Sunday, August 20, 2006

Law 21: No mention of 'honor'

Law 21 - subsection 3 (a) , 3 (b), 3 (c)

3. Umpires awarding a match

(a) A match shall be lost by a side whicheither
(i) concedes defeator
(ii) in the opinion of the umpires refuses to playand 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.

(c) If action as in (b) above takes place after play has started and does not constitute a refusal to play(i) playing time lost shall be counted from the start of the action until play recommences, subject to Law 15.5 (Changing agreed times for intervals).(ii) the time for close of play on that day shall be extended by this length of time, subject to Law 3.9 (Suspension of play for adverse conditions of ground, weather or light).(iii) if applicable, no overs shall be deducted during the last hour of the match solely on account of this time.

Isn't 'technicality' an euphemism for details? If the exchange between Inzamam and Hair, reported in cricinfo is right(knowing media the whole version will change tomorrow) Hair is right. Pakistan forfeited the game. Thats all one needs to know. Whether there was tampering/Who tampered the ball is so moot. India atleast proceeded with the game in South africa.


Venkat said...

>>>>Isn't 'technicality' an euphemism for details?

Definitions from the WordWeb :

Technicailty : A detail that is considered insignificant

euphemism : An inoffensive expression that is substituted for one that is considered offensive

Doesn't look like that's the case Hawkeye..

Ritesh said...

@venkat: Replace offensive expression 'significant' with its inoffensive cousin 'insignificant'.

Technicality is a detail nonethless dude. Significance is just perspective

Venkat said...


>>>>>>'significant' with its inoffensive cousin 'insignificant'.

so significant is offensive and insignificant otherwise ? Really?

i guess this would work if eupheism stands for "opposite cousin" and not "insignificant cousin"..?

Hawkeye said...

what pakistan did was miss the details. very significant details at that. regardless of ball tampering thing, pakistan forfeited the match. the fact that they took field later meant that they didnt intend to forfiet it in the first place but just forgot the details. calling that a technicality is very stupid of their management

Hawkeye said...

euphemism merely reduces magnitude. offensive inoffensive etc is just an example of that.

Venkat said...


I guess I got too literal..

anantha said...

Hawkeye: Right on... i don't understand why people are damning Hair for this. Pakistan did not lose because of the condition of the ball, but because they failed to make it inside the ground. This is like SA in the last world cup. Pure stupidity. All they had to do was to talk to someone in charge during that rain break and tell them that they intended to protest. Hell, Shahryar Khan was right there at the Oval.

Summa vethukku protest panren nu velila varama irukaradhu, pointless. As someone mentioned, just because the 26 cameras did not catch it, does not mean that something did not happen. But all the Pakistani media machine (including Botham and Rameez and the rest up there in the box) is doing is to launch a personal attack on Hair. Beleive it or not, there is talk of a "honorable retirement" for Hair, but knowing him, Hair won't go out without a shout!

Born a Libran said...

If they wanted to play later, should they have been allowed to play? Subeh ka bhoola shyam ko wapas aaya toh....

Hawkeye said...

i thought hair was a good umpire. I totally thought sachin was out in Sydney. the ball would have hit middle of middle stump. stupid indians who did not know the LBW law were harping on and on about it.

muralidharan is a first rate chucker. i still think he should be called.

hair is just interpreting the law the right way. the others are chicken.

Hawkeye said...

the prev comment was to anantha.

born a libran,

no once the umpire asks the captain if he is forfeiting the game and the captain's answer convinces the umpire that - that is the case - the match is over. its no use if the team walks in after the game has been decided.

I said...

>>hair is just interpreting the law the right way. the others are chicken.>>


anantha said...

Hawkeye: No. I don't think Hair asked Inzy if he was forfeiting. By not turning up inside the ground for more than 10 mins, the team automatically forfeited. It's like timing the batsman out.

anantha said...

Btw, I think they stayed off for more than 10 mins. My point is, even an absence of just 10 mins is enough. And forfeiture is not a question to be asked of the captains either. I think it is well within the jurisdiction of the on field umps.
And it seems to be a common argument to explain anything involving a white figure of authority and colored subordinates by using the word racism.
Just like it has become a fashion to explain an upset on the cricket field as a case of match fixing!

Hawkeye said...


i saw many MSM report that hari asked inzamam if he was forfeiting the match and Inzamam instead asked Hair about Ball tampering issue.

just curious.

anantha said...

IMHO. the match was forfeited the moment Hair flicked the bails off on both ends after a chat with Bell/Collingwood. That signified end of day's play and ergo the match too.
And I read that there was no communication whatsoever between Hair the team.