August 23, 2006	Wednesday	Rajab 27, 1427

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)

LONDON, Aug 22: The ball-tampering saga took an electrifying twist when it was revealed that Duncan Fletcher, the England coach, had visited the match referee on the morning of the controversy at The Oval.

If it turns out that Fletcher's visit was to point the finger of suspicion at Pakistan's bowlers, the bonhomie between England and Pakistan could suddenly be shattered and the one-day series may be in serious jeopardy.

The English cricket board has admitted that Fletcher spoke with Mike Procter before the start of play but denied that he made a “specific complaint about the state of the ball,” which was 18 overs old at that point.

These words have clearly been chosen with the care that a politician might employ if caught with his pants down. It is an open secret that Fletcher asked Sky TV to keep an eye on Pakistan's fielders and bowlers when they handled the ball at Headingley.

Indeed, Derek Pringle reported in the Independent that: “Sources close to the team have revealed that Fletcher did play agent provocateur.

“The circumstantial evidence for Fletcher drawing Procter's attention to Pakistan's alleged ball-tampering is pretty strong.

“It was a hot topic of conversation among England's players on

Saturday when, among others, Marcus Trescothick, once he was out, was spotted watching Pakistan's players through binoculars, presumably to ascertain what actions they were performing on the ball.”

Furthermore, in the heat of the controversy, a view emerged from the Pakistan camp that Kevin Pietersen had prompted the umpire to inspect the ball.

The implications of this latest revelation are two-fold. First, that

England have indulged in a level of gamesmanship and hypocrisy that is shocking considering their use of reverse swing to destroy Australia last summer. Even then there was plenty of suspicion that England players had sucked sweets so that their saliva would help change the character of the ball.

One can only imagine the Fletcher was so desperate that his side should not go into the next Ashes series on the back of a defeat that he took it upon himself to influence the umpires.

And it is this second point that is most alarming, because whatever you might make of Fletcher's motives if he had a concern he also had a right to raise it — however hypocritical.The second point is that if Fletcher did unduly influence either the match referee or Darrell Hair or indeed both of them, then the decision to penalize Pakistan smacks of partiality, especially in light of the fact that the condition of the ball has not suggested ball-tampering to anybody other than Darrell Hair.

Bob Woolmer said he had seen many balls in his long career as a player, coach, and ICC administrator, including ones that had been tampered with and the condition of this ball was not consistent with ball-tampering.