Justice denied

Sir — While reading Arjuna Ranatunga’s comments on the ball tampering episode involving Darrell Hair, it struck me that there are quite a few intricate issues involved in this case (“Why does Hair only pick on Asians?”, Aug 22). First, it needs to be understood that the game of cricket has changed over the years. It is now flush with money, cutting-edge technology, and is also the subject of intense public scrutiny. The key issue is whether the laws regarding specific offences in cricket reflect the shifts in the modern game. It is pointless to invoke the spirit of the game repeatedly in defence of intransigent umpires if the laws of the game have not changed with the times. The present controversy is a perfect example of this.

In cricket, some offences — excessive appealing, ball tampering, dissent, and so on — have not been specifically defined. Hence, it is often the case that accusations are levelled without much concrete evidence, as it happened at the Oval. The laws as they stand today give too much power to the on-field umpire, and it is time to reflect on this. There is definitely a case for framing specific laws and not make umpires the sole arbiter. Clearly, there is a need to recognize the fact that investing too much authority in umpires does not bode well for the modern game. This is borne out by the many recent controversies involving players and umpires. Why can’t we have involve more technology for on-field decision-making in cricket? Such a step would go a long way in carrying the game forward.

Yours faithfully,
Saptarshi Ghosh,
London

Sir — There has been a slew of angry editorials in the media, following Pakistan ‘forfeiting’ a test match in England’s favour at the Oval. The media might find it easy to criticize Darrell Hair, but in my opinion, the Australian is one of the few umpires who use their powers without fear or favour. What is surprising is that a section of the Indian media has been rooting in Pakistan’s favour over this incident, conveniently forgetting the fact that Pakistan cricketers have a long history of being involved in controversies. In the past, they have been accused of ball tampering and fixing matches. In the Nineties, some Pakistani players were caught having drugs during a tour of the West Indies. The media’s allegation of Hair being anti-Asian is baseless. The fact is that Hair is the only umpire who calls a spade a spade. In fact, instead of castigating him, the media should allow the umpire to present his side of the story. Unless the readers get to know both sides of the story, it is quite impossible to know who is at fault.

Yours faithfully,
Manmath Deshpande,
Nagpur

Sir— The charges of ball tampering against Pakistan during the fourth and final test match against England shows how strong the prejudice against Asian teams is in international cricket. Umpire Darrell Hair’s conduct has damaged his credentials as a match official. It is shocking to see Hair penalize Pakistan without a prior warning. To make matters worse, Hair did not have any substantive proof to support his decision. Such high-handed behaviour on the part of an umpire will not only cast serious aspersions on the integrity of the game but also rob it of elements like civility and fair play.

The timing of Hair’s decision also raises a few questions. After all, at that stage, Pakistan was almost on the verge of victory. The International Cricket Council must take stern action against Hair for bringing the game into dispute. He should be banned altogether from officiating in international matches.

Yours faithfully,
Arnab Sarkar,
Calcutta

Sir — While it is true that the game of cricket was invented by the British, it is equally true that they were behind the birth of discriminatory practices on the basis of skin colour inside the sporting arena. The charges of ball tampering were levelled by Darrell Hair against Pakistan to prevent England from losing at the hands of an Asian country. It should be remembered that Hair is the same man who had accused Sri Lanka’s Muttiah Muralidharan of ‘throwing’. Cricket-playing nations in Asia, Africa as well as the West Indian cricket board should come forward to help a beleaguered Pakistan in its battle for justice.

Yours faithfully,
Jang Bahadur Singh,
Jamshedpur

Sir — Darrell Hair, the umpire for the test match at Oval, held Pakistan responsible for ball tampering. But his allegations do not hold much water as television cameras placed on the ground failed to capture anything suspicious. The Pakistan captain, Inzamam-ul Haq, did the right thing by choosing not to come out on to the field after tea in protest against Hair’s move. Worse, the ICC, instead of punishing the errant umpire, is now toying with the idea of penalizing the Pakistan captain. This is not the first time that the world’s highest cricketing body has been found to have acted against players from the subcontinent. Such a biased approach does not augur well for the future of cricket.

Yours faithfully,
Shadab Ahsan,
Gaya

Sir — The allegation of cheating is the most serious that can be levelled against a sportsman. It is quite incredible that in the game of cricket, a punishment can be meted out without sufficient evidence. Did Darrell Hair see a Pakistan player damaging the ball? If he can prove that he did, the guilty player should be awarded a life-ban. But if the Australian umpire cannot justify his decision, then he should be banned from the elite panel. Cricket, after all, is bigger than individuals like Hair.

Yours faithfully,
Sukanta Das,
Calcutta