Bad form, captain

Umpires Hair and Doctrove, most controversially and hastily, awarded England five penalty runs and gave the batsmen the choice of a replacement ball by invoking playing regulation 42.1.2 b for this series that states batsmen can choose a replacement ball from a selection of six in the event the match ball has been tampered with. This action was tantamount to saying Pakistan was guilty of ball-tampering. It is not clear what this claim was based on. If umpire Hair had evidence of ball-tampering, the issue is straightforward but it seems he didn8217;t, because none of the cameras picked up any such activity. What, then, were Pakistan8217;s options: to play or not to play?

Inzamam8217;s idea of protest, when Hair decreed the ball be changed, was to not come out after tea. That was the first lapse of judgement; the second came when, after having decided to stay in, he brought the boys out to the field again. This, after the umpires had come out and gone in again. If Pakistan had indeed decided not to play, why did the team come out of the dressing room?

Inzamam says he didn8217;t really understand what Hair had said to him. Was this an issue of his lack of knowledge of the rule book or of the English language or both? Also, who was doing the decision-making in the Pakistani dressing room: the captain or the team as a whole? Because if Inzamam was suffering not just from bad English but also an atrocious lack of practical sense, someone else in the team could have compensated. Inzamam says walking out was a matter of honour. But much to-ing and fro-ing had to be done to heed the call of honour.

So while the Pakistani team needs a deep rethink of its strategy for such situations, should this incident not become reason for the ICC to review the role of umpires, or at least the process of protest when a team thinks it has been wronged? In fact, one wonders what the role of the third umpire and the match referee could have been in this episode; does the ICC need to give them sufficient powers to allow for such situations to be handled more sensitively? Right now, the cricket rule book makes the field umpire8217;s decision sacrosanct and while that is not wrong per se, some mechanism needs to be formulated so that a team can protest effectively if it feels it has been wronged and, if a decision is found lacking, action can be taken against the umpire and the team compensated.

The Pakistan team8217;s relations with Hair have been sour. Indian, Pakistani and Sri Lankan teams have all complained to the ICC about Hair8217;s style of umpiring. Observers have even said he is personally prejudiced against South Asian teams. In the current series too, Pakistan approached the ICC in respect of a few bad decisions by Hair at the Headingley Test that pointed to personal animus. But the ICC stuck with its panel.

The Pakistan Cricket Board PCB has now lodged a protest with the ICC and wants an independent inquiry into the ball tampering allegations. PCB Chairman Shahryar Khan maintains that the board and the team have no regrets about what happened on Sunday. The PCB has asked the ICC to ensure Hair never officiates a Pakistan match again. But Malcolm Speed says Hair will referee the one-dayers and Pakistan can choose whether or not to play ball. Chances are the PCB will get the team to play to avoid huge financial losses. If that be the case, what has Pakistan really gained from this controversy?

The writer is assistant news editor, 8216;The Friday Times8217;