Hair comes problem !!!
MEDIA IN PAKISTAN
Sad as it may sound, there will be many who will wonder whether Darrell Hair would have done what he did on Sunday if the bowling team were Australian or English. Umpire Hair should be asked why he chose not to warn Inzamam before deciding that the ball used by his bowlers had been tampered with. Surely, he (Hair) should have known the consequences of his actions and given his history with the Pakistan team it could have been interpreted by the latter to be a deliberate slight or provocation. He says he followed the laws governing the game and that may well be the case but he failed terribly in exercising commonsense and good judgment. Most importantly, the umpires should be asked for specific evidence on which they decided to take action because the allegations are extremely serious and because those accused have vehemently denied them and are asking for proof since the cameras seem not to have detected any such thing.
Editorial the news – Pakistan
28.08.06
The ball is now firmly in the court of the International Cricket Council (ICC), an organisation not known for clear thinking. The Pakistan board has repeatedly told the ICC that it has no faith in Darrell Hair, going so far as to request that he should not be appointed for any matches involving Pakistan. The ICC, in its wisdom, instead ensured that Hair featured in some of Pakistan’s most important matches in recent years. There is a widespread view that Hair is heavily biased, for whatever reason, against subcontinental teams, particularly Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Sunday’s controversy has only added to these fears. If the ICC supports Hair and further penalises Pakistan — which is highly likely — it must provide incriminating footage confirming that ball tampering did indeed occur. If none is forthcoming, it has to be ensured that the Oval Test was Darrell Hair’s last as an umpire.
Eiditorial Dawn- Pakistan
28.08.06
Pakistan only changed their mind at the behest of ECB officials and Mike Proctor. What this reveals of the ICC's communication skills nobody knows; presuming that the decision to forfeit the match had been taken by the umpires when they took off the bails at 5.00pm, did the match referee not speak to them before he negotiated with Pakistan a return to play? Apparently not, and it appears that for half an hour, only the umpires knew the result of the Test match. The crowds didn't know, viewers didn't, Pakistan didn't, the ICC didn't; and this of a result destined to be one of the most controversial in the history of the game.
Osman Samiuddin Editor Cricinfo - Pakistan
August 21, 2006
MEDIA IN UK
London - The controversial end to the Test cricket series between England and Pakistan dominated the front-pages of Britain's newspapers yesterday after the tourists forfeited the fourth Test at the Oval on Sunday.
The Independent dedicated its cover to Pakistani bowler Shahid Nazir holding a ball, under the headline "It's just not cricket!"
The result was, according to former England bowler Angus Fraser writing in The Independent, "the day cricket spun out of control".
The newspaper even dedicated an editorial to the chaos at The Oval, lamenting: "A cricket match should not end like this."
"Whatever turbulence rocked the world, one thing could be relied upon: A Test match was a Test match and a Test match was cricket."
"It was played in whites; it paused for lunch and tea; and a player walked back to the pavilion without demur, however preposterous the umpire's ruling."
The Daily Telegraph put the sport on a considerably lower pedestal, declaring that "cricket proved yet again that it is capable of wrapping itself so thickly in politics, race, argument and drama that it resembles anything but a sport synonymous with fair play."
The Times laid the blame squarely at the feet of the sport's governing body, the International Cricket Council.
The Guardian said umpire Darrell Hair already had a "knife-edge relationship" with the tourists, ruling Inzamam run out in a Test in November, and disallowing Salman Butt a crossing run for running.
Meanwhile, as if lost in the news of the forfeit, the Financial Times reminded its readers: "Academic as it seemed, England were making good progress towards saving the game by making Pakistan bat again." - Sapa-AFP
THE STAR
August 22, 2006 Edition 2
"For a start they should have an enquiry into this and Darrell Hair should prove that there was ball tampering."If he cannot prove this, the Pakistan team are entitled to take him to court for defamation. "If I was the captain I would have seriously taken him to court for calling my team and me cheats." However, Imran feels the decision to stay in the dressing room instead of returning to the field was not the correct course of action. He feels Pakistan should have carried on and completed the match and then stated their case at a press conference afterwards.
Imran khan to sky sports
21 Aug 2006
Bob Woolmer’s view is that any allegation of ball-tampering should be explained by the umpire to the captain on the pitch at the time it occurs. “This incident is harming cricket and that is what I do not like,” Woolmer said. “Considering that the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) wrote to the ICC before the series, asking, in so many words, that Hair should not stand, if possible. I did not have the chance to talk to him on Sunday. However, if I do this week, naturally I shall ask him what proof he had that there was tampering to the ball.”
The times
MEDIA IN SUB- CONTINENT
By playing, even under protest, Pakistan would have only submitted to the grave injustice which came sans any evidence. By playing on without protesting the way they did, they would have only given in to the race and region specific profiling which is against the very spirit cricket is ingrained in. Even if Pakistan had won the Test, where they held the upper hand throughout, it would have been a tainted victory.
Instead, Inzamam's action has given Pakistan a high moral ground which Asians must make full use of. And thank him for it.
Atul Sondhi (Racial profiling of asian cricketers)
Hindustan times August 22, 2006
Sad as it may sound, there will be many who will wonder whether Darrell Hair would have done what he did on Sunday if the bowling team were Australian or English. Umpire Hair should be asked why he chose not to warn Inzamam before deciding that the ball used by his bowlers had been tampered with. Surely, he (Hair) should have known the consequences of his actions and given his history with the Pakistan team it could have been interpreted by the latter to be a deliberate slight or provocation. He says he followed the laws governing the game and that may well be the case but he failed terribly in exercising commonsense and good judgment. Most importantly, the umpires should be asked for specific evidence on which they decided to take action because the allegations are extremely serious and because those accused have vehemently denied them and are asking for proof since the cameras seem not to have detected any such thing.
Editorial the news – Pakistan
28.08.06
The ball is now firmly in the court of the International Cricket Council (ICC), an organisation not known for clear thinking. The Pakistan board has repeatedly told the ICC that it has no faith in Darrell Hair, going so far as to request that he should not be appointed for any matches involving Pakistan. The ICC, in its wisdom, instead ensured that Hair featured in some of Pakistan’s most important matches in recent years. There is a widespread view that Hair is heavily biased, for whatever reason, against subcontinental teams, particularly Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Sunday’s controversy has only added to these fears. If the ICC supports Hair and further penalises Pakistan — which is highly likely — it must provide incriminating footage confirming that ball tampering did indeed occur. If none is forthcoming, it has to be ensured that the Oval Test was Darrell Hair’s last as an umpire.
Eiditorial Dawn- Pakistan
28.08.06
Pakistan only changed their mind at the behest of ECB officials and Mike Proctor. What this reveals of the ICC's communication skills nobody knows; presuming that the decision to forfeit the match had been taken by the umpires when they took off the bails at 5.00pm, did the match referee not speak to them before he negotiated with Pakistan a return to play? Apparently not, and it appears that for half an hour, only the umpires knew the result of the Test match. The crowds didn't know, viewers didn't, Pakistan didn't, the ICC didn't; and this of a result destined to be one of the most controversial in the history of the game.
Osman Samiuddin Editor Cricinfo - Pakistan
August 21, 2006
MEDIA IN UK
London - The controversial end to the Test cricket series between England and Pakistan dominated the front-pages of Britain's newspapers yesterday after the tourists forfeited the fourth Test at the Oval on Sunday.
The Independent dedicated its cover to Pakistani bowler Shahid Nazir holding a ball, under the headline "It's just not cricket!"
The result was, according to former England bowler Angus Fraser writing in The Independent, "the day cricket spun out of control".
The newspaper even dedicated an editorial to the chaos at The Oval, lamenting: "A cricket match should not end like this."
"Whatever turbulence rocked the world, one thing could be relied upon: A Test match was a Test match and a Test match was cricket."
"It was played in whites; it paused for lunch and tea; and a player walked back to the pavilion without demur, however preposterous the umpire's ruling."
The Daily Telegraph put the sport on a considerably lower pedestal, declaring that "cricket proved yet again that it is capable of wrapping itself so thickly in politics, race, argument and drama that it resembles anything but a sport synonymous with fair play."
The Times laid the blame squarely at the feet of the sport's governing body, the International Cricket Council.
The Guardian said umpire Darrell Hair already had a "knife-edge relationship" with the tourists, ruling Inzamam run out in a Test in November, and disallowing Salman Butt a crossing run for running.
Meanwhile, as if lost in the news of the forfeit, the Financial Times reminded its readers: "Academic as it seemed, England were making good progress towards saving the game by making Pakistan bat again." - Sapa-AFP
THE STAR
August 22, 2006 Edition 2
"For a start they should have an enquiry into this and Darrell Hair should prove that there was ball tampering."If he cannot prove this, the Pakistan team are entitled to take him to court for defamation. "If I was the captain I would have seriously taken him to court for calling my team and me cheats." However, Imran feels the decision to stay in the dressing room instead of returning to the field was not the correct course of action. He feels Pakistan should have carried on and completed the match and then stated their case at a press conference afterwards.
Imran khan to sky sports
21 Aug 2006
Bob Woolmer’s view is that any allegation of ball-tampering should be explained by the umpire to the captain on the pitch at the time it occurs. “This incident is harming cricket and that is what I do not like,” Woolmer said. “Considering that the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) wrote to the ICC before the series, asking, in so many words, that Hair should not stand, if possible. I did not have the chance to talk to him on Sunday. However, if I do this week, naturally I shall ask him what proof he had that there was tampering to the ball.”
The times
MEDIA IN SUB- CONTINENT
By playing, even under protest, Pakistan would have only submitted to the grave injustice which came sans any evidence. By playing on without protesting the way they did, they would have only given in to the race and region specific profiling which is against the very spirit cricket is ingrained in. Even if Pakistan had won the Test, where they held the upper hand throughout, it would have been a tainted victory.
Instead, Inzamam's action has given Pakistan a high moral ground which Asians must make full use of. And thank him for it.
Atul Sondhi (Racial profiling of asian cricketers)
Hindustan times August 22, 2006
posted by Shahzad at 1:15 PM
<< Home