Poor_Sunyol wrote:Hair is a bit of a plonker for sure. I was watching the game at home, so I saw the whole incident or rather the build up. It is strange that no camera picked up that someone was tampering with the ball, but Hair was definately convinced that they had.
It is difficult to know what side to take on this. I think Hair was a bit hasty to call off the game when Inzaman didn't take the team out, then again, should Inzaman have left his protest until after the game?
Hair is a no-nonsense umpire and doesn't shy away from making decisions. I first noticed this when he grew tired of batsmen pretending to play shots to balls pitching outside off stump and giving them out lbw.
He did make a mistake when England toured Pakistan in the spring. He gave Inzamam run out when he had been taking evasive action from a ball thrown at him by Harmison. The distrust stems from that. In the past, he angered Sri Lanka for no-balling Muralitharan for throwing (which he has always done). To pacify Sri Lanka, the throwing rule has been changed so that these same deliveries are now legal (the arm can be bent 15 degrees now).
The umpires are thrown the ball at the end of every over. On Sunday, Kaneria had been bowling at Pietersen's backside, so no damage could've been caused by the ball hitting fences or going into the crowd since Hair last inspected it. Presumably, there was a significant deterioration in the state of the ball in that time.
I think they should've played on and that Pakistan should've been punished for their actions after the game.