The Biggest Disgrace?

[Migara]

The allegations of racism casually thrown around about Hair were, and remain, baseless and disgusting.

If he can make ball tampering allegations can be made without an evidence, why others cannot allege racial discrimination without a base. a tit for tat.

 

[GIMH]

 

[BoyBrumby]

Indeed. WAC.

On the plus side tho, the long search is finally over. We've definitively found the world's thinnest argument.

 

[Migara]

Indeed. WAC.

On the plus side tho, the long search is finally over. We've definitively found the world's thinnest argument.

On the plus side tho, the long search is finally over. We've definitively found the world's thinnest arguments

would be more correct.

 

[BoyBrumby]

On the plus side tho, the long search is finally over. We've definitively found the world's thinnest arguments

would be more correct.

No; no it wouldn't.

Strongly suspect you're either a tool or a troll or both, so won't waste too much time on a proper argument, but let's look at what you're saying: baseless allegations of racism are ok if any judgement the umpire makes can't be proved beyond reasonable doubt?

Does anyone think that sounds reasonable? No, thought not.

 

[Migara]

No; no it wouldn't.

Strongly suspect you're either a tool or a troll or both, so won't waste too much time on a proper argument, but let's look at what you're saying: baseless allegations of racism are ok if any judgement the umpire makes can't be proved beyond reasonable doubt?

Does anyone think that sounds reasonable? No, thought not.

baseless allegations of ball tampering are ok if any judgement the umpire makes can't be proved beyond reasonable doubt?

The answer to above question will answer you question.

 

[BoyBrumby]

baseless allegations of ball tampering are ok if any judgement the umpire makes can't be proved beyond reasonable doubt?

The answer to above question will answer you question.

God, WAC.

The allegations were so baseless the evil Hair managed to press gang Doctrove into his racist plot to defame the Pakistan team? Doctrove was clearly satisfied something untoward had happened to the state of the ball between inspections. Did he & Hair handle it well? No. Does that make Hair a racist? No. Does that mean allegations of racism are fair game? No.

Moreover "beyond reasonable doubt" isn't (or wasn't) how umpires give decisions; they make a judgement call on the likelihood of one scenario versus another based on the evidence. If "beyond reasonable doubt" was the criteria we might as well not bother with the LBW law.

 

[fredfertang]

When Darrell Hair nominated his "World XI from those I have umpired" his choice of two Pakistanis, an Indian and three West Indians would tend to suggest that he doesn't regard race as an issue

 

[Migara]

God, WAC.

The allegations were so baseless the evil Hair managed to press gang Doctrove into his racist plot to defame the Pakistan team? Doctrove was clearly satisfied something untoward had happened to the state of the ball between inspections. Did he & Hair handle it well? No. Does that make Hair a racist? No. Does that mean allegations of racism are fair game? No.

Where did I say that Hair raised his ball tampering allegations with racial intent? I was laughing at his decision making process. If he can call Pakistani's ball tamperers without any demonstrable evidence, no one should be bothered if a judgment was made on him using the same protocol. He has "baseless" allegations of being a racist (which he's not IMO, but he's a top class fool alright). So using his own protocol we can call him a racist, because that's how he penalized Pakistan.

Whether racism is right or wrong, whether ball tapering is right or wrong is not the scope id discussion. it's the inept logic used by Hair to make his decision. using his own logic, we can make far worse calls than what he made.

Moreover "beyond reasonable doubt" isn't (or wasn't) how umpires give decisions; they make a judgement call on the likelihood of one scenario versus another based on the evidence. If "beyond reasonable doubt" was the criteria we might as well not bother with the LBW law.

serious allegations do need evidence. Charges racial abuse on field needs evidence, because it's a serious charge. Chucking issue needs evidence before banning a bowler because it's a huge decision. Stoppage of game due to crowd behavior is another one like that. Out bowled has to have evidence.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Where did I say that Hair raised his ball tampering allegations with racial intent? I was laughing at his decision making process. If he can call Pakistani's ball tamperers without any demonstrable evidence, no one should be bothered if a judgment was made on him using the same protocol. He has "baseless" allegations of being a racist (which he's not IMO, but he's a top class fool alright). So using his own protocol we can call him a racist, because that's how he penalized Pakistan.

Whether racism is right or wrong, whether ball tapering is right or wrong is not the scope id discussion. it's the inept logic used by Hair to make his decision. using his own logic, we can make far worse calls than what he made.

serious allegations do need evidence. Charges racial abuse on field needs evidence, because it's a serious charge. Chucking issue needs evidence before banning a bowler because it's a huge decision. Stoppage of game due to crowd behavior is another one like that. Out bowled has to have evidence.

You're missing the point tho (and deliberately so I imagine); the evidence of the alleged ball-tampering was the condition of the ball itself. Hair & Doctrove decided it was such that the five-run penalty should be imposed. If you were to say this makes Hair a grandstanding blowhard, then fair enough; the evidence is certainly there to support the contention (Pakistan definitely chose the wrong umpire to make their own little show of grandstanding against), but to say the allegations are "baseless" or that, worse yet, indicative of racism is misrepesenting the facts.

There was evidence, albeit not enough to say beyond any reasonable doubt that tampering had occurred. Clearly now tho the precedent has been established that for charges of tampering to be upheld they must be captured on video or audio.

 

[Jono]

Pakistan definitely chose the wrong umpire to make their own little show of grandstanding against.

Nah it basically ended his career.

Mission complete.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Nah it basically ended his career.

Mission complete.

Ha, fair enough in those terms then I suppose, but most other umps would've probably played on after Pakistan had made her point. Doubt there's been a more intransigent ump than Hair since I've been watching, although Mike Gatting might disagree.

 

[Uppercut]

If he can call Pakistani's ball tamperers without any demonstrable evidence, no one should be bothered if a judgment was made on him using the same protocol.

I seem to have missed the stage in the development of the human race where cheating at a game of cricket became on a par with racial discrimination.

Newsflash- every international cricketer is a cheat. They appeal when they know the batsman isn't out, they run between the ball and the stumps, they stand when they know they've nicked one. It's all cheating, everyone does it, and everyone knows they do it.

 

[Migara]

I seem to have missed the stage in the development of the human race where cheating at a game of cricket became on a par with racial discrimination.

Newsflash- every international cricketer is a cheat. They appeal when they know the batsman isn't out, they run between the ball and the stumps, they stand when they know they've nicked one. It's all cheating, everyone does it, and everyone knows they do it.

Possibly you are behind more than one stage of human development not to understand that ball tampering is generalised on a nation. The repercussions of the desicion is to call "Pakistanis are cheats", which is detrogatoy to a whole nation. on other hand calling "Harbhajan a racist" the statement is not generalised as such as the ball tampering (harbhajan incident was another farce, but it's not within the scope of discussion). Such a huge decision neds clear evidence. looking at end product of the scuffed ball is not enough. it's like hanging you in public for commiting murder, just because dead body was inside your garden. the person might have died with a natural course or somebody else has killed.The logic of punishing a team for ball tampering without catching them red handed is very poor.

 

[andyc]

Possibly you are behind more than one stage of human development not to understand that ball tampering is generalised on a nation. The repercussions of the desicion is to call "Pakistanis are cheats", which is detrogatoy to a whole nation. on other hand calling "Harbhajan a racist" the statement is not generalised as such as the ball tampering (harbhajan incident was another farce, but it's not within the scope of discussion). Such a huge decision neds clear evidence. looking at end product of the scuffed ball is not enough. it's like hanging you in public for commiting murder, just because dead body was inside your garden. the person might have died with a natural course or somebody else has killed.The logic of punishing a team for ball tampering without catching them red handed is very poor.

I think that's the jump you're making that people have issue with. Penalising a team for ball tampering isn't saying 'your whole country is full of ball tamperers and cheaters,' it's saying 'someone from your team has been tampering with the ball.' It doesn't even have to be representative of the team as a whole, let alone the whole country.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think that's the jump you're making that people have issue with. Penalising a team for ball tampering isn't saying 'your whole country is full of ball tamperers and cheaters,' it's saying 'someone from your team has been tampering with the ball.' It doesn't even have to be representative of the team as a whole, let alone the whole country.

Quite so.

& When did ball tampering become the kiddie-fiddling of cricket anyway? I definitely missed that meeting. If it's so beyond the pale it's a wonder blokes who've been caught altering the condition of the ball (Atherton & Dravid off the top of my head) dare show their faces in public, tbh.

 

[Uppercut]

Quite so.

& When did ball tampering become the kiddie-fiddling of cricket anyway? I definitely missed that meeting. If it's so beyond the pale it's a wonder blokes who've been caught altering the condition of the ball (Atherton & Dravid off the top of my head) dare show their faces in public, tbh.

Indeed.

 

[zaremba]

Possibly you are behind more than one stage of human development not to understand that ball tampering is generalised on a nation. The repercussions of the desicion is to call "Pakistanis are cheats", which is detrogatoy to a whole nation. on other hand calling "Harbhajan a racist" the statement is not generalised as such as the ball tampering (harbhajan incident was another farce, but it's not within the scope of discussion). Such a huge decision neds clear evidence. looking at end product of the scuffed ball is not enough. it's like hanging you in public for commiting murder, just because dead body was inside your garden. the person might have died with a natural course or somebody else has killed.The logic of punishing a team for ball tampering without catching them red handed is very poor.

I agree with AndyC, BoyBrumby and Uppercut on this.

And once again, I come back to the point that if Darrell Hair can be criticised for "hanging the defendant without evidence", then precisely the same should go for Billy Doctrove. The "huge decision" that they took, which you say is "derogatory to a whole nation" (!), was taken by them jointly, and on the basis of precisely the same evidence. Yet Hair cops all the flak and Doctrove gets off unscathed. No-one's ever given anything remotely approaching a good reason for Hair being singled out in that way.

 

[Cruxdude]

Am I wrong in saying this was the first case when someone was found guilty of ball tampering without a proper see through by the referee. It is beyond my imagination how he thought he could do that and get away with it.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Am I wrong in saying this was the first case when someone was found guilty of ball tampering without a proper see through by the referee. It is beyond my imagination how he thought he could do that and get away with it.

Without wanting to play devil's advocate too much, for all we know Hair or Doctrove might've seen someone tampering. Just because no one admitted it and the cameras didn't capture it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Moreover, until all the camera angles were reviewd by the host broadcaster, the umpires would've had no idea there wasn't any video evidence. Back in those more innocent times of 2006 I doubt it occurred to either that it's be necessary.