What constitutes solid proof?

Thanks to Hiren for his comment… It gives me the opportunity to question the basic assumption made against Darrell Hair – that he didn’t have absolute proof.

In his opinion, he probably did – and that is all that counts. Whether he actually did, is something that would be decided by the Match Referee when the Umpires brought the charge on the Pakistan side.

That, whether anybody likes it or not is the Law. No video evidence is mandated, neither is the individual identification of one or more culprit required. Indeed, it is for this exact reason – that it may not be possible for the individual to be identified, that the written provision for the charge to be made against the captain in such an instance exists. The ball is sufficient as clinching evidence.

Its quite amazing that everyone is obsessed with what Hair did, even though hes acted absolutely within the letter of the Law, while condoning Pakistan’s actions, even though they show absolute disregard for England, English Cricket, English spectators and Cricket itself.

As Waqar Younis said – it was bad for cricket. If that is the case, then it cannot possibly have been anything other than damaging for anybody associated with cricket – especially Pakistan.

I can clearly see practiced sledges when a Pakistan batsman comes to the wicket – “Don’t upset him, he might walk out, and then we’ll have to play amongst ourselves” …. followed by periodic queries to the batsman “Are you all right?”…… “Have we done anything to upset you?”……

Besides, Shoaib being magnanimously let off by the Umpires inspite of being caught embarassingly on the wrong side of Law 42 (the same law under which Inzamam has been charged for ball tampering in the Oval Test), doesn’t help Pakistans already dwindling credibility…..

Its a mistake to view this along racist lines – because unlike in previous instances, the ICC has fairly detailed mechanisms in place to ensure that fair hearings are held and decisions are made.

If you look at most of the sporting controversies in which race related allegation are insinuated or explicitly made, you will find that most can be explained in terms of

1. Procedural incompetence (in this case Mike Procter sitting on his heels and not completing the hearing that same evening).
2. A poor understanding of procedure and law on the part of one of the sides. (Inzamam being unaware of the law, expecting to be shown the ball and expecting its change to be negotiated with him)
3. A poorly framed, incomplete procedure on the books. (The Mike Denness situation – which allowed no avenue for appeal within the ICC framework once Denness had made his decision, and further more, no mechanism by the Denness could explain the procedures he followed and came to his judgement).

I hope the 27th September hearing finds in favour of Cricket. Whats been bad for cricket, cannot stand.

CricketingView