It's Hair's word against Pakistan's

Not much clarity has yet emerged from the stinking carcass of the match on any of the many grave issues involved. One thing though is becoming clear and it is a time-honoured truism; like the tango, it takes more than one. Where we are now is the result of not just one party, but all three: the umpires (and there were two), the ICC and Pakistan.

The bare facts are this; a Test match has been forfeited for the first time in the history of international cricket and Pakistan once again stands accused of ball tampering. It is tempting, as the feedback from our readers reveals, to accuse the umpires of bias, but by doing so, we run the risk of judging both by their past history. If we are to do that then we must also acknowledge that, historically, Pakistani bowlers have also been previously found guilty of ball tampering. To do either is wrong and the decision must be assessed in isolation.

Now the situation becomes muddy. Players (not only Pakistani) have been accused of ball tampering in the past, found guilty and faced some form of punitive action. Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Shoaib Akhtar, Waqar Younis and even, some time back, Michael Atherton [though technically in his case he was penalised for carrying dirt in his pocket] make for an illustrious list. On each occasion, there has been, along with the umpire's word, video evidence from TV cameras to back up the allegation. As of now, Sky TV reiterates that none of their 26 cameras have picked up anything in this Test. But video evidence is not required (whether or not that is correct is another thing entirely) in such matters, so by law, the umpires acted correctly.

To complicate matters further, Cricinfo has learnt that no individual has been identified and no specific incident highlighted in the umpires' report. Pakistan have also strenuously denied the charge. Pakistan officials who have seen the ball are adamant that there are no signs that the ball has been tampered; the very fact that they were willing to protest means they took serious offence to the charge. Essentially, that means that if no video evidence emerges, it boils down to Hair's word against Pakistan's, based on the state of a 55-overs-old battered ball. It is the worst possible situation, for neither will it definitively exonerate Pakistan nor will it vindicate either umpire.

What could have been done? Could the umpires have handled the incident with greater sensitivity? Right or wrong, Pakistan's history with ball tampering is more troubled than that of other countries. Others have been penalised but no nation has been hounded and vilified as Pakistan has. The issue is touchier with them, especially in England, where the sub-context of 1992 further complicates matters. Both umpires acted in accordance with the law but given the gravity of what they were implying, could they not have, for instance, pulled the captain aside and had a word with him?

It is not unknown for umpires to have done this. They are custodians of the game, not policemen, for cricketers are not criminals. But because of their officiousness and rigidity, allegations, murmurs, rumours and speculation that has taunted and haunted Pakistan's bowlers for over a decade - and which had died down - will once again resurface. And unless they can prove unequivocally that there was tampering so too will accusations from the subcontinent of bias. In neutral umpires, worse charges are difficult to imagine.

Subsequently, Pakistan's response and the ICC's handling of the critical period after tea were farcical. Pakistan's protest initially, in my opinion, was justified. Inzamam-ul-Haq is the only survivor of the fractious 1992 tour as well as the match-fixing crisis, both of which sullied Pakistan's name. Having worked with as much dignity and grace as is possible in Pakistan cricket, to pull Pakistan out of their on and off-field troubles, to be told that his team has cheated is not an insult to be taken lightly. If he felt strongly enough to protest, I for one believe, he was fully justified.

Thereafter, though, it gets murkier. Shaharyar Khan initially said on television that the protest was meant to last a few minutes, a token delay before they came back. Umpires and batsmen were out on the field at 4.40pm (BST) and stayed for a few minutes before returning.

Presumably, as both Bob Woolmer and Shaharyar Khan have confirmed, this was to ask what Pakistan's intentions were. When Inzamam responded by asking why the ball had been changed, Hair is reported to have said "I am not here to answer that." After asking again whether Pakistan will play and receiving no answer, the umpires walked out. Soon after, they went out and took the bails off, clear in their minds - and again according to the letter of the law they were correct - that the game had been forfeited. Only about half an hour later did Pakistan come out to play, which raises difficult questions both of Pakistan and the ICC.

For one, Pakistan's protest wasn't of a "few minutes." They came out at 5.30pm, a delay of 50 minutes. Is it a pedantic point? No, because it suggests apparent confusion in Pakistan's intentions - if it was to be a few minutes why did they not come out when the umpires came to them? If the intention was to come out, why weren't the umpires told as such? In an already complex situation, this is perplexing. Inzamam said to a TV channel that they only decided to play after ECB officials and the ICC match referee convinced him to do it for the good of the game, which suggests the protest was to be longer than what his chairman suggested. Had they refused to come out full stop and forfeited the Test, they would have found sympathizers; instead there is now an inconsistency in their stance which needs to be explained.

Enter the ICC. Pakistan only changed their mind at the behest of ECB officials and Mike Proctor. What this reveals of the ICC's communication skills nobody knows; presuming that the decision to forfeit the match had been taken by the umpires when they took off the bails at 5.00pm, did the match referee not speak to them before he negotiated with Pakistan a return to play? Apparently not, and it appears that for half an hour, only the umpires knew the result of the Test match. The crowds didn't know, viewers didn't, Pakistan didn't, the ICC didn't; and this of a result destined to be one of the most controversial in the history of the game.

And when that happens, then you know something has gone seriously, immeasurably wrong.