Hair Raising Decision

In the first such forfeiture in 129 years of Test cricket, thefourth and final Test at the Oval was awarded to England, already leading 2-0 inthe series, after umpires "correctly deemed" that Pakistan hadforfeited the tie following a ball-tampering row. According the the ICC, it wasthe first time that this punishment has been applied in a Test match.

Pakistan were charged under Level two of the Code ofConduct, 2.10, which relates to changing the condition of the match ball. Theinitial incident took place in the 56th over of the fourth, when umpires DarrellHair of Australia and Billy Doctrove of the West Indies deemed that the quarterseam on the ball had been raised and would therefore have to be changed. Itwas Umar Gul's 14th over with England 230 for three in their second innings whenthe umpires inspected the match ball around tea time and Hair signalled to thescorers that five penalty runs were to be added to England's total.

Pakistan refused to return to the field post tea in protest against the penalty.After waiting in the middle of the pitch for twenty minutes, the umpireswent to the Pakistan dressing-room to ask whether or not Inzamam-ul Haq wouldlead out his team or not before they went out, took the bails off and left, thusawarding the Test to England. When the visitors didlater take the field, the umpires did not appear, leading to extensivenegotiations that ended with the match being abandoned following almost sixhours of high drama. When play was called off England were 298-4, with a deficit of33.

The decision was made according to Law 21, regarding theresult of a match, which states, "A match shall be lost by a side which, inthe opinion of the umpires, refuses to play." A further subsection adds,"If an umpire considers that an action by any player or players mightconstitute a refusal by either side to play then the umpires together shallascertain the cause of the action. If they then decide together that this actiondoes constitute a refusal to play by one side, they shall so inform the captainof that side. If the captain persists in the action the umpires shall award thematch in accordance with above."

Inzamam's fate will be decided onFriday. He could face a ban of either four Tests or eight one-dayers if he isfound guilty of bringing the game into disrepute. If he is only found guilty ofa primary offence of changing the condition of the ball, ban could be for oneTest or two one-day internationals, depending on which Pakistan plays first.

Now, crucially, neither Inzamam nor his team protested the decision when thepenalty runs were awarded. The game continued when Pakistan could well haveasked for an explanation, particularly since there was no camera-shot of anyfielder tempering the ball, and as experts would point out later, such a damagecould not have been inflicted by any player on the ball unless they "workedon it for a long time". With the presence of TV cameras, it becomes almostimpossible, point out many.

There was widespread indignation with former Pakistanskipper Imran Khan lashing out at Inzamam by saying 'That'snot the way to lodge a protest. Inzamam and the Pakistan team have made a foolof themselves by not taking the field. Inzamam has not only brought the gameinto disrepute but has squandered a golden opportunity to pull off a consolationvictory.' Demanding Hair's removal, Imran thundered: "Hairis a controversial figure and teams have had problems with him in the past. Inthis particular case, he levelled serious allegations against Pakistan withoutany substance. This man should immediately be removed from the ICC elite panelof umpires."

On his part, Inzamam said 'I was nottold by the umpires that they had found something wrong with the ball and theywere penalising us by five runs on charges of tampering. It shows that they didnot want to talk about the issue. They had decided themselves that Pakistan hadcheated and took a unilateral decision. They should have shown the original ballin front of the media and told them where the tampering had taken place. If wewere guilty, we deserved the punishment. But nobody should make such baselessallegation.'

The man at the centre of the controversy, Hair, who in hismost infamous moment before the Oval, called Muttiah Muralitharan for an illegalaction seven times during the Boxing Day Test against Australia at Melbourne in1995,struck a defiant note by saying 'If other people haveissues they want to use to force me out it will be an interesting battle.'

But that is what Hair says. It now depends on whether or not Pakistan is ableto rustle up the support of the Indian, Sri Lankan and Bangladesh board in itsfight for what they claim in Hair's "racism".