Darrell Hair

[Sanz]

An England win because Pakistan refused to take to the field (at 1657, which is before 1730 thus rendering the post 3 above this one pointless)

The match result was not declared at 1657. It was declared @ 2250.

 

[zaremba]

What is the official result of that Test again ?

Since you ask... England awarded the match (opposition refused to play)

Not England's finest win, it has to be said! But the only possible outcome given how Pakistan behaved.

 

[sledger]

Another example of cheating really, they all add up. Tsk Tsk.

 

[marc71178]

The match result was not declared at 1657. It was declared @ 2250.

By implication, ie the bails coming off, the match ended at 1657, which is before any of the stuff you've mentioned as being relevant happened.

 

[zaremba]

Not, In normal circumstances. But this was not a normal day and It all started with Hair.
Hair proved that he didn't have game's best interest in mind

Hair, Hair, Hair, the pantomime villain. Some seem very ready to ignore the fact that the match was officiated over by two umpires of precisely equal standing, who took decisions jointly and who share joint responsibility for those decisions. Why is that?

 

[Sanz]

It added up for Hair as well, didn't it ?

 

[Jarquis]

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

There was no mention of Anderson or Bresnan anywhere, but because people were discussing the matter at hand (Shoaib) you threw you arms in the air and pointed the finger towards English players.
One of which was completely irrelevant and had been discussed on the forum several times over, including discussions you were involved in. So you knew full well what Anderson was doing, yet still tried to accuse him of ball tampering.

I know, its quite evident.

Irony alarm went of the scale. As if you'd notice anything that didn't support your argument/degraded Pakistan unless it smashed you in the face.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Not, In normal circumstances. But this was not a normal day and It all started with Hair.
Hair proved that he didn't have game's best interest in mind :-

BBC called it early

1434: Inzi's not happy about this - the umpires have picked up the ball and are examining it closely. They call Trevor Jesty on with the box of spare balls, and we could have a diplomatic incident here. They're changing the ball, and that can mean only one thing - the umpires think the Pakistan team have tampered with the ball.
Lordy - Inzamam's furious. To him this is tantamount to being called a cheat. A five-run penalty has been given against Pakistan, and this one's going to run and run.
1430: Gul's getting a bit of reverse swing here. Collingwood pushes him for two into the off-side

I'm not sure what point you're making here. If you're saying Hair was mistaken and acted in a high-handed manner when he & his fellow umpire imposed the 5-run penalty then you may have a point. No tampering was detected on camera so the only evidence is the ball itself and the analysis of that is open to dispute & Darrell patently always enjoyed the spotlight.

However, if you're suggesting Pakistan's non-appearance was somehow justified because they'd (possibly) copped a ropey decision, then no. There are official channels and the response to a 5-run penalty was in no way proportionate. Had Inzi immediately marched his players off one might've believed it was a heat of the moment thing, but to play on for 14 overs and then stage a protest suggests the PCB were indulging in a spot of brinkmanship to make a point. If one's prepared to use such tactics one must be prepared to have one's bluff called and called it was.

 

[zaremba]

The match result was not declared at 1657. It was declared @ 2250.

Declared? By whom? The ICC confirmed that the match had been forfeited at 2235. But the decision rests with the umpires, who as the watching world could see terminated the match, for the precise reason that Pakistan had forfeited it, when Pakistan refused to come out and play.

 

[zaremba]

It added up for Hair as well, didn't it ?

Sorry, can you clarify?

 

[Sanz]

Hair, Hair, Hair, the pantomime villain. Some seem very ready to ignore the fact that the match was officiated over by two umpires of precisely equal standing, who took decisions jointly and who share joint responsibility for those decisions. Why is that?

Read the reports , It said it was Hair who refused to come out, it was Hair who started the controversy on the day.

That said, haven't people argued in this forum that it is okay to point fingers at Pakistan team and its players because of their past ? Well Hair did have a history, didn't he ?

 

[zaremba]

I am sure there were people like Bedi who kept on saying stuff in media. But at the official level and among the umps, no one called a no ball which says only one thing to me, that for ICC and all of its umps except Hair, it was a legal delivery.

According to this article, although he had by that point never been called for throwing, his action had been cited as suspicious in three series by three separate ICC match referees. Muralitharan.Org - Muthiah Muralidaran - Muttiah Muralitharan

At the end of the day [ie the day's play when Hair called Murali at the MCG] the ICC moved swiftly, requesting Sri Lanka to take 'corrective action' to save Muralidaran's career. The game's ruling body issued a statement from London which seemed to support Hair... ICC chairman Sir Clyde Walcott outlined two years of official concerns. These revealed that in 1993 ICC referee Peter Burge had spoken to Sri Lankan cricket officials after expressing his suspicions about Muralidaran's delivery in a series against India; that ICC referee Barry Jarman had been so concerned by Muralidaran's action during the Sri Lankan tour of New Zealand in March 1995 that he had arranged for a slow motion video to be taken of the bowler's action and had this forwarded to the ICC... When Sri Lanka had played in a one-day series in Sharjah in early October umpires Hair, Dunne and Nigel Plews advised the ICC referee Raman Subba Row of their concerns. As a result further footage of Muralidaran was taken and passed on to the Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka (BCCSL).

 

[marc71178]

Read the reports , It said it was Hair who refused to come out, it was Hair who started the controversy on the day.

Erm, I think you'll find Hair (and Doctrove) both came out to play. When the Pakistan team refused to come out, they declared the match over, as per the letter of the law.

 

[zaremba]

Read the reports , It said it was Hair who refused to come out, it was Hair who started the controversy on the day.

Hair and Doctrove refused to come out after they had decided that Pakistan had forfeited the match. Ie, game over. Finished.

As for who started the controversy that day, Hair and Doctrove shared the same concerns about the condition of the ball. I haven't read any reports that said it was Hair that took all these decisions, although that might be the speculation from certain quarters. Moreover these were joint decisions.

That said, haven't people argued in this forum that it is okay to point fingers at Pakistan team and its players because of their past ? Well Hair did have a history, didn't he ?

A history of what, precisely?
(cue baseless allegations of bias and racism...)

 

[Sanz]

I'm not sure what point you're making here. If you're saying Hair was mistaken and acted in a high-handed manner when he & his fellow umpire imposed the 5-run penalty then you may have a point. No tampering was detected on camera so the only evidence is the ball itself and the analysis of that is open to dispute & Darrell patently always enjoyed the spotlight.

However, if you're suggesting Pakistan's non-appearance was somehow justified because they'd (possibly) copped a ropey decision, then no. There are official channels and the response to a 5-run penalty was in no way proportionate. Had Inzi immediately marched his players off one might've believed it was a heat of the moment thing, but to play on for 14 overs and then stage a protest suggests the PCB were indulging in a spot of brinkmanship to make a point. If one's prepared to use such tactics one must be prepared to have one's bluff called and called it was.

Pakistan's decision was not justified (Have never supported them on the issue, even called for Inzi's banning) and neither was Hair's decision to come out when the two team decided to start the match again.

 

[zaremba]

Pakistan's decision was not justified (Have never supported them on the issue, even called for Inzi's banning) and neither was Hair's decision to come out when the two team decided to start the match again.

You keep on doing it - "Hair's decision [not] to come out..." There were two umpires that day. One is less convenient as far as stereotyping goes though, so he gets forgotten.

Apart from that, your stance is not an unreasonable one, although I disagree with it.

 

[Faisal1985]

There was no mention of Anderson or Bresnan anywhere, but because people were discussing the matter at hand (Shoaib) you threw you arms in the air and pointed the finger towards English players.
One of which was completely irrelevant and had been discussed on the forum several times over, including discussions you were involved in. So you knew full well what Anderson was doing, yet still tried to accuse him of ball tampering.


Irony alarm went of the scale. As if you'd notice anything that didn't support your argument/degraded Pakistan unless it smashed you in the face.

We were talking about ball tempering and precisely how pictures can be deceptive. Especially in Bresnan's pic. How is it deflecting attention from the core issues?

Moreover, why is Shoaib being discussed in a Darrell Hair thread? like no other bowler had any issues with ball tempering. Yes i have a problem with this b.s. that keeps on talking about Pakistani bowlers and ball tempering. Others have done it too which is hardly discussed with such frequency.

 

[Sanz]

A history of what, precisely?
(cue baseless allegations of bias and racism...)

History of behaving in heave handed manner.

Nerves of steel and a heart of flint | Specials | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

 

[Faisal1985]

According to this article, although he had by that point never been called for throwing, his action had been cited as suspicious in three series by three separate ICC match referees. Muralitharan.Org - Muthiah Muralidaran - Muttiah Muralitharan

At the end of the day [ie the day's play when Hair called Murali at the MCG] the ICC moved swiftly, requesting Sri Lanka to take 'corrective action' to save Muralidaran's career. The game's ruling body issued a statement from London which seemed to support Hair... ICC chairman Sir Clyde Walcott outlined two years of official concerns. These revealed that in 1993 ICC referee Peter Burge had spoken to Sri Lankan cricket officials after expressing his suspicions about Muralidaran's delivery in a series against India; that ICC referee Barry Jarman had been so concerned by Muralidaran's action during the Sri Lankan tour of New Zealand in March 1995 that he had arranged for a slow motion video to be taken of the bowler's action and had this forwarded to the ICC... When Sri Lanka had played in a one-day series in Sharjah in early October umpires Hair, Dunne and Nigel Plews advised the ICC referee Raman Subba Row of their concerns. As a result further footage of Muralidaran was taken and passed on to the Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka (BCCSL).

Regardless of suspicions, concerns, etc etc. Who called the no ball at the end of the day? Not the ones being suspicious or concerned. Why?

 

[silentstriker]

Good riddance the **** is gone. Self aggrandizing biased arrogant prick. Thought he was an integral to the game as much as players. Newsflash douchebag: hold the hats, give out LBWs and be happy that cricket remains backward enough to hold your position in such high regard.

Cant believe anyone would think the game was better with him than without him.