|
|
| October 01, 2006 | Sunday | Ramazan 7, 1427 |
Hair not willing to learn from his mistake: Boycott
LONDON, Sept 30: Controversial umpire Darrel Hair has been ridiculed and lambasted by former England skipper Geoff Boycott who says the Australian umpire has a "big ego" and is still not willing to learn anything from his mistake.
In a scathing criticism of the ICC elite umpire, Boycott, one of the expert witnesses at the hearing of Pakistan skipper Inzamam-ul-Haq this week, believes Hair has shown no understanding of what his action had cost cricket.
"Hair showed no understanding at all of what the incident has cost cricket. To start with, there is the huge financial loss... Then there is the damage to the name of cricket, never mind the feelings of the Pakistani players and people," Boycott wrote in his column for Daily Telegraph on Saturday.
After the verdict clearing Inzamam, Boycott wrote that he was amazed to see Hair "so bullish", even thought the decision had gone against him. "It astonishes me that he could sit there, with absolutely no sign of contrition, implying that he would do the same thing again. He seems to have learnt nothing."
Boycott said Hair was a stickler for rules and often ended up offending players, especially those from Asia. "He's a book-learner, with a big ego. He has studied the rules of cricket, and insists on his right to interpret them as he sees fit, whether there's anyone to back him up or not. He offends players, particularly Asian players. He gets up their noses with his abrasive and abrupt style. Not surprisingly, they feel he has abused his authority," Boycott wrote.
“We are all told when we start cricket as youngsters that the umpire's decision is final. We all accept being given caught behind when we haven't nicked it, or lbw when the ball would have missed leg stump. But this is bigger than that - this is huge.
“It shows that the umpire is not always right. If he is going to make a huge decision, which affects the whole fabric of the game, he had better have some evidence to back it up,” continued Boycott, known for his outspoken nature and candid comments on the most delicate of issues.
“All Hair had to do was go up to Inzamam and say, 'We're not too sure whether the ball has been tampered with, but if anybody is messing around, they had better cut it out. We will be watching the ball carefully every over'.
“That is what most former players would have done in Hair's position. If he comes back into the game, and carries on in the same way, there will be more trouble.”
Boycott went on to say that he expected the fiasco at the Oval to result in a change in the laws with any ball tampering penalty being preceded by a warning to the bowling side.
“Another change I expect to see is that the umpires will not be able to award the match to one team without involving the match referee,” he added.
“At The Oval, the whole thing was done and dusted in 11 minutes. I'm sorry, but it's too big a deal for that. We don't want umpires to be allowed to play God like this ever again.”
Boycott said after the Oval fiasco, there was a danger that whenever Pakistan make the ball reverse-swing, people will automatically think they must have been doing something to the ball.
"We all know there is a history there. Bowlers like Wasim Akram and Imran Khan have admitted that they used tampering techniques in the past. Last year, though, England beat Australia with reverse-swing, used superbly by Andrew Flintoff and Simon Jones. That was treated as fair play simply on the basis that they were white men. But it would be unfortunate if people went around assuming that Pakistanis cheat and white men don't."—Agencies
|
|
