To blame Hair for not having the perfect response to an unprecedented event or to play down the seriousness of Inzamam’s behaviour is fatuous, says Martin Samuel in The Times.
As one of the ten best umpires in the world, we presume that he knows the difference between balls weathered by play and one that has been altered artificially. Ian Botham, Nasser Hussain, Michael Atherton and the many others queueing up to argue that something is only true if it is captured for action replay have lost sight of the primary issue. No incontrovertible proof is required beyond the belief of the umpire that cheating has taken place. Everything else is chatter
.
Andrew Baker, writing in the Daily Telegraph, sees it as a clash of cultures.
The patronising explanation is that Pakistan is a young nation with comparatively few cultural, economic or sporting achievements to boast of. Cricket therefore assumes an iconic importance, and the players assume the mantles of heroes. Accuse a Pakistani cricketer of cheating and you accuse the nation.
The ECB's cloak-and-dagger approach to the ball-tampering furore has obscured the affair's central issues, says Mike Selvey.
The answer to all this would be for the ICC to downgrade ball-tampering from its hanging offence category, but you have to wonder about common sense being embraced by any ruling body that can clamp down on an umpire for wearing two sun hats [ Neil Mallender was the official punished]. In the meantime, Hair resumes his umpiring in a second XI game at Chesterfield next Wednesday, and Derbyshire's bowlers will doubtless be preparing for the game - behind locked bathroom doors - with a pair of nail clippers
Should coaches be allowed to talk to officials during Tests? Yes, says Micky Stewart, former England team manager, while Stephen Moss, Editor of Wisden's new anthology of modern cricket, says an emphatic no. Click here to read The Guardian article.
