|
On 20 August 2006, during the fourth day of the fourth Test between England and Pakistan at The Oval, Darrell Hair and fellow umpire Billy Doctrove ruled that the Pakistani team had been involved in ball tampering. They awarded five penalty runs to England and offered them a replacement ball. The Pakistani players refused to take the field after the tea break in protest at the decision. The umpires left the field, directed the Pakistani players to resume play and returned once more 15 minutes later. After waiting two more minutes the umpires removed the bails and declared England winners by forfeiture. This was the first such end to a Test match in over 1000 tests. The Pakistani team did take to the field 25 minutes later, 55 minutes after the umpires first took to the field for a resumption of play, but by then it was Hair and Doctrove themselves who pointed out that the game had already ended with a Pakistani forfeiture the moment the bails were removed, even though both teams were willing to continue the match. The Test was abandoned, with the match awarded to England. == Reaction == The International Cricket Council (ICC), England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) and Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) later affirmed that the decision to award the match to England was in accordance with the laws of cricket. However, it caused much debate in the cricketing world, with former cricketer Michael Atherton criticising Hair for not continuing the game. Nasser Hussain sided with Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq, saying that he would have done exactly what Inzamam did, while Steve Waugh backed the umpires' decision, saying "No-one is bigger than the game. The laws are there for a reason." Michael Holding described the umpires' initial penalty for ball tampering as "insensitive" and said that every law has room for flexibility. Imran Khan called Hair an "umpiring fundamentalist", and commented that "Such characters court controversy", while Wasim Akram called for Hair to be sacked. It was revealed in an ICC news conference on 25 August that after the game, Hair had offered his resignation from the ICC Elite Umpire Panel. In an e-mail entitled "The Way Forward" addressed to Doug Cowie, the ICC's umpire manager, and with apparent reference to an earlier conversation between the two not yet made public by the ICC, Hair stated he would resign from his position in return for a non-negotiable one-off payment of US$500,000 directly into Hair's bank account. This was to be kept confidential by both sides. Hair was in contract with the ICC until March 2008, and the payment was said to compensate for the loss of future earnings and retainer payments. He subsequently revoked this offer. Hair had stated that the sum of US$500,000 was to be compensation for the four or more years he would have umpired for had this controversy not happened, which he claimed would be "the best years he had to offer international umpiring". Hair had previously suggested, however, in an April 2006 interview that he might give up umpiring at the end of the World Cup saying "I'm not so sure that after another 12 months I'll have the passion to keep enjoying it." In the press conference, the ICC's chairman Malcolm Speed did not offer any assurances about Hair's future. On 27 August, Hair responded to the release of the e-mails by stating that the ICC had been in negotiations with him prior to him sending them. He was quoted as saying: "During an extended conversation with Mr Cowie, I was invited to make a written offer. The figure in the e-mail correspondence was in line with those canvassed with the ICC." The ICC however denied they had invited a claim. In a press conference on 28 September 2006 Umpire Hair reiterated that he never considered retirement.〔(Cricinfo - Hair never considered retirement )〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Ball tampering controversy in August 2006」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|