Posts
Loading ...What a joke Will? Should Darrell Hair resign?? He should be fired if he can’t give concrete evidence of ball tampering. If he can’t provide evidence of xyz player tampering the ball then we can finally conclude that there is no room for this racist in cricket. Racists can’t hide behind the laws of cricket. If they can.. what stops another racist umpire from declaring ball fixing in the next match in a much more crucial moment of the match without giving any evidence what so ever? Nobody, wants to look at the bad precidence this sets. You can discriminate against south asians and say I’m the umpire and say what ever I want to without regard for providing proof. He needs to do this even if the law doesn’t require him to provide proof of tampering. If he can’t provide proof then he could have changed the ball himself instead of humialiting pak by labelling them cheaters and awarding runs and getting the batsmen to choose an orange for themselves. I am sick of Darrell Hair’s virulent and now blatantly racist behaviour and disregard for south asians.
Should Darrell Hair resign?
By Will 2 years ago, mid-August Leave a comment on this post
On the one hand he has done everything to the letter of the law, and indeed upheld the laws and regulations of the game in his role as umpire. On the other, should he perhaps have given Inzamam-ul-Haq, the Pakistan captain, notice of his fears about the ball being tampered with before docking runs?
Let’s face it: he should not have umpired in this series. If an official courts such controversy, and isn’t trusted by one particular team, the ICC should be reactive enough to accomodate. After all, Hair is no stranger to these incidents. Throughout this series, and certainly based on the feedback we have received on Cricinfo, fans do not like him; in fact they detest him, in some quarters. Imran Khan was even moved to call him a fundamentalist umpire.
What next, then? Should he stand his ground, be supported by the ICC and resume his duties? Or retire now with his reputation hanging by a thread? (click here to vote if you’re reading via a feed / RSS). Leave your comments below and vote.
Voting closed (see results)
< ?php jal_democracy(23); ?>
Tags: ball-tampering, darrell-hair, disrepute, farce, ICC, inzamam-ul-haq, pakistan, pakistan-in-england |
83 Responses to “Should Darrell Hair resign?”
August 22nd, 2006 at 12.28 am
August 22nd, 2006 at 1.00 am
And I am sick of Mani’s “virulent and now blantantly” subjective conclusion-drawing without all the facts and libellous categorisation of umpire Hair as racist. Like Imran equating Hair to Hitler! What a jerk!
And while I’m at it - Will, why didn’t you label the vote “Should Darrell Hair receive a pay rise?”. There seems to be a little bit of a presumption of wrong-doing in the headline, no? Or perhaps their should be another vote “Should Pakistan stop cheating?” - that would make as much sense.
Good to see that Hair is getting a decent segment of support in the vote despite the ravings of the press and many on this list.
I have my own suspicions about Hair’s performance and style. But I have suspicions just as strong (or stronger) that he may be spot on in his judgement.
August 22nd, 2006 at 1.18 am
Just because Pakistan can reverse swing at will and no other “mummy-mummy-look-pakistan-can-reverse-swing-so-early-and-we-cant-do-shit-country” can, everybody is blaming Pakistan. Darell should not resign, he should be fired without paying him for officating in this test match. Only then can international cricket get rid of such nonsense umpiring.
August 22nd, 2006 at 1.33 am
It’s a good job Geraint jones wasn’t playing because he would have got the blame.
August 22nd, 2006 at 1.34 am
For what it is worth:-
1. I am not interested in the racist debate. It is the ultimate red herring in these arguments. Is Doctove a racist? If not, does that make him a stooge for Darrel Hair? What a load of nonsense.
2. Worrying about the crowds and people who bought tickets is to get the carts and horses mixed up. Obviously, it would have been desirable for the crowd/views etc to be told what was going on and, to the extent that the umpires were not keeping the ground adminstrators informed, they were at fault .
3. To keep playing because the crowd was there is a bit like saying lets go to war to make use of all of these expensive toys that our army has - it is an exercise in inductive reasoning. The game is more important than that.
4. The poor old umpires cannot take a trick. Their decisions are endlessly analysed with the benefit of super slo mo, hawkeye etc; they are subject to shameless cheating by the players of every nation (come on, you know it’s true - appeals when all concerned know it’s not out, batsmen vigorously rubbing body parts when replays show edges, leaving aside ball tampering in all of its manifestations); their authority has been undermined by the introduction of a third umpire and is now proposed to be further diluted by the introduction of appeals. Now we have the prospect that a team can pick and choose when it will play, and the umpires are supposed to put up with that? Give me a break. Try staging that in any other sport, and the game would be over before you could blink.
5. It may be the case that Hair and Doctrove could have dealt with it differently, but exactly how is not clear. If a team will not engage in play in accordance with the rules (and the rules must be those applied by the officiating umpires, for better or worse), then there can be no claim that the team retains any entitlement to continue to participate. To justify it on the basis that people have paid money to watch is to turn the whole exercise on its head.
August 22nd, 2006 at 1.40 am
Michael - perhaps the most sensible comments I’ve seen surrounding this fiasco. Spot on.
And your fourth point is very relevant. Erosion of the authority of the umpires is an important sub-issue.
August 22nd, 2006 at 2.00 am
without all the facts and libellous categorisation of umpire Hair as racist
sprycorse.. read what i wrote.. i said “if” he can’t prove… there has been so much history already that he needs to prove it.. the laws don’t require him to.. i agree.. but in my “opinion” if he can’t prove then in my eyes his record amounts to conscious or unconcious beliefs that asians are cheaters.. there are racists in this world.. there was the kkk… i’m going to call it what it is if it adds up for me.. it is only my opinion.. and you are free to have the opinion of thinking i’m an idiot for thinking so..
ALL of this could have been avoided if he had opened up his mouth and fingered a player.. if he couldn’t then don’t make the assumption that paks are cheaters.. the rules say if a fielder has done something not if the team has done something.. so in hair’s “opinion” which “fielder” has done it.. if he saw someone he could have just said xyz did it to inzimam.. to say i am god.. my word is final .. i don’t need to give you any info is not on in this case… why can’t people see that this is not a lbw/caught behind etc.. plenty of which hair has gotten wrong.. which i have no problems at all.. he can go ahead and give all of those wrongs.. don’t care.. but when he gave inzi out incorrectly agianst the law.. that is wrong..not racist.. just wrong because he shows that he doesn’t even know the laws.. but “if” he makes the assumption without seeing any player doing anything… then that to me means he is consciously or unconsciously biased against asians.. simple as that for “me”.. by the way i agree that i might be going over the top.. but i am just really really upset.. i have contributed to this blog last year and didn’t get this upset over anything in the past pak eng series.. neither did i post anything against hair when he gave not out to caught behinds in the first match of the series he was in.. that sort of thing is part of the game.. what he did in the oval test was something that nobody has done before.. i.e. accuse someone of cheating and then not providing proof immediately.. what is he waiting for christmas? This can only be good for hair.. he loses nothing from all this.. i wonder how many millions he will rake in from being so controversial.. he already has a book out.. i’m sure he’ll write any juicy one.. he does all this nonsense because he can get away by saying i am an umpire.. above all kind of requirement for handling manners in an appropriate and considerate way…
August 22nd, 2006 at 2.09 am
Mani, I’m just saying I think you’re wrong to bring in the whole racist thing. You may be right. But if you’re wrong you are effectively, and most unfairly, vilifying someone and helping to fuel the whole effigy-burning insanity.
Still, if it makes you feel better, you go right ahead….
August 22nd, 2006 at 3.05 am
ok.. i never said anything about effigy-burning.. but a good idea.. lemme go make one.. joking.. haha..
sprycorpse.. racists do exist..do they or do they not? so why can’t hair be one? are you ready to accept that he could be one? what criteria must be met before calling somebody racist or can nobody be ever called racist? Do you think KKK was a boy scout organisation? obviously i’m not equating kkk with hair but i’m just asking for why the racist issue can’t be discussed? Recently, Dean Jones called that guy from south africa you know what.. was that racist? do people who use racial slurs.. are they being racist? ofcourse there is no way to prove wether some one is or isn’t.. but you can only make a judgement call by the actions of people. What dean jones said in my opinion was “racist”.. you may call it just joking around.. i don’t care what you call it..from the evidence i have seen i am convinced that darrell hair is totally biased against asian teams in the manner in which he gives his decisions.. maybe he isn’t racist at all and just a complete egotistical meglomaniac who thinks he turns in to GOD when he wears that coat… that too could be true.. maybe he takes perverse pleasure out of humiliating players by making such controversial decisions… 
joking by the way…
August 22nd, 2006 at 4.41 am
Michael, I second SpryCorpse, sound comments.
Mani, what evidence would you suggest Darrell Hair would be able to use to “prove” that ball tampering occured. Obviously he has no access to video evidence, and unless one of the Pakistan players tampered with the ball in front of him (which is unlikely), he can only go on the state of the ball.
Given that, the umpires inspected the ball at the luncheon interval (44th over), the fall of Cook’s wicket (52nd over), and when they changed the ball (in the 56th over). They obviously believed that the state of the ball had changed in a manner that couldn’t be explained by the number of runs/boundaries scored in that period (35/5 and 12/1 for what it’s worth).
There is no provision for changing the ball unless it has gone out of shape. To do otherwise would be a contravention of the laws and a biased, unfair decision by the umpires in England’s favour.
Therefore, having considered the weight of evidence, the umpires have to decide whether to change the ball because they believe it has been tampered with, or to leave it. If they considered the ball to be tampered with, and left it alone, then they are again contravening the rules and allowing Pakistan an advantage they didn’t deserve.
The umpires may have been wrong to change the ball, but they have to make a decision, and that decision needs to be made in accordance with the laws. Furthermore, it is a decision that needs to be made at the time. You can’t have teams copping penalties later; what if someone tampers with the ball in a World Cup final, or the final test of a hung series? It is a decision for the umpire, and we can only ask that they make it to the best of their ability.
Nor is it a moral, political or personal decision, even if it needs to be a courageous one. Darrell Hair is controversial because he makes courageous decisions, because (if you read his autobiography) he believes strongly in upholding the letter of the laws, and because he also believe strongly in respect being shown for officials that do their job. (He was quite harsh on the idea of a team staging a “walk-off”).
I think that makes him a good umpire. And, as Michael said, respect for umpires is important, not least because that impacts at every level of the game, and finding umpires is getting increasingly difficult. You may, of course disagree.
August 22nd, 2006 at 4.45 am
Mani,
Yes there are such things as racists.
But no I don’t believe that Darrell Hair making decisions on a cricket field as a Test umpire make him a racist.
Hair famously cost Australia a long-awaited series victory against the West Indies in ‘93 when he gave McDermott out at the death.
And the South Africans were seething after a series of doubtful Hair LBW decisions in ‘94.
By your logic Hair is not only racist against asian teams but also against African and Oceanian nations.
Pretty much everyone, I guess.
And I never said we can’t discuss racism - but since it can’t be proved here, it seems entirely irrelevant. If Hair is deemed incompetent by the business that employs him then they should sack him. Competence and racism shouldn’t be mixed up.
I may as well accuse you of racism for your inflammatory remarks against umpire Hair for all the relevance of it.
August 22nd, 2006 at 4.50 am
It’s your opinion (no more, no less) that Hair should not have umpired in this series. Nothing we have to face.
There is a certain disingenuousness in Sharyiar Khan’s insistence that the beef Pakistan have with Hair is his attitude towards sub-continental teams. While Khan said yesterday that Hair was a ‘good umpire’, one only has to read blogs, or listen to other people, to know that it is generally felt that Hair gives decisions against Pakistan. This implies that he is NOT a good umpire at all.
Of course, the truth is that, like all umpires (but less so, because he’s a better umpire than most) the mistakes that he makes even themselves out, and have nothing to do with bias.
On the one hand, Khan acknowledges as much by calling him a good umpire; on the other, at the heart of his grievance with him is that he discriminates against players from the sub-continent.
The two postures simply don’t add up. This is the kind of mess you get into when a) you are driven by an agenda (anti-imperilaism - call it what you will) and b) you are fundamentally dishonest.
August 22nd, 2006 at 4.51 am
Our local paper ran an article on the inestimable Darrell this morning. Amongst other things, it refers to him as “a rare beast in a pragmatic and sanitised sporting world becausse he appears to pay little attention to the personal or professional cost of upholding his beliefs”. It also refers to his run in with Steve Waugh on a run out decision, which cost Waugh half his match fee for dissent. I cannot comment on whether Steve’s race was a determining factor in his decision.
Finally, and most colourfully, it refers to a report of his actions in a one dayer at the WACA, and his reaction, which was to say to the reporter “You are the turd laid by the dog that is the Australian cricket media.” Not too many friends left there, then.
August 22nd, 2006 at 6.09 am
HAHAHAHA
“You are the turd laid by the dog that is the Australian cricket media.â€
BWAAHHHAAAAAHAHA
Just for that darryl, my vote’s back with you.
in an era when the players are duller than bob willis on codeine, i’d rather have umps like Darryl-ul-Hair.
August 22nd, 2006 at 6.25 am
I now seem to have a decent head of steam up on this whole issue - never in my wildest dreams/playing days did I think that I would be come to the defence of the men in the white coats, but there you go.
If the most compelling evidence of the incompetence/racism/sundry other personal faults of TIDH (The Inestimable Darrell Hair) is his calling of Murali, then, M’Lud, there is no case to answer. He and Ross Emerson did what other umpires wish they had done - call him, because to the naked eye he threw the bloody thing. It was only after a battery of testing, the determination that Murali had some physical abnormalities and a change to the rules that the issue went away.
August 22nd, 2006 at 6.27 am
Hair umpires the game as he sees fit, by the rules, and it would be great to see the ICC back him up. I’m sure he takes his role seriously and to have an umpire not swayed by public opinion is a great attribute. If he is wrong then he must suffer the consequences, but, anyone that has played a bit of cricket would soon notice any underhanded tactics going on. I’m sure he doesn’t go into a match featuring an Asian team and think, “Gee, I’d better be vigilant for any chuckers and any funny business happening to the ball.”
If a Pakanstani player has tampered with the ball then punishment should be swift and just. Who thinks that they are above the laws of the game? And just because a particular team has had a penchant for this type of behaviour doesn’t mean that the next accusation of it occurring should be considered racist.
August 22nd, 2006 at 6.35 am
AND another thing. Imran Khan has accused TEDH of being a mini Hitler, or somesuch. Hmmm…ball tampering…Imran Khan…does memory serve me correctly?
August 22nd, 2006 at 6.35 am
I think an allegation of racism without proof is more serious than an allegation of ball-tampering without proof - especially considering that Doctrove agreed with Hair’s assessment.
I also don’t think a team should be allowed to choose its umpires.
The ball-tampering law is perhaps poorly conceived and poorly written. Any rule that turns a sport into a forensic investigation should probably be re-thought.
I hope the evidence is conclusive, but given the special training umpires are required to get to recognize this sort of thing and the high emotion, I doubt it can be. I have a feeling this particular ball will end up in a glass case in the museum at Lords where people can examine it for themselves.
I expect some sort of ugly compromise that leaves no one happy but allows the cricket to continue, because a huge amount of money is at stake. Personally, I think Pakistan should be kicked out of the ICC if they skip the one-dayers, but that will not happen because too much money is at stake. And I have to admit that I have a bias in this case - I have non-refundable train and bus tickets to get me to Cardiff, not to mention vacation time agreed to months ago, hundreds of pounds of hotel bookings, etc. If they pull out at the last minute I’ll be particularly upset, because the hotels in Cardiff tripled their prices around the time of the match. I can get a refund for the ticket, but my biggest expenses are non-refundable.
Anyway, you have to love the soap opera that is cricket.
August 22nd, 2006 at 6.38 am
When the engineers of the clash of civilisations between West and East, Infidel and Islam, planned their final battle, could they have imagined this battle of heavyweight teddy-bears?
“In the bearded corner,” says the referee — which unfortunately turns out to be the Australian Malcolm Speed — “we have the paratha-loving captain of Pakistan, a country of ball-tamperers, match-fixers, and hot-heads. In the beardless corner, we have the Pakistan-hating, rule-loving umpire from, ahem, my homeland.
“Let the battle begin. I’ll make sure it’s a fair one.”
Well, excuse me for dissenting, but this little bit of arbitration strikes me as highly unfair. The ICC appointed Darrell Hair didn’t they? They stuck by him and his record of colourful decisions against people of darker hue.
They supported his brand of arrogance and disdain for players he can’t quite understand. They nurtured his passion for attention-seeking through acts of gross insult. First, Sri Lanka suffered, then India. Now Pakistan and Mr Hair have become inseparable.
And the years of abuse and complaints taught abuser and abused separate lessons. The abuser, the teddy-bear in the beardless corner, felt untouchable. Every time he indulged his favourite sport of goading Pakistan, his ICC masters heard no evil or saw no evil.
The abused, in the bearded corner, felt a growing sense of outrage. Every time he complained about being abused, his ICC overlords would force him to spend more time with this abuser. Eventually, he was left no choice but to make a stand — and what a stand he made.
Yet the ICC, the short-sighted master, will probably fail this test too. It is an organisation that shirked responsibility for a match and a sport that was being destroyed in front of millions.
The ICC’s inaction on that fateful Sunday was criminal. It devolved the fate of the match to the whim and obstinence of one man, a man with a history of intransigence — and nothing predicts behaviour like behaviour.
It was within the ICC’s power to force Hair — and Billy Doctrove, if he insisted on supporting his domineering pal — to stand down from officiating, there were third and fourth umpires available.
The match referee wanted the game to continue. The teams wanted to perform the final act in an enthralling dead-rubber that was anything but dead. The cricket boards supported a restart. And, most importantly, over twenty thousand spectators at the ground and millions at home wanted it.
Yet what triumphed was one man’s intransigence, one man’s pedantry, one man’s desire to deprive the world of entertainment. And since the decision to find Pakistan guilty was subjective, we can — at last — safely say, one man’s prejudice.
Shame on you Darrell Hair, shame on you ICC for supporting this selfish man. And you can predict what might well happen on Friday. The ICC will display the spine of the spineless, an absence of bones that it is fond of publicising, and support its umpires.
The ICC mistakes authority for justice. It has failed to understand that an admission of error is the first step in improving a system.
And whether or not Inzamam made an error by not stomping off the minute his country was slandered, and whether or not he made another error in not completing the match, will be long debated.
But Inzamam’s are the lesser evils — and his stand has rightly been seen by the world to be noble. Indeed, his errors pale into insignificance against those of Hair.
It is increasingly clear that Mr Hair betrayed the spirit of the game, something he is supposed to be upholding. He accused, judged, and sentenced Pakistan on the basis of his own unsubstantiated beliefs, not on a shred of evidence.
It is clear he didn’t believe the Pakistan captain and his team worthy of an explanation, a chance to clear their names. It is clear that he manufactured the forfeiture of the match to secure his own triumph. It is clear that he held the views of players, officials, cricket boards, and spectators in complete disdain.
It is clear that this man is unfit to officiate at international level, perhaps at any level — he has been unfit for many years now. It is clear that he does hold a bias against Pakistan. And it is also clear that the ICC has aided and abetted his reign of insult and abuse.
For the sake of the spirit of this game that many of us still love the ICC has to exonerate Pakistan and deliver us from Hair. His position is now completely untenable — as will be the ICC’s if it doesn’t make the right decision on Friday
August 22nd, 2006 at 7.09 am
I might add too, to Will’s comments that Hair should have warned Inzaman before applying the penalty, that the most likely scenario to follow from that is:
1) The Pakistan players, now under suspicion, are more judicious in working on the ball, and no further tampering occurs.
2) Pakistan roll England with a possibly tampered-with ball, and go on to win the game.
3) Pakistan lodge a complaint with the ICC over Hair’s biased and racist allegation that they were tampering with the ball.
4) England lodge a formal complaint with the ICC having lost the game under suspicious circumstances, and because the umpires had not changed the ball as required under Law 42.
5) The ICC censure Hair and Doctrove for not applying the laws as required.
6) All ball tampering allegations are left unheard. The only evidence having been hit around the field for 20 subsequent overs.
And we’ll all live happily ever after, content that we think, but can’t prove, that the ICC is corrupt and spineless, the Pakistan team full of ball-tampering cheats, the English team full of whingers, and Darrell Hair a biased and racist official.
August 22nd, 2006 at 7.10 am
Much of Law 42, dealing with Unfair Play, was introduced in 2000 specifically to deal with cheating: time-wasting, scuffing up the pitch, talking to batsmen as the bowler was running up, ball tampering, etc.
I read today that Mark Taylor has said that when new Laws are produced, teams sit down and think of ways to exploit them, so the ICC/MCC have potentially got themselves into a vicious cycle, as teams (and management) become ever more legalistic in their approach.
The Spirit of Cricket (Preamble to the Laws and itself part of the Laws) represents muddled thinking and the last hurrah of “whities” to cling on to the vestiges of a (largely mythic) Corinthian heritage. That the spirit of a game has been codified (in law!) at all speaks volumes for the Nelson-like instinct to turn a blind eye to the fudge that has been created - an admission, if you will, by the game’s administrators that they’re running the game on a wing and a prayer.
August 22nd, 2006 at 8.14 am
What the flipping heck is going on now? England are getting blamed. Apparently Tres and Fletcher were watching the fielders and “had concerns” which were mentioned to Proctor. So what? That happens every game, doesn’t it? This takes the biscuit, really.
August 22nd, 2006 at 8.20 am
ICC has to remember that the players are ones the people want to watch. No one comes to the ground wanting to watch the umpires do their job. They have to remember that the umpires are incidental and not the main characters. If Pakistan boycott the one day series, the people who paid tickets to watch it would be disappointed, the ECB would make a huge financial loss, the sponsors would shy away and the TV networks would not put in huge bids. Imagine the chaos, if say Australia boycotted the Ashes. By taking the umpires’ side, the ICC is killing the proverbial goose.
Hair, I think, has done the game a big disservice by implementing the game to the letter. While the letter of the law states that the game would have to be forfeited by Pakistan, would it not have been better had the umpires backed off a bit and allowed the game to continue on the final day.
If Hair was convinced that Pakistan had meddled with the ball, as he was, he could have been a bit more diplomatic about it all. At the time, he could have just changed the ball without penalty runs and sent the ball for investigation. The ICC, if it wants to support the umpires could have demanded television evidence if any exists. In the face of incontrovertible evidence, Pakistan would have no choice but to accept the matter. Now however, there is no evidence and rightly the umpires are the villains of the story.
August 22nd, 2006 at 9.15 am
Well, if the hearing’s not til Friday, and our squad isn’t announced til tomorrow, they needed something to report today Wraye. 
Not that I’m ever cynical.
Anyway, am off to London. Shall be concentrating fully on the county game, as this saga is starting to depress and bore me in equal parts. May raise a head to comment during my brief internet allocation, but unless the news cycle starts to move on a little, s’not too likely.
August 22nd, 2006 at 10.54 am
Hair should just pack his bags and retire; at least he’d be going out in style. He has mishandled the situation and there is no room for complacency. Now he and Dean Jones can share a pint of Fosters and talk about the “good” ol days.
August 22nd, 2006 at 10.54 am
sports is getting more emotional than it should be. it is just a question of sport…but people like Hair and those who support him take things too far and essentially look a bit pig headed.
August 22nd, 2006 at 11.21 am
Let’s wait and see. If, as seems likely, the charge of ball-tampering doesn’t stick, then yes he’s got to go. The combination of wrongfully accusing a team of cheating, and handling the whole situation so insensitively means that he’ll have lost the confidence of many cricketers world-wide (especially, needless to say, in Pakistan).
August 22nd, 2006 at 12.03 pm
I don’t want to be sicophantic, but ‘hair the hitler’ that was one hell of a blog; you claim to be an Australian if so we are well on the way to redemption!
August 22nd, 2006 at 2.45 pm
As with horse-racing and it’s “grandstand jockeys”, cricket spectators and viewers include a goodly number of people who always believe that they know better than the match officials.
These individuals are not really qualified to pass judgement on any of the more controversial happenings on the field and should rather leave the tough decisions that need to be made to the umpires, a difficult job under the best conditions!!
I say, hats off to Darryl Hair for sticking to his guns and for trying to keep the game of cricket the “gentlemens’ game’ that it is supposed to be.
August 22nd, 2006 at 3.12 pm
darrel hair might just be forced by the international pressure to resign if he does not have anything to substantiate his opinion that pakistan was ball tampering. and yes, i think he should.
not because he appears to be racist and has consistently been a thorn in subcontinental sides,especially pakistan,for many years, but because i genuinely think he is incompetent. he may know the rules very well, as simon taufel has mentioned (see Cricinfo today) but he has made several glaring mistakes, so much so that many have taken them to be not mistakes but signs of racism. and this one was the biggest of them all,the big daddy. ruining the game for millions of people around the world-just because HE felt it was the right thing to do.
there is no evidence for anything he did,and unless he can produce something conclusive in a few days,he will have lost the respect of millions,not to mention most of the players around the world.
Respect. Apparently it’s something that Hair values a lot-someone mentioned that he’s talked about it in his autobiography. But I don’t know what respect he’s talking about. No one deserves to be respected just for the hell of it. People EARN respect. And by acting pompously and being rude to many players and a lot of other people, he lost any respect he might have had. he cannot hope for “respect” when he cannot respect anyone or anything else.
sprycorpse: imran called hair a modern hitler because of the way he has acted towards pakistani cricketers, the way he tried to force his will. it was just a bit of hyperbole in anger-let it go.
for those who say billy doctrove played a part,forget it. this was darrel hair all along. billy doctrove by the way does not have a very impressive track record either,as the feature on Cricinfo yesterday showed.
as much as a failure this was of the umpires and pakistanis (yes,they made a mistake by not protesting sooner!), this was also a failure of the ICC-of the whole system. a massive failure.
the two boards arrange the matches,they fund them, they do the crowds and tv ads and all of that. the ICC only provides the rules and makes sure they are followed. that is it. BUT the ICC ostensibly rules the game of cricket. which is wrong, because on sunday the ICC failed to take responsibility for a crisis, they failed to see what must be done, they failed the ECB,PCB,and their own duty. ehsan mani was also present while this whole thing was happening,could he not have done something?
some people have said on this blog that the umpire did not have to ask the captain anything or talk to him or any of the players before declaring that the ball had been tampered. according to the rules. so hair was right by the rules.
the rules need to be changed, then. because they allow for such a crisis to take place. the rules are not perfect, we all know that. the umpire should be required to investigate before making a subjective decision on the reasons about the state of the ball.
and alan,no one is saying that teams should be allowed to choose umpires. Pakistan objected to the presence of Darrel Hair in the game because they feel they have regularly been treated badly by the same man. as boycott says,when you know that this umpire has a problem with this team,that this team does not respect this umpire,sending him in is a disaster waiting to happen.
and i will offer you one very simple incident from last summer that left many a Pakistani infuriated and may have led to the official protest and complaint that was registered by the PCB to the ICC against Darrel Hair.
Danish Kaneria was given an official warning by Hair for stepping onto the middle of the pitch in his follow through. while he was right,that kaneria had indeed partially trod on the pitch (with half a footstep!), he failed to notice it when other players did the same, when English bowlers and batsmen did the same.
now does that reek of bias or not?
August 22nd, 2006 at 3.56 pm
Say that the umpires (remember, there were two of them on the field) had allowed the game to go on by ignoring the ball tampering and England went on to lose. After the game it comes out that the umpires wanted to penalise Pakistan during the game, as happened, but in ths instance they lost their nerve and did nothing. What would happen then? The world would go mad and everyone would be complaining that nobody could ever have faith in umpires ever again. The umpores here were bound by the laws of the games and conducted themselves accordingly.
However, if the laws of the game had said that, on first becoming suspicious about the state of the ball the umpires should consult with the fielding captian and advise him and his tean as to their future conduct and only penalise the fielding team if, in the opinion of the umpires, the tampering continued then this would diffuse the siutation that occured the other day.
Maybe the laws need to be changed.
August 22nd, 2006 at 4.43 pm
DEAR SIR
DARREL SHOULD RESIGN
REVERSE SWING CONTROVERSY
HERE WE GO AGAIN
Before I may say anything let me assure you that I am an ardent fan of Cricket and I love this game so whatever I say is not due to partialism.
I am going to be straight forward in what I want to say….no diplomatic ways of narration…because I have had enough of whining and worst spotsmanship by the English….
Today we have had another drama about Reverse Swing……Last year when Jones,Flintoff and Hoggard were reverse swinging ,never was the ball shown to be examined by umpires and it was taken to be just a case of an art being put in practice….!! The English Trio was hailed as MASTERS OF REVERSE SWING…!!!! No one found anything wrong….
Now I want to take you back almost 15 years in the past….1990-91…. West Indies Captain D.Haynes and New zealand Captain M.Crowe “ACCUSED” Pakistan for doing “something ” to the ball….In fact it was just because they were whiners who could not take defeats fairly……Similarly in 1992 English media,newspapers,Players and dare I say even children and housewives went up in unison that PAKISTAN is tempering with ball….!!! Fact was that ENGLISH were totally oblivious with regards to this art…They did not know about it altogether…
Hence each English player thought “if I don’t know how to do it then it must be something illegal …so why NOT accuse the other party and hide my embarrasment of defeat through these allegations…”
Plainly I can say that if Person A does not know how to solve mathematical equations but person B does …then if A accuses B to be proponent of witch craft…then it will be a sad case of accusation due to one’s own less-learned approach…!!! That is exactly what has been happening till last year when finally England learned to reverse swing….
It is on record that once I.Botham said …”THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS REVERSE SWING…IT IS ALL BUT PURE CHEATING” and now he is seen saying “ENGLAND BOWLERS ARE THE MASTERS OF REVERSE SWING….”
HMMMM …How quickly one can change one’s words and thoughts……I even read in in English newspapers last year that reverse swing is as old as 1930’s and has been in practice in England…since then….how amazing….!!!!
Now today when England thought they were going to lose fairly and squarely….an old “ally” came to their rescue..in the form of ever controversial, highly inept DARREL HAIR…Who seems to plagued with different “HUMAN ERRORS OF JUDGEMENT” whenever he is adjudicating on an appeal raised by Indian, Pakistani,Srilankan player…..He might not hear a big nick from 22 yards though it might be heard by a sparrow sitting 75 yards away on boundary..!!!
He can ask for banning players for “over appealing” , he can warn bowlers and even batsmen for tempering with wicket…by running on it (only Asians have been accused by him..be it TENDULKAR,SALMAN BUT OR KANERIA…)…
Then he can call a bowler a chucker…be it Murali,Afridi, Akhtar,Shabbir or Hafeez….
Still he is on elite panel….Pakistan team have lodged official complaints about this HIGHLY PARTIAL umpire at least 3 times in 5 years…but still he is seen officiating no other match but those involving Pakistan,,….
Fact of the matter is that with the passage of time this man has been growing wild with respect to Asian countries…and now he has started going really berserk….What happened today is totally INCOMPREHENSIBLE…..
When after each over the ball is examined then how on earth the ball was deemed to be tempered so suddenly…….
It is a fact that HAIR must be congratulated that in Cricket History …he is only the second umpire after T.Robinson from Zimbabwe ..who actually tempered with the ball….yes T.Robinson actually soaked a ball in water after he saw it reversing for Pakistan during a match in 1998….
Today, I am sure that it was HAIR who scratched the ball with blades during some break….WHY DO WE ALWAYS ACCUSE TEAMS…IF ROBINSON DID IT IN 1998 why can’t Hair do it in 2006….
I think we should look this matter from other PERSPECTIVE…..Justice can only be met if impartialty is met with….
Because when umpires are always checking ball how can it be tempered…if and only if they are BLIND or if they are tempering with it themselves….
Nowadays cameras are there…millions are watching on TV and scores of officials on ground are there….nowadays ball can not be scratched so easily by players …unless an umpire DOES it himself …YES an umpire can temper with the ball legally …on the pretext of setting the seem of ball right by plucking with blades………!!!!!!
So before getting on to any conclusion I think looking at track record of this HIGHLY PARTIAL and dare I say very very rude umpire ….if justice is to be maintained then he should also be probed…..and what to say about his fellow umpire BILLY DOCTROVE….Who dileberately did not give Jimmy Adams caught behind against Pakistan in 2000 and Pakistan lost….later on he went into Pakistan dressing room…and officially apologized for partial umpiring…!!! wow…and still he is on elite panel and officiating in allaince with D.HAIR…
I think if fast bowlers can hunt in pairs then shrewd and dishonest umpires can also hunt as well as hurt in pairs….!!!!!
I think umpires are not beyond the game…they are part of it and they are human too…so they can resort to vindictism and wrong doing…so why not probe them too………
CASE CLOSED……
A VERY VERY DISAPPOINTED FAN OF GAME OF GENTLEMEN…!!!!
August 22nd, 2006 at 6.18 pm
Hair must go. This is not the first time he has brought all the contravery. And Pakistan is not the only team to have suffered - even Sri Lankan and Indian players have. Furthermore, it’s Hair that has brought cricket to disrepute, not Inzamam-ul-Haq.
It’s time that ICC make the right decision and show Darrel Hair the door. He should not resign, but must be sacked not tomorrow but today, for good of cricket.
August 23rd, 2006 at 8.02 am
Mani screeches out that Darrell Hair is “blatantly racist”. I challenge Mani or any fellow travellers to provide a shred of evidence that Hair is racist! I doubt whether you will find a single utterance by him, or even hearsay, to support that heady claim.
The race issue is raised by thin-skinned, glass-jawed south Asians whenever any ruling goes against them within the international cricketing bureaucracy. Constitutionally unable to believe that Hair or other whites could have come to a judgment based on a reasonable assessment of the facts and the rules of cricket, Mani et al spit their dummies and scream “racist”! Apart from being unsupported by facts, it cheapens the very serious accusation of racism. Racism is evil - don’t dilute the term through misuse.
I suppose Hair is fatally tainted in south Asia because he judged that Murali is a chucker. Well, I agree with him. Murali bends his arm further than the average First Violin at your local concert hall. Am I racist for believing Murali to be a chucker? Without knowing my race, can you label me a racist for coming to that conclusion?
Bring it on, Mani.
August 23rd, 2006 at 8.15 am
BTW, Mani lamely moves the goalposts by asking “so why can’t hair be [a racist]? are you ready to accept that he could be one?”
Of course anyone on this earth could be a racist, even you, Mani. But the possibility of being racist doesn’t make him a racist. Come on, some evidence please.
August 23rd, 2006 at 10.38 am
Thing is, Mani doesn’t need evidence. A decision goes against a team from the sub-continent, the official must be racist. Thats all the justification the likes of Mani needs, whether its true or not.
Darrell Hair acted accoring to the LAWS of the game and I quote:
Law 42.3
(d) In the event of any fielder changing the ondition of the ball unfairly, the umpires after consultation shall
(i) change the ball forthwith. It shall be for the umpires to decide on the replacement ball, which shall, in their opinion, have had wear comparable with that which the previous ball had received immediately prior to the contravention.
(ii) inform the batsmen that the ball has been changed.
(iii) award 5 penalty runs to the batting side.
(iv) inform the captain of the fielding side that the reason for the action was the unfair interference with the ball.
(v) inform the captain of the batting side as soon as
practicable of what has occurred.
(vi) report the occurrence as soon as possible to the Executive of the fielding side and any Governing Body responsible for the match, who shall take such action as is considered appropriate against the captain and team concerned.
I don’t see anything that says that the umpire should first warn the fielding side.
August 23rd, 2006 at 10.54 am
Nabeel writes:
sprycorpse: imran called hair a modern hitler because of the way he has acted towards pakistani cricketers, the way he tried to force his will. it was just a bit of hyperbole in anger-let it go.
Me:
Perhaps the person who feels the need to pen fourteen paragraphs worth of diatribe is the one who should ‘let it go’?
And I’d hate to be on the end of an Imran rant when he really let fly on the hyperbole - Hair can consider himself lucky to get off with ‘just a bit’ of hyperbole….
I could go on, but I’ll see if I can let it go.
August 23rd, 2006 at 11.13 am
Rob, not only do the laws not mention “warning” a side first, it goes on to say what happens in the event of condition altering happening subsequently, i.e. persistant offending
(e) If there is any further instance of unfairly changing the condition of the ball in that innings, the umpires after consultation shall
(i) repeat the procedure in (d)(i), (ii) and (iii) above.
(ii) inform the captain of the fielding side of the reason for the action taken and direct him to take off forthwith the bowler who delivered the immediately preceding ball. The bowler thus taken off shall not be allowed to bowl again in that innings.
(iii) inform the captain of the batting side as soon as practicable of what has occurred.
(iv) report this further occurrence as soon as possible to the Executive of the fielding side and any Governing Body responsible for the match, who shall take such action as is considered appropriate against the captain and team concerned.
Arguably, there are problems with this law too (it might not be that particular bowler, for instance), but the fact remains that the umpires followed the laws.
I still have issues with whether a “warning” would have any less effect on the fact that it is still an accusation of cheating, however Mark Nicholas recounts a story about Aqib Javed and David Shepard at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2006/08/22/scnich22.xml which may have defused the situation slightly.
Shep wasn’t a perfect umpire either, but didn’t seem to rub people up the wrong way like Hair does.
I guess the counter argument from Hair would be why do you need a softly softly approach when you believe the side to be cheating?
August 23rd, 2006 at 11.39 am
BM -you are Australian, without doubt and definitely what the world calls “white”
August 23rd, 2006 at 1.21 pm
In the minds of Indians,Pakistanis and Sri lankans Hair is insensitive and culturally offensive, he is an overbearing bully and an old world Chauvanist, now that may promote fits of chest-beating in Australia, and send the English scurrying for their suspender belts, but to me it’s just plain wrong, why can’t these guys learn how to manage people.
By the way i am white, and from what iv’e read on this blog, this issue give or take a few dissenters has pretty much divided on racial lines, can somebody pleas explain that? and if they can; can they then tell me why the cricketing world needs divisive umpires?
August 23rd, 2006 at 2.49 pm
Sorry japaddy but this has not divided people on racial lines but between thosewho either
1.believe that the rules of cricket are paramount and that the players AND the umpires have to abide by them; and
2.those who are looking to air other agendas, usually Hair baiting.
August 23rd, 2006 at 3.29 pm
japaddy, what does your statement have to do with the issue? Those are personal remarks that have no bearing on the issue at hand which is, “Should Darrell Hair resign?” What his personal characteristics are have nothing to do with it, its his performance on the field of play that is important, and when players the world over support him, including those he’s crossed in the past then he’ll do for me.
—
Former Australia skipper Steve Waugh said: “He always stands by what he believes so you can’t ask for much more from an umpire.”
Sydney’s Daily Telegraph newspaper, meanwhile, dubbed Hair “the bravest man in cricket” and former international umpire Lou Rowan said Inzamam should be kicked out of international cricket for 12 months for “showing contempt for the rules of the game.”
Richard Bevan, chief executive of England’s Professional Cricketers’ Association, told BBC Five Live that some of the comments about Hair had been “inflammatory”.
August 23rd, 2006 at 4.49 pm
sprycorpse: 
its all good man.i just need an excuse to write-and this is juicy material! plus i did have something to say apart from blaming hair…
the topic here is whether hair should resign or not-on the basis that he is not fit for umpiring internationally,not whether he is racist or not.
i wouldn’t call him that but a bias is apparent to most people. and umpiring depends on making the right decisions-he gets too many of them wrong to stay in international cricket.
japaddy,it should be apparent to all that darrel hair has convinced the pakisani team that he is biased by acting overbearing and-as they say-”like a policeman”. i was watching the whole incident (god bless ten sports and replays) again yesterday and when he changed the ball, inzamam was brushed off with all the subtlety of a bulldozer. repeatedly the pakistani captain asked for an explanation and darrel hai did not offer much,speaking little before he turned away again and again. he could be a bit more human. he doesn’t have to be,but it would help matters.
and i definitely think the cricketing world would be better off without such an umpire-with a knack for controversy and undoubtedly divisive.
‘Former Australia skipper Steve Waugh said: “He always stands by what he believes so you can’t ask for much more from an umpire.‒
Rob,let me say first up that I respect Steven Rodger Waugh a great deal-second only to imran khan. but i do not agree with him,because first and formeost an umpire is expected to be correct with his decisions,not to mention imparitial. he has shown singns of being partial-i’m not saying that he is. but he has proven himself to be largely incompetent over the years. he’s made several mistakes,and while the ICC Elite Panel supposedly has a 95% success rate,Darrel Hair does not. at least to me.
August 23rd, 2006 at 5.23 pm
But your opinion does not count to the ICC, Nabeel. And no country can dictate which umpires they want to officiate in their matches. As for Hair, the players accept his decisions and are mostly happy with him. You know who one of the two man team who decides the umpiring selection is? Sunil Gavaskar, but of course he’s indian, so thats out for a start. If you want to complain then lay a proportion of the blame with him, as in your eyes he ought to have known about Hair’s reputation.
Steve Waugh is a hard man to please, if Hair meets his standards then it should be no problem. And no accusations of ‘Aussies sticking together’, Waugh doesn’t LIKE umpires that much.
The main problem here is not whether the decision was right (under the laws it was), but the reaction of the players. In effect, the Pakistan team were blackmailing the umpires, the ICC etc, with their non-appearance on Sunday. The team thought that the game would continue, no matter what they did. But the umpires refused to be taken in with it. Pakistan were given a chance, they spurned it, possibly thinking that there would be a second. Pakistan were only thinking of themselves and no-one else. I doubt they thought the umpires would do such a thing as declare the match forfeit, and most of the indignation is to do with the fact that their bluff was called.
And as I’ve said before, the decision would NOT have been taken without the agreement of BOTH umpires, so if you are going to castigate Hair for the decision, you must do the same to Doctrove.
Inzamam and the team are far too wound up with their ‘honour’, it being above the laws and the game itself in their eyes. Nothing could be further from the truth.
August 23rd, 2006 at 6.54 pm
Darrell Hair is a stubborn, biased buffoon. Back in the day when umpires could officiate games when their own team was playing he was ridiculously biased towards Australia. Now he is just biased against Indian subcontinent teams. It would be interesting to see statistically how often he awards an appeal when India, Pakistan or Sri Lanka bowl compared to say when England, South Africa or New Zealand bowl. And even more interesting to see those stats when he umpired Australian games.
August 23rd, 2006 at 8.28 pm
Rob i’m sorry but i cannot accept that we have to seperate Darell Hair the man from Darell Hair the umpire an umpire is an arbiter who as well as enforcing the rules should insure the smooth congress of the game, he is incapable of that.
I have never seen any particular bias in Hair’s decision making, he does however have a very bad habit of bringing ugly matters to a head, and why? because he believes he is bigger than the game.
Both you and Hair are hiding behind the rules while you make moral judgements.
What positive ensued from Hair calling Murali, apart from the fact he now finds it very difficult to bowl in Australia. The man is an artist who Hair tried to drum out of the game, you can’t mention Murali’s name in Sydney, without someone saying “oh that chucker”. Hairs belligerence, his insistence on enforcing orthodoxies almost denied cricket one of it’s true magicians, i know you will dissagree on these matters but these are my personnal views.
August 23rd, 2006 at 8.39 pm
rob,a country’s honor definitely lies above a mere game. it has been noted in several articles that the game is more important than honor-but again i disagree.inzamam thought it was pakistan’s pride at stake,and if he thought that was more important than the game,i stand by him as a patriotic pakistani.
waugh’s standards are: “He stands by what he believes in.” Nothing wrong with that. But what if his beliefs are wrong?
and pakistan were blackmailing the umpires and ICC into what? into taking back the paltry 5 runs? or into giving them back that supposedly tampered with ball?
please,rob.doctrove was not the driving force behind this decision. darrel hair was. doctrove probably just agreed. i think you haven’t seen the events as they happened…it was clearly hair…and no i am not an old enemy of Hair..i’ve never had anything against him,except that i thought he wasn’t the best umpire around and certainly not the friendliest. and yes,he isn’t meant to be friendly.
but it would help when he knows that a team does not like him and will question his decisions. he has only solidified their resentment with his crass attitude. it was uncalled for. that is all i have to say about hair.
August 24th, 2006 at 2.47 am
Ron Bose - and? Do you have anything to add on topic?
Japaddy - ahh yes, those tiresome “orthodoxies”. It’s high time the cricketing world cast off the straitjacket that is the MCC’s Laws of Cricket! How we have laboured for 150 years under these accursed, stultifying rules! I, for one, would be all for allowing the non-striking batsman to trip the bowler in his delivery stride! There’s untrammelled creativity for you! Let’s also express ourselves by permitting fielders to carry coloured baseball mitts - catching with bare hands is, well, so orthodox, don’t you think? Any umpire who stands in the way of such innovations will surely be racist, and if he’s black he’s just an Uncle Tom doing the white guys’ bidding.
August 24th, 2006 at 9.31 am
Cappy, biased in favour of Australia? Try telling that to the Australians denied a record breaking win against the West Indies in 1993. Biased against subcontinent teams? Ask Shaun Pollock. Maybe he’s just biased against everyone?
Richard Gill, Do you have a link to the article you refer to?
Without having the relevant version of the laws in front of me, I seem to recall that by the letter of the laws at the time, Hair was correct to call Murali. However, the laws have since been changed to both allow a certain degree of throwing (since lots of bowlers do it unknowinglyly) and also to make it less subjective and confrontational when an umpire is suspicious of the action.
Incidentally Richard, whilst as entitled to your view as the rest of us, it would be more palatable if you didn’t resort to phrases like “this racist faggot Hair” and “that fat fashist”…
August 24th, 2006 at 9.56 am
It’s a pity that the people who like to catalogue umpires’ “mistakes” against their own team don’t also catalogue their mistakes in favour of their own team. Like the poll on whether Hair should resign, they’ll find that the results work out 50/50.
August 24th, 2006 at 2.23 pm
OK, this one’s getting nasty - Will do you really want to be allowing the expressions used by Richard? If we are not allowed to express opinions based on race because it is apparently the armageddon of politically incorrect insults, then what would you call “this racist faggot” and “fat fashist”? Really scraping the barrel there, Richard. At the risk of being tagged an elitist Emperialist snob, at least learn how to spell properly.
August 25th, 2006 at 12.35 pm
Ha ha - my husband tells me I have spelt Imperialist wrong!
And thanks, Will.
August 25th, 2006 at 4.48 pm
HA HA HA
DARREL HAIR IS A MONEY MINDED…PURELY FORTUNE LOVER….LOOK WHAT HE SAID TODAY…
GIVE ME $ 500,000 AND I WILL RESIGN…..
SO NO PRINCIPALS ARE IMPORTANT FOR HIM…
PLAIN PLAIN MONEY AND FAME..
HE ATTAINED FAME OR IS IT GETTING HIMSLEF INFAMOUS…
ANYWAY..WAY TO GO MONEY BOY…
GET MONEY AND ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG…
HA HA HA
August 25th, 2006 at 6.19 pm
Tasmeena,
He didn’t say “GIVE ME $ 500,000 AND I WILL RESIGN” - he said, in effect, pay me for the unexpired portion of my current contract (four year?) and I will jump ship. It will come out, I think, that he has been accused of being racist and, not surprisingly, he took exception to that and issued his famous letter while under considerable stress. Michael Aterton has already said that $500,000 for a four year contract buy-out appeared reasonable to him.
Now, the fact that he was foolish to put this in the first letter that he issued concerning his offer to resign is another matter but let’s get the facts right here.
The satisfaction that the Hair bashers can take is that the ICC have put Hair in a position whereby they can no longer continue to employ him. Hopefully, the courts in UK will take this as constructive dismissal and award Hair $500,000 plus substantial damages.
As an employer, their actions in publishing these letters is a disgrace irrespective of any legal advice that they may have received in support of their actions - if you pay lawyers enough you can get any decision that you like!!
The problem for the Hair bashers is that the two charges against Pakistan (ball tampering and bringing the game into disrepute) are still on the table and Hair being an idiot days after the game finished should not change the inevitably findings and subsequent banning of their captain for several games.
August 25th, 2006 at 7.05 pm
Here are the things needs to be done.
1) Give money to Hair.
2) Sue CCI for publising letter.
3) Fine Inzi for not completing the game.
August 25th, 2006 at 8.40 pm
Mr. Peter
Do not blindly defend a person becuase you feel you have to..!!!
Face the music..face the reality…Darrel is no more than a mere mortal…let him be what he is…
he has fallen for money and his urge to be in news has always been with him……and to achieve this glory he does different things on different times….
1) Ignoring countless LBW appeals raised by pakistani and other asians…
2) Murali getting called a chucker
3) Accusing Murali again in a book written just for fame
4) Calling Shoaib Akhtar aa chucker in 2000.
5) Calling Shabbir a chucker…
6) Stopping Kaneria from bowling in the whole inings without giving a proper warning…..against WI
7) Warning Salman Butt for running on pitch although he wasn’t…(ENG V PAK )
Asking for third umpire even though INZI was just taking evasive action to save himslef from getting hit by a mindless throw from HARMISON last year..
9) Countless edges and snicks from bat coming from rival batsmen on balls delivered by PAKISTANI Bowlers during the last 10 years..even if the snick is as loud as a drum beat….
10) now calling a 56 over old ball as tempered even though the ball was smashed hard,fell on concrete and hit hoarding boards…
11) there at least a dozen more stories of his inept and biased umpiring but……….PETER I think you as well as many others will find the truth difficult to digest…
Lastly congratulations…A MONEY MINDED MAN HAS GIVEN THE TRUE MOTIVE BEHIND THIS CONCOCTED STORYLINE….HAIR JUST WANTED MONEY AND FAME…..
BYE BYE…SWEAT DREAMS….
August 25th, 2006 at 11.27 pm
Hair is a racist umpire should not only be banned but fined heavily for bringing cricket game into a farce. Pakistan should sue ICC and Hair for defaming Pakistan cricket and also be awarded the fourth test.
August 26th, 2006 at 5.11 am
Given the number of Pakistan players past and present who have now admitted to ball-tampering, it seems deeply dishonest for Pakistan supporters to allege racism after both umpires agreed that the ball had been tampered with.
There is NO doubt that Pakistan did bring the game into disrepute by their manipulative bahaviour after tea on day 4 of the Oval Test.
Since we are on the subject of alleged persistent behaviour by Darrell Hair, perhaps we should also ask why so many Pakistani players were considered guilty of corrupt and/or dishonest behaviour by Justice Qayyum? Or are we to assume that he was racist too?
What we have here is mostly reverse-racism from Pakistan’s team and its supporters, used in a cynical attempt to pretend that they are much better at cricket than is the case, while proclaiming themselves victims. Do we really need a team that behaves this way in world cricket?
August 26th, 2006 at 9.22 am
By now position is cleared and the demand from Darrel Hair to resign for $5 million has proved that all he want money. He is a hungry dog for money and racist. He should look into his past. UK sent their criminals to this island, and so this countries is populated by these criminals. This mentality still persist by attack countries and specially muslim countries,like US and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebonan, Ethopia etc. They corrupt and destabilise these countries and with the help of corrupt govt grab their resources which are the agents of these western nations. Past history shows that western nations spread in asia, africa and middle east.
So not a single day passed when such news of humiliation of muslims by these western nations occurs whether it is a in flights, playgrounds or anyother forum.
August 26th, 2006 at 11.38 am
Haroon, I guess by your logic that when David Shepherd in 2001 let Pakistan bowlers get all those wickets when they were bowling clear No balls (AND after the third umpire and told him that they were doing so) - time and time and time again - four, no five times - he demonstrated his clear and total bias against England and in favour of Pakistan, as well as his own reverse RACISM. Again, when Aleem Dar gave Hussey out in the Ashes series when the ball pitcehd 4 inches outside leg stump (so obvious that even my 10 year-old daughter shouted Not Out!), he was demonstrating his clear and obvious bias. And his racism, of course, against white ex-convicts and in favour of white gentlemen.
August 26th, 2006 at 11.39 am
Darrel Hair Shoud NOT BE ALLOWED to RESIGN
HE SHOULD BE FIRED without a golden handshake
He alone is responsible for this debacle and had brought the game into disrepute
He should apologise poublicly and go home and get something else to do far removed from Cricket
August 26th, 2006 at 9.35 pm
My dear NICK here we are talking about this current test and Hair, why go in the past. We know Pakistan is the best cricket team in the world but because of your ICC rules and umpires that makes Pakistanis look average, to blend into the rest of world teams for capitalist financial reasons. Just like any other sport SUCH AS football, snooker etc. As an example, look at this recent world football cup Englad should have never been there never mind the quarter finals, they were absolutely crap but refrees and other silly FIFA rules got England through. People like Alex Higgins and Jimmy White were best snooker players but becuase of money reason they had to blend in with people like Steve Davies and others. It’s just sport so don’t cheat and hide in umpires blouse.
August 27th, 2006 at 1.07 am
Steve Davis ball tamperer?
August 27th, 2006 at 3.29 am
Alex Higgins was the 2nd best snooker player after J.Davies[saw Alex play many tmes]-the money bit is correct ofcourse.As for I.B. everyone seems scared to critisize him.Also-F.T.What was he really like.
August 28th, 2006 at 3.54 am
PA says “We know Pakistan is the best cricket team in the world but because of your ICC rules and umpires that makes Pakistanis look average”
How laughable. Embarrassingly laughable. If patriotism was once the last refuge of scoundrels, then the cry of “racist” seems to be the desperate puerile plea of those hapless Pakistanis every time they lose a match to a superior opponent.
I loved watching Pakistan when it was led by swashbucklers like Imran Khan, Javed Miandad and Safraz. As a very young boy I remember the thrill of watching Sarfraz taking 9 wickets to destroy Australia in 1979/80.
Now these thin-skinned, brittle Pakistanis whine and moan each time they lose, sullenly ignoring the piles evidence of cheating and blaming all but themselves for their woeful displays. They prattle on about God while lying and cheating - what a pack of wankers. Bring back the old Pakistan, full of vigor and spark, and to heck with this bunch of sulking losers.
August 28th, 2006 at 4.49 pm
Darrel ‘Hair’ should get his ‘Pair’ of glasses checked..
n he should get a little les fat cause itz fat ass that gets him in so close to deep Shit always.
he is a ‘fairly’ good unmpire who acts like a ‘Browny’ ‘Black’ Vampire!!
August 28th, 2006 at 9.32 pm
Been away for a week, so I’ll make one final comment to nabeel.
‘a country’s honor definitely lies above a mere game.’ Patriotism is one thing, putting it above everything else is another.
And who are you to decide if a persons beliefs are wrong or not? I might decide that your beliefs are wrong.
Pakistan were blackmailing the umpires. They effectively said, ‘the game cannot continue without us. we can do what we like.’ They thought that the game would continue after their protest.
And whether the players like an umpire or not doesn’t come into it. Their decisions have to be accepted.
August 28th, 2006 at 9.36 pm
japaddy, whether WE hide behind the rules or not, they are there to be enforced!
And you’re talking about making moral judgements!!!! You’re making plenty but so don’t you come that line with me!
Hair is a capable umpire who just happens to not have the best communication skills.
August 28th, 2006 at 9.56 pm
Rob i am unashamedly making moral judgements,the recent furore has only made me more sure of my position.
August 28th, 2006 at 10.00 pm
What position? That you think the western world and the ICC is against poor little Pakistan?
I didn’t realise you were the first perfect person in the history of the world.
August 28th, 2006 at 10.01 pm
Michael, you write beautifully and so logically.
Just one question.
Why was this strict adherence to the rules never applied in all 129 years that cricket has benn played.
Please do not say the ball was never tampered before. It is so logical, correct and in according with the rules.
It is also a ridiculous thing to say.
August 28th, 2006 at 11.07 pm
Please could you replace the earlier message which “is awaiting moderation” with this amended version.
Michael, you write beautifully and so logically.
Just one question.
Why was this strict adherence to the rules never applied in all 129 years that cricket has benn played.
Please do not say the ball was never tampered before. It is so logical, correct and according to the rules.
It is also a ridiculous thing to say.
Finally, does demanding US$500,000 to keep quiet make you blush somewhat!
August 29th, 2006 at 12.11 am
BM - don’t forget a best wanker is the one who can toss best, especially from beneath the blouse so you admit Pakistan are pack of wankers so they must be good at tossing no matter what or where. Remember waqar’s high and full toss he’ll break anbody’s skull or toe but ICC were there to rescue your baby skulls and toes with certain heights and lbw’s like giving hair the full power to make biased professional judgements witout any proof. Same as offside and penalties based on refrees professional judgement especially when you are playing England and Australia.
August 29th, 2006 at 3.02 am
Why was this strict adherence to rules never applied before? I don’t know, frankly - these situations never lend themselves to exact parallels.
The 5 run rule is, I think, relatively new. I do not think the law makers, bless their collective little cotton socks, could have guessed that enforcing the rule would have the effect of calling into question issues of national honour, but then the whole nationhood/race bit leaves me cold anyway.
My thoughts?
1.If Hair honestly thought that the ball had been tampered with, his call on the penalty was right. Whether he is subsequently ‘proved to be right’, a curious concept in itself, is irrelevant.
2.If Pakistan refused to take the field of play, despite ample opportunity to do so, then the match should be forfeited. That applies to any team, comprised of any members of any nationalality or race, in any game, in any sport,in any country.
3. Hair could have handled it differently and, perhaps, with a better outcome, without compromising his principles. Exactly how that would happen is a matter of opinion.
4. Hair was hung out to dry by Speed and, perhaps, Cowie. His offer to go on a paid out basis is not evidence of anything save that he wishes to protect his livelihood and, perhaps, saving the ICC from the embarrassment of deciding whether to cave in to demands from various countries as to the umpires that will be allowed to stand in matches involving their teams. It is consistent with his view that he did nothing wrong.
5. Perhaps we will now have the benefit of more of the much less offensive (and much less competent) Mr Dar.
6. Can we now move on?
August 29th, 2006 at 3.29 am
Speed had no intention ever of paying Hair any money secretly. There was NO reason to publish (selected parts of) an email exchange between employer and employee, and line-manager and umpire. Speed is hanging Hair out to dry. Shame on him.
August 29th, 2006 at 4.45 am
Well put Michael. I would add two things.
1) Until recently umpires who’ve dealt with ball tampering (Dickie Bird, David Shepherd) hark back to an era when international cricket was not a full time profession. The creation of a professional elite umpiring panel is, in itself, responsible for a change in the way umpires are expected to handle matters like this. The amount of unfair play in the future (regardless of whether Pakistan engaged in it at the Oval) will be determined by how the ICC handles this and similar cases, so it is worth discussing in an reasonable manner with some perspective.
2) I used to wonder what cricket did to deserve the incompetent political hacks that ran the ICC. After the response of various commentators and ex-players to this episode, I now think we have the organisation we deserve.
August 31st, 2006 at 6.56 pm
Well,
Having read all of these posts about Hair Being or not being a racist… I wonder if there is the possiblity of player using his zip (on his trousers) to damage a ball while in the process of \”innocently\” Polishing the ball………
Given that there is no direct evidence, from all the 28 cameras around the ground, but yet there is plenty of evidence of Polishing VERY close to the zipper area…….
In much the same way as our own Michael Atherton tried to tamper with a ball with Dirt form his pocket, trying to surrupticiously making it look like he picked up the dirt…..
Could that cause damage to one side of the ball…
Surprised none of you spotted/thought of that.
October 3rd, 2006 at 1.01 pm
now the icc give their decession,that hair is ,Raciast &lair, he should be should be KICKED OUT right now,PLUS all money taken back what the icc spend on him for umpiring,coz he is not eligible for umpiring i wll request hair`s supporter specially ricky ponting & some australian official take him to the hospital coz he PSYCHIC………
October 3rd, 2006 at 1.46 pm
After ICC match refree decession.
Darrel Hair Shoud NOT BE ALLOWED to RESIGN
HE SHOULD BE FIRED without a golden handshake
He ALONE is responsible for this debacle and had brought the game into disrepute
He should apologise poublicly, infact not only darrell hair also australian official specially ricky ponting,should appologise publicly for supporting darrell hair……
November 5th, 2006 at 12.17 pm
Hair is a total, absolute, WANKER. How the hell did he get “elite” status with his totally biased ausralian outlook?
The man is a CHEAT.
Allan
South Africa
February 9th, 2007 at 2.14 pm
Good on Darryl Hair. Racism isn’t just one way. He has been the victim of a vicious campaign of racisom by Pakistan and supported by India and Sri Lanka who meekly stood by and said nothing. Shame too on England, Australia and New Zealand for doing nothing.
The reaction of the PCB is amusing. Now they are accused of racism, their ‘indigation’shows their amazement that they too can behave in a disgraceful manner.
I hope Darryl Hair gets millions. I support him for his stance and refusal to be intimidated by the overpaid mediocre players who are allowed to dictate the game. A case of the tail wagging the dog I think. It’s about tme people spoke up for Darryl Hair.
March 24th, 2007 at 9.22 am