Tony Becca

THERE NEVER seems to be a dull day in the world of cricket. When it is not Kerry Packer and World Series Cricket, it is the rebel tours and when it is not match-fixing, it is throwing. Right now it is ball-tampering - and it is umpire Darrell Hair versus Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq.

On Sunday during the fourth day's play of the Test match between England and Pakistan at The Oval, Pakistan were in the field, when, umpires Hair and Billy Doctrove looked at the ball, changed it, and, amidst protests from Pakistan, awarded five runs to England - a move that ended with Pakistan protesting by refusing to take the field after the tea interval, with the umpires awarding the match to England, and with Inzamam charged with ball-tampering and bringing the game into disrepute.

The consensus, it appears, is that Inzamam, as the captain of Pakistan, was wrong to protest in the way he did and, because of that, he is guilty and should be found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute at tomorrow's hearing - even though he, his team, and his country were accused of being cheats.

As far as the ball-tampering charge is concerned, however, opinions seem to be split with some arguing that Pakistan, based on their history, are guilty, and others that it is possible they are not guilty.

Guilty

Apart from the fact that no one, not even a cricket captain should be found guilty based on one's history, as men like Dickie Bird - a former great umpire, Ian Botham, Imran Khan and Angus Fraser - three former great cricketers - have said, it is possible that Pakistan are not guilty of tampering with the ball and that is based on the fact that no one saw anyone tampering with it, and that although Sky Television had 26 cameras around the ground, no one was seen tampering with the ball.

In other words, a captain, a team and a people have been accused as cheats, not on the evidence of the on-the-field umpires, the cameras or the third umpire catching someone in the act, but despite the possibility that, for example, the ball could have been damaged on reaching the boundary, on the assumption of two men with one, it appeared, leading the other.

Although the law governing ball tampering does not say that the umpires must see someone tampering with the ball, it is strange, and it cannot be right for a man, a team and a people to be judged as cheats without the hard evidence of someone seeing someone tampering with the ball.

On that basis, and although I probably would not have protested the way Inzamam did, I can sympathise with him - especially as he has always been a nice person, especially as he was probably named captain in an effort to change Pakistan's image around the world and especially as, according to reports, this Pakistan team has been a nice, friendly team.

A cheat

No one likes to be called a cheat - especially so when one is not guilty and, according to Inzamam and all the other 10 players, no one on the Pakistan team was guilty of tampering with the ball.

Hair is a tough man. He has been big enough to call Muttiah Muralitharan for throwing and it is good to know that in the world of today, in today's cricket, there is one like him. Like all men, however, he makes mistakes, he has made mistakes and, for his sake, for the sake of cricket, hopefully this is not one.

If he has proof that a Pakistani player did tamper with the ball, if it is that he had the courage to do what so many umpires have been afraid to do and are afraid to do, then every credit to him for upholding the laws of the game.

Such is the nature of the crime, however, such is the stigma of the crime on the people of Pakistan that if he has no proof, if there is no hard evidence that a Pakistani did tamper with the ball, he has, or should have, a lot of apologising to do.

Right now, the evidence is against Hair - especially with the suspicion that he was asked, on that same day, to check on the ball by match referee Mike Proctor who was asked to do so by none other than Duncan Fletcher, the coach of the England team.