Australian umpire Darrell Hair and the then-Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq were involved in a very big controversy that resulted in the first and only forfeiture of a Test match. What exactly transpired there that led to such a controversial end to The Oval Test of 2006?
The background to The Oval Test 2006 forfeit
Never in the history of Test and other forms of international cricket has a match been forfeited by a team. So, when on the fourth day of umpire Darrell Hair removed the bails from the stumps in the 2006 Oval Test match – resulting in England winning the game by forfeiture – it sent shockwaves in the cricket community.
That it was a controversial call would be understating it, but more importantly, the ramifications from it lasted for years to come.
But before we look at what happened later, it’s good to start at the beginning.
Pakistan go on a tour of England in 2006
It was expected to be rather exhaustive tour of the UK starting with an ODI against Scotland on June 27 and going all the way through four tour games, four Tests, a T20I and then five ODIs which were scheduled to finish on September 10. Nearly two and a half months of cricket that is.
It started off well for Pakistan in their one-off ODI as they chased down Scotland’s 203/8 despite falling to 93/5 at one stage before they defeated Leicestershire in the opening tour game.
In the second tour game against England A, however, the Pakistani bowlers were sent on a bit of a leather hunt with the hosts amassing 595 for nine and 159 for one declared in their two innings. Pakistan themselves made 242 in the first innings before settling in on some batting practice in the second as they ended with 154/2.
The first Test at Lord’s finished in a high-scoring draw with Pakistan managing to bat out 73 overs on the final day to escape with a draw.
Things began to unravel in the second Test which was played at Old Trafford in Manchester. Pakistan collapsed from 90/2 in the first innings to be bowled out for 119 before seeing their opponents rack up 461/9 declared.
Steve Harmison picked up a second five-wicket haul of the match as Pakistan were then bowled out for 222 in the second innings to leave England easy victors.
Pakistan looked to have picked up the batting pieces rather well in the third Test that was played at Leeds, Headingley.
After conceding 515 in the first innings, Pakistan were propped up by a 363-run stand for the third wicket between Mohammad Yousuf and Younis Khan. Both hammered 150s and while Pakistan would lose their last seven wickets for a mere 91 runs they garnered a 23-run lead.
It was in this game that Monty Panesar would get the Pakistan captain Inzamam out to a comical hit-wicket.
Not to be outdone, England slammed 345 at nearly 4 an over in the second innings to set Pakistan a target of 323 with the whole of the final day remaining. This time around, Pakistan collapsed to 84/5 at lunch and despite Inzy’s fighting 37, were bowled out for 155 to give England a match and series win.
What happened in the fourth Test at The Oval?
With the series already lost, Pakistan went into the fourth Test to play for pride. They had shown they could stand up to the hosts in snatches but needed to put up a consistent performance over the length of the entire game.
And powered by a fine bowling performance from Umar Gul and Mohammad Asif, 90s from Mohammad Hafeez and Imran Farhat and a delightful century off the bat of Mohammad Yousuf, Pakistan looked to have cemented their command in the Test match.
When England began batting in their second innings late on day three, they were 331 runs behind in the first innings.
By tea on day four, England had wiped out 298 of those runs but lost four wickets in doing so and Pakistan would have felt another wicket from there on could have helped them restrict the hosts to a manageable lead.
That’s when things really went south, all hell breaking loose for the visitors. Not too many would have imagined what followed.
Ball-Tampering allegations and the Forfeit
England batter Alastair Cook was dismissed in the second innings to a late-swinging yorker from Umar Gul, his wicket going down in the 52nd over of their innings.
Three overs later, drama unfolded as during a routine ball check, the umpires Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove deemed to have found its condition to be altered to a large degree – deeming it to be tampered.
They immediately called for the ball to be replaced, awarding England five penalty runs as was the law around ball-tampering during those days.
Not very chuffed with the decision, Pakistan captain Inzamam carried on with the play but the ball had suddenly stopped swinging for the visitors. As a result, England went after the bowling, scoring some quick runs in the process but also lost Kevin Pietersen for 96 as they went into the tea-break.
After the 20-minute break for tea, England batsmen Ian Bell and Paul Collingwood waited to go out to bat again but with the Pakistani team having not walked out. The typical norm is for the fielding team to move out of their dressing room and on to the field first before the batsmen join in but no such thing happened this time around.
The two umpires, Hair and Doctrove had already walked out to the middle with Hair seen talking on his walkie-talkie. The fourth umpire Trevor Jesty then went out to inform the pair that the Pakistan team would not be coming out as a mark of protest against the ball-tampering ruling.
Bell and Collingwood made their way out to the pitch very soon after but with the fielding team refusing to come out, Hair informed them that the match had been called off and England declared winners by forfeit. Doctrove and Hair would then go on to remove the bails, signalling the end of the game!
David Morgan, the ECB chairman went into a huddle with the various members of the PCB to discuss the matter before it looked like Inzamam was convinced enough to take his team out in the middle yet again. This was nearly an hour after the tea-break had ended.
England batters don’t follow suit this time, nor do the umpires before the Pakistan team walks back to the dressing room awaiting further instructions.
It’s revealed in the press conference that the PCB, ECB, the two teams and the match referee (Mike Procter) had reached an agreement to carry on the game from where it was left off, but it couldn’t continue on because the umpires had “correctly deemed” that Pakistan had forfeited the encounter.
It was also said in that press conference:
“The Pakistan team was aggrieved by the award of five penalty runs to England. The award of those penalty runs for the alleged interference with the ball, is under review by the ICC match referee, Mike Procter, whose report will be considered in due course. ICC will be issuing a separate report, concerning action which might be taken, in relation with the forfeiture of the match by Pakistan.”
The fifth day’s play remained cancelled with the result standing and England coming through with a 3-0 series win at that stage.
What happened after this?
If one thought that this was the end of the controversy, they were sadly mistaken – it was only the beginning.
As was expected after an incident of this magnitude, opinions were divided but nobody could argue that the law (Law 16.3.2.) had not been followed. In fact, the ICC, ECB and PCB all accepted the legality of the ruling but what was in question was whether the ball-tampering allegation had been too harsh and if the umpires could have shown some more flexibility in allowing the match to go on even after it had been deemed forfeited by them.
In a leaked email from Hair to the ICC, he offered to resign from his position as an ICC Elite Umpire for a one-off payment of $500,000 which further queered the plot. Hair would later say this email was sent in response to a discussion he would have with the ICC regarding his future.
Was the ball tampered?
While there is no conclusive proof to say one thing or another here, what makes this even more intriguing is that there are some experts who reckon that the ball had been tampered with while there were others who thought that it wasn’t.
The PCB obviously didn’t agree with the ball-tampering charges, with officials saying there was nothing abnormal about the way the ball looked.
There was also a case for their defence with the host broadcaster Sky Sport having made it clear that none of their 26 cameras had picked up any wrongdoing during England’s innings.
Madugalle hears Inzy’s case
Ranjan Madugalle, himself a match referee, was invited to chair Inzamam’s case and while he found the Pakistan captain not guilty for ball-tampering, he did ban him for four matches for bringing the game into disrepute by not continuing to play after the tea-break.
Interestingly, the umpires and match referees who were appointed to take a look at the ball for this hearing to give their opinion about its condition reckoned it had been tampered with. These included Darrel Hair, Billy Doctrove, Doug Cowie, Trevor Jesty, Mike Procter and Peter Hartley.
When it was came to the forfeit, what was interesting to note was that the umpires had taken the bails off at 5 pm local time, signalling the end of the game. The Pakistan team was convinced by the match referee and the ECB to come out to play and they did so about half hour later once the game had been “called off” which points to no communication between them and Hair and Doctrove!
Hair’s career takes a nosedive
Percy Sonn, the ICC president in 2006, would go on to announce the banning of Hair from umpiring in any more games. He explained the ICC, after due discussions, had “lost confidence in Mr Hair”.
Hair announced in 2007 he would sue the ICC and PCB for making him a scapegoat despite having followed the laws of the game.
A few months later, Hair dropped the case and the ICC announced they would reinstate the umpire again following a six-month long development programme.
ICC decides to reverse the result. And again!
While the ICC would go on to ban Hair from officiating in any Tests again, they said they would back the result, a forfeit in favour of England.
Two years later, in an annual ICC meeting held in Dubai, the Pakistan Cricket Board managed to convince the ICC to alter the result of the fourth Test against England to a draw.
The ICC announced:
“The board’s decision is based on the view that in light of the unique set of circumstances the original result was felt to be inappropriate.”
Former West Indian pacer and cricket commentator Michael Holding, who sat in the ICC cricket committee opted to resign from it following this decision.
However, a few months later, in 2009, the decision was changed yet again and England were awarded the Test as a forfeit. This was after the MCC, which is responsible for the laws of the game, was critical of the changed decision.
Hair would also be reinstated as an Elite Panel umpire but following two Tests of officiating, the Aussie would announce his retirement from umpiring.
Hair vindicated?
In 2010, Hair called the Pakistan cricket team as “cheats, frauds and liars” following the spot-fixing revelations against Salman Butt, Mohammad Amir and Mohammad Asif on their tour of England.
Later there were allegations of Shoaib Akhtar tampering with the ball during one of the ODIs against England which made Hair say:
“The fans, viewers and crowds have been watching cheats and liars. How long will they continue to part with their money to watch manipulated matches and players cheating? The ICC should be ashamed to allow these matches to take place.”
“Regardless of irrefutable evidence of ball tampering the ICC still choose not to take action, which is unsurprising given their record and inability to control their own game. ‘The game must always go on’ seems to be their motto.”
“Unfortunately the Pakistan cricketers show no respect for the game and continually attempt to cheat. The game as currently being played by Pakistan is a hoax and a fraud to the public.”
Gambling addiction & embezzlement
Hair, who last stood as an umpire in an international game in 2008, was accused of stealing about $9000. He pled guilty and returned all the money, allowing him to get away with an 18-month good behaviour bond.