Darrell Hair

[tombarlow123]

This thread makes me want to vom

 

[Smudge]

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

Sheesh, I thought it was obvious - no-one called Billy can be considered racist.

 

[Faisal1985]

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.

So, you mean this is the actual issue eh?

Hope i don't get sued for defamation now.

 

[Jarquis]

The Anderson one has already been thoroughly discussed and he did nothing wrong besides peeling the flap of leather himself, rather than doing it infront of the umpire. It wasn't ball tampering.
Not commenting on Bresnan as it is an abysmal photograph.

 

[Faisal1985]

The Anderson one has already been thoroughly discussed and he did nothing wrong besides peeling the flap of leather himself, rather than doing it infront of the umpire. It wasn't ball tampering.
Not commenting on Bresnan as it is an abysmal photograph.

That looks more like scratching then peeling off tbh.

 

[Jarquis]

Well it wasn't. There was a loose flap of leather and Anderson pulled it off.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Well it wasn't. There was a loose flap of leather and Anderson pulled it off.

So what you're saying is that pictures can be deceptive

 

[Jarquis]

What I'm saying is Faisal is being obtuse considering he has been involved in discussions with regards to Anderson and that particular incident where it was explained, a number of times, to him what exactly it was that Anderson did wrong.
So either he has a particularly poor memory, or he's acting like a ****.

 

[Faisal1985]

Well it wasn't. There was a loose flap of leather and Anderson pulled it off.

Well it was, as he is not peeling or pulling it off but scratching it with a finger nail of his index finger and not using 2 finger tips to peel it off as normally people do...

 

[Faisal1985]

what i'm saying is faisal is being obtuse considering he has been involved in discussions with regards to anderson and that particular incident where it was explained, a number of times, to him what exactly it was that anderson did wrong.
so either he has a particularly poor memory, or he's acting like a ****.

 

[Jarquis]

This was the same game where Broad stood on the ball, so presumably there was a bit of a scratch and then the tuft of leather. Thus it makes sense that such an action would actually restore the state of the ball to its original state, no?

 

[Jarquis]

Well which one? Then again it's not exactly unusual for you to try and defelect attention or point the finger elsewhere.

 

[Faisal1985]

Well which one? Then again it's not exactly unusual for you to try and defelect attention or point the finger elsewhere.

The one i posted. I thought we were commenting on that all along....deflecting attention??? how?

 

[andyc]

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.

Disagree with this. I think Hair no-balling Murali was ultimately the right decision. As someone who believes that Murali's action is legit, there's still no doubt that it looks pretty damn bad. Without the proper scientific testing, there was no way for Hair, or anyone, to know whether he was bowling it properly or throwing. It was really just a case of how you believed he delivered the ball; now we actually know. Something did have to be done, because otherwise the man could've gone through his career untested, and for all we know, bowling illegally.

Getting no-balled lead to Murali being tested, as well as greater scrutiny being put on other bowlers with suspect actions, eventually leading to the rules being overhauled when it turned out that the existing limits were ridiculous.

 

[Faisal1985]

Disagree with this. I think Hair no-balling Murali was ultimately the right decision. As someone who believes that Murali's action is legit, there's still no doubt that it looks pretty damn bad. Without the proper scientific testing, there was no way for Hair, or anyone, to know whether he was bowling it properly or throwing. It was really just a case of how you believed he delivered the ball; now we actually know. Something did have to be done, because otherwise the man could've gone through his career untested, and for all we know, bowling illegally.

Getting no-balled lead to Murali being tested, as well as greater scrutiny being put on other bowlers with suspect actions, eventually leading to the rules being overhauled when it turned out that the existing limits were ridiculous.

Can you please tell me how many games had Murali played before Hair had called that no ball?...or how many international games were umpired by colleagues of Hair in which Murali bowled and no one raised a single concern? What is the problem here then, the inconsistency of how the umps are educated/trained or picked by ICC for the elite panel that they didn't agree on such a huge bowling action discrepancy? Or is it simply the "Hair" problem?

 

[Burgey]

If you think no one had a concern about Murali's action before Hair no-balled him you're mistaken.

There was a hell of a lot of talk about it before he came on that tour. Just because no one else no-balled him doesn't mean there weren't concerns.

If nothing else, that sad incident gave rise to the comprehensive referral system for bowling action and, arguably, a rule change.

To that end it is arguable (though I would not necessarily argue it myself) that Darrell Hair was the most influential person in world cricket in the 1990s.

 

[Sanz]

Really? Still with this?

I'm no fan of Hair, but when he warned Pakistan of the consequences of them not reappearing and they still failed to show it seems fairly obvious where the blame lies.

Brumby, aren't you forgetting something ? Let me refresh the memory :-

BBC SPORT | Cricket | The Ashes | Day four: How the controversy unfolded

1724: Here come the Pakistan team! They're trudging down the pavillion steps to a deafening chorus of boos from the Oval crowd. But where are the umpires?

1727: They're going back in! With no sign of the umpires, the Pakistan team are returning to the pavillion. Rumours are flying around that Darrell Hair is now refusing to come out.

1730: Apparently a deal had been brokered between the two teams, but no-one thought to involve the umpires. The umpires apparently took the Pakistan no-show to mean that the match had been conceded.

1733: "Darrell Hair is refusing to budge. That's the impasse." Jonathan Agnew, Test Match Special





Remember, 1727, 1730 and 1733 all happened after 1724.


Yes Pakistan team was responsible and so was Hair. Your post fails to suggest that.

 

[Sanz]

This was the same game where Broad stood on the ball, so presumably there was a bit of a scratch and then the tuft of leather. Thus it makes sense that such an action would actually restore the state of the ball to its original state, no?

So in other words, the English bowlers did everything that Shoaib is shown to be doing, right ? But it was okay for them to be doing whatever they did, but Shoaib is a cheat for the same thing, right ?

 

[chicane]

The thing was, Hair acted like, given every ball Murali bowled was suspect, the only thing to do was to no-ball him till he ****s off from the field. Was that right?

 

[benchmark00]

Had the pleasure of meeting Dazza Hair last year when he was a spectator in the crowd of a match I was playing in.

Seemed a good bloke at the time.