Right to protest, wrong to forfeit

Memonics

Poor Inzamam-ul-Haq is condemned to live with the stigma of being the first captain in the 129-year history of cricket to have forfeited a Test match. I understand the sentiment behind his decision to protest against umpire Darrell Hair’s seemingly arbitrary decision in penalising Pakistan five runs for ball tampering. But in the ultimate analysis, Inzy was wrong simply because he was believed he was so bloody right.

Moral indignation is fine up to a point, but Inzy pushed up the ante to a precipitous degree from which he had to surrender all the aces he held.

By refusing to take the field, he not only lost the opportunity of showing up umpire Hair as a sanctimonious bully, but also to prove to the cricket world how Pakistan was being indicted for ball-tampering every now and then, and often without enough reason.

Protests — for various causes — are not uncommon in sport. Indeed, the international sports arena guarantees a worldwide audience which can be exploited for maximum impact.

In the 1968 Olympics at Mexico for instance, American sprinters Tommy Smith and John Carlos gave the Black Power salute from the victory podium.

This, it might be remembered, was a volatile period in the United States when race relations were sought to be redefined. The Black Power salute was to play a significant role in hastening the ‘equality process’, as it were.

But the consequences of a protest cannot undermine the cause itself. In 1981, Sunil Gavaskar, upset at the constant sledging by the Australians at Melbourne, almost became the first captain to concede a Test match. Gavaskar was prevented from such hara kiri by manager Shahid Durrani’s timely intervention when he stopped Chetan Chauhan from crossing the boundary line and conceding the match. As it happened, India went on to win the Test and square the rubber.

Sadly for Inzy, there was no wise head like Durrani around. He had strong grounds for protest, but he blew the opportunity by overstaying in the dressing room after tea on the fourth day.

This allowed umpire Hair to deploy a technical kayo which even the ICC would be loathe to revert. Rules are unemotional after all.

There were so many protest options available to Inzy and Pakistan. The players could have worn black arm bands and taken the field after tea. The team management could have lodged a written protest with match referee Mike Procter about umpire Hair’s ball-tampering accusation.

In his post-match report on the umpiring, Inzy could have been scathing of Hair, and leaked this info to the media to carry on the battle.

Indeed, almost everybody associated with the game — including former England captains Ian Botham, David Gower, Mike Atherton and Nasser Hussain — is on record that there was no evidence to suggest that Hair was right, so the ICC would have been forced to review the decision.

Even now, I believe that the Aussie umpire’s days in the Elite Panel are numbered: he has been involved in too many incidents for comfort. Unfortunately for Inzy, though, he will have Darrell in his hair forever.