The Indian cricket fraternity was on Monday divided in its opinion on the highly controversial abandonment of the Pakistan-England Test at the Oval, but former cricketers and umpires were clear that such a fiasco would push the game into total chaos.
While some justified Darrell Hair's decision to award the match to England following the ball-tampering episode, there were a few others who felt the on-field umpires should have shown "patience and flexibility" in handling such a grave situation.
Former captain Krishnamachari Srikkanth, without taking anyone's side, said Pakistan should have come to the field and protested later rather than objecting to the umpires' decision by not coming to the field of play.
"What the umpires have done is also not right at all. It is a shame that everybody is taking law into their own hands," Srikkanth said.
"The Pakistan captain perhaps was trying to prove his point while the umpires were trying to give their point of view. Without warning the bowler and then bringing it to the knowledge of the captain, the umpire cannot, as per rule, penalise a team.
"Both indulged in showing their reactions in their own ways without realising that the game is bigger than the individuals."
Former off-spinner Erapalli Prasanna, however, supported the Pakistan team's action.
"It is just not right. They (umpires) should have informed the Pakistan captain well in advance that such a thing is being observed and is not acceptable," he said.
Prasanna felt the umpires should not have penalised the team without informing Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul Haq and without sufficient evidence.
"If the umpires had not informed the Pakistan captain, it is not just right to penalise the fielding side. If they observed something was going wrong, the umpires should give sufficient evidence to the fielding captain. They cannot just add five runs and call it a day.
"Before taking any such decision, the umpires are duty bound to inform the fielding captain. If the fielding side persists with the wrongdoing, the umpires should bring it to the notice of the match referee, who is the ICC's competent authority to penalise a player(s) or the team, according to the rules," he said.
Ajit Wadekar, who led India to historic wins against England and West Indies in 1971, said, "History repeats itself," indicating at past incidences of Pakistani bowlers being caught in ball tampering controversies.
However, on a different note he said: "The crux of the problem is whether it was tampered with."
Wadekar said the root of the controversy lies in Pakistan not coming to play after the tea break.
"But Pakistan were in the wrong by refusing to come out after the tea interval and play. They should have, instead, played under protest.
"They had a big lead. What big difference would have been made by a penalty of five runs to the overall picture," he said.
"It's high time the ICC looked into this matter and clearly define that a team can be penalised for such things only after evidential proof is established," Wadekar said.
Former India paceman Balwinder Singh Sandhu, along with former international umpire Dara Dotiwala, supported the decision of the two umpires while another ex-Test umpire Piloo
Reporter felt some flexibility could have been shown by Hair and Billy Doctrove in dealing with the incident.
Echoing Wadekar's views, Sandhu said it was high time all the players learned to respect the umpires' decisions as otherwise chaos would result.
"Somebody has to put a stop to all these things. The umpires have got every right to change the ball if it had been tampered with," he said.
Sandhu, who was a member of Kapil Dev's victorious 1983 World Cup winning team, also felt Pakistan team could have carried on playing under protest.
"There are so many instances when a wrong decision is given by an umpire. Do the bowlers protest when a batsman who's out is not given out or do the batsmen, who know they are out, walk when the umpire does not give them out. The umpires' decisions should be respected," Sandhu said.
Dotiwala said the umpires were justified in ordering a change of the ball, having decided it was tampered with, and the batsmen at the crease needed to decide on which different ball was to be used instead from the new lot.
"The umpires are supposed to do constant checking of the balls, in between overs, fall of wickets, intervals etc. What the Pakistanis should have done is to continue to play under protest and then take up the matter with the match referee after the end of the day's play," Dotiwala said.
