“Not guilty” verdict on Inzamam's ball tampering charges has been seen by all the cricket fans in India as a very positive development. Indians have been supporting Inzy from the time this controversy was tossed up. However, the ban on Inzy for 4 one-dayers has not gone down well with Indians who are questioning the logic.
Indian cricket administration has also sought a ban on umpire Darryl Hair who has shown his racial tendency in the past also. To begin with he has been debarred from umpiring in the Champions Trophy scheduled next month.
Inzamam-ul-Haq has been cleared of charges of ball tampering after an ICC Code of Conduct hearing at The Oval, but has been found guilty of the charge of bring the game into disrepute and ba
Inzamam-ul-Haq has been cleared of charges of ball tampering after an ICC Code of Conduct hearing at The Oval, but has been found guilty of the charge of bring the game into disrepute and banned for four ODIs. He said that he would not appeal against the ban.
"I have considered their evidence honestly and fairly given very carefully," the spokesman said, reading out the findings of Ranjan Madugalle, the senior ICC referee. "My duty is to call and give my own judgment. On the second charge - bringing the game into disrepute by refusing to play - I find Mr Ul-Haq guilty in that on two occasions he led a protest against the umpires by failing to come on to the field of play at the relevant time. I take the view, subject of course to any further submissions Mr Gay [Inzamam's lawyer] may wish to make, this is a Level 3 charge - a ban of two or four Test matches and/or between four and eight one-day international matches.
"As to the appropriate penalty for the offence of bringing the game into disrepute, I am satisfied that this is a Level 3 matter. Mr Ul-Haq has been found guilty of deliberately refusing to come onto this pitch on two occasions, as a protest against the umpires, so interrupting play. I take into account m uls _expression of regret and apology and I take into account all the other surrounding and mitigating circumstances. I decide that Mr Ul-Haq should be banned for four one-day matches with immediate effect. M ul you have the right of appeal on given written notice to the ICC legal counsel within 24 hours as Mr Gay will no doubt advise you."
Inzamam himself told Pakistan TV: "The whole nation has supported our decision. This was a mtteer of respect for our team and country. We fought for what we thought was right. Team's reputation in the past hasn't been great and so this was important. It was important to register our protest becuase if we didn't then it wouldn't have gotten this far even and now it has been proved we are not guilty of ball tampering. This is a victory for Pakistan.
"I had an idea that I would face some sort of ban. This is the most lenient ban and I will not appeal against it."
"We are very satisfied," Shahriyar Khan, the PCB chairman, said as he left the ground. "We feel the whole process is very fair."
Abbas Zaidi, the PCB's director operations, told Cricinfo: "We have just been told that Inzamam and the Pakistan team have been acquitted of the ball tampering charges. This is excellent news for us as it vindicates our stance all along that we weren't guilty of ball tampering."
Inzamam has 24 hours to decide whether he wants to appeal. If he does not, the ban will rule him out of Pakistan's opening matches in the Champions Trophy in India.
© Cricinfo
Reply:
Lawyers put umpires to the tes
Replied by(
Noman)
Replied on (28/Sep/2006)
Pakistan's lawyers had the upper hand after the first day of witness statements at the Oval, where Inzamam-ul-Haq faced an interrogation as part of his code of conduct hearing.
By Simon Briggs
(Filed: 28/09/2006)
Pakistan's lawyers had the upper hand after the first day of witness statements at the Oval, where Inzamam-ul-Haq faced an interrogation as part of his code of conduct hearing. In the course of the hearing, it became clear that Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove — the umpires at the centre of last month's ball-tampering storm — had not fully followed protocol during the emotional and chaotic afternoon of Aug 20. Insiders say this has weakened their case substantially.
The mood of the meeting is reported to have been largely sympathetic towards Pakistan. While it has been acknowledged that Inzamam's sit-in protest was inappropriate, the umpires' conduct has provided Pakistan's lawyers with an opportunity to argue extenuating circumstances.
The ball was produced in court for Ranjan Madugalle, the International Cricket Council referee in charge of the hearing, to analyse. There are substantial scrapes on the surface of the kind that could be produced legally only if the ball made contact with a hard object, like the corner of a boundary board. But Pakistan's lawyers have argued that the marks do not provide clear evidence that the ball was tampered with.
In the absence of any damning video footage, it remains likely that Inzamam will be acquitted on the charge of ball-tampering. As for the charge of bringing the game into disrepute, Pakistan's lawyers have argued that if the umpires' decision is shown to be dubious, it would be unfair to penalise Inzamam for subsequent events.
Extended to its logical limits, this argument could be used to support a change in the result of the game, which would then become a draw or no-result rather than an England win. But this will not happen, if only because of the upheaval it would cause within the betting industry.
The chances of Inzamam being acquitted on all counts also remain slim. It may be viewed as politically necessary for him to receive a short suspension on the grounds of bringing the game into disrepute.
The hearing made unexpectedly fast progress. If all continues to go smoothly, the closing speeches will probably be delivered this afternoon. Madugalle may then decide to deliver his verdict tonight, though the terms of the hearing allow him to ruminate over the evidence for up to 24 hours if he chooses.
English lawyer Mark Gay led Pakistan's legal team. He was well supported by his witnesses, especially Pakistan coach Bob Woolmer, who spoke eloquently in defence of his players.
Insiders said the umpires were very united in their statements, despite reports that they had initially disagreed over what course to follow when they discovered those suspicious marks on the ball. However, they were reported to have given ground under cross-examination.
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006.