Re: LAW was not followed by Hair.

sdavmor wrote:

Afzal A. Khan wrote:

Mike Holmans wrote:

On 22 Aug 2006 08:34:04 -0700, "Aqeel" <aqeelrock@xxxxxxxxx> tapped
the keyboard and brought forth:


I was reading the law under which Hair acted. He is required to
identify the fielder who changed the ball's condition before being able
to use law 42.3 D. Oh I wish someone at the PCB and Inzi's defence team
gets hold of this. Because if they do, Hair is in ***!



It is to be hoped that the PCB and Inzi's defence team are better able
to understand the Laws than you, then, because there is no mention in
the official Laws of Cricket of any clause having the effect that you
have invented for the purposes of your igno-ranting.

Law 42.3(d):

(d) In the event of any fielder changing the condition of the ball
unfairly, as set out in (b) above, the umpires after consultation
shall
(i) change the ball forthwith. It shall be for the umpires to decide
on the replacement ball, which shall, in their opinion, have had wear
comparable with that which the previous ball had received immediately
prior to the contravention.
(ii) inform the batsmen that the ball has been changed.
(iii) award 5 penalty runs to the batting side. See 17 below.
(iv) inform the captain of the fielding side that the reason for the
action was the unfair interference with the ball.
(v) inform the captain of the batting side as soon as practicable of
what has occurred.
(vi) report the occurrence as soon as possible to the Executive of the
fielding side and any Governing Body responsible for the match, who
shall take such action as is considered appropriate against the
captain and team concerned.

Subclauses (i) and (ii) are over-ridden by the Test match playing
conditions:

42.1.2 In addition to Law 42.3:
a The umpires shall report the incident to the ICC Match
Referee under the ICC Code of Conduct.
b In the event that a ball has been interfered with and
requires replacement the batsman at the wicket shall
choose the replacement ball from a selection of six
other balls of various degrees of usage (including a new
ball) and of the same brand as the ball in use prior to
the contravention.

Nowhere does it state that the umpire is required to catch a
particular fielder in the act of altering the condition of the ball.
It is enough that the alteration has occurred. Nor should it state
that. If you require that the act be seen, then you are opening up a
cheats' charter for anyone who can find surreptitious methods of
altering the ball because as long as they aren't seen, the batsmen
have to live with the consequences.

That is the point of the provision that the umpires shall frequently
inspect the ball, after all.

Cheers,

Mike





Mike,

I have seen 6/7 posts in this thread and am intervening only
as regards the legal angle. I am NOT concerned in this post
with the controversy, allegations of racial profiling etc.

Also, I have no reason to doubt the text of the relevant Laws
quoted hereinabove.

So, from a purely legal angle, what does the following expression
mean ?

"In the event of any fielder changing the condition of the
ball unfairly......"

Aqeel and maybe someone else too talked of there being an
"implication". I would submit that, phrased as above, there is
no question of any "implication" whatsoever. The (unfair) change
in the ball's condition is required to be determined as a fait
accompli. And for reaching such a determination, a reasoned
judgment, some process has to be followed. Also, some fielder has
to be determined to be the culprit responsible for the unfair
damage to the ball. It has been stated that on one or
two prior occasions, no culprit was ever identified. That is
neither here nor there. The law does not state that the fielder
or culprit should not be identified.

Further, as far as I am aware, the law also states the unlawful
actions involved on the part of a fielder that can lead to an
unfair change in the ball's condition :

".....interfere with any of the seams or the surface of the ball,
use any implement,or take any other action whatsoever which is
likely to alter....." (irrelevant portions deleted)

So, in my humble view, the law requires that a judgment or
determination be made as to the following :

(a) there has been a(n unfair) change in the ball's condition
(b) one or more fielders are specifically responsible for this
(c) the unlawful action committed, as detailed in the above
quotation

If the matter was just left to the arbitrary whim of any umpire
in a nebulous fashion, there would have been no need for making
such specific provisions.

One doesn't have to be completely familiar with the writings of
Maxwell or Vepa Sarathy to reach these conclusions. {Vepa
Sarathy would perhaps be known to at least some Indian RSCers}.

In a previous post ("Basic Flaw"), this is exactly what I was
trying to convey --- the law has to be sufficiently clear and
transparent, so that all concerned know where they stand.

Also, I don't see how there can be anything sacrosanct about NOT
identifying a culprit. Here the entire team has been "victimised"
and vilified. Would it not be better if one or two people alone
are identified and punished, say, Mohammed Asif and/or Umar Gul
in the present case ?



A. A. Khan


Mr. Khan, you are clearly one of the most thoughtful and erudite
posters on rsc. It is a pleasure to read your posts because you
always make me think, you refrain from hyperbole, and you approach
everything from a rational standpoint. Thank you.

The problem with singling out any individual is that one person has to
be caught in the act for it to be possible. I am reliably informed by
several seamers of my acquaintance (some I play with some I play
against) that most tampering is done by the bowler and done on his way
back to his mark. Certainly this is true at the club level anyway.
It's highly unlikely that an umpire will ever see it being done, and
unless a bowler is daft enough to cary a pop-top or a bit of emory
board onto the field in his pocket, there's little chance of thelong
arm of the law descending on his shoulder...

That aside it's not that hard to do some "roughing" with fingernails
as the ball is retreived in the field. In fact I did it right now with
an old ball sitting at my desk, and I am a chronic habitual nail-biter
with next to nothing to work with. Five seconds with my 1st 2nd and
3rd finger across one quarter panel produced some nice roughage and
increased several "pockets" in a ball I use when bowling in the nets.
Had I been fielding at 3rd man or anywhere out in the deep I bet I
could systematically get away with it all day long.

Anyway, the point I want to make is that Inzy, by virtue of being the
team captain, carries the can and must answer the charge for his guys,
right or wrong. While the one posted picture of Mr. Nazir is not
conclusive evidence, the quicks I know that have seen it all believe
it to be damning enough that the photos plus the ball will get Inzy in
hot water. And if photos of other Pakistan bowlers come to light doing
the same it will just reinforce the likelihood of the ICC upholding
Hair and Doctove's actions all the way, and Inzy getting suspended.




I am sorry I do not know how to address you, but I must thank you
for your kind words. I may not be any of the things you speak
of, but I am certainly one of the oldest cricket lovers amongst
those who post on RSC.

I am in complete agreement with most of what you state above.
The difficulty of spotting any specific wrong-doing, the
bowler being chiefly responsible for such acts, Inzimam being
such a daft captain etc. etc. --- all these are quite true.

My only point was about the construction of the relevant Law
--- in a legal sense; and the turmoil it can lead to, as it has
apparently done. It was strictly in this context that I was
pleading for the Law/s to be refined and reworded in such a way
that the objects are well-served and controversies like these
are avoided in future.

You must have seen the arguments being advanced by the anti-Hair
brigade. "Where is the evidence ? Who was the culprit ? How
come the TV cameras missed it ?".

If the objective is to ensure that umpires alone should have the
(first and) last word, let the Law state so unequivocally :

"The umpires shall have the authority to determine at their sole
discretion that the ball has been unfairly damaged by the
fielding side. It shall not be necessary for them to give any
warning to the fielding side before taking action. They should
award 5 penalty runs to the batting side and have the tampered
ball replaced. It shall not be open to anybody to call into
question any such action taken by the umpires or to demand any
sort of evidence to be adduced to support the action taken."

It is the extant phraseology that has led to the present contro-
versy.

At the same time, it is a well-known principle of jurisprudence
that governance must be with the consent of the governed.
Whenever such a controversy arises, let the ICC consult with all
the cricketing nations and have some sort of a joint committee
constituted so that matters are amicably settled and, if
necessary, suitable changes are made in the Laws. Nobody,
including the offended parties, should stand on their high
horse. Again, all this IMHO.


A. A. Khan
.

Loading