Ovalgate

In 2006, during the fourth day of the fourth Test between England and Pakistan at The Oval, umpires Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove ruled that the Pakistani team had been involved in ball tampering. The Pakistani players refused to take the field after the tea break in protest of the decision. After waiting two more minutes the umpires removed the bails and declared England winners by forfeiture. This was the first such end to a Test match in more than 1,000 Tests.

The International Cricket Council (ICC), England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) and Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) later affirmed that the decision to award the match to England was in accordance with the ''Laws of Cricket''. After the game, an email was leaked showing that Hair had offered his resignation from the ICC Elite Umpire Panel in return for a non-negotiable one-off payment of US$500,000. Hair said that the ICC had been in negotiations with him prior to the incident.

The ICC match referee Ranjan Madugalle later acquitted Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq of a ball-tampering charge, but banned him for four one day internationals for bringing the game into disrepute. After the hearing the ICC announced that Hair would not be umpiring at the 2006 ICC Champions Trophy because of security concerns. Hair was later banned from officiating in international matches by the ICC: they stated that although Hair had been banned from Tests, there is "no issue" with the result of the Oval Test match. In the aftermath of the Oval incident, Hair was voted Umpire of the Season in a poll carried out by ''The Wisden Cricketer'', with more than a third of the votes. A leaked ICC report showed that immediately before the Oval incident, Hair was ranked the second-best umpire in the world overall behind Simon Taufel and number one in terms of decision-making statistics.

In 2007 Hair announced he was suing the ICC and PCB on grounds of racial discrimination, alleging that he was made a scapegoat when he was barred from officiating Test matches after the Oval Test, as no action was taken against his fellow umpire Billy Doctrove. He later dropped the discrimination case. The ICC restored Hair to the Elite Umpiring Panel in 2008 but he resigned five months later, having officiated in only two further Tests.

Incident

On 20 August 2006, during the fourth day of the fourth Test between England and Pakistan at The Oval, umpires Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove ruled that the Pakistani team had been involved in ball tampering. They awarded five penalty runs to England and offered them a replacement ball. The Pakistani players refused to take the field after the tea break in protest at the decision. The umpires left the field, directed the Pakistani players to resume play and returned once more 15 minutes later. After waiting two more minutes the umpires removed the bails and declared England winners by forfeiture. This was the first such end to a Test match in more than 1,000 Test matches. The Pakistani team did take to the field 25 minutes later – 55 minutes after the umpires first took to the field for a resumption of play – but Hair and Doctrove pointed out that the game had already ended with a Pakistani forfeiture the moment the bails were removed, even though both teams were willing to continue the match. The Test was abandoned, with the match awarded to England.

Reaction

The International Cricket Council (ICC), England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) and Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) later affirmed that the decision to award the match to England was in accordance with the laws of cricket. However, it caused much debate in the cricketing world, with former cricketer Michael Atherton criticising Hair for not continuing the game. Nasser Hussain sided with Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq, saying that he would have done exactly what Inzamam did, while Steve Waugh backed the umpires' decision, saying "No-one is bigger than the game. The laws are there for a reason." Michael Holding described the umpires' initial penalty for ball tampering as "insensitive" and said that every law has room for flexibility. Imran Khan called Hair an "umpiring fundamentalist", and commented that "Such characters court controversy", while Wasim Akram called for Hair to be sacked.

It was revealed in an ICC news conference on 25 August that after the game, Hair had offered his resignation from the ICC Elite Umpire Panel. In an e-mail entitled "The Way Forward" addressed to Doug Cowie, the ICC's umpire manager, and with apparent reference to an earlier conversation between the two which had not been made public by the ICC, Hair stated he would resign from his position in return for a non-negotiable one-off payment of US$500,000 directly into Hair's bank account. This was to be kept confidential by both sides. Hair was in contract with the ICC until March 2008, and the payment was said to compensate for the loss of future earnings and retainer payments. He subsequently revoked this offer. Hair had stated that the suggested sum was to be compensation for the four or more years he would have umpired for had the controversy not happened, which he claimed would be "the best years he had to offer international umpiring". Hair had previously suggested, however, in an April 2006 interview that he might give up umpiring at the end of the World Cup saying "I'm not so sure that after another 12 months I'll have the passion to keep enjoying it." In the press conference, the ICC's chairman Malcolm Speed did not offer any assurances about Hair's future.

On 27 August, Hair responded to the release of the e-mails by stating that the ICC had been in negotiations with him prior to him sending them. He was quoted as saying: "During an extended conversation with Mr. Cowie, I was invited to make a written offer. The figure in the e-mail correspondence was in line with those canvassed with the ICC." The ICC however denied they had invited a claim. In a press conference on 28 September 2006 Hair reiterated that he never considered retirement.

ICC hearing

On 28 September, the ICC match referee Ranjan Madugalle chaired the hearing into Inzamam's case and acquitted him of the ball-tampering charge stating, "Having regard to the seriousness of the allegation of ball-tampering t is an allegation of cheating I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there is sufficiently cogent evidence that the fielding team had taken action likely to interfere with the condition of the ball" in his official report, but banned him for four One Day Internationals for bringing the game into disrepute. Each of the ICC-appointed match officials (Hair, Doctrove, Cowie, Trevor Jesty

HOME


Content is Copyleft
Website design, code, and AI is Copyrighted (c) 2014-2017 by Stephen Payne


Consider donating to Wikimedia



As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases