The Opportunist, The Pacifier, The Decider

(Or how Musharaf, Blair and Bush got along)

Rub a dub dub,Three men in a tub;
And who do you think they be?
The Opportunist,
The Pacifier; The Decider;
Turn 'em out, knaves all three!

The Conclusion
Here is a complete text of Madugalle's Report
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engvpak/content/current/story/260776.html

He concludes:
Conclusion
51 I therefore conclude:
(1) Mr ul-Haq is not guilty of the charge of ball-tampering.
(2) Mr ul-Haq is guilty of the charge that contrary to paragraph C2 of the Code of Conduct, he engaged in conduct unbecoming to his status which could bring him or the game into disrepute in that he failed to bring his team back onto the field of play on two occasions as a deliberate protest against the Umpires. The appropriate penalty is a ban of 4 One Day International Matches.
52 Finally, I should comment on one final matter. The witnesses agreed in evidence that player-management and effective communication is an important aspect of umpiring at international level. In my judgment, a difficult and sensitive situation such as that which arose in the present case (a finding of ball-tampering causing a substantial sense of grievance in, and protests from, the Pakistan team) requires handling with tactful diplomacy (as well as firm adherence to the Laws). This was an unprecedented situation. If (one hopes not) such a situation were to recur in international cricket, I would hope and expect:
(1) The Umpires would do everything possible to try to defuse tensions in the dressing-room by explaining that a team is entitled to raise any grievance through the ICC but that it is not in their interests, or in the interests of the game, for the team to interrupt play.
(2) The Umpires and other officials should do everything possible to ensure the resumption of play. And they should not return to the field of play and then declare the match to be forfeited unless and until they are absolutely sure that the team is refusing to play the rest of the match. All other options should first be exhausted, involving discussions with the team captains and management.
Ranjan Madugalle (The Adjudicator, and Chief ICC Referee)
assisted by
David Pannick QC (Counsel to The Adjudicator)

Compare it to the forecast below.

Iftar at The Bush's

Even Arafat and Rabin shook hands but Musharaf and Karzai refused to do so at the Peace Iftar. Maybe it was the hunger pangs that had them both so out of sorts and discombobulated. If so a Peace Sahri might have been the better option but Bush has probably never gotten up that early. On the other hand maybe both have learned a few things about expressing themselves from their host.

The Strangest Reason
One reason that has been bandied about for not changing the result of that now infamous Hair match to a no result is that the betting community will be in a mess. Since when does the cricket community care about the betting community as far as the results of their games are concerned? Oh wait, I withdraw the last statement, that was happening a few years back. What was I thinking?

The Forecast
Here is my forecast of the ruling
1. Not guilty on the ball tampering issue.
2. Disrepute charge upheld.
3. 4 ODI ban
4. Darrell Hair censured for his role in the referee's report.

What would it mean? Whether the punishments are exactly as above or not what it would mean is that Madugalle will try to balance it out. He will uphold the disrepute charge and say no matter what Inzamam should have come out to play. But he will be lenient citing that the ball tampering issue cannot be totally ignored as an instigator of the protest. He will say that the umpire is the sole arbiter during the match. He will then go on to say that umpires should use their powers judiciously.

On to More Contentious Issues

What of Iraq and Afghanistan and Musharaf’s book when the more important matter of the ICC’s hearing stands at the brink of making history.
As a precursor we now have Ponting’s statement supporting Hair. The same Ponting who a few days ago let loose a few words for Assad Rauf because he had called a wide. The irony cannot be missed: An Australian now questioning a Pakistani umpire on something that is routinely carried out by umpires in one day games. He did apologize to Rauf, which I suppose conspiracy theorists might argue was supposed to show how Inzamam should have behaved. However, if this is Ponting’s behavior on a wide one wonders what he might have stooped to if accused of cheating. And ICC issued no statements to Ponting that he should not comment on the issue since it has supposedly gagged all parties.
Then there is Martin-Jenkins and secret meetings in the lavatory between Inzamam and Waqar, Waqar coaxing Inzamam to protest.
Let’s see whether Madugalle proves to be the Solomon everyone is hoping for or he is vilified as the instrument of the goras or the Asian who does not know his place.

Belt Begone

In the olden days belts served the useful purpose of child abuse but since that practice has fallen into disfavor it has become an accessory that matches your shoes or an ornament bandied about by boxers, wrestlers and cowboys. So leaving the boxers, wrestlers and cowboys alone and considering the fact that you have to take the damn thing on and off so many times through airport check in lines I propose that it is time for the belt to go the way of the clothing dinosaur, the hat. Infact the hat may be more useful since atleast in very cold and hot weather it provides protection especially to those of us whose hair, unlike Darell Hair, is gone. Truly, the belt has become as useless as the seat belt on an airplane that the flight attendant insists you buckle.