Darryl hair - Overrated decision maker

[Top 6 on paper]

Because I think people tend to remember a batsman being wrongly given out more than when he's incorrectly given n/o Hair's got this reputation as "one of the best decision makers"

He isn't. He's constantly giving batsman not out who are plum. I think back to Kaneria being robbed of the hattrick against England out there. Very similar looking to todays shocker with Ambrose. And KP's yesterday too, both middle stump half way uppers, no excuse.

I'll be interested to see how consistent he is in this NZ second innings. He seems to have quite like ENgland all in all.

- Alex.

 

[Richard]

Because I think people tend to remember a batsman being wrongly given out more than when he's incorrectly given n/o Hair's got this reputation as "one of the best decision makers"

He isn't. He's constantly giving batsman not out who are plum. I think back to Kaneria being robbed of the hattrick against England out there. Very similar looking to todays shocker with Ambrose. And KP's yesterday too, both middle stump half way uppers, no excuse.

I'll be interested to see how consistent he is in this NZ second innings. He seems to have quite like ENgland all in all.

While obviously bad n\o decisions are far longer remember than bad out decisions, Umpires who constantly fail to give blatant out decisions out will be villainised plenty. And this has happened. Sri Lanka had this problem accross most of their Umpires at one time, apparently.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Wasn't there some statistics released by the ICC Umpires that said that Hair was the 2nd best decision maker, a month or two before he got the sack?

 

[Richard]

Yes, but these things take into account an "appeal" as a "owizat?" from the wicketkeeper or a "aaaaooowww" from the bowler with a minimum support from the solitary slip.

Not that Hair isn't an excellent decision-maker, but these things are not as reliable as they may seem. I$C$C are hardly going to make their own Umpires - those they've picked - look bad, are they?

 

[Top 6 on paper]

Wasn't there some statistics released by the ICC Umpires that said that Hair was the 2nd best decision maker, a month or two before he got the sack?

He may well be. But It would be more accurate to call him the second least bad, really.

- Alex.

 

[Manee]

Hmm...I wonder who was first.

 

[Dasa]

I tend to think that in supporting Hair because of perceived poor treatment people sometimes fall back on the "he's a great decision maker" line to defend him when he's neither great nor terrible.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yes, but these things take into account an "appeal" as a "owizat?" from the wicketkeeper or a "aaaaooowww" from the bowler with a minimum support from the solitary slip.

Not that Hair isn't an excellent decision-maker, but these things are not as reliable as they may seem. I$C$C are hardly going to make their own Umpires - those they've picked - look bad, are they?

No, but he was still the second by their ratings.

 

[Perm]

Hmm...I wonder who was first.

Would imagine it was Simon Taufel.

 

[Richard]

No, but he was still the second by their ratings.

Being second in said ratings, given their relative unreliability, isn't really that big a deal, though, is the point I was making. It's like Harmison being ranked #1 bowler.

 

[Richard]

He may well be. But It would be more accurate to call him the second least bad, really.

That's a separate issue, though. If humans (all humans, including the very best Umpires) are incapable of getting enough decisions right with only their own eyes and ears, that simply says that something else needs to be added to the repetoire to help.

 

[Manee]

Would imagine it was Simon Taufel.

Apologies, twas sarcasm on my part.

 

[howardj]

I tend to think that in supporting Hair because of perceived poor treatment people sometimes fall back on the "he's a great decision maker" line to defend him when he's neither great nor terrible.

Exactly.

 

[howardj]

Yes, but these things take into account an "appeal" as a "owizat?" from the wicketkeeper or a "aaaaooowww" from the bowler with a minimum support from the solitary slip.

Exactly.

As I understand it, correctly calling an obvious leg-bye, counts in these statistics as a correct decision.

 

[bond21]

Darryl is a good umpire, you want to see a bad umpire? That guy doing the IPL who reversed 4 decisions and called a wide when the ball hit the batsman's thigh pad and deviated to leg gully. Thats bad umpiring, hell I could do better than that.

The difference is if Hair was umpiring a sub continent match, he would be suspended again for not giving How out.

 

[Migara]

Darryl is a good umpire, you want to see a bad umpire? That guy doing the IPL who reversed 4 decisions and called a wide when the ball hit the batsman's thigh pad and deviated to leg gully. Thats bad umpiring, hell I could do better than that.

The difference is if Hair was umpiring a sub continent match, he would be suspended again for not giving How out.

Having 4 bad desicions in a match is far better than having one Oval fiasco.

 

[Richard]

Never mind the indiscretion to write a book while still on the international Umpires Panel mentioning the action of a bowler which has been specifically cleared and continuing to ply the line that has been proven incorrect.

 

[bond21]

Having 4 bad desicions in a match is far better than having one Oval fiasco.

If that was any team other than Pakistan, Sri Lanka or India he wouldnt have been punished at all. He followed the rules, and because Pakistan ended up losing they had a whinge so the ICC banned him, its called damage control.

If Taufel gave that LBW not out against Inzamam he would be on vacation as we speak. Why do you think Bucknor got the sack from Aus v India? He gave a bad decision against India which ended up costing them the match. If he gave the exact same decision to an Indian batsman noone would care.

 

[Richard]

The sad thing is that some people actually do believe this. Conspiracy-theorist nutcases.

 

[PhoenixFire]

If that was any team other than Pakistan, Sri Lanka or India he wouldnt have been punished at all. He followed the rules, and because Pakistan ended up losing they had a whinge so the ICC banned him, its called damage control.

If Taufel gave that LBW not out against Inzamam he would be on vacation as we speak. Why do you think Bucknor got the sack from Aus v India? He gave a bad decision against India which ended up costing them the match. If he gave the exact same decision to an Indian batsman noone would care.

Yeah those black people really annoy me too.