Darrell Hair

[Migara]

Still he and Doctrove both behaved as idiots.

1. Charging Pakistan of ball tamper when there was no evidence for it, or thinking his thoery of ball tampering may be treated as hard evidence.
2. Not resuming the match when both captains agreed to (which was the wish of public as well).

 

[BoyBrumby]

Still he and Doctrove both behaved as idiots.

1. Charging Pakistan of ball tamper when there was no evidence for it, or thinking his thoery of ball tampering may be treated as hard evidence.
2. Not resuming the match when both captains agreed to (which was the wish of public as well).

1) The condition of the ball was the evidence and, until that game, had generally been accepted as such. The manner in which Hair imposed the 5 run penalty was high-handed, but he wasn't to know the goalposts were about to move with regards to the standard of proof. And, although not directly related, he does have a point about the ICC not acting when Shoaib was (apparently) caught on camera in the third ODI. Looks like a double standard.

2) Too late. Pakistan had already been informed of the consequences. When they failed to appear after the final warning they accepted them. I'm sure other umpires would've backtracked for the sake of their careers, but Hair's course of action was the correct one. A team cannot be seen to hold officialdom to ransom.

 

[Craig]

Let it go Migara.

 

[morgieb]

Hair's unfairly victimised imo. Yes, his controversial decisions were against subcontinental teams, but he was in the right all the times imo.

 

[Himannv]

Courage? What courage? To call someone for chucking is courage? Strange and mystifying statements those. I see no courage in it, just an unpire making a call, which ended up being a false call.

I think there's far more courage in standing up to those allegations and coming back to take the most wickets in the entire history of the game.

 

[Migara]

1) The condition of the ball was the evidence and, until that game, had generally been accepted as such. The manner in which Hair imposed the 5 run penalty was high-handed, but he wasn't to know the goalposts were about to move with regards to the standard of proof. And, although not directly related, he does have a point about the ICC not acting when Shoaib was (apparently) caught on camera in the third ODI. Looks like a double standard.

Once again shows that the fool is biased and has his own theories. The pictures suggest nothing, because they look fake.

2) Too late. Pakistan had already been informed of the consequences. When they failed to appear after the final warning they accepted them. I'm sure other umpires would've backtracked for the sake of their careers, but Hair's course of action was the correct one. A team cannot be seen to hold officialdom to ransom.

Cricket is for public. Every body wanted cricket, except two umps. Doesn't make their action irreversible.

 

[GIMH]

Why does Billy Doctrove not get called out for being racist?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Once again shows that the fool is biased and has his own theories. The pictures suggest nothing, because they look fake.

Cricket is for public. Every body wanted cricket, except two umps. Doesn't make their action irreversible.

So they look faked, now, eh? First I've heard of it. Well, it's not like Shoaib has a history of tampering, is it? Oh, now hold on, hasn't he been banned twice for it before?

I humbly suggest you start shaving with Occam's razor, old son.

& cricket is for the public, but not exclusively and certainly not at the expense of the wrong decision. Reversing decision because "the public wants it" is patently a nonsense.

 

[marc71178]

I don't know, I reckon if were allowed to reverse decisions because the public wanted it you'd see some huge scores from people's favourite batsmen.

 

[_Ed_]

Have to say the comparison to apartheid in the OP is truly remarkable.

 

[Migara]

So they look faked, now, eh? First I've heard of it. Well, it's not like Shoaib has a history of tampering, is it? Oh, now hold on, hasn't he been banned twice for it before?

I humbly suggest you start shaving with Occam's razor, old son.

He was banned for what? ball tampering? Meh!

Even if he was banned twice for that, keeping it in you mind and looking at the pictures, means you are biased. The pictures prove nothing because illusions can occur on 2D frames (like stepping on the ball). And the enlarged picture of Shoaib picking the ball is not the same enlarged picture what is shown in the background. Obviously it is faked, or otherwise they should put the same picture there. Bring on the video and if it shows the same I'd agree with you. Based on that evidence if Shoaib was a ball tamperer, so should have been Stuart Broad.

& cricket is for the public, but not exclusively and certainly not at the expense of the wrong decision. Reversing decision because "the public wants it" is patently a nonsense.

There was no evidence to say umps decision was right. Even the forensic studies did come as in conclusive or negative. Wrong decision was taken by umpires, and they should have reversed it.

 

[social]

Why does Billy Doctrove not get called out for being racist?

 

[BoyBrumby]

He was banned for what? ball tampering? Meh!

Even if he was banned twice for that, keeping it in you mind and looking at the pictures, means you are biased. The pictures prove nothing because illusions can occur on 2D frames (like stepping on the ball). And the enlarged picture of Shoaib picking the ball is not the same enlarged picture what is shown in the background. Obviously it is faked, or otherwise they should put the same picture there. Bring on the video and if it shows the same I'd agree with you. Based on that evidence if Shoaib was a ball tamperer, so should have been Stuart Broad.

There was no evidence to say umps decision was right. Even the forensic studies did come as in conclusive or negative. Wrong decision was taken by umpires, and they should have reversed it.

I going to go through this slowly because, prima facie, what you're saying sounds a little odd.

But, just so we're clear, in the first instance you're suggesting I'm biased because a player who has twice been banned before for ball-tampering (look it up for yourself) has been photgraphed looking like he might be enagaging in the same? & the pictures are "obviously" faked?

In the second instance you're saying there's no evidence the umpires were right?

Well, that being so, I'll respond. Shoaib is, when it comes to tampering, a recidivist. Proven to be so. When photographs seem to show him engaged in an activity in which he's been proven to have previous form for what seems more likely: a) that he's the victim of an elaborate plot to blacken his name by using doctored pictures, the knowing publication of which is quite probably libellous or b) he is, in fact, ball tampering? If one's not given to wild flights of conspiracy theory it's a no-brainer, yes?

With regards to the second point you seem a little confused; I'm not suggesting Hair & Doctrove were necessarily right to impose the five run penalty but they were absolutely right to return to the pitch and shout "play" after the tea break. When Pakistan didn't reappear and, moreover, still didn't after being warned about the consequences the umpires were amply justified in supposing a forfeiture. No team can hold officialdom to ransom in such a fashion for whatever fatuous point they were trying to prove and suggestions that it was a matter of national honour are cant and hogwash when the team has been caught with its fingers in the till (or, more accurately its teeth and fingernails on the ball) more than once before.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I humbly suggest you start shaving with Occam's razor, old son.

 

[zaremba]

the enlarged picture of Shoaib picking the ball is not the same enlarged picture what is shown in the background. Obviously it is faked, or otherwise they should put the same picture there. Bring on the video and if it shows the same I'd agree with you. Based on that evidence if Shoaib was a ball tamperer, so should have been Stuart Broad.

The enlarged picture is different to the smaller picture. Guess what - they're different pictures! And as it happens both appear* to show him gouging the ball with his thumbnail. You can blame the Daily Mail's picture editor for causing your confusion by juxtaposing the two pictures in that way. Your conclusion that the pictures therefore look faked is desperately far-fetched.

As for standing on the ball, you're right that he's no more guilty than Stuart Broad. But that's not the main issue. The main issue is gouging the ball with his thumbnail.


* Not conclusively. But not far off.

 

[Fusion]

I going to go through this slowly because, prima facie, what you're saying sounds a little odd.

But, just so we're clear, in the first instance you're suggesting I'm biased because a player who has twice been banned before for ball-tampering (look it up for yourself) has been photgraphed looking like he might be enagaging in the same? & the pictures are "obviously" faked?

In the second instance you're saying there's no evidence the umpires were right?

Well, that being so, I'll respond. Shoaib is, when it comes to tampering, a recidivist. Proven to be so. When photographs seem to show him engaged in an activity in which he's been proven to have previous form for what seems more likely: a) that he's the victim of an elaborate plot to blacken his name by using doctored pictures, the knowing publication of which is quite probably libellous or b) he is, in fact, ball tampering? If one's not given to wild flights of conspiracy theory it's a no-brainer, yes?

With regards to the second point you seem a little confused; I'm not suggesting Hair & Doctrove were necessarily right to impose the five run penalty but they were absolutely right to return to the pitch and shout "play" after the tea break. When Pakistan didn't reappear and, moreover, still didn't after being warned about the consequences the umpires were amply justified in supposing a forfeiture. No team can hold officialdom to ransom in such a fashion for whatever fatuous point they were trying to prove and suggestions that it was a matter of national honour are cant and hogwash when the team has been caught with its fingers in the till (or, more accurately its teeth and fingernails on the ball) more than once before.

Brumby, I’m not going to get into the Hair debate as it’s been done to death, but I do want to respond to your point about Shoaib. Yes, he’s been found guilty of ball tempering before and hence any accusation against him will lead you to view it in a harsher light then someone who’s never been accused. However, the pictures that were published in that tabloid paper are hardly conclusive. In fact, I don’t see any legitimate news site giving coverage to that story at all (I could be wrong, but I haven’t seen a story myself on Cricinfo or BBC etc). Unless you think the major news sites are PCB’s lackeys or are afraid of brewing up controversy (highly unlikely as more controversy means higher interest for their respective sites), perhaps the reason they haven’t covered it extensively is because of the lack of evidence. You seriously can’t believe that it’s a “no brainer” that Shoaib is tempering based on the evidence of those pics? There is no context to those pictures at all. I am not even convinced that the one which supposedly shows him stepping on the ball is an accurate picture. I don’t think his foot was actually close to the ball. As far as the pic with his thumb on the ball, again without context of how long and exactly what motion(s) he was engaged in means it’s completely inconclusive. We need video evidence or supporting testimony from officials to arrive at tempering allegations. Whether he was tempering or not is hardly the open and shut case you’re making it out to be.

 

[sledger]

I think the point he was making was to entertain the possibility of him doing it rather than being stonewall guilty of the offence itself tbh.

 

[zaremba]

Why does Billy Doctrove not get called out for being racist?

Because that doesn't fit with some people's prejudices.

 

[Fusion]

I think the point he was making was to entertain the possibility of him doing it rather than being stonewall guilty of the offence itself tbh.

Ah, then fair enough. There is certainly reason to suspect him, due to his priors. Apologies if I misread your point Brumby.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Brumby, I’m not going to get into the Hair debate as it’s been done to death, but I do want to respond to your point about Shoaib. Yes, he’s been found guilty of ball tempering before and hence any accusation against him will lead you to view it in a harsher light then someone who’s never been accused. However, the pictures that were published in that tabloid paper are hardly conclusive. In fact, I don’t see any legitimate news site giving coverage to that story at all (I could be wrong, but I haven’t seen a story myself on Cricinfo or BBC etc). Unless you think the major news sites are PCB’s lackeys or are afraid of brewing up controversy (highly unlikely as more controversy means higher interest for their respective sites), perhaps the reason they haven’t covered it extensively is because of the lack of evidence. You seriously can’t believe that it’s a “no brainer” that Shoaib is tempering based on the evidence of those pics? There is no context to those pictures at all. I am not even convinced that the one which supposedly shows him stepping on the ball is an accurate picture. I don’t think his foot was actually close to the ball. As far as the pic with his thumb on the ball, again without context of how long and exactly what motion(s) he was engaged in means it’s completely inconclusive. We need video evidence or supporting testimony from officials to arrive at tempering allegations. Whether he was tempering or not is hardly the open and shut case you’re making it out to be.

The point is not so much whether he's tampering or not (but it does look, given past history, that there might be a case to answer at least) but rather that Hair was hung out to dry for the lack of corroborating pictures and now, when presented with the type of pictorial evidence Ovalgate lacked, the ICC remains mute and seems minded to quietly gloss it over.

EDIT: As Sledge said.