|
Inzamam not
guilty of ball tampering but gets a four-ODI ban |
September 29, 2006
 Pakistan's
Skipper Inzamam-ul-Haq
has been found not guilty of 'Ball Tampering' by
the ICC Chief Match Referee Ranjan Madugalle.
However Inzamam was given a ban of four ODIs
with immediate effect with regards to bringing
the game into disrepute, which was the second
charge levied against him. The ICC Code of
Conduct hearing was done at The Oval in London
on the 27th and 28th. The Pakistan Skipper has
stated that he wouldn't appeal against the
four-match ban although he has an opportunity to
do so within 24 hours. Younis Khan in most
probability will be leading Pakistan in next
month's Champions Trophy with Inzamam-ul-Haq
getting the ban. Below is the text containing
the findings of Ranjan Madugalle as released to
the media:
The charges
1 Inzamam-ul-Haq ("Mr ul-Haq") the captain of
the Pakistan Cricket Team, faces two charges
under the ICC Code of Conduct. The charges
concern events on the fourth day of the England
v Pakistan Test Match at the Oval on Sunday 20
August 2006. The charges are:
(1) That contrary to paragraph 2.9 of the Code,
the condition of the ball was changed by a
member of his team in breach of Law 42.3.
(2) That contrary to paragraph C2 of the Code,
he engaged in conduct unbecoming to his status
which could bring him or the game into disrepute
"by his refusal to play". That was the original
charge. At the outset of the hearing, Mr
Pushinder Saini for the ICC made clear that the
ICC was alleging in these disciplinary
proceedings that Mr ul-Haq deliberately refused
to play by declining to bring his team back onto
the field of play on two occasions as a protest
against the Umpires. The ICC was not alleging in
these disciplinary proceedings that Mr ul-Haq
was responsible for the game being forfeited
(though Mr Saini reserved the position of the
ICC more generally).
2 Mr ul-Haq denies these charges.
3 Paragraph L2 of the Code states:
"This Code of Conduct shall be governed by and
construed in accordance with the laws of England
and Wales".
4 The ICC has the burden of proving these
charges. The standard of proof is on the balance
of probabilities. But in the light of the
seriousness of the allegations, cogent evidence
is required.
The events
5 The Umpires at the match were Mr Darrell Hair
and Mr Billy Doctrove. The Umpires reported the
ball-tampering charge. The Umpires together with
Mr Peter Hartley (the Third Umpire) and Mr
Trevor Jesty (the Fourth Umpire) reported the
disrepute charge.
6 I have received written and oral evidence from
a number of witnesses, in particular Mr Hair, Mr
Doctrove, Mr Jesty, Mr Mike Procter (the Match
Referee), Mr Doug Cowie (Umpire and Referee
Manager for the ICC), Shaharyar Mohammed Khan
(Chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board), Mr
ul-Haq, Mr Bob Woolmer (coach of the Pakistan
team), and three expert witnesses called on
behalf of Mr ul-Haq, that is Mr Geoffrey
Boycott, Mr Simon Hughes and Mr John Hampshire.
There were differences of recollection, and
differences of judgment, but I am satisfied that
all of the witnesses gave evidence honestly and
helpfully.
7 The ICC were represented by Pushpinder Saini,
and Mr Mark Gay acted on behalf of Mr ul-Haq.
They each provided considerable assistance for
which I am grateful.
8 I have inspected the ball.
9 The background events which occurred on 20
August 2006 are not substantially in dispute. I
make the following findings as to what occurred.
10 England scored 173 in their first innings.
Pakistan replied with a score of 504. When play
began on the fourth day, Sunday 20 August,
England had reached 78 for 1 in their second
innings after 18 overs.
11 Law 5.2(b) of the Laws of Cricket state that
the Umpires shall take possession of the ball in
use at the fall of each wicket, at the start of
any interval and at any interruption of play.
Law 42.3(c) requires the Umpires to make
frequent and irregular inspections of the ball.
It is plain from the rest of Law 42.3 that one
of the purposes of such inspections is to enable
the Umpires to check whether a fielder has
unfairly changed the condition of the match
ball.
12 Following the dismissal of the England
batsman, Alistair Cook, from the fifth ball of
the 52nd over of the innings at about 14.14, the
Umpires inspected the ball and considered that
it was in a playable condition.
13 At the end of the 56th over, at about 14.32,
Mr Hair again inspected the ball and considered
that its condition had been altered unfairly. He
reported this to his fellow-Umpire, Mr Doctrove.
Mr Hair considered that it was necessary in
accordance with the Laws of the game that the
ball be changed. Mr Doctrove agreed, but he told
us in evidence that his initial preference was
to play on with the ball because he wanted to
try to identify the person responsible. Mr Jesty
was then asked to bring a box of replacement
balls onto the field of play. Mr Hair signalled
to the scorers that five penalty runs should be
added to the England score under Law
42.3(d)(iii).
14 This all took about 4 minutes. Play then
resumed and continued until about 15.45, when
bad light intervened. Tea was taken. The bad
light continued until 16.25 by which time
conditions had improved. The Umpires decided to
resume play at 16.45. Mr Jesty communicated this
to the teams.
15 At 16.43, the Umpires returned to the field
of play. The Pakistan team did not appear. This
was because the Pakistan team had decided to
protest against what they regarded as an unfair
decision by the Umpires to find ball-tampering
and to award five penalty runs. So at about
16.46, one minute after the scheduled resumption
of play, the Umpires left the field of play and
went back to their room (leaving the bails in
place).
16 The Pakistan team were watching live
television coverage of the match in their
dressing room. Having made their protest, they
were preparing to leave the dressing room at
about 16.46 to come onto the playing area when
they saw the Umpires returning from the pitch.
17 At about 16.50, the Umpires went to see the
Pakistan team in their dressing room. There is a
dispute about what precisely was said, but it is
agreed that the Umpires stated that they were
going to return to the field of play.
18 The Umpires then went next door to the
England dressing room. They told the England
batsmen Paul Collingwood and Ian Bell that they
were going to return to the field of play and
that the batsmen should follow the Umpires.
19 At about 16.53 the Umpires returned to the
field of play. They were followed by the two
batsmen. The Pakistan team did not come onto the
field of play. At about 16.56, the Umpires
awarded the match to the England team, removed
the bails and returned to the Umpires' changing
room. The Umpires applied Law 21.3 :
"(a) A match shall be lost by a side which
...
(ii) in the opinion of the umpires refuses to
play,
and the umpires shall award the match to the
other side.
(b) If an umpire considers that an action by any
player or players might constitute a refusal by
either side to play then the umpires together
shall ascertain the cause of the action. If they
then decide together that this action does
constitute a refusal to play by one side, they
shall so inform the captain of that side. If the
captain persists in the action the umpires shall
award the match in accordance with (a)(ii)
above.
...".
20 At approximately 17.25, the Pakistan team
went onto the field of play. The Umpires did not
emerge. They considered that the match had ended
when they took off the bails, and they were not
prepared to revive it. After 5 minutes or so,
the Pakistan team returned to the dressing room.
21 At about 17.45, a meeting was held, chaired
by Mr Procter and attended by the Umpires, and
the captains, coaches and managers of the two
teams. This failed to resolve matters. At 18.10,
play was called off for the day.
22 Attempts were made that evening to resolve
matters. The England team and the Pakistan team
wanted play to continue on the fifth day. Mr
Procter was understandably keen to find a
solution. But the Umpires stated that the match
had ended and could not be restarted.
The allegation of ball-tampering
23 Paragraph 2.9 of the Code of Conduct
specifies a disciplinary offence :
"Changing the condition of the ball in breach of
Law 42.3 ...".
24 Law 42.3 states:
"(a) Any fielder may
(i) polish the ball provided that no artificial
substance is used and that such polishing wastes
no time,
(ii) remove mud from the ball under the
supervision of the umpire,
(iii) dry a wet ball on a towel.
(b) It is unfair for anyone to rub the ball on
the ground for any reason, interfere with any of
the seams or the surface of the ball, use any
implement, or take any other action, whatsoever
which is likely to alter the condition of the
ball, except as permitted in (a) above.
(c) The umpires shall make frequent and
irregular inspections of the ball.
(d) In the event of any fielder changing the
condition of the ball unfairly, as set out in
(b) above, the umpires after consultation shall
(i) change the ball forthwith. ...
(ii) inform the batsmen that the ball has been
changed.
(iii) award five penalty runs to the batting
side. ...
(iv) inform the captain of the fielding side
that the reason for the action was the unfair
interference with the ball.
...".
25 Paragraph E7 of the Code states:
"In the event of an alleged breach of paragraph
2.9, where it is not possible to identify the
Particular Player(s) who has breached the Code
of Conduct the Captain may be the person charged
and, if appropriate, sanctioned".
26 None of the four Umpires, nor the Match
Referee, saw any tampering with the ball. Nor is
there any video footage or other photographic
evidence which shows any such conduct. The
witnesses do not suggest that the way the ball
was playing establishes ball-tampering. The
charge of ball-tampering is based on the
physical condition of the ball at the 56th over.
27 The ICC contend that
(1) As a matter of construction of the Laws of
the Game, I should only overturn the judgment of
the Umpires if I am satisfied that their
decision as to ball-tampering was perverse, or
involved bad faith, or was the result of a
misinterpretation of the Laws. I should mention
that Mr Gay, on behalf of Mr ul-Haq, confirmed
that it is no part of his defence to these
charges to suggest that any of Mr Hair's
decisions were taken in bad faith or
dishonestly.
(2) In any event, the ICC contend, the judgment
of the Umpires as to ball-tampering was correct
and I should agree with their conclusions.
28 The ICC's submission on my role is based on
the Laws of the Game, in particular Law 42.2:
"The umpires shall be the sole judges of fair
and unfair play. ...".
29 I cannot accept the ICC's legal submission.
My function is to form my own view of whether
there was ball-tampering in breach of the Laws
of the Game. I so conclude because:
(1) There is nothing in the Code of Conduct
which confines my role in the manner suggested
by the ICC. On the contrary, paragraph D8(c) of
the Code of Conduct says that it is the role of
the Referee to
"investigate and adjudicate upon alleged
breaches of the Rules of Conduct notified to
him".
See similarly D9.
(2) There is, in my view, a distinction between
the Umpires being sole judges of events on the
field of play (so that the Referee and an
Adjudicator cannot revoke a decision to change
the ball, or to award penalty runs) and the
hearing of a disciplinary charge. If such a
charge is brought, my role is to determine the
facts and decide accordingly.
(3) Indeed, it would be very odd indeed, and
very unfair to a player, were I obliged to find
guilty a player who is the subject of a serious
disciplinary charge and then punish him, even if
I am satisfied on all the evidence that he is
not guilty, but where I cannot say the umpires
were perverse.
(4) The ICC were unable to draw to my attention
any previous decision in which the role of a
Referee or an Adjudicator was limited in the way
the ICC suggest.
30 I turn, then, to my findings as to the
alleged ball-tampering.
31 Mr Hair, Mr Doctrove, Mr Jesty, Mr Cowie, Mr
Procter, and Peter Hartley (the third umpire who
gave written evidence and was available for
cross-examination) all told me that the marks
which are visible on the ball meant that it had
been interfered with by a fielder.
32 Three witnesses gave evidence on behalf of Mr
ul-Haq on this point: Geoffrey Boycott, Simon
Hughes and John Hampshire. They told me that the
ball was in good condition, given that it had
been used for more than 50 overs, especially
having regard to the state of the Oval pitch.
The abrasions could have been man-made, but they
could also have been the result of normal
contact with the pitch, for example bowling into
the rough or contact with cricket equipment.
33 Having regard to the seriousness of the
allegation of ball-tampering (it is an
allegation of cheating), I am not satisfied on
the balance of probabilities that there is
sufficiently cogent evidence that the fielding
team had changed the condition of the ball. In
my judgment, the marks were as consistent with
normal wear and tear, and with the ball being
pitched into the rough and contact with cricket
equipment, as they are with deliberate human
intervention. Furthermore, although of course
paragraph E7 recognises that there can be cases
where no specific fielder can be identified as
having altered the condition of the ball, it is
striking that with all the technology available
for modern-day coverage of a Test Match, there
is no evidence of any fielder acting in any
suspicious manner. If, as the Umpires told us,
the ball was in an acceptable condition after
the 52nd over, it is, in my view, highly
unlikely that the condition of the ball could
have been changed so substantially thereafter by
human action within a short period of play
without some suspicious conduct by a fielder
being noticed by an umpire, television camera,
or third party. Mr Saini submitted that I should
not reject the views of the experienced ICC
witnesses. I have considered their evidence,
honestly and fairly given, very carefully. But
my duty is to form and give my own judgment.
34 Given that the physical state of the ball did
not justify a conclusion that a fielder had
altered its condition, and neither of the
umpires had seen a fielder tampering with the
ball, there was no breach of Law 42.3. The
course of action which I would have expected
from Umpires concerned that there may be
ball-tampering would have been for the Umpires
to draw Mr ul-Haq's attention to the marks and
to tell him that they intended to keep a close
eye on the ball after each over.
35 The charge of ball-tampering is therefore
dismissed.
The allegation of bringing the game into
disrepute
36 Paragraph C2 of the Code states :
"Players and/or Team Officials shall at no time
engage in conduct unbecoming to their status
which could bring them or the game of cricket
into disrepute ...".
37 As Mr Saini explained, the ICC allege that Mr
ul-Haq refused to play in that he deliberately
refused to bring his team onto the field of play
on two occasions. It is not alleged in these
proceedings (see paragraph 1(2) above) that Mr
ul-Haq wished to end the match. Mr Gay suggested
that the way the case was being put on behalf of
the ICC did not fall within the original charge.
I do not agree; the ICC is alleging that Mr
ul-Haq refused to play on two specific
occasions.
38 The evidence given by and on behalf of Mr
ul-Haq was that he and the team had not come
onto the field of play at 16.45 (paragraph 15
above) as a short protest because the Pakistan
team was aggrieved at the Umpires' decision to
find ball-tampering and to award five penalty
runs to England. Mr ul-Haq told me in his
written evidence:
"We decided on a short protest, which would take
the form of our staying in the dressing room for
a few minutes after the tea interval".
He confirmed this in his oral evidence. It was
also confirmed by the evidence of Mr Khan and Mr
Woolmer.
39 The team did not come onto the field of play
for a second time at 16.53 (see paragraph 19
above) because, Mr ul-Haq told us, they were
further aggrieved by what Mr ul-Haq and his team
considered to be the rude and aggressive tone
adopted by Mr Hair when he visited their
dressing-room. Again, Mr ul-Haq and the team
intended a short protest, after which they had
intended to return to the field of play.
40 I find that Mr ul-Haq engaged in conduct
unbecoming to his status as captain and which
brought himself and the game into disrepute:
(1) Mr ul-Haq led deliberate protests against
the Umpires which involved refusals, for short
periods of time, to come onto the field of
player.
(2) Mr ul-Haq's conduct undermined one of the
fundamental principles of cricket: that players,
led by their captain, must abide by the
decisions of the Umpires, however much they may
disagree with them, and whether or not they have
good reason for disagreeing with them. See, for
example, the Preamble to the Laws of Cricket and
Law 42.18. For a captain publicly to rebel
against the decision of the Umpire to change the
ball and award five penalty runs for ball
tampering, and further to rebel against what the
captain considered to be the offensive manner of
an Umpire, plainly brought himself and the game
into disrepute.
(3) This was a particularly serious example of
bringing the game into disrepute because Mr
ul-Haq's conduct prevented the continuation of
the game, at least in the short term. By
interrupting play, the protests were more than
mere expressions of dissent.
41 Whether or not the grievances of Mr ul-Haq
and the Pakistan team were justified cannot
provide a defence to this charge. Mr ul-Haq and
Pakistan were entitled to take up their
complaints with the Match Referee and with the
ICC. But a grievance about an umpiring decision,
even if justified, could not and does not excuse
a deliberate interruption to play. Players
cannot decide which umpiring decisions they
accept and which they reject. As Mr Khan and Mr
Woolmer very properly accepted in their oral
evidence, the correct course for the Pakistan
team to have taken would have been to play on as
normal and to register any protest by legitimate
means through the ICC. Indeed, witnesses called
on behalf of Mr ul-Haq - that is Mr Boycott, Mr
Hughes and Mr Hampshire - agreed that it is
contrary to the laws and the spirit of the game
to protest against the umpires as Mr ul-Haq did.
They agreed, rightly in my view, that the
circumstances may mitigate the sanction to be
applied for a breach of the rules but cannot
avoid the conclusion that there was conduct by
Mr ul-Haq which brought the game into disrepute.
42 I therefore find the disrepute charge proved
on the basis that Mr ul-Haq led two protests in
which the Pakistan team deliberately delayed
coming onto the field of play.
The sanction
43 I turn to the sanction to be imposed after
the finding of guilt on the disrepute charge.
44 Paragraph 5.1 of the Code states that where
the facts of, or the gravity or seriousness of,
the alleged incident are not adequately or
clearly covered by any of the offences specified
in the Code, the person laying the charge may
allege a breach of Rule C2 - conduct that brings
the game into disrepute. Paragraph 5.1 states
that the person laying the charge must specify
the level of breach. Here the persons bringing
the charge, the Umpires, specified Level 3.
45 I agree with the Umpires that this is a Level
3 matter. A deliberate refusal to bring the team
onto the field of play as a protest against the
Umpires is a serious matter, for the reasons set
out at paragraphs 40-41 above.
46 The Code states that the penalty for a Level
3 Offence shall be a ban for the Player of
between 2 and 4 Test matches or between 4 and 8
One Day International Matches.
47 Paragraph 5.2 requires me to take into
account Mr ul-Haq's prior disciplinary record. I
have done so.
48 I also take into account Mr ul-Haq's
expression to me of regret and apology.
49 There are two particular mitigating factors
in the circumstances of this case:
(1) As a result of the match being forfeited,
Pakistan has already been punished by the loss
of a Test Match, a very severe penalty for a
team.
(2) The protest occurred because of the feeling
of grievance that the Umpires had concluded that
the Pakistan team had cheated. As I have found,
the Umpire's conclusion was not justified on the
evidence. That does not excuse the protests but
it is a mitigating factor.
50 In all the circumstances, I conclude that the
appropriate penalty is a ban of 4 One Day
International Matches. Such a ban, rather than a
Test match ban, will have more immediate effect.
Conclusion
51 I therefore conclude:
(1) Mr ul-Haq is not guilty of the charge of
ball-tampering.
(2) Mr ul-Haq is guilty of the charge that
contrary to paragraph C2 of the Code of Conduct,
he engaged in conduct unbecoming to his status
which could bring him or the game into disrepute
in that he failed to bring his team back onto
the field of play on two occasions as a
deliberate protest against the Umpires. The
appropriate penalty is a ban of 4 One Day
International Matches.
52 Finally, I should comment on one final
matter. The witnesses agreed in evidence that
player-management and effective communication is
an important aspect of umpiring at international
level. In my judgment, a difficult and sensitive
situation such as that which arose in the
present case (a finding of ball-tampering
causing a substantial sense of grievance in, and
protests from, the Pakistan team) requires
handling with tactful diplomacy (as well as firm
adherence to the Laws). This was an
unprecedented situation. If (one hopes not) such
a situation were to recur in international
cricket, I would hope and expect:
(1) The Umpires would do everything possible to
try to defuse tensions in the dressing-room by
explaining that a team is entitled to raise any
grievance through the ICC but that it is not in
their interests, or in the interests of the
game, for the team to interrupt play.
(2) The Umpires and other officials should do
everything possible to ensure the resumption of
play. And they should not return to the field of
play and then declare the match to be forfeited
unless and until they are absolutely sure that
the team is refusing to play the rest of the
match. All other options should first be
exhausted, involving discussions with the team
captains and management.
Top of the Page |
