ICC facing recipe for anarchy
As the cricket world’s attention heads back to The Oval – and not even with the badly-scheduled 2004 Champions Trophy was the old ground in the headlines so late in the year – the speculation and rumour surrounding events five weeks ago continues
Martin Williamson
25-Feb-2013
 | ||
|
| ||
|
|
|
Today, a report by Christopher Martin-Jenkins in The Times claims that Inzamam did not act on his own in refusing to resume play after tea but was persuaded by others.
The refusal to take the field may not have been his idea but that of Waqar Younis, the touring team’s bowling coach, or one of the other senior figures in or around the Pakistan dressing-room at the time, The source said that Waqar, who was suspended and fined in 2000 when found guilty of changing the condition of the ball by a referee in Colombo, took Inzamam into the lavatory for a secret discussion at the start of the tea interval, from which point the situation spiralled out of control.
In The Guardian, David Hopps concentrates on the roles of the officials, and particularly that of Mike Procter, the match referee, whose actions, or lack of them, make him appear increasing ineffectual:
Pakistan's lawyers will also claim that the match referee, Mike Procter, failed for several hours to inform Pakistan of the ruling by umpire Hair that they had forfeited the match. They will argue that it was this breakdown of communication, rather than any act of rebellion led by Pakistan's captain, Inzamam-ul-Haq, that was primarily responsible for the Test not continuing.
In The Daily Telegraph, Mihir Bose claims that Billy Doctrove was at odds with Darrell Hair and Procter.
I understand that Hair and … Procter, have strongly declared that they believe the ball was tampered with. In contrast, Doctrove's statement is far less strong and open to interpretation that he may not be entirely convinced that this is the case. That Doctrove should have doubts is no surprise. In his match report on the incident he is said to have suggested that the umpires allowed play to continue for a few more overs to identify what caused the ball to change condition. Hair, though, persuaded him that if the ball had changed condition it should be replaced immediately. Doctrove agreed.
Bose goers on to state that Inzamam’s defence will centre on suggestions he was unaware of much going on around him:
[His] statement is believed to include further evidence of how the Pakistani captain saw that dramatic Sunday's play. I understand Inzamam says he did not see Hair's signal awarding England five runs, did not know why the ball was changed, and only realised what had happened in the dressing room. He will admit that the team's failure to take the field after tea was a mark of protest against the ball-tampering charge but that he did not know Pakistan stood to forfeit the match if his team failed to take the field.
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
|
|
Drafts of a few general questions had been forwarded to representatives of Kevin Pietersen, Ian Bell and Paul Collingwood — who were all at the crease around the time of the furore. The Professional Cricketers’ Association have sought assurances about the confidentiality of their replies. However, there was no followup from the ICC and the players have gone on holiday.
In The Independent, Angus Fraser summed things up:
One side will, undoubtedly, claim victory but the whole affair has done nothing but damage to the game.
Martin Williamson is executive editor of ESPNcricinfo and managing editor of ESPN Digital Media in Europe, the Middle East and Africa