Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]http://sport.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329560306-121544,00.html
Ruling body adamant that it alone appoints officials
[/FONT][FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The row over Darrell Hair's credibility took a new twist yesterday when the chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board, Shaharyar Khan, described as "knee-jerk" the assertion by the chief executive of the International Cricket Council, Malcolm Speed, that the appointment of umpires on the elite panel is the sole preserve of the ICC and not of the member countries.
Speed said the ICC had received a letter from Khan "expressing his concerns about the appointment of Darrell Hair to matches involving Pakistan". His statement went on: "However, it remains the role of the ICC and not our members to appoint umpires to Tests and one-day internationals. The appointments are made without fear or favour and are based on the performance of the umpires in international matches."
There can be little argument with the logic of Speed, who is determined not to be dictated to by a member country that is part of an ICC executive board which has approved the process by which umpires are appointed to the elite panel.
But when asked for his response, Khan told the Guardian: "To say that no country can dictate who is going to be an umpire is an obvious knee-jerk reaction. Yet it has happened before with the Sri Lankans, when Hair was out for a year. We will say this when we give our reply, and we will probably say much more than that."
Khan was referring to Hair's decision to no-ball the controversial off-spinner Muttiah Muralitharan at Melbourne seven times for "chucking" on Boxing Day 1995. And while he is incorrect to say that Hair was "out for a year", the Australian umpire did not stand in another Test involving Sri Lanka until 2003, when they played West Indies at Kingston.
In fact, none of Hair's 76 Tests and 124 ODIs have been in Sri Lanka itself, a statistic Pakistan is likely to cite when it responds officially to Speed's statement. In effect, the PCB will argue that since the Sri Lankans were able to apply pressure on the game's governing body to keep Hair and their players apart, why should the Pakistanis not be able to do the same?
The argument is likely to founder as the ICC never officially ruled that Hair should not stand in matches involving Sri Lanka, instead simply removing him quietly from the firing line. But Khan's reaction demonstrates the depth of feeling within the Pakistan camp against a man who they believe is biased against them and might even be motivated by racial prejudice, a charge Hair vehemently denies.
Even so, there was an unlikely source of support for Hair yesterday when the president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India, Niranjan Shah, said it would back any umpire who has the official support of the ICC. "We would never say no to any umpire that the ICC supported," he said. "If the ICC is happy with Hair, then we are happy. Let us see a report first. If Mr Hair has made a mistake, then we will see what happens. But is up to the ICC to take action."
Shah's stance at least rules out one potentially divisive scenario: namely, that the Asian countries will form a united front against Hair and put pressure on the ICC to allow him to stand in Tests only involving England, New Zealand, South Africa and West Indies.
The PCB, meanwhile, is coming under increasing pressure for its muddled stance throughout the dispute. Shaharyar Khan has been criticised for perceived contradictions in his statements while there is concern that he and not the team manager Zaheer Abbas has been the public face during the crisis.
Among the complaints are that Khan wrongly told Sky TV on Sunday that Pakistan's protest was only to last "a few minutes", that the PCB claimed that the ball was roughed up because Kevin Pietersen was hitting sixes when in fact they came after the ball was changed, and that there have been discrepancies in the PCB's stated opinions of Hair and what happened in those crucial minutes after tea and before the game was forfeited.
"They've made a mess of it," says a former Pakistan bowler Aqib Javed. "In a similar situation on our 1992 tour our manager Intikhab Alam told us not to worry, he would handle everything while we should just play on. Afterwards he sent a letter protesting. What Zaheer Abbas was doing nobody knows."
Javed did not agree with Sunday's initial protest either, although he was not surprised that the plan seems to have changed midway through. "Shaharyar's very nature is of compromise; once a diplomat, always a diplomat. Not being clear and firm on issues is natural." In an article for a leading daily, The News, the columnist Shahed Sadullah also questioned the PCB's decision, in collusion with the match referee Mike Procter, to convince the players to return to the field. Ultimately, the gesture was futile and humiliating: "Totally compromising Pakistan's stand. You either protest or you do not; you cannot hedge your bet both ways. That takes away the moral high ground completely and that is what the PCB's actions have done."[/FONT]
Ruling body adamant that it alone appoints officials
[/FONT][FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The row over Darrell Hair's credibility took a new twist yesterday when the chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board, Shaharyar Khan, described as "knee-jerk" the assertion by the chief executive of the International Cricket Council, Malcolm Speed, that the appointment of umpires on the elite panel is the sole preserve of the ICC and not of the member countries.
Speed said the ICC had received a letter from Khan "expressing his concerns about the appointment of Darrell Hair to matches involving Pakistan". His statement went on: "However, it remains the role of the ICC and not our members to appoint umpires to Tests and one-day internationals. The appointments are made without fear or favour and are based on the performance of the umpires in international matches."
There can be little argument with the logic of Speed, who is determined not to be dictated to by a member country that is part of an ICC executive board which has approved the process by which umpires are appointed to the elite panel.
But when asked for his response, Khan told the Guardian: "To say that no country can dictate who is going to be an umpire is an obvious knee-jerk reaction. Yet it has happened before with the Sri Lankans, when Hair was out for a year. We will say this when we give our reply, and we will probably say much more than that."
Khan was referring to Hair's decision to no-ball the controversial off-spinner Muttiah Muralitharan at Melbourne seven times for "chucking" on Boxing Day 1995. And while he is incorrect to say that Hair was "out for a year", the Australian umpire did not stand in another Test involving Sri Lanka until 2003, when they played West Indies at Kingston.
In fact, none of Hair's 76 Tests and 124 ODIs have been in Sri Lanka itself, a statistic Pakistan is likely to cite when it responds officially to Speed's statement. In effect, the PCB will argue that since the Sri Lankans were able to apply pressure on the game's governing body to keep Hair and their players apart, why should the Pakistanis not be able to do the same?
The argument is likely to founder as the ICC never officially ruled that Hair should not stand in matches involving Sri Lanka, instead simply removing him quietly from the firing line. But Khan's reaction demonstrates the depth of feeling within the Pakistan camp against a man who they believe is biased against them and might even be motivated by racial prejudice, a charge Hair vehemently denies.
Even so, there was an unlikely source of support for Hair yesterday when the president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India, Niranjan Shah, said it would back any umpire who has the official support of the ICC. "We would never say no to any umpire that the ICC supported," he said. "If the ICC is happy with Hair, then we are happy. Let us see a report first. If Mr Hair has made a mistake, then we will see what happens. But is up to the ICC to take action."
Shah's stance at least rules out one potentially divisive scenario: namely, that the Asian countries will form a united front against Hair and put pressure on the ICC to allow him to stand in Tests only involving England, New Zealand, South Africa and West Indies.
The PCB, meanwhile, is coming under increasing pressure for its muddled stance throughout the dispute. Shaharyar Khan has been criticised for perceived contradictions in his statements while there is concern that he and not the team manager Zaheer Abbas has been the public face during the crisis.
Among the complaints are that Khan wrongly told Sky TV on Sunday that Pakistan's protest was only to last "a few minutes", that the PCB claimed that the ball was roughed up because Kevin Pietersen was hitting sixes when in fact they came after the ball was changed, and that there have been discrepancies in the PCB's stated opinions of Hair and what happened in those crucial minutes after tea and before the game was forfeited.
"They've made a mess of it," says a former Pakistan bowler Aqib Javed. "In a similar situation on our 1992 tour our manager Intikhab Alam told us not to worry, he would handle everything while we should just play on. Afterwards he sent a letter protesting. What Zaheer Abbas was doing nobody knows."
Javed did not agree with Sunday's initial protest either, although he was not surprised that the plan seems to have changed midway through. "Shaharyar's very nature is of compromise; once a diplomat, always a diplomat. Not being clear and firm on issues is natural." In an article for a leading daily, The News, the columnist Shahed Sadullah also questioned the PCB's decision, in collusion with the match referee Mike Procter, to convince the players to return to the field. Ultimately, the gesture was futile and humiliating: "Totally compromising Pakistan's stand. You either protest or you do not; you cannot hedge your bet both ways. That takes away the moral high ground completely and that is what the PCB's actions have done."[/FONT]