Some thoughts on the ICC board meeting

See this is why I hate taking a holiday. Go away for a few days and suddenly the cricket newswires go berserk. England win a Test match, Andrew Flintoff takes two wickets in an over on his return for Lancashire and the ICC starts spraying forth pronouncements on the game. More on the first two in time, but here is my tuppence-worth on the various ICC decisions.

Darrell Hair will be reinstated to umpire in top-flight matches. This is a good thing. Whatever people's views of Hair being undiplomatic and heavy-handed, there has been little credible suggestion that he is a bad umpire. In fact, as was revealed in his employment tribunal against the ICC last autumn, Hair has repeatedly been rated as one of the best three umpires in the world. He has a certain knack at attracting trouble, it is true, and he has been sent on a course by the ICC to remedy flaws in his communications skills, but there is no substance to allegations that he is biased against certain nations (just ask Craig McDermott, the Australia No 11 whom Hair gave out at Adelaide in 1993 when Australia needed two runs to beat West Indies).

In any case, the ICC was on rocky ground legally if it had not continued his contract. He would have had fair grounds for suing the body for victimisation after dropping his racial discrimination case. It has emerged that Hair will not be allowed to stand in matches involving Pakistan. This is probably a good thing. Too much bad blood has flown to make his job safe and it is probably best that the ICC do not inflame tension by sending him to officiate in games where the players and crowd, even if wrongly, assume he is biased. It would be better if his lack of involvement with Pakistan had not been made explicit – rather, he should have just not been sent to cover their games – and the ICC should make it clear that it will not be dictated to by the nations, but common sense has to play a part.

When Inzamam-ul-Haq says that he is "disgusted" at Hair's reinstatement, the former Pakistan captain may wish to consider that Hair abandoned the Oval Test in 2006 because Inzamam refused to play, not for any other reason. If umpires need to be more tactful, international captains need to understand their obligations to the game and the paying spectators. Inzamam failed in that. He may also want to go back and re-read the comments he made in the official captains' reports on previous matches in which Hair had stood. As revealed in Hair's tribunal, Inzmam had regularly praised the Australian for the way he handled games.

What will be interesting is to see what happens in a year's time, when Hair's contract expires. The ICC will have few legal barriers to dropping him, should the body choose, but no doubt Hair has been advised to keep his nose clean, stay out of trouble and keep doing a good job. If he is again rated as one of the best officials, would the ICC, even if under great pressure from Pakistan, dare to drop him?

In another umpire-related development, the ICC wants to trial player referrals during this summer's series between England and South Africa. Fair enough, give the scheme, which allows captains to send a contentious decision to the TV umpire, a go. But the ECB tried a similar experiment in England last year and it was abandoned. Players didn't like it, umpires hated it and the crowds felt it held up matches.

What else? Well, the ICC has given its firm backing to the Indian Premier League, as it had to, but has been equally firm in saying that the Twenty20 league can not ride roughshod over existing international agreements and that the Future Tours Programme remains sacrosanct. This is also a good thing, but disappointingly, there was no official pronouncement on the Indian Cricket League, the "rebel" competition that is being played at the moment. The ICC has insisted that the IPL adopt approved anti-corruption and anti-doping policies, but assistance in offering this to the ICL, to make arguments against it less effective, should also have been agreed.

Zimbabwe has been audited by KPMG and despite there being "serious financial irregularities", the auditors found no evidence of criminality. This has been met with dismay and resignation in many quarters – although, let's face it, many bodies have serious financial irregularities. After all, the EU's accounts have not been signed off for the past 13 years. But it seems clear that, for more reasons than the ICC has jurisdiction, Zimbabwe's finances are in a terrible state. Many fear that the ICC handouts are not going towards developing the grassroots of the game in the country or supporting existing structures. It would have been nice to have learnt the ICC's latest stance on Zimabwe's position within international cricket, too. This leads neatly to…

The 2011 World Cup will be cut to 14 teams, ten of whom will qualify automatically as leading nations, plus four associate members. Zimbabwe will automatically be entitled to compete at the World Cup, yet this is largely based on the competitive state of their country nine years ago. There is no suggestion that Zimbabwe are good enough – or will be in three years time – to be rated in the world's top 10. They are already below Ireland in the world rankings. If Ireland remain ahead, they should earn an automatic place.

Comments

[Ann]

Of course it's a good thing that DH was reinstated. He is head and shoulders above some of the useless wastes of oxygen we have seen officiating at Test matches recently.

It's a very bad thing that he will not be officiating in matches involving Pakistan. In fact, it's a classic example of the craven behaviour, nay eager capitulation at the first opportunity, we can expect from the spineless, incompetent amateurs (in the negative sense) running the sport. What a pathetic bunch. They are rewarding Pakistan for their sickening behaviour.

Inzamam says he is 'disgusted'? He should look in the mirror. He is the most disgusting excuse for a cricket captain I have ever come across. He is the one who refused to play, and forfeited the first Test match ever. That is some distinction, indeed. The fact that he has the nerve to even open his mouth speaks volumes about the low level to which cricket has sunk. He should thank his lucky stars he was not banned from international cricket for life for bringing the game into disrepute - and wilfully wasting the afternoon for people who came to watch a cricket match rather than the tantrums of this spoiled little toddler.

[Rusty]

You forgot to mention that the ICC is now the "Indian Cricket Club" (and this title was given by an Indian writer, by the way), since the appointment of Inderjit Singh Bindra and Imtiaz Patel to their new posts as ICC principal advisor and chief executive.

In view of this, no wonder Inzi is annnoyed. He knows that if he had been Indian, Hair would never even have been allowed near "rehab", let alone reinstatement.

Since England won while you weren't watching, do think there is a message is this, Patrick? (sorry, just joking- Happy Easter!)

[aman haque]

Actually Inzi a month or so after the Oval fiasco, did say he did not mind Hair coming back into ICC panel of elite umpires "as everyone is bound to make mistakes and can learn from them." In general, Hair has officiated in dozens of Pakistan matches and a lot of Pakistan's senior players -- Mohammad Yousuf & Afridi etc. have said in the Pakistani press they would NOT mind him officating Pakistani games.

[The Pav]

Patrick,

I think you said you were holidaying in France didn't you?

If this is the case then you deserve all the pain you get.

France is one of those uncivilised countries that doesn't play cricket and therefore should be eschewed.

A few bottles of decent plonk, some tasty grub, hot looking women, sexy movies are not reasons to consider a country as either civilsied or worth visiting.

It's full of bloody frenchmen by Gad !!!