Darryl hair - Overrated decision maker

[silentstriker]

Ok why don't you tell us what will happen. Alot of people seem happy he has returned to cricket, including the England captain.

And good for the England captain. I don't think anyone has a problem with him officiating in, say, The Ashes.

Why should Hair treat subcontinentals with kid gloves

He shouldn't. In fact, he shouldn't officiate them at all, considering his past.

 

[Richard]

We show how biomechanics can be used to accurately assess spin-bowling techniques (offspin, legspin and topspin) in cricket, under controlled conditions, when the player is suspected of throwing. A 50 Hz six-camera Vicon Motion Analysis system was used to record the movements of markers strategically placed on the upper limb during each of the above bowling actions. A kinematic model of the upper limb, created using Vicon BodyBuilder software, enabled the movements of the upper arm and forearm to be described during each delivery. Selected physical characteristics of the upper limb were also measured. The present 'no ball' law in cricket with reference to throwing states that 'the arm should not be straightened in the part of the delivery that immediately precedes ball release'. The bowler, Mutiah Muralitharan, was shown to maintain a relatively constant elbow angle in the 0.06 s before ball release. Furthermore, this angle changed little from the time that the upper arm was angled vertically downward until ball release during the three spin-bowling actions.

Source:

Lloyd DG, Alderson J, Elliott BC. An upper limb kinematic model for the examination of cricket bowling: a case study of Mutiah Muralitharan. Department of Human Movement and Exercise Science, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia. dlloyd@cyllene.uwa.edu.au

Unless you are going to dispute this, I would kindly ask you to stop spreading misinformation.

TBF, Hair was in the right in 1995/96 when he called Muralitharan. Not only was the protocol of the time the deplorable on-field humiliation of no-balling a bowler (which Hair did) but he was subsequently proven right that Muralitharan transgressed these Laws. So too did every other bowler, of course.

It was the Laws of Cricket, not Hair, that was wrong in that instance. Hair has only become in the wrong when refusing to accept the new Laws and insisting that he still believes Muralitharan a thrower. Once more, many others are in this wrong-headed boat.

 

[PhoenixFire]

So too did every other bowler, of course.

Sarwan didn't, UIMM.

 

[MrHat]

And good for the England captain. I don't think anyone has a problem with him officiating in, say, The Ashes.


He shouldn't. In fact, he shouldn't officiate them at all, considering his past.

Well if anyone knew if Hair was way out of line or not, it would be the England team. The fact that he still commands alot of respect from them tells me all is not what it seems.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Well if anyone knew if Hair was way out of line or not, it would be the England team. The fact that he still commands alot of respect from them tells me all is not what it seems.

Who says they still have respect for him?

Anyways, the England players would have no way od knowing for sure whether Pakistan did or didn't tamper with the ball.

 

[Richard]

I don't think anyone has a problem with him officiating in, say, The Ashes.

I have a massive problem with him and every other Australian and UK Umpire officiating in The Ashes, because that means that every time a wrong decision is made (which will happen, maybe plenty, with the current regulations, which do not lend themselves to near-perfect decision-making) the suspicion of bias will be there. Not from everyone maybe, but from some beyond question. And we can all do without that, it detracts from the spectacle.

 

[silentstriker]

I have a massive problem with him and every other Australian and UK Umpire officiating in The Ashes, .

Ah right, of course, forgot that he was Australian, so he can't do the Ashes.

 

[silentstriker]

Well if anyone knew if Hair was way out of line or not, it would be the England team..

Why? Because they got a free win when they were on a course to a probable loss? This of course does not excuse the Pakistani team for not coming out, but Hair was the main bonehead.

 

[Richard]

Sarwan didn't, UIMM.

Well he didn't play international cricket until 4 years later. And anyway, he was merely never spotted doing so - it's implausible that he did not while everyone else did.

 

[Richard]

Well if anyone knew if Hair was way out of line or not, it would be the England team. The fact that he still commands alot of respect from them tells me all is not what it seems.

It means he's never done anything to piss England off. Shakeel Khan had, though, and we were quite right to be displeased with him. Pakistan had legitimate reason to be displeased with David Constant too.

Most teams will have legitimate reason to distrust certain Umpires. While other teams will have no reason at all to do so.

 

[MrHat]

Who says they still have respect for him?

Anyways, the England players would have no way od knowing for sure whether Pakistan did or didn't tamper with the ball.

Hair was greeted by a few senior players with a warm handshake and smile i believe, thats enough for me.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Hair was greeted by a few senior players with a warm handshake and smile i believe, thats enough for me.

So, that means nothing. I would greet someone who I didn't like with a handshake and a smile, to do otherwise is petulant and childish, none of which the England team are, I assume.

 

[MrHat]

So, that means nothing. I would greet someone who I didn't like with a handshake and a smile, to do otherwise is petulant and childish, none of which the England team are, I assume.

Well i can't say what they were thinking, just what happened. But I wouldn't t think Vaughan and other senirs would go out of his way to be kind to a guy who if we believe what is written about him is close the the cricketing anti christ.

 

[Richard]

So, that means nothing. I would greet someone who I didn't like with a handshake and a smile, to do otherwise is petulant and childish, none of which the England team are, I assume.

I don't doubt for a second that a handshake and smile are gestures which tell no-one anything of importance, but I also don't think Hair is in any way disliked in the England team. Never seen anything to suggest such a thing.

 

[silentstriker]

Hair was greeted by a few senior players with a warm handshake and smile i believe, thats enough for me.

Oh, they shook his hand, well then he can't be bad. No one shakes someone's hand. Give the man a Nobel Prize.

Warm handshake and a smile?

These people can't be all that bad now - look at all the warm smiling handshakes.


I've seen some ridiculous arguments on this site, but you have just taken it to another level. Kudos for that. And you wonder why people jump on you....

 

[pasag]

1. England, iirc, were more than sympathetic with the Pakistani cause as opposed to Hair's and also the ECB backed the PCB's request for the result to be changed from a forfeit to 'abandoned' or a draw. Now, I don't know what the feeling was in the players camp, but I'd imagine they wouldn't have been too happy that the series ended in a farce and media circus either way. That said, I don't imagine they'd hold too much of a grudge now even if they did then and would be suprised if they really disliked him, tbh.

2. Wrt to Richard and Hair doing the right thing in post 82, I think there was an eye opening exert from a book quoted on here a while back (iirc) talking about before the Boxing Day match where Hair explicitly agreed with the rest of the umpires that he wouldn't call Murali and they'd refer anything to the ICC as to not make a scene of it. So letter of the law and all that, but it still doesn't paint him in a very pretty light.

3. Who cares?

 

[Richard]

Oh, they shook his hand, well then he can't be bad. No one shakes someone's hand. Give the man a Nobel Prize.

Warm handshake and a smile?

These people can't be all that bad now - look at all the warm smiling handshakes.


I've seen some ridiculous arguments on this site, but you have just taken it to another level. Kudos for that. And you wonder why people jump on you....

Who is that third photo? And who's the guy with Saddam in that blurry second one?

 

[MrHat]

Oh, they shook his hand, well then he can't be bad. No one shakes someone's hand. Give the man a Nobel Prize.

Warm handshake and a smile?

These people can't be all that bad now - look at all the warm smiling handshakes.


I've seen some ridiculous arguments on this site, but you have just taken it to another level. Kudos for that. And you wonder why people jump on you....

By that reasoning no show of affection can be regarded as meaningful. Rubbish. Cricket is not international politics. Getting desparate aren't you

 

[silentstriker]

Who is that third photo? And who's the guy with Saddam in that blurry second one?

That's none other than Rumsfeld in the late eighties. And the third photo is of Ahmadinejad with some notable Rabbi, though I don't know who it is exactly.

 

[Richard]

Wrt to Richard and Hair doing the right thing in post 82, I think there was an eye opening exert from a book quoted on here a while back (iirc) talking about before the Boxing Day match where Hair explicitly agreed with the rest of the umpires that he wouldn't call Murali and they'd refer anything to the ICC as to not make a scene of it. So letter of the law and all that, but it still doesn't paint him in a very pretty light.

Yeah? Blimey, never heard that. Very poor indeed.