Hairgate, part 94

Reading the small print of Ranjan Madugalle's analysis of the mystery of the scratched ball, two lines stand out:

1. 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.
2. The witnesses do not suggest that the way the ball was playing establishes ball-tampering.

It has been well established that the umpires had possession of the ball after the fall of Alastair Cook's wicket and that it was only four overs, or 18 minutes, later that they raised concerns about the state of the ball. We should assume that they inspected the ball properly after Cook was dismissed and saw nothing untoward. Why, then, did they decide to re-examine the ball only four overs later if they neither saw anyone tamper with it nor detected any change in the way the ball was playing?

I suspect the umpires have been very careful with their evidence. They may have seen what looked like a player tampering with the ball, but not wanted directly to accuse someone when they knew that there was no TV evidence or even any clear-cut damage to the ball to back them up. Had they done so, this row could have turned even more nasty, with individual players suing for slander.

Remember the TV footage of Darrell Hair looking very closely at one of the Pakistan bowlers (I think it was Muhammad Asif) as he vigorously polished the ball. Recall too the way that Asif turned his back on Hair as he did it, knowing he was being watched. That in itself is no evidence for ball-tampering but it may have put doubt in Hair's mind.

Still, if Hair won't say what his reasons for changing the ball were, then he can hardly complain at Pakistani shouts of vindication. What this does show, however, is that Billy Doctrove, by some way the junior umpire in the middle, may have shown the greater maturity by advising Hair to wait a few overs and try to spot real evidence of tampering.