BREAKING NEWS: Hair removed from the Elite Panel

[IndianByHeart]

.

In saying that, assuming that they were both equally guilty, Hair has lost his livelihood and reputation, while Inzamam got to return to his career after a couple of months. Hardly even punishment.

Hair didn't helped himself by blackmailing ICC for money, he didndn't helped himself my tormenting SL players for years even though ICC had declared that Murali's action was legal, he didn't helped himself by maintaining his ugly attitude towards the third Asian country in India.

When a player break a law he's punished by ICC, but unfortunately Hair had been breaking law by no-balling Murali, even though ICC had declared Murali's action legal.Hair should have been thrown out of the game long time back, an umpire who refuses to obey the laws of game's goerning body, who blackmails the ICC president to get $$$ should find no place in the game of cricket.

 

[IndianByHeart]

The only possible proof was destroyed because it was the ball 5 overs before the run deduction.

OH and i guess that idiotic umpire wasn't aware of it, that why he said "when people will see the evidence they will be shocked".

Is hair related to Rumbsfeld?

 

[vicky]

I need you to tell me where the Pakistani board accused Hair of being a racist. Cause I can't find it, and I have the strongest suspicion you just pulled that out of your behind. Some people are crying racist, not PCB.

Sorry I thought someone mentioned earlier they had... reading back i see I was mistaken... it was a friday arvo and my brain was already in weekend mode :P

Hmm... so what Hair did was okay and in the rules - something that should be accepted by all boards. Then why is he being kicked out again? Loss of confidence, based on what? If he acted accordingly then the issue stops and there should be no questioning of his skills as an umpire.

Lack of confidence based on his unmatched ability to generate more headlines than the match itself... on his inability to manage people and crisis situations without diving behind the letter of the law.

I compare it to a "regular" cop vs a parking inspector. One is regularly derided while the other is a respected figure (yes i know i'm being idealistic, it's a metaphor try and stay with me). The parking inspector is required to just tick the required boxes and enforce the letter of the law. No one minds greatly because well, in the greater scheme of things it's not such a big deal. A police officer on the other hand has to be able to handle people, handle unexpected, unusual situations and even dangerous situations.

At lower levels of cricket you can have "parking officers" as umpires, as long as they know the rules and apply them correctly no one much minds because there's not a huge deal at stake. When you get to higher levels you need to be a police officer, yes you need to know and be able to apply the rules, but you alos have to do SO much more before you are doing your job effectively.

Most people recognise that the PCB is a disgrace and it must be galling for Hair to see a team fielding drug cheats, pitch tamperers, ball tamperers and a captain with the worst disciplinary record in cricket whilst being umpired by Doctrove BUT he's really pushing **** uphill if he thinks he'll get the ICC to roll over on racism

To be fair mate I don think anyone from Oz should be pointing fingers and criticising sides about playing drug cheats and/or poor disciplinary records

Hair has been strung up for nothing more than following the rules to the letter, as he is supposed to do, and being "difficult to get on with". Never mind the fact that he was the best performing umpire (as in the least decision errors) in the world before he got shafted.

The good thing is that now, the sub-continental teams will be able to act with absolute impunity, knowing that any official that wants to keep his job won't dare enforce such trivial things as the laws of cricket. Won't that be fun.

As long as they aren't allowed to get away with clear-cut infractions, like taking performance enhancing drugs or anything...

Oh- That's right...

Hair has been "strung up" for the reasons I sateted before, I don't know the statistics in terms of error rate (and i suspect you are extracting that assumption from your rear) but I have always considered him a technically mediocre umpire at best - never mind his man and situational managemnt skills.

Such a suggestion is ridiculouos and a vile allegation to level at people of the integrity of Taufel, Bucknor and Bowden, not to mention respected match referees like Broad whom I suspect would leave the game in protest before acting in the way you suggest.

See my above suggestion...
oh that's right.

Hair was not wrong. He and Doctrove were the SOLE judges of whether or not Pakistan had tampered with the ball. They decided that Pakistan should be docked five runs, so they were.

In saying that, assuming that they were both equally guilty, Hair has lost his livelihood and reputation, while Inzamam got to return to his career after a couple of months. Hardly even punishment.

Again we have the same argument from Hair's supporters...

Yes he was not wrong on the field.. as someone said before the umpire is right even when he was wrong. Even the ICC hearing which cleared the Pakistan hearing of the ball tampering charge does not of itself prove that Mr Hair was wrong.

Inzi was punished for his role in the affair, and rightly so (I would argue that he should have received a greater punishment for forfeiting the match but that is another matter).

Hair was not punished for what occurred. He was removed from the panel because the ICC did not believe he was the right sort of person to do the job. This was not a "punishment" it was a decision, when the pakistani selectors decide that Inzi is no longer the right person for the captaincy or for the team then he also will be removed, it's as simple as that really.

 

[LA ICE-E]

^probably the 1st reasonable aussie commenting on this thread

 

[honestbharani]

These are mythoughts, i have just cut and pasted this from my blog.

In August 2006, Darryl Hair was the senior umpire in the match between England and Pakistan at The Oval.
The Pakistani team was suspected of ball tampering, upon closer inspection of the match ball, Darryl Hair and is counterpart Billy Doctrove agreed that the ball had been tampered with.

The MCC "Laws of Cricket" clearly state "According to the Laws the umpires are the SOLE JUDGES of fair and unfair play."

As clearly outlined in the official MCC rule book under Law
42.3 - The Match Ball - Changing it's condition.
(d) In the event of any fielder changing the condition of the ball unfairly (as set out in Law 42.3 b), the umpires after consultation shall
(i) change the ball forwith
(iii) award 5 penalty runs to the batting side

Darryl Hair and his colleague were convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that the ball had been tampered with, and followed MCC & ICC procedure.

The umpires could NOT have been convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that a PAKISTAN FIELDER was the person who did the tampering. That is IMPOSSIBLE, give the fact that neither of them or the 15 odd cameras there, saw anything of the sort.

The Pakistani Captain Inzamam Ul Huq disputed this decision, and as protest refused his team from taking the field after the tea interval. As the MCC Rule book does not refer to a team refusing to take the field, it is hard to know what procedure to follow. Ul Huq's team stayed in the dressing room for 45mins after the scheduled session start time, during which time Hair rightly awarded the bating side a penalty 5 runs, but after it was evident that the Pakistani team had no intention of taking the field again, the bails were removed and Pakistan was forfeited from the game, after which time the Pakistani team then tried to take the field.

Using Common sense would have been a start.

Following this Incident, the ICC released a statement saying that they had full support for Hair's actions and they would stand by his decision.

In the weeks following the incident, Pakistani Captain Ul Huq admitted in a press conference that what he did was wrong. However, the Pakistani Cricket Board had different ideas; they cried 'Racist' and announced a boycott of any matches where Hair was scheduled to adjudicate.

Inzy only said that he should not have stayed off the field, thus depriving the spectators who paid money their worth. He never admitted that anyone from his side tampered with the ball. I am surprised you didn't have people pointing out these basic facts in your blog.

Of course, this is not the first time that Darryl Hair had been put in the spot light.
In the 1995 Boxing Day Test Match at the MCG, Hair called Muttiah Muralitharan NO BALL for 'throwing'. This sparked outrage in the cricketing community, however, upon close examination by ICC officials Muralitharan's bowling action was deemed to be illegal. Of course it would be embarrassing for the ICC, the governing body of international cricket to have one of its most prolific wicket takers turn out to be a chucker. So, they re-wrote the rules to accommodate for Muralitharan's bowling action.

As it turned out, ALMOST ALL test wicket takers were chuckers.

Because this first incident was against the Sri Lankan team, and now this incident was involving the Pakistani team, the apparent scapegoat is to cry 'Racist', because Darryl Hair is a white, Australian Umpire. In a world of political correctness gone mad, is it really necessary that the definition of this frequently used word be stated?
Racism: A Statement or Action that insinuates or suggests one races superiority or minority over another, a term or action that is demeaning or derogatory towards an individual or persons Race, Colour, Religion or Ethnic origin.

Tell me again how what Hair did showed evidence of Racial discrimination?

NOt everyone is calling him racist. But just because he probably isn't racist doesn't mean he can stay on as an international umpire when he refuses to use what all human beings should use in tight situations.......COMMON SENSE.

Hair has for a long time been regarded as a 'Nazi' or 'stickler' for the rules, however, to say that a person who follows official protocol and procedure is a racist, when if any air breathing, impartial human being with an IQ greater then their shoe size would make the exact same decision.


The Thing that angers me the most about this entire situation is that Hair has been made out to be the bad guy. He has been Sacked, Boned and Booted and his reputation has been shredded to bits, and he now has bugger all chance on gaining any credibility in the cricketing community again. And how many chances had Hair had to state his side of the story? NONE, ZERO, A DUCK.

I am guessing here, but I think the only reason he hasn't yet told his story is because it has already been either told or understood by most balanced cricket viewers.

After Hair Followed the MCC Handbook which says "the umpires are the SOLE JUDGES of fair and unfair play."

After The ICC said that they had full confidence in him

After the Pakistani Cricket Board labelled him a Racist

After The ICC then turned around and sacked him

After all of this, Hair has been left without a leg to stand on, and now, his only hope is to sue the ICC and the PCB for his job back.


Why is this mans reputation in tatters?

Because he was stupid enough to accuse someone of cheating without having conclusive proof.

Why is this man without a job?

Because his employers (or the majority of them) lost faith in him and didn't think he possessed all the skills necessary for the job. *cough*commonsense*cough*

For a man who followed the rules, he sure is copping a hell of a lot of ****!

A man who follows the rule and turns a possibly controversial situation into a volatile one without thinking it through and refusing to change his mind even when evidence was shown that his actions could be hasty deserves to cop everything Hair is copping, AND MORE.

 

[honestbharani]

i had the pleasure of speaking with Darryl Hair prior to this happeing, and he is a top bloke who has the upmost respect for the game, however much of a rule nazi he may be.

bottom line, the MCC rules states that THE UMPIRE IS THE SOLE JUDGE and often state the criteria for a certain rule as being IN THE OPINION OF THE UMPIRE.

ICC has NOT followed the very foundations of it's legislation.
Everyone who has ever played the game at any level would be able to tesify that you need a 'nazi' umpire every now and then to keep the game and players from getting too far out of line.

Amazing he has never had the guts to do it when Aussie players were sledging Lara left, right and centre....


Whatever happened to the rule nazi then?


BTW, I am referring to the 2000 C&U tri series.

 

[honestbharani]

because some twit cam up with the brilliant idea that because Hair is a white Austrlian, and has taken action against a Sri Lankan and now Pakistani's, this is somehow evidance of racial discrimination and villafication, on which grounds he was dissmissed from the elite panel.

have we all forgotten that Ul Huq is the one to blame in all of this?
if he haddnt had a sook and just taken the field again, this wouldnt have been blown out of proportion.

ball tamering is a serious accusation, and so Hair & Doctrove had to have been conviced beyone all resonable doubt that the ball had been tampered with to some degree.
in law 42.3 b; it is unfair for anyone to rub the ball on the ground for any reason, interfere with any of the seams or surface of the ball, use and implement, or take and other action whatsoever which is likely to alter the condition of the ball, except as permitted in 42.3 a.

any of these things is ball tampering, and Hair, as the senior umpire and stickler for the rules would NOT act without consultation and sufficient evidence.


I agree, racism has nothing whatsoever to do with this. but the PCB has decided to brand him that, and mud sticks.

How are you sure that Hair actually KNOWS that one of the Pakistan players changed the condition of the ball?


And for that matter, how does HAIR KNOW that one of the pakistan players did it?

 

[honestbharani]

and what lies or missinformation would you be refering to?

i have the MCC rule book by my side. Hair acted accordingly and now he is being crucified

do u have any evidence of even a single Pakistan player changing the condition of the ball by your side as well?

 

[honestbharani]

should the ICC have had a problem with the rational behind Hair's decisions, it should have been played out in private, with no outside influence or pressure from the PCB or any other organisation.

nobody can say that Hair was wrong because IT IS IN THE OPINION OF THE UMPIRE.
These are ICC regulations clearly spelled out in the MCC rule book.

Hair was the senior umpire, and the ICC has entrusted him with thier representation, and they have turned around and said that he as wrong? be realistic.

its not based on opinion in this day and age of a hundred cameras (still and motion) at the ground. You cant just say that "this team cheated, IMO and I am penalizing them 5 runs". You are always accountable. Just because you are an umpire doesn't mean you can make ridiculous and false accusations and justify them saying that "it is my opinion".

 

[honestbharani]

Once again, no, he hasn't been proven wrong. The decision was that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Pakistan tampered with the ball, and accordingly they were exonerated. That doesn't mean Hair was wrong though, because he's not required to "prove" anything on the field of play. Hair isn't expected to prove LBW calls or anything either, because he's an ultimate authority and not a judge. An umpire doesn't need proof of anything, just their judgement.

You are right. But just because an umpire doesn't have to explain his LBW decisions and stuff like that, it didn't stop someone like Asoka De Silva getting thrown out of the panel, did it? Why? Because the ICC wasn't satisfied that he was doing the job at the level required of him. Same case with Hair. And doesn't your original "the burden of evidence lies with the accuser" clause contradict your stand about Hair? AFter all, he did accuse Pakistan of cheating and hasn't yet come up with any evidence.

 

[honestbharani]

heres a counterpoint
THE DECISION LIES SOLEY WITH THE UMPIRE!
take a philosophical stance and look at the issue. why is Hair's decision in despute?!
THAT is the point i am stressing, and the point that seems to be bouncing off skulls.


this entire fiasco is the result of a decision that happend on the cricket field. a decision that certain people didnt like and made a song and dance about it. again. THE DECISION LIES SOLEY WITH THE UMPIRES.

Umpire is not God.




Umpire is not God.



So, he is accountable.

 

[honestbharani]

And you cannot say that Hair didn't have proof of tampering.

he didn't have proof of tampering by any of the pakistan players though.

 

[honestbharani]

Sorry, but u dont get it - the decision was not proven wrong

Politically unacceptable, unable to be proven by an independent tribunal months after the event, etc - yes

But not wrong.

Most people recognise that the PCB is a disgrace and it must be galling for Hair to see a team fielding drug cheats, pitch tamperers, ball tamperers and a captain with the worst disciplinary record in cricket whilst being umpired by Doctrove BUT he's really pushing **** uphill if he thinks he'll get the ICC to roll over on racism

it wasn't proved right either. So, its not like he made the right decision.

 

[honestbharani]

Exactly.

As has been said earlier, the laws of the game appoint the umpires as the sole authority on the field. The laws also give the captain the opportunity to provide a report on the state on the field and the conduct of the umpires after the game.

Inzamam disagreed with a decision made on the field, and could have raised the issue in his post match report to the ICC. Instead of acting in the interests of the game and accepting the umpires' decision, he decided to act like a petulant little child, and took his bat and ball and sulked in the dressing room.

When you refuse to play when the umpires call for play to start, you forfeit the game- just like teams have done in the past two world cups. After 45 minutes of people trying to get Inzamam to pull his head out of his backside and do the right thing, the umpires' accepted Inzamam's decision not to continue, and declared the match forfeited.

THEN the Pakistanis decide that they really DO want to play after all.

Inzamam created the debacle by not doing the one thing that cricketers are (or at least, SHOULD be) taught from day one- the umpire is right, even when he's wrong. He should have played on, and raised his complaint via his report at the end of the game. Trying to claim that the Pakistan team have some claim to the high moral ground is insane.

Hair has been strung up for nothing more than following the rules to the letter, as he is supposed to do, and being "difficult to get on with". Never mind the fact that he was the best performing umpire (as in the least decision errors) in the world before he got shafted.

The good thing is that now, the sub-continental teams will be able to act with absolute impunity, knowing that any official that wants to keep his job won't dare enforce such trivial things as the laws of cricket. Won't that be fun.

As long as they aren't allowed to get away with clear-cut infractions, like taking performance enhancing drugs or anything...

Oh- That's right...

plz read my response to another such post earlier in this page.

 

[honestbharani]

Hair was not wrong. He and Doctrove were the SOLE judges of whether or not Pakistan had tampered with the ball. They decided that Pakistan should be docked five runs, so they were.

In saying that, assuming that they were both equally guilty, Hair has lost his livelihood and reputation, while Inzamam got to return to his career after a couple of months. Hardly even punishment.

no, they aren't. Not with 15 odd TV cameras and even more photo cameras watching stuff in the ground.

 

[honestbharani]

The only possible proof was destroyed because it was the ball 5 overs before the run deduction.

Even if you found that ball, Marc, it is gonna be a pretty hard case to prove that it was done manually and that the man involved was a Pakistan fielder.

 

[Johnners]

The umpires could NOT have been convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that a PAKISTAN FIELDER was the person who did the tampering. That is IMPOSSIBLE, give the fact that neither of them or the 15 odd cameras there, saw anything of the sort

You know this because you were one of the umpires right?? Just because the camera's didn't pick up something, it doesn't mean that Hair didn't either. I'm not saying they did tamper with the ball, and i'm not saying they didn't. Hair obviously saw something he beleive to be suspicious, and acted upon it. We all know the outcome, and that Hairs decision to call Pakistan for ball tampering, without knowing whether had any solid evidence, was an incorrect one. But the fact remains that no-one apart from the Pakistan fielders, Darryl Hair & possibly Billy Doctrove will ever know what happened to that ball on that particular day.

p.s. Sorry, but i had to stop your run of posts at 12

 

[IndianByHeart]

You know this because you were one of the umpires right?? Just because the camera's didn't pick up something, it doesn't mean that Hair didn't either. I'm not saying they did tamper with the ball, and i'm not saying they didn't. Hair obviously saw something he beleive to be suspicious, and acted upon it. We all know the outcome, and that Hairs decision to call Pakistan for ball tampering, without knowing whether had any solid evidence, was an incorrect one. But the fact remains that no-one apart from the Pakistan fielders, Darryl Hair & possibly Billy Doctrove will ever know what happened to that ball on that particular day.

p.s. Sorry, but i had to stop your run of posts at 12

What so obvious to you hasn't been sooooo obvious to many people. Hair wasn't able to name a single player which he thought had actually tampered the ball, so to say that "hair obviously saw something" is bull... Hair saw the ball and assumed that it was tampered, Doctrove wanted to continue with the same ball, but Hair deferred.

I'm Glad the guy is gone, all he can do is whine and ask for compensation

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

You are right. But just because an umpire doesn't have to explain his LBW decisions and stuff like that, it didn't stop someone like Asoka De Silva getting thrown out of the panel, did it? Why? Because the ICC wasn't satisfied that he was doing the job at the level required of him. Same case with Hair. And doesn't your original "the burden of evidence lies with the accuser" clause contradict your stand about Hair? AFter all, he did accuse Pakistan of cheating and hasn't yet come up with any evidence.

I think you misunderstood me a bit. What I was arguing before is that it's impossible to prove that something isn't the case. So obviously, Hair can't prove that he isn't racist any more than you can prove that you're not.

What you're talking about here is an umpire not needing to prove something because it's not part of his job. An umpire doesn't need to have conclusive evidence for a decision they make on the field under normal circumstances, they just need to make a judgement. Obviously there are protocols they have to follow in making their decisions and an umpire who makes bad decisions can be fired, but expecting Hair to prove that Pakistan tampered with the ball is a bit silly, because it's simply not part of the rules that he has to prove anything. He's an ultimate authority.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the decision was the right one under the circumstances.

 

[IndianByHeart]

With the change of circumstances and during the hearing, Hair was REQUIRED to prove the charges of tampering, otherwise what do one think Hair was doing during the hearing?? went there to inform Muddugallee that "i don't have to prove anything as i'm the ultimate authority??"