The return of Darrell Hair - well almost.

[Richard]

Found this, not as drastic as Fraz made it sound:

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/007200701171440.htm

Not too much for concern from that, I'd have thought.

I'm absolutely certain that I have heard someone, may not have been Inzamam after all but he's the one with most reason to say something like it, say "If the mistakes are balanced towards the both sides at the end of the match then we can say that it's a human error but if the momentum of human errors is only towards one side then what else we can say."

As I say - it's not something I'd want to pin with certainty on anyone, but I've no doubt whatsoever that I've read that somewhere before that post.

 

[GIMH]

I suppose a new poster would be slightly bamboozled

 

[Richard]

steds will not be happy (twas him I saw you direct the comment to I believe)

I do seem to recall it was.

 

[Richard]

I suppose a new poster would be slightly bamboozled

If you mean that wasn't the most coherant post above, no, indeed it wasn't.

 

[pasag]

IMO, it's fantastic that 2 sub-continent teams are touring SA and both are complaining about the umpires - you reap what you sow boys!

Spot the Australian.

I don't think that Darrell Hair(the most racist unpire ever) should be allowed to captain in the associate member matches even.

Spot the indian

The implication of Richard is quite different from the implication of Ripper, especially if you look at the part that ripper868 bolded, although I wouldn't bother too much about ripper868, he doesn't mean much harm. Rather rubbishy set of posts there for mine.

 

[Richard]

Right, misunderstanding then. The post you quoted wasn't about Hair.

I find it impossible to believe that Hair had no part to play in Inzamam or anyone else saying such things about Umpiring - a very large part, in fact.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I find it impossible to believe that Hair had no part to play in Inzamam or anyone else saying such things about Umpiring - a very large part, in fact.

The interview in question was meant to have occured directly after the recent South Africa test where Pakistan copped some dubious everyday umpiring decisions. It's pretty obvious it has nothing at all do with with Hair, who didn't umpire in that test.

 

[Fusion]

I'm absolutely certain that I have heard someone, may not have been Inzamam after all but he's the one with most reason to say something like it, say "If the mistakes are balanced towards the both sides at the end of the match then we can say that it's a human error but if the momentum of human errors is only towards one side then what else we can say."

As I say - it's not something I'd want to pin with certainty on anyone, but I've no doubt whatsoever that I've read that somewhere before that post.

You read that in a post by Fraz. He said he heard Inzi say the above quote in an interview he gave to Rameez Raja (Captain's corner). I've seen the Captain's Corner interview from Day 4 and nothing of the sort was said. I'm trying to find the interview after day 5 to see if something was said there. I hope the article that Pasag reproduced is the extent of Inzi's criticism of the umpires.

 

[pasag]

li, wdp, aly

(love it, well done pasag, always liked you)

We could have entire threads in code.

 

[Richard]

The interview in question was meant to have occured directly after the recent South Africa test where Pakistan copped some dubious everyday umpiring decisions. It's pretty obvious it has nothing at all do with with Hair, who didn't umpire in that test.

O...K... I'm certain I heard that comment a good while ago.

 

[Richard]

You read that in a post by Fraz. He said he heard Inzi say the above quote in an interview he gave to Rameez Raja (Captain's corner). I've seen the Captain's Corner interview from Day 4 and nothing of the sort was said. I'm trying to find the interview after day 5 to see if something was said there. I hope the article that Pasag reproduced is the extent of Inzi's criticism of the umpires.

I know I read it in a post by FRAZ... But I'm also sure I read it somewhere else a little while ago.

 

[pasag]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=opera&rls=en&hs=6SX&q=inzamam+human+error+momentum&btnG=Search

Google brings up nothing.

 

[Richard]

Evidently...

 

[FRAZ]

You read that in a post by Fraz. He said he heard Inzi say the above quote in an interview he gave to Rameez Raja (Captain's corner). I've seen the Captain's Corner interview from Day 4 and nothing of the sort was said. I'm trying to find the interview after day 5 to see if something was said there. I hope the article that Pasag reproduced is the extent of Inzi's criticism of the umpires.

Yup after day 5 . Please and why my sources and comments are considered vague . See the fifth day comments by him ..

 

[marc71178]

Since when was Inzy the voice of the sub-continent?

If he is then by God there's trouble.

Assuming we can understand what he's saying

 

[Slow Love™]

It's inexplicable whichever side of the fence re: Hair you're on, really. Although SS correctly points out that there is a division between the ICC's executive branch and the full member country reps, it's still a fact that Percy Sonn stated that the ICC as an organization had lost confidence in Hair. So why they are scurrying about finding him alternative work FOR the ICC is anybody's guess. I sense Malcolm Speed's hands all over it though.

Anyway, social's "conflict of interest" post made the thread worth it.

 

[Richard]

Why, because of the sour-grapes exhibited?

 

[Slow Love™]

Why, because of the sour-grapes exhibited?

Nah, it just seemed such a desperate reach. You had to give him points for quick thinking, though.

 

[Richard]

Puh, desperate reach, sour-grapes... one and the same.

 

[silentstriker]

It's inexplicable whichever side of the fence re: Hair you're on, really. Although SS correctly points out that there is a division between the ICC's executive branch and the full member country reps, it's still a fact that Percy Sonn stated that the ICC as an organization had lost confidence in Hair. So why they are scurrying about finding him alternative work FOR the ICC is anybody's guess. I sense Malcolm Speed's hands all over it though.

Anyway, social's "conflict of interest" post made the thread worth it.

But Percy Sonn was just explaining what the ruling meant. The ICC is run by the board, Sonn and Speed are just employees, they can't overrule the board. They are trying to find him some work to show that they haven't lost faith in him, and to embarrass the asian bloc to a certain degree.

If I was in Sonn/Speed's position, and I believed in Hair's case, then thats the way I'd go about it: Interpret the ban literally and only prohibit him from officiating in tests and ODI's involving test nations.