Sports - A ‘HAIR’ -in a China shop

The revered former English umpire Dickie Bird explained it well over CNN “When a ball is 56 overs old obviously it has to get scuffed. At the same time the ball hits the hoardings which are placed just beyond the boundary lines more often than not. When the ball hits these hoardings there is a further chance of the ball getting damaged. Besides that by mid-day the Oval wicket also gets very hard, and a hard wicket also takes a toll on the ball. Taking these facts into account they should have been a bit more careful before entering into a conclusion of this nature”. This little explanation gives one a fine insight into the circumstances of the infamous Darrell-Inzi affair.

At the same time the Pakistan skipper Inzamam-Ul-Haq also explained well enough the happenings just before the whole scenario took place. “The first I knew of this issue was when Darrell Hair decided to change the ball. He didn't mention a bowler who was at fault ... and he didn't mention any evidence, he said he was changing the ball. At first he refused to show me the ball and said I would have to ask the match referee for a look at it. I argued that it was my right to see it and he relented. It looked like a normal 56-over-old ball which had visited the boundary a few times".

Though the whole white world may try to white-wash umpire Darrell Hair it had been a well established fact that his relationship with South Asian cricketers would not have pleased even a junior customer relations officer of a Public Relations firm.

Even during his 1995 Muralitharan issue it was said that before Hair went ahead with his call on Boxing Day, the plot was first hatched in the Australian Dressing room. Now the latest Hair episode also reads starkly similar. BBC reported on Tuesday “A report in today's Daily Telegraph claims that Sunday's ball-tampering row was triggered by a visit by Duncan Fletcher, England's coach, to Mike Procter, the match referee, before the start of the fourth day's play.

An ECB spokesman confirmed that Fletcher had met with Procter on Sunday morning but denied he had made a "specific complaint about the state of the ball". However, the newspaper went on to say that sources close to the team have stated that Fletcher played a part in drawing the officials' attention to certain issues.

At the same time BBC’s match up date also comes up with something quite remarkable. It says: 1045: Unusual optimism from umpire Darrell Hair - he says we're going to start at 1115 BST. Still looks a bit grey out there, to be honest. After getting a right soaking on the way this morning, I was convinced we'd have a feet-up morning of reading the Sunday papers - but Darrell knows different.

1052: Movement on the England balcony - Duncan Fletcher is eating a sandwich. He is taking elephant-sized bites and chewing with his mouth open. It's a far from pleasant sight.

The story can go on and on to fill this whole page and have more. But, the question is that in matters leading up to his decision to call the entire Pakistan team a pack of cheats by singling out Inzamam as captain was biased and based upon some one else’s insinuations or else they were his own assumptions. At the same time was his self-appointed straightforwardness being taken advantage of by unscrupulous cricket officials to make use of his irrepressible bias against the sub-continent cricketers?

No sooner the incident occurred Pakistan president Parvez Musharaff phoned the beleaguered Pakistani cricket captain to express his and his country’s allegiance to the team. This gesture would have given the entire Pakistani contingent a much-needed pep. However in the same vein one feels that on issues of this nature the whole sub-continent must rise as one and see to it that the ICC umpires panel does not become an exclusive white’s only club.

Those at the helm say that the sub-continent is the most influential quarter in the cricketing world. But, just count how many umpires represent the sub-continent in the ICC elite panel? Besides the two umpires from Pakistan who are comparatively new to the game and have not played Test cricket, the rest of the shelf is bare. However there are three from Australia alone. Then the two umpires they had in the panel in Asoka de Silva and Srinivasan Vetkatraghavan from Sri Lanka and India – both who had played the game at the highest level dropped -- half way. The authorities may give a hundred excuses but insiders know why.

Meanwhile the ICC’s chief match referee Ranjan Madugalle who was the original match referee of the series had to come back home without officiating in the match in question to be beside his father ‘Lionel’ who was in hospital. As a result Ranjan was not available for the ICC disciplinary hearing on Friday. However this move also probably salvaged the troubled five match ODI series between England and Pakistan.

If the ODI series does not go through the ECB stands to lose up to 11m pounds.

An ICC release on Wednesday read “The ICC today announced that Friday's Code of Conduct hearing involving Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq has been postponed.

ICC Chief Executive Officer Malcolm Speed said: "The difficulty relates to the availability of Ranjan Madugalle to chair the hearing as he is dealing with a private and personal matter that requires his urgent attention.

"Pakistan and England, as the host country, have both expressed a preference for Ranjan to hear the case and on that basis we have agreed to the postponement.

"We have looked at potential alternatives but, as the ICC's Chief Referee and a person with immense credibility within the game, Ranjan is the most appropriate person to adjudicate in this matter.

However the ICC also has indicated if Madugalle is not available on time, they would have a look at appointing former West Indian captain Clive Lloyd to handle the matter.

Then on Sri Lanka’s stance SLC president Jayantha Dharmadasa said “Pakistan have stood by us on many issues, but, on this I still know of what I saw on television only and I am still to talk to Shahrayar Khan. Once I talk to him and get to the bottom of the matter we will publicise our official stand”.

As people who love the game and its very structure we too agree that once an umpire takes a decision that is final and binding. But, purportedly incidents of this nature which are hatched outside the boundary lines and plotted to be delivered in the middle must be carefully analysed and phased out of the game forever so that this great game could survive for another 129 years.

P.S.: Ha….Ha….Hair has now turned a blackmailer…..he is demanding $500,000 from the ICC to go Down Under.