ninme

Courier-Mail - I’ll fight, says defiant Hair

DARRELL Hair, the umpire who rocked the cricket world, last night defiantly stood by his actions and declared he would fight any push to shunt him into retirement.

It has been widely speculated that Hair could be forced into international exile from the powerful bloc of four Asian nations – India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh – but the blow-up will not force him to quit.

“If other people have issues they want to use to force me out it will be an interesting battle.”

Asked about criticism from the subcontinent, Hair said: “That is not something that is an issue for me – there is no problem with me and the subcontinent. I have umpired quite a lot in the subcontinent over the last couple of years and when the ICC have asked me to do a job I try and do it to the best of my ability. I have always taken a lot of pride in my performance and while I am doing the best job I possibly can I am going to continue.”

Reaction in Pakistan to the controversy was swift and strong with angry crowds burning effigies of the umpire in a Lahore street.

Oh lord.

So, for those of you who don’t know what this is (read: Americans), here’s the deal. A couple days ago, I checked into my foreign press. And saw:

The Times (8.21) - Not cricket
A cricket match becomes an object of ridicule

Whatever the merits of the allegation of ball tampering, the administrators have shown contempt for the paying public and at least one umpire has seemed content to push an issue to the brink of crisis on a point of “principle”.

Having no idea what they were talking about, I moved on. The next day I saw the following. Thinking, “Well, this turns out to be an Event,” I redoubled my efforts to inform myself, and read:

The Times (8.22) - Ego before wicket
Cricket’s case study in clumsy crisis management

Lesson No 2 is that although rules are rules (except in cricket where they are laws), there must be room for sensible flexibility. Good umpires are valued for more than their ability to make difficult decisions involving fast-moving balls and fractions of inches. Like good football referees, their stature depends in part on their ability to build a rapport with players. They should seek to calm flashpoints rather than inflame them.

Still completely mystified, I abandoned it for another day, until:

The Times (8.23) - Who’s tampering with the old game? by Kenan Malik
The Pakistan Test match furore is symbolic of wider upheavals in the politics of cricket

Inevitably, given that one of the teams involved in the row is Pakistan, many have tried to link the controversy to the War on Terror. It is no coincidence, the writer Mike Marqusee has suggested, that “on the same day the Pakistanis were being called cheats at the Oval, two men of Asian appearance were ejected from an airplane in response to the racist paranoia of fellow passengers”. A Guardian leader claimed that the row could “only fuel the alienation felt by some British Muslims at a time of great strain”. …

This changing cricketing world order has created unease within the “old Commonwealth”. Martin Crowe, a former New Zealand batsman and now a Sky executive, recently gave the prestigious Cowdrey Lecture at Lord’s. Why, he asked, have “so few questions (been) raised about the way the Asian subcontinent has taken a stranglehold on world cricket?”. Many of those from the subcontinent dismiss such worries as old-fashioned racism.

It is against this background that we need to see the current row. The Australian umpire at the centre of the controversy, Darrell Hair, has clashed consistently with Sri Lanka, Pakistan and India over a series of controversial decisions. His record shows, in fact, that he has been as willing to upset white players as well as Asian ones. But in the context of the in-fighting within cricket, and of the shifting balance of power within the game, the spat between an Aussie umpire and a subcontinental team has become symbolic of something much bigger.

Abandoning all hopes in the press, I turned in desperation to reader Brett McS, asking what was the deal with the England/Pakistan forfeit “thing”. He responded:

Let me just say that if Pakistanis were a significant presence in Golf, there would be a lot more reports of spectator injuries from flying golf clubs.

Something short of illuminated, I pressed him for details.

OK, you really want to know. The umpires caught the Pakis “ball tampering” (to make it swing more — like a curve ball in baseball). This was near a break in play, and rather than come back out to play after the break the Paki team stayed in their digs, pouting. The umpires waited for a certain amount of time, then called the game as a win for England due to the other team forfeiting, which is exactly according to the rules. One of the umpires is an Aussie, but both were in agreement - it was just that the Aussie one had had a run-in with the Pakis before.

Cricket umpiring takes its cue from General Sir Charles Napier, the guy Mark Steyn quotes telling the Hindus that they can build their funeral pyre if they like, and he will have his carpenters build a gallows right next to it, in case they feel the need to carry through with their sacred widow-burning traditions. Imperial rules. There is no arguing, there is no discussion. Even body language suggesting dissent can get a player clobbered by the judiciary. The umpire’s word is final. Full bloody stop. We look at baseball shennanigans where the players and coaches go toe-to-toe with the umpires as so, well, not cricket.

Hear, hear! So, I asked him the meaning of the first and second articles, to which he responded:

Cricket is a bastion against this sort of weasel. The weasels don’t like it because they are left outside looking in, thinking their weaselly thoughts, but no one inside the cricket world takes any notice of their squeaking. The sports version of the political journos who argue for compromise with terrorists.

Intrigued, I begged him to continue.

For as long as I have seen Pakistan play cricket, they have tried to cheat. This includes the umpires. Cheating Pakistani umpires is the reason that international cricket now uses neutral umpires. Not so long ago if Australia played England in England the umpires were all English, and when England came to Australia the umpires were all Australians. This caused no problem whatsoever (statistics back this up - there was no bias). Same with India, West Indies, South Africa. It was only when teams went to Pakistan that the umpiring became lop-sided.

So this is the real analogy.

A few terrorists => System has to change for everyone, everywhere
One cheating country => the system has to change for everyone, everywhere

And, since this was in no small way educational for your humble correspondant, I shall continue with our useful exchange. I inquired:

I guess kicking them out of the league wasn’t ever really an option?

And received:

The best option would have been to disqualify the Pakistani umpires, and bring in neutral ones just for games in Pakistan. That would have been the General Sir Charles Napier solution. The actual “solution” (by the ICC - the UN of cricket) is rather more like the Mark Steyn point about immigrants demanding that the country they move to change to suit them, rather than assimilating to their new country. (It was Pakistan itself that pushed hardest for neutral umpires)

Me:

So, where did the Pakistani umpires come from? I mean, are they just locals who happened to be about when the game started, or is there some international body that licensed them?

He:

They were locals who rose to the level of international umpire and were licensed by the ICC, which is necessary to officiate in international matches. The license can be revoked.

At which point he directed me to the above Courier-Mail article.

Very dramatic, this game of cricket, no?