One player maybe banned, others not so banned

A confusing day of ban, counter-ban and lifted bans.

Apparently, Andrew Hall, Justin Kemp and Johan van der Wath were all banned from participation in official ECB events (like that cocktail party at Lord’s at the end of the season) because they were involved in the Indian Cricket League.

The ICL is pretty much the cricketing equivalent of the chubby girl at school. Anyone caught canoodling with her risks a lifetime of ostracisation and ridicule.

However, we are informed that today, of all days, this ban has been lifted and the Saffers can re-integrate into the county champagne set and get down to some serious yaughting at last.

Frustratingly, neither the cricinfo piece nor the bbc article informs us as to who lifted this ban. It could have been some sort of court, or perhaps alternative dispute arbitration conducted by a geezer in the street. I’m guessing it must be, because I can quote from his judgement:

“Yeah. It’s like this, yeah? It’s like, this man, yeah? And he has this, like, thing, you know? He’s got this thing and he should ‘ave it? AVE IT! Yeah?”

In other news, another, more official court ruled decisively to procrastinate over the future of Shoaib “I realise that I’m in the wrong now that you’re about to ruin me” Akhtar.

Shoaib was originally sentenced to serve a five-year ban for being a bit of a tit, which many hoped would stand as an influential precedent wordwide. Sadly, this ruling has yet to be extended to the people who inflict themselves upon my life.

Some judgy bloke from Pakistan ruled that Shoaib’s ban should sort of remain, but sort of not,, oh, I don’t know, he judged, let’s deal with it later: say June?

And so the wonderful limbo of law descended upon Shoaib’s life. Sure, you can play cricket. So long as it’s outside Pakistan and probably not in India.

I think you will all agree that this is an elegant and neat way of solving the problem. Put it off until tomorrow. Lawyers at their best.

New Zealand vs England: The complete series

We're back baby. Perhaps not legally, but back nonetheless.

I'm quite proud of my little stop-motions, so have decided to publish the entire three match series between England and New Zealand.

Let's see how long these last.

First Match One: Hamilton


Second Match: Wellington


Third Match: Napier

AYALAC assailed by bastards

Today, I have been Got At by the Dark Side. The most evil, soulless creatures to walk the Earth have entered my life; leaving only cold shudders a sense of the sinister in their wake.

That rights: The Lawyers got me.

Some bastardly law firm in the States enacted some Cease and Desist Order, or something, at me and removed my latest viddy-blog.

They argued that it infringed their clients copyright or something. Which is obviously absurd, because everyone knows that AYALAC doesn’t obey laws. We play by our own rules here. We’re nutters.

So, I’ll be working on some ways to return my stop-motions to you, once I have either blown up The Lawyers or circumvented their daft dikats.

Don’t get Hairy on me

I wish that headline made sense. I really do.

Anyway, Darrell Hair has come out to defend his bonkerness. Not only did he single-handedly ruin a test match, but when the ICC questioned his seriously questionable judgement, he decided to sue them. He lost that.

He also called Murali a chucker. He has frequently been nasty to sub-continental sides. To the point that sub-continental types began calling him racist. Although, every is racist these days. Even Nelson Mandela. Wait, especially Nelson Mandela.

Anyway, Hair is hated by all. And he’s fat.

To amend this ogre’s image, he has said in a recent interview,

"It's easy to say, look, if I'd known how to deal with that sort of issue, the communication and management issues then, if I knew then what I know now I may have done things differently.

But I don't believe so because there's a certain limit to what the umpire needs to do under those circumstances and I believe that both the umpires fulfilled those obligations both with the ball tampering and the refusal to play.”

He did come to a deal with the ICC to go to “man management” courses, and it is clear that he’s still open to learn and took on board a lot of things from attending.

Hilariously, he went on to contend:

"A lot of people have said to me you must be really annoyed with cricket and the fact is I'm not annoyed with cricket. It's just a couple of people made a strange decision to remove me from umpiring."

By “a lot of people” he, of course, means David Forester, his Basset Hound and his demented octogenarian neighbour Phyllis.

Darrell Hair is mad.

Hair cuts short

Daryl Hair has dropped his case against the ICC. In dramatic scenes at the Tribunal in London nothing happened today as the barristers decanted themselves to a local pub to count their fee.

One legal representative was quoted to have said:

“Bringing international cricket into chaos is the best way to bring home the bacon. And what bacon! Have you seen the size of my meat?”

Apparently, some evidence was given that proves Hair has been talking bollocks. It was shown that he was never offered money in return for silent compliance.

Nevertheless, the case has thrown open a can of worms at the ICC – this was possibly the reason why Hair took the action he did.

The trial has exposed the Council’s unprofessional practices present at all levels. With key meetings not being minuted in case they “end up in court” the case has revealed the ICC’s amateurish and poorly run infrastructure.

Poor communication is rife. And senior management conducts itself through gentlemanly agreements, ignoring the need for transparent and accountable procedures.

The only member of the executive board to have retained his reputation is Malcolm Speed (interestingly, the only such member to have any professional experience outside cricket). He claims that his actions were ham-strung by his poor relationship with the Indians, who would have refused to co-operate a priori to any of his supposedly reasonable requests.

It was precisely this reactionary, high-personalised set-up that got the ICC into this position, and resulted in Hair’s poor treatment. For that, we must applaud that otherwise twatish Hair.

Weirdly, he is now on a “rehabilitation programme”. Well, he has put on a lot of weight in the last thirty years. He must be an alcy.

Darrell Hair lives the dream

Let’s face it. We all want to sue the IC-bloody-C. For instance, yesterday, I bought a packet of biscuits. However, to my horror, I found that Malcolm Speed had interfered with my Ginger Nuts, and replaced the packet’s contents with sub-standard digestives.

When I spoke to my solicitor about this, he mentioned something about “evidence” to “prove” ICC’s outrageous assault upon my personage and biscuitage. Dumbfounded, I was left marooned to absorb another blow by cricket’s governing body.

Darrell Hair, on the other hand, thinks he has the proof and balls to succeed where I failed, by suing the ICC.

This popular and jovial umpire bases his argument on the proceedings of the 1814 Test Match, between England and Pakistan. Whereby, without at clear substantiation, he accused the Pakistan of tampering with the ball. In protest, Pakistan’s captain refused to take the field. Hair and Billy Doctrove took the decision to interpret the match as forfeit, awarding England default winners.

Subsequently, the ICC took umbrage at the umpire’s handling of the affair, and removed Hair from its elite panel of amazing umpires. Doctrove, however, remained. Hair now argues that he was removed on the basis of racial discrimination, what else could explain Doctrove’s continuation?

It is generally accepted that Hair doesn’t have a chance in hell. The ICC’s case rests on the principle that Hair was the “senior umpire”, whereas Doctrove was just beginning his test career, and thus responsibility cannot be evenly divided.

Yet, I can find no reference to the status of a “senior umpire” in the laws of cricket nor anywhere mentioned in the ICC’s literature. This principle, to me, makes no sense. For the same offence, you must treat the perpetrators equally.

Saying that, this uneven handling of the umpires does not equate discrimination. I’m not sure under which jurisdiction this case is being conducted, but in UK law you must prove a discriminatory intent to prove racial discrimination. This simply does not seem present, given the evidence.

Hair has long courted controversy, and this affair could have been the straw that broke the camel’s back for the ICC. Whereas it seemed sufficient to give Doctrove a good ticking off.

Undoubtedly, the issuing of legal proceedings and the employment of a silk will not be cheap for Hair. Nor will he win the case. But, I suspect, neither of these matter to Hair.

Australian tries to be clever (and fails)

Well, I’m back. Cyberlife is worth living again. This is also my 100th post. Hoorah. No really, I mean it. Hoorah.

Anyway catch the crazy antics in Lords? Justin Langer displayed innovative captaincy by declaring the lowest total in Championship history (apparently).

After ducks galore, Langer decided it to call it a day at 50-8. The reason behind this apparently suicidal decision was to deny Middlesex the additional bowling point. The ECB website can clarify the bonus point situation:

“A maximum of three bowling points is available for three to five wickets taken by the bowling side (1 point), 6 to 8 wickets (2 points), 9 to 10 wickets taken (3 points).”

So, Middlesex were denied the third point. However, a 97 first wicket partnership quickly assured that Middlesex captured two batting points. More importantly, Somerset did not receive any points from their move, and decreased their hopes in the game. Was this stupid?

Brian Rose, who once declared Somerset after one over in the old Benson and Hedges Cup whilst he captained the side, said:

"It was quite a brave decision that Justin took. He wanted to get the best of the conditions and frankly we had been struggling to put bat on ball. He thought he should give his bowlers a chance to put Middlesex under the same pressure. If we'd scratched around for another 15 to 20 runs it would have made next to no difference to the match."

Perhaps this is true. But the Somerset batsman are struggling to play out time now, and would dearly love to have the two extra wickets they forfeited in the first innings.

The legal structure of cricket matches is always open to abuse. But one hopes that the spirit of the game is sufficiently strong to discourage captains from abusing loop-holes.

Generally, the bonus point system works well, and promotes aggressive cricket. Some cricketers are satisfied with their lot in life, and like to play at being lawyers. But no one likes lawyers.

No one.

No one likes Australians, either. So perhaps dealing with hatred some naturally to some?