FAISALBAD, Nov 21: The scorecard will record dismissal of skipper Inzamamul Haq in first innings of second cricket Test against England on Monday at Faisalabad as a run out. The truth is it should be put down to ignorance. Every cricketer learns to take wrong decisions on the chin and move on, but this stroke of injustice will no doubt rankle Inzamam much more because he was done in, not by a judgment umpire had to make in a split second, but because of lack of knowledge of cricket’s laws from the men appointed to implement it. It was appalling. And an affront to cricket.

Inzamam was declared run out after bowler Steve Harmison, knocked down stumps at striker’s end when it was clear that Inzamam was not attempting a run.

Such throws are not uncommon, not least from aggressive fast bowlers intent on keeping batsmen in their territory. He was within rights to appeal too.

But to anybody who saw it, either live or on television, it was patently clear that Inzamam moved away to avoid ball hitting him.

And this is what the law says: “...a batsman is not out Run out if (a) he has been within his ground and has subsequently left it to avoid injury, when the wicket is put down”.

It is natural to lay blame at doors of Nadeem Ghauri, third umpire, who pressed red light after surveying evidence. He had enough time and access to enough replays to consider his decision.

That he should have limited himself to line call — Inzamam’s right foot had left the ground for a moment and it was in the air when ball hit leg stump — and not look at broader picture could be down to two things.

He was trying to stay with his perceived jurisdiction (of delivering only line decision), or worse, he simply didn’t know the rule.

That half of the professional commentators, all of them former international cricketers, were not aware of law either — Ian Botham paraded his ignorance spectacularly — merely makes the matter more shocking, but it’s no excuse.

But field umpires cannot escape culpability. Simon Taufel and Darrell Hair are respected and experienced umpires from ICC’s elite panel. Taufel was in perfect position at bowler’s end to see Inzamam take evasive action and Hair called for replay from square leg.

Both had enough time to consult, and if needed, use walkie-talkie for further confirmation.

In the end, they all abetted in execution of an illegal decision. Shouldn’t they be hauled in before match referee and asked to explain their action? If this was an act of collective ignorance, cricket lovers have a right to know.—Agencies