Bad Hair Day

Ok. So. The dust is settling on today, at least. The teams are willing to play, but, as far as the umpires are concerned, Pakistan have forfeited the match by refusing to turn out after tea.

To quote the ICC statement:

"After lengthy negotiations which resulted in agreement between the teams, the match referee and both the ECB and PCB to resume the fourth Test tomorrow, it was concluded that with regret there will be no play on the fifth day.

"The fourth Test has therefore been forfeited with the match being awarded to England.

"In accordance with the laws of cricket, it was noted that the umpires had correctly deemed that Pakistan had forfeited the match and awarded the test to England."

Let's look at what happened:

The ball.

The TV pictures of Hair inspecting the ball do show that it's scuffed to buggery, if you'll pardon the expression - there's at least two patches on it the size of my thumbnail that look to have lost the top layer of leather, and those two patches are visibly paler, even on a poorish contrast LCD monitor, than the rest, all on the same side near the seam. CricInfo's commentator reckoned that the quarter seam showed signs of being lifted.

Hair (as the senior umpire and a known stickler for the letter of the Laws) evidently felt that the state of the ball had been arrived at by tampering, as per Law 42.3 (d) - "In the event of any fielder changing the condition of the ball unfairly..." , and awarded five penalty runs.

And, to his credit (and in marked contrast to what some former Pakistani captains might have done (an opinion shared by Rameez Raja), Inzamam (though understandably upset) got on with the job in hand.

The protest.

That gets us to the early tea interval caused by bad light, after which, the umpires come out. England, one assumes because by convention the batting side come out second, wait, and Pakistan, according to Shahryar Khan's interview with both Mark Nicholas of Channel 5 and Michael Holding of Sky, refuse to come out immediately, as a protest against the penalty. According to Khan, Pakistan are about to come out when Hair and Doctrove come off, presumably because they wish to inform both teams of their responsibilities under Law 21.3..

We can make a pretty reasonable assumption, that England say 'nope, not us, we're waiting to come out after the fielding side', and Pakistan explain their protest, since 'ascertaining' the cause of the action can't be reasonably done without asking the parties involved! My best guess at this point is that Hair says words which boil down to 'protest noted, we're going back out, both teams join us or forfeit under 21.3 (b).'

According to Khan (again), Pakistan apparently needed to think about that. Hair and Doctrove came out, England came out, Pakistan didn't. Hair applies 21.3 (b).

The aftermath.

Much discussion ensues, driven by the respective boards (as evidenced by the heads of the PCB and ECB disappearing into the Pakistan dressing room), and some time later, the Pakistan side come out. And, quite clearly, the umpires don't, and, ultimately, won't.

Analysis.

The ball.

It's not clear whether anyone was seen tampering with it, since no-one from the ICC or the umpires has made any statement yet, but there's no video evidence that Sky TV (responsible for the UK coverage) have managed to find between the fall of Cook's wicket and the awarding of the penalty runs fifteen minutes later that shows anyone doing anything to the ball that contravenes Law 42.3.

Now: obviously, you can make of that what you will. Either Hair saw someone tampering with the ball that the cameras missed, or he was going on the changed state of the ball. And then - either the ball was tampered with, and Inzi and team are lying, or it wasn't, and they aren't. I'm not making any accusations there, just presenting the range of possibilities.

If we go back and scan CricketArchive's ball by ball, we see that Cook was out at ball 51.5, at which point we assume Hair (again, as the senior umpire) would have examined the ball, as Law 42.3 (c) instructs him to do. It was at that point, though, already reverse swinging, and had taken some fair tap from Pietersen, including several boundaries - not having access to the video, I can't tell how many of them would have had a chance of impacting something hard. There's one more boundary between then and the penalty runs at 55.6, a 'blistering' cover drive from Pietersen at 52.4: again, no way of telling from the text comms what happened to the ball.

Hair, as a known stickler for the laws, followed precisely the provisions of Law 42.3, which, mark you, do not at any point require the umpires to warn the fielding side, merely consult with each other. There are no extra notes in the question and answer files on this section of the Laws, either. nor in the current ICC Test playing conditions.

So. First question: was Hair mistaken? Clearly the Pakistan side feel so: there is no video evidence to back up the accusation, but, if we're being rigourous, refuting it requires more than 'no pictures I can find prove it', since there's no way (even with 25 cameras) Sky can guarantee to have tracked the progress of the ball for every instant of those 4 overs, let alone half an hour. We find ourselves falling between the two stools of "innocent until proven guilty" versus "the umpires are the sole arbiters of fair versus unfair play".

The protest.

Now we get into the realms of attempting to analyse people's reactions and intent in the light of what little information we have. Hair clearly believes there was tampering. Inzi and Pakistan feel strongly enough that there wasn't to protest.

There's two points to be made here: one is that right or wrong, Law 3 provides that Hair and Doctrove are the arbiters of fair and unfair play. In the same way that if you nick the ball onto your pad, and the finger goes up for LBW, you have no choice but to take the long walk, there is a definite case that whatever the rightness of the situation, Hair's decision must stand. And let's note that Inzamam did, indeed, let it stand without on field protest. Unlike, say, Ranatunga leading the Sri Lankan side off the field in past incidents involving the noballing of Murali.

The second point is that the Pakistani protest was, if Khan is to be believed (and I see no reason not to), not a refusal to finish the game, but a brief (apparently at least 5 minutes) refusal to take the field as a protest against what's effectively an accusation of cheating. We assume they told Hair this when he reminded them of the provisions of Law 21.3.

The law says, and I quote: "If an umpire considers that an action by any player or players might constitute a refusal by either side to play then the umpires together shall ascertain the cause of the action. If they then decide together that this action does constitute a refusal to play by one side, they shall so inform the captain of that side. If the captain persists in the action the umpires shall award the match in accordance with (a)(ii) above.". Note again, the decision is the umpires'.

We don't know what went on in there. Again, though, Hair is, by all accounts, not a very hands-on, symathetic umpire (unlike, say, Taufel - Boycott on Channel 5 described Hair as 'a policeman') and I suspect (as above) it was a very blunt summary of Law 21.3, and what would happen if Pakistan didn't take the field once the umpires went back out. Equally, Pakistan as a side are described by many commentators as 'fiercely proud', and an approach like that would, not unreasonably, add fuel to the already growing flames.

Whose fault is it?

So. Who's to blame?

There is no doubt, in my mind, that Hair handled it badly. Even if there is evidence of ball tampering, a more sympathetic umpire would have had a quiet word, even though the Laws don't provide for it, along the lines of 'That ball looks like a dog chewed it. If that's your doing, you really ought to stop, because it's naughty and otherwise I'll be put in a position where I have to take action." Hair isn't that kind of man, though.

And so, Pakistan's backs are already up: Hair's waded in with both feet and a copy of the Laws, perfectly correctly but less than sympathetically. I don't condone the protest, but I do understand it: the more I think about it, the more it feels as though Hair, as well as being heavy-handed, was genuinely mistaken. Not maliciously: just wrong. Pakistan's reaction feels like a response both to the impilict accusation *and* the manner of it. And then Hair compounds the problem by wading in again after the protest, effectively threatening Pakistan with forfeiture of the game if they don't comply. Not the best approach in the circumstances, but, again, exactly what the law calls for.

And there we have it: I don't condone, as I've said, Pakistan's protest. Hair was quite probably wrong, and they were understandably offended. Particularly so since Pakistan have had players found guilty of ball-tampering in the past, and to be found guilty when they aren't, does tend to provoke more of a reaction (as there's the sense of 'give a dog a bad name and hang him'). But the Laws are what they are, and the umpires' decisions are final.

Hair is, quite clearly, one who applies the Laws to the letter. He needs to learn more diplomacy, as even after the penalty award, and the protest, I'm sure this mess could have been averted. If it was, as Khan said, a token protest, and the side would come out again, then laying the provisions of Law 21.3 on them with a heavy hand, when you're the cause of the protest in the first place... not so smart. And it does appear that Hair's sticking to his guns. Read the press release again: "...agreement between the teams, the match referee and both the ECB and PCB to resume the fourth Test tomorrow...". Note who's missing from that list.