'd cheated during the Test match."

Inzamam, after the hearing, explains his motivations for not resuming play.

"If it happened I might well do the same."

Hair, after being asked if he'd do the same again in similar circumstances.

"I'm pretty bloody good at it."

Hair delivers a favourable self-assessment of his umpiring

"You've got to be 100 per cent certain, and I mean 100 per cent certain, before you start accusing anyone."

Former England umpire Dickie Bird questions Hair's judgement.

"This idea that umpires are always right is a load of old cobblers. The players suffer from their mistakes, but no one ever seems to get rid of the umpires themselves."

Straight talking from Geoff Boycott before the hearing.

How it unravelled

August 20
Hair, above, shows the match ball to colleague Billy Doctrove on the fourth afternoon of the fourth test at the Oval, deems that it has been tampered with, penalises Pakistan five runs and has the ball replaced by one of inferior quality. Pakistan are incensed, believing no offence has been committed, and refuse to return after the tea break. Hair deems Pakistan to have forfeited the match and awards it to England.

August 21
Pakistan skipper Inzamam ul-Haq, above, is slapped with a representative charge of ball tampering and one of bringing the game into disrepute (for failing to take the field after tea). Inzamam, coach Bob Woolmer and manager Zaheer Abbas insist their side have been wrongly accused in regard to the ball-tampering allegation. Inzamam states the claim is tantamount to an accusation of cheating.

August 22
Inzamam warns that Pakistan's series against England will be scuppered if he isn't cleared.

August 23
ICC Code of Conduct hearing into both charges is postponed because of the unavailability of chief match referee Ranjan Madugalle. According to the ICC, no other official is acceptable to all parties.

August 25
ICC chief Malcolm Speed announces that Hair, in emails to umpires' manager Doug Cowie, has offered to resign in return for US$500,000 - to be paid into his bank account within five days. Cowie suggests the idea has merit but expresses doubt about the time frame.

August 27
Hair, now fighting allegations that he is attempting to profit from the saga, claims Cowie encouraged him to make the offer. The ICC rejects this version of events, insisting previous exchanges between the pair had been informal.

September 4
Speed warns Inzamam against making any further comments before the hearing, saying he could prejudice the process and attract further Code of Conduct charges.

September 7
ICC confirms charges will be heard on September 27 and 28.

September 25
Reports suggest Doctrove has distanced himself from Hair's ball-tampering allegation, quoting him as saying he was initially reluctant to have the ball replaced or to penalise Pakistan five runs.

September 27
Hearing includes 37 witnesses, among them former test batsman Geoff Boycott, television analyst Simon Hughes and former umpire John Hampshire.

September 28
Hair is left facing an uncertain future after Madugalle, right, first ridicules and dismisses the ball-tampering charge, then suspends Inzamam for just four ODIs in relation to the forfeiture. Pakistan announce they are considering levelling "disrepute" charges against Hair.