Posts
Loading ...Well, that wouldn’t have been how I would have summed it up….
Darrell Hair under the spotlight
By Will last year, at the end of September Leave a comment on this post
Darrell Hair, the rotund Australian umpire, returns to the back pages of newspapers and homepages of websites next week when he appears at a London tribunal. Hair is suing his employers, the ICC, for racial discrimination - and here’s a brief overview of why.
England v Pakistan, 4th Test, The Oval, 4th day. August 20, 2006. Five penalty runs are awarded to England when Hair signal to the umpires of his conviction that the ball has been tampered with.
An early tea is taken, but Pakistan stage a protest after the interval and refuse to play. Hair, his colleague, Billy Doctrove, and the two England batsman walk out alone and wait for 15 minutes before the covers are brought on signalling the end of play.
Pakistan eventually do make it out onto the field, but by this stage Hair and Doctrove have already decided that the match has been awarded to England.
Cricket’s Law 21.3: “in the opinion of the umpires, if a team refuses to play, the umpires shall award the match to the other side.”
The match was then forfeited, England winning. In the following days it seemed likely that Hair’s position was increasingly untenable, with the Asian bloc threatening to gang up on him. So he responded in a quite remarkable manner by offering to leave, but only for a retainer of $500,000. This was a huge mistake and the ICC exploited his greed by revealing all, as they should have done.
In November he was banned from umpiring in internationals, owing to immense pressure from the Asian bloc who voted for his removal. England, Australia and New Zealand were the three who wanted him to stay. Billy Doctrove’s career, however, could continue and he was not banned.
In February he instructed his lawyers, Finers Stephens Innocent, to issue an application to the London Central Employment Tribunal alleging racial discrimination.
And this all kicks off on Monday, so I thought it best I get my head around it all beforehand. And there’s another twist: Inzamam-ul-Haq, the former Pakistan captain, has been summoned as a witness. If he doesn’t turn up - this is Inzy, remember - the tribunal have the authority to issue sanctions which could then lead to his arrest.
Nasty times. Keep your eyes peeled on Cricinfo for the latest.
Tags: billy doctrove, darrell-hair, discrimination, employers, law, london central employment tribunal, racial discrimination, racism |
24 Responses to “Darrell Hair under the spotlight”
September 30th, 2007 at 5.18 am
September 30th, 2007 at 12.55 pm
Well, how would you sum it up?
October 1st, 2007 at 7.16 am
You said: “So he responded in a quite remarkable manner by offering to leave, but only for a retainer of $500,000. This was a huge mistake and the ICC exploited his greed by revealing all, as they should have done.”
I recall being appalled at the time that the ICC had revealed the contents of private emails between Hair and his employer. It was an incredibly tense situation, in which Hair was trying to find some sort of solution; cricket was in an uproar and he was facing the end of his career. I think they handled it very badly, so therefore I am not sure I would agree with your interpretation of those events.
October 1st, 2007 at 10.31 pm
I remember at the time it was a controversial incident though I don’t think you help matters in describing Mr Hair as rotund (though this is a fact). This type of judgement automatically reveal your views - but hell you are a blogger and suppose to have views!
Anyway, I would like to see how the situation plays out. I have no vested interest but would like to see fair play.
I did enjoy the lawyer in the case describing Hair’s decision as being similar to ‘running himself out’. The more cricket analogies in life the better.
It is after all a fantastic game, and one, that I miss so much now I’m based in Germany where the mere mention of the game sends people into fits of laughter and asking me to explain the rules!
October 1st, 2007 at 11.55 pm
Revealing the contents of private emails is a really big issue concerning the privacy rights and freedoms of the individual. You don’t know in what context Hair made that suggestion about the money, Will. You’re making a biased judgement based on not liking Hair. If your employer was using your private correspondence for its own benefit against you I’m sure you’d have a different attitude. It’s an nasty precedent for the ICI to be setting.
I don’t care much for Hair based on the very little I’ve seen of him, but that’s not the point. There are bigger issues here. I doubt Hair will get anywhere with this, but you should be worried about that, not pleased.
October 2nd, 2007 at 5.17 pm
Whether his asking for money is morally right or wrong, or greedy or not, is not even the point here. I think the ICC acted under pressure from the Asian bloc to have him kicked out. That is what Hair is complaining about, and I think he is right. While the actions are definitely not racially motivated, I don’t see any other way that Hair could have gone about it… As for what happened at the Oval, I think Hair was absolutely right in doing what he did. It is for the umpires to decide whether a ball has been tampered with or not. If Pakistan had an issue with the 5-run penalty, they should have taken up the cause after the match.
I think Hair acted by the book. That is what the ICC pays him for - not for bending the rules so as to keep everyone happy. He was a very decent umpire too. He was not wrong in calling Murali when he did, he was not wrong in doing what he did at the Oval. I feel it is a pity that the game’s lost a pretty good umpire.
And I agree with Rusty, we should be worried about his future, for he did not do anything wrong.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12.48 am
Pod, much as I respect your opinion, I should clarify that my last comment , directed at Will, was that he should be worried, but not so much about Hair’s future, (though compassion for anyone isn’t amiss) but the bigger picture, of what repercussions this may for umpires, the ICC, and the fair play game, which cricket used to see itself as a guardian of. And civil rights.
Big stuff, I know to drag into a cricket blog, where everyone is happier arguing about who has the most OTT celebrations, but hey! life reflects cricket. 
October 3rd, 2007 at 3.26 am
I think the whole situation’s crazy. Darrell Hair gets sacked basically for doing his job! I can see how he might take part of the blame in the fiasco by making the tampering claim in the first place, but he acted within the scope of his authority. On top of this, after his sacking is announced, he basically gets ridiculed by the governing body of the game. Now that’s unforgiveable.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3.17 pm
Rusty,
Point taken
There are also serious concerns with regards to what sort of a precedent this may set.
October 3rd, 2007 at 8.45 pm
Ah, the irony, Darrel is suing the ICC for “racial” discrimination, I can almost do one of those sarcastic laughing fits on this one.
Also, on your comment on about Inzi, I think I read, at Cricinfo only, that if Inzi was in UK as he was when this news first appeared (playing county cricket), then the tribunal had that power to ask him to attend the hearing at all costs, but they’d be powerless if he wasn’t in UK. That’s why he decided to come back to Pakistan. And my understanding is that he’s back home now, and according to some reports/speculation he may also play his final test next coming week in Lahore. So your comment there, if my understanding of these events is correct, would be quite seriously inaccurate.
….
And just for the sake of it, I thought I should be check before hitting “submit”. Here’s the report on the front page of Cricinfo which quotes Inzi as having “cancelled” his trup to London. Please also see an earlier report which ratified my observations earlier here. For your convenience I’m quoting the relevant portions of it it below:
Inzamam-ul-Haq, the former Pakistan captain, has been summoned as a witness by a London tribunal that will hear umpire Darrell Hair’s suit against the ICC. Hair is suing for alleged racial discrimination in the aftermath of the Oval controversy.[...]A report in the Times said the summons would compel Inzamam’s attendance for cross-examination. Had Inzamam been in Pakistan rather than in England - playing county cricket for Yorkshire - the tribunal would not have had the power to call him, the report said. [...]
Inzamam now has to decide whether to fly back to Pakistan and return to England before the hearing commences or stay in London.
Inzi has decided to come back to Pakistan and that means the tribunal is powerless to call him back. It would help if you could double check before suggesting something as extreme as “he could be arrested”.
And just for the record, I think Hair’s appeal will be rejected by the tribunal.
October 3rd, 2007 at 8.48 pm
It appears I didn’t link to the 2nd report in my previous comment, so I’ll do so now for those who may be interested. See this.
October 5th, 2007 at 6.17 am
This whole thing is a farce. Hair adhere’s religiously to the rules and what happens, he gets shafted by the Asian bloc who now call the ICC’s tune. What a joke, most of us can see what’s happening here and it is risible.
Here’s what one of the ICC witnesses said in evidence:
“Darrell Hair refused to budge to avoid embarrassing himself. He acted within the Laws of Cricket, but he is a law unto himself.
“He should have acted in the best interests of the game, in commercial terms, the spectators, television and sponsors.
Oh Darrell how dare you merely adhere to the rules and refuse to consider commercial terms and sponsors. Doesn’t that say it all??
Its a bloody disgrace but understandible as the witness heads one of New Zealands largest banks. The money men are well in control of the temple.
I hope he gives the ICC a good kicking. This affair really does make me puke but that’s where the ICC are these days in the clouds in that well known cricket nation of Dubai.
Good on the Aussies for backing him up-they can smell a very large rat. New Zealand Cricket have a lot to answer for sending that toad Anderson to act as the ICC’s hatchet man. I hope he gets a gets a good grilling at NZC’s AGM for his role in this shameful affair.
October 6th, 2007 at 4.10 am
I remember saying a long time ago that cricket is just a microcosm of life.
With so many other incidents one could comment on,nothing has changed[human nature hasn't changed-or likely to in the near future].
Oh well.
October 7th, 2007 at 5.10 pm
Darryl Hair was the best umpire in test cricket and the entire thing is a disgrace on the part of the ICC.
Pakistan forfeited the game. Nasser Hussein commentating called it about 2 minutes after they failed to appear.
Those are the laws of the game, Darryl Hair applied them correctly, and for his trouble he was railroaded by the ICC pandering to the asian bloc who are still pissed off that everyone says Murali is a cheat.
Basically the ICC place money ahead of the laws of the game in the case of Darryl Hair and Muralitharan.
October 7th, 2007 at 9.01 pm
If cricket is going to survive in the long run then there must be respect for the laws of the game and a sense of fair play.
It is a sport that can teach many good things about life and putting short term gain ahead of the bigger picture is gambling with this beautiful sport.
October 8th, 2007 at 9.39 am
Did anyone read the questions and answers from Hair’s QC to the blokes who sacked him. Classic. Couldn’t actually justify why they sacked him and one even said he should still be on the panel.
October 8th, 2007 at 12.47 pm
They admit to having stitched Hair up. Said he had acted in accordance to the rules, but didn’t think he was promoting cricket they way they wanted it promoted. So they did a deal between themselves to say they had lost confidence in him. I guess they had, if he wasn’t kow-towing to the ICC
October 9th, 2007 at 1.39 am
None of which proves that he was sacked because of “racial” reasons, which is what he’s sewing the ICC for in the first place.
October 9th, 2007 at 2.06 am
I agree with you in that he is suing for the wrong reasons Zainub, he should be suing for wrongful dismissal or something like that, but I think the racial reasons is more to do with the stick he copped from the sub-continent once he called the match off.
October 9th, 2007 at 4.09 pm
What a farce.
Hair as an umpire was voted either the best or the second best umpire in the world (depending on whether you pay attention to the ICC oversight people or the players). He categorically has one of the highest correct decision rates of any umpire in the world (10 wrong out of 260 odd decisions) - and yes, these don’t reflect ‘not outs’ but considering the benifit of the doubt enshrined in the law this is reasonable.
In short Hair has proven to be one of the best performing umpires we’ve seen.
He has been the subject of some frightening vitriol for 2 things - calling Murali (quite correctly - the laws were changed to accomodate the ‘brilliant’ spinner) and calling the ball tampering.
With regards to the former, he was proved right, not once but twice. Two sepparate biomechanical examinations lead to two sepparate rule loosenings, firstly to 10 degrees, now to its current 15 for spinners after the institute in Adelaide determined an average throw of 12.5 degrees for the famed doosra.
Naturally - calling this was ‘racist’.
With regards to the latter, 5 umpires agreed at the time (2 on the pitch and the others) that the ball had been tampered with and enforced the law to the letter.
Naturally - this was also ‘racist’.
Then negotiations to allow the ICC to save face and Hair to secure his personal future were made public (in itself illegal in some jurisdictions) and a general presumption of guilt placed upon Hair (ie that he’s a ‘racist’ - obviously proven by his past history).
In short - Hair was sold to buy off the Pakistani Cricket Board in particular and South Asian cricket in general. Shameful treatment and quite possibly grounds for unfair dismissal. Certainly in any corporation, should an employee be fired simply to assuage accusations of racism by a client without natural justice being applied - a lawsuit would be expected. Especially when said accusations from the client are motivated by a desire to be above the law (ie change the rules to suit Murali - rather than the other way around).
However, what Hair will have a tough time proving in a legal sence is that he was fired for racial reasons - especially since his co-umpire in the ball tampering affair has decided not to give evidence for ‘personal’ reasons.
That he has been unjustly treated - no question.
That he has been unfairly dismissed in the legal sence - most likely.
That he can prove a racial motivation for the dismissal - unlikely.
If cricket wishes to become the gentlemens game once more the ICC should publicly admit to the former, Hair should drop his charges of the latter and South Asian cricket should realise that the letter of the law doesn’t give two hoots what colour you are - it is to be respected and obeyed, even when its not in your favour.
October 10th, 2007 at 5.19 am
Richard,
It doesn’t matter how many umpires “off” the field agreed or not agreed the ball wasn’t tampered, in any case, this is news to me, could you provide a link to who these other umpires where and exactly what they said. Because the tribunal the ICC set up after the sage actually CLEARED the Pakistan team of charges of ball tampering. That tribunal had Madugala as the head. And in case you didn’t know, that verdict of that tribunal, is the only verdict that matters. Go look it up please and enlighten your self.
England’s attitude toward ball tampering is remarkably hypocritical. For years Wasim and Waqar are labeled cheats for tampering whenever they get reverse swing going against England. But when those same Wasim and Waqar hop over into county cricket and take tons of wickets for Lancashire and Glamorgon, using the same reverse swing nothing is said. The likes of Flintoff at Lancashire and Simon Jones at Glamorgon probably pick these skills these up from Wasim and Waqar at their native counties and later it becomes a crucial thing in the 2005 Ashes. It would be a supreme irony to compare some of the headlines seen in the tabloids during that series overnight by which time at reverse swing had become an “art” and compare them headline of 10 years earlier when England kept losing to Pakistan because of that SAME reverse swing.
And then they tell us that down in the subcontinent we’re hyper sensitive and like presenting ourself is “victims”. Yeah, right.
And your Hair defense is pretty typical too, I’ve responded to myth of Hair supposedly being a very “good” umpire in another thread, and wont bother typing that all over again when I’m fasting.
October 10th, 2007 at 8.25 am
Thank you Richard for the summary of Darryl Hairs situation and so called biased decisions. You gave us facts, not vitriol and biased comments. (Zainub take note)
As you say the ICC admitted that Hairs calling of Murali was correct by changing the rules to accommodate him and his illegal action. ( Zainub take note - CORRECT decision, not a biased against Asians decision)
Once again thank you Richard for your unbiased clearly stated and factual comments (Zainub take note) and finally a cheerio to Zainub who actually has some good comments and opinions but loses credibility with his obvious bias. Take the blinkers off and see the real world Zainub, not just your version of it.
October 10th, 2007 at 10.49 pm
Ken,
The ICC changed chucking lows to encompass not just Murali, but about 99% of all international bowlers. If your remember, the rules were changed after a scientific research conducted during the ICC champions trophy in England where it was found out that only 1% of international bowlers fitted in the previous limits, and even names like McGrath, whose has a lovely action, were found to be going over the limit! So I’d like to offer you the same advice, take the blinkers and see the real world.
The beauty of the game of cricket is that is has been constantly evolving. Can you imagine that when the game started all those centuries ago bowler over arm was actually outlawed, and you’d be frowned about even at mentioning it in cricket circles. Today, under arm bowling is illegal. Just like that, in the past, you had 12 (or was it 13) degree rule. But since then, pitches have become flatter, the grounds have become smaller, the bats have become bigger and the quality of bowlers has gone down, so that’s why 99% of bowlers were actually (knowing or unknowingly) bending their arms over the 12/13 limit. If the ICC didn’t change the rules to set the limited to 15 degrees, they’d have to ban pretty much all international bowlers.
And finally, goodness gracious me, I’m not his! I’m a her, where did I sound like a him?
October 11th, 2007 at 3.49 pm
Excellent response Zainub.
All those who think that being an umpire in any sport is simply a matter of applying the rules regardless of the situation would make pretty poor umpires.
The best umpires build a rapport with the players, get them to calm down when things begin to get heated (not after they’ve spun out of control) and perform a general man management role. This is tense international cricket with extremely competitive players.
I am prepared to give Darrel Hair the benefit of the doubt on the racism charges, especially as he has been equally abrasive to white players (especially South Africa). I would say that he is probably not able to click with players from backgrounds very different to his own and therefore fails to build a rapport with them during games. Therefore he feels at home umpiring Australia, England or New Zealand, but not India, Pakistan or Sri Lanka. This then means that whereas he is prepared to give English, Australian and New Zealand players the benefit of the doubt because they’re nice chaps from a similar background, he has an implicit lack of trust of players from other backgrounds whom he doesn’t understand very well. This is probably why most of the incidents he gets involved in are with the non-white nations, not the fact that he is racist (although some might argue that this kind of lack of trust or understanding constitutes a racist attitude).
The ICC should remove him from the elite panel on the basis that he is confrontational instead of trying to diffuse situations. A better umpire in the oval test could have left the decision until the end of play and got consensus from the match referee and third umpire on the state of the ball. He intervened in a match without sufficient evidence. After changing the ball, it stopped reverse swinging which could have changed the result of the game had it continued. England had been struggling up until that point with the swinging ball and easily coped after the ball change (after all they were allowed to choose the ball).
