September 07, 2006	Thursday	Sha'aban 13, 1427

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)

SOUTHAMPTON, Sept 6: This summer's ball-tampering saga was given fresh impetus at the Rose Bowl when Sky Television showed footage of Shoaib Akhtar running his thumb along the seam three balls after dismissing Ian Bell in the 25th over of Eng;and innings on Tuesday.

Shoaib's ball maintenance looked innocuous enough, a view later confirmed by Mike Procter, the match referee, who cleared Shoaib and the rest of the Pakistan team of ball-tampering after discussion with the umpires.

“There was no tampering,” said Pakistan team manager Zaheer Abbas. “Some mud got stuck on the ball because the pitch is not fully grassed and there are areas of mud on the outfield. All Shoaib was doing was cleaning the mud off.”

The situation was created less by Shoaib’s behaviour and more by the words used by Sky's commentary team. Nasser Hussain got carried away enough to reproach Shoaib: “I can’t believe he'd be so stupid in the current climate. At best he's been very, very silly.”

Michael Atherton asked viewers to make up their own minds.

These views fell on some sympathetic ears in the press box. While most English journalists have been critical of Darrell Hair’s decisions at the Oval, a minority continue to harbour suspicions about the integrity of Pakistan's cricketers and this latest incident offered an opportunity for those inner demons to surface.

Writers in the leading broadsheets, however, condemned Sky’s inflammatory footage. Pat Murphy, the BBC’s presenter and commentator, described Sky's behaviour as “power without responsibility.”

It was interesting that Sky did not show the clip in its highlights package.

Any suggestion that this footage of Shoaib can be significant for the hearing about the events at the Oval is ridiculous given that Shoaib missed that match.

Under these circumstances it was important for the match referee to quickly make a decision. Clearly Procter, and perhaps the ICC, has learnt something important from the Oval debacle.

Shoaib is a player who attracts scrutiny in whatever he does, be it his kinky bowling action, his ball rubbing, his mutating hairstyle, or his mysterious nightlife.

He has already been reprimanded by the ICC for ball-tampering in 2003, and in 1999 Sky again showed footage of Shoaib apparently suspiciously cleaning a cricket ball. What the incident in 1999 and the one this week have in common is that on both occasions Shoaib had not tampered with the ball and on both occasions he was in blistering form.

David Gower claimed that Sky had a duty to show the pictures to the public. That may well be true but broadcasters, the media, and international cricket officials also have a duty to be even-handed.

We are rapidly arriving at the point where the behaviour of certain representatives of these groups is confirming Pakistan's paranoia that they are the victims of a witch-hunt. It is now becoming a truism that when Australian or English bowlers produce reverse swing they are considered to be skilled artists but when Pakistani bowlers reverse swing the ball they are considered to be cheats and ball-scratchers. For sure, men of all races, creeds, and nationalities scratch their balls.

In addition, the ICC has announced that forensic evidence might be presented at Inzamam-ul Haq's ball-tampering hearing in late September. This is a curious move. First since it seems scientifically improbable that anybody yet has the data to validate that a ball has or has not been tampered with, and secondly because forensic science — like all other science — is inexact.

Just the mention of forensic tests is another indicator that one set of protagonists is becoming increasingly desperate about its case. Now that there appears to be no chance that common sense will prevail it is only a matter of time before the CIA and James Bond are called in to resolve this international crisis.

On a more positive note, if the footage from the Rose Bowl is the best evidence that Sky’s cameras can pick up — and we know that 26 of their cameras failed to detect anything at the Oval — the case made by Hair looks to be standing on a softer version of the mud on the Rose Bowl outfield.