Darrell Hair

[Himannv]

I’m very uncomfortable with the allegations of racism/bias against umpires. As Zaremba states, umpires make mistakes because they're human. That doesn't mean they're racist. Let’s take the case of the subject of this thread, Mr. Hair. Personally, I think he’s a complete and utter ****. Egotistical to the max and has a combination of God and martyr complex. However, I don’t think he’s racist. He tended to get into controversies because he enjoyed the spotlight (IMHO of course). It just happened to be that the controversies during his time revolved around the sub-continental players. Therefore, even though he was technically a very competent umpire, he nevertheless needed to be kicked out of the game.

Along with making the right calls, umpires also need to possess common sense. Something that Hair was lacking. The best of umpires should not be noticed at all. Their job is to simply make the decisions and let the players have the spotlight. When the ump decides that he needs to be as big a headline in next day’s newspaper as a Tendulkar or Warne, we have a problem. I for one am mighty glad that Hair is no longer part of the game.

Agree completely. Good post.

 

[Sanz]

This is where I take issue because Hair was absolutely 100% correct according to the rules of the game

Why ?

 

[tombarlow123]

I’m very uncomfortable with the allegations of racism/bias against umpires. As Zaremba states, umpires make mistakes because they're human. That doesn't mean they're racist. Let’s take the case of the subject of this thread, Mr. Hair. Personally, I think he’s a complete and utter ****. Egotistical to the max and has a combination of God and martyr complex. However, I don’t think he’s racist. He tended to get into controversies because he enjoyed the spotlight (IMHO of course). It just happened to be that the controversies during his time revolved around the sub-continental players. Therefore, even though he was technically a very competent umpire, he nevertheless needed to be kicked out of the game.

Along with making the right calls, umpires also need to possess common sense. Something that Hair was lacking. The best of umpires should not be noticed at all. Their job is to simply make the decisions and let the players have the spotlight. When the ump decides that he needs to be as big a headline in next day’s newspaper as a Tendulkar or Warne, we have a problem. I for one am mighty glad that Hair is no longer part of the game.

YEEES! I am delighted that there is some sense in the world. Tbh that post should pretty much end this discussion with it being so bang on. But it won't...

 

[BoyBrumby]

Why ?

Law 21.

3. Umpires awarding a match

(a) A match shall be lost by a side which
either (i) concedes defeat
or (ii) in the opinion of the umpires refuses to play
and the umpires shall award the match to the other side.

(b) If an umpire considers that an action by any player or players might constitute a refusal by either side to play then the umpires together shall ascertain the cause of the action. If they then decide together that this action does constitute a refusal to play by one side, they shall so inform the captain of that side. If the captain persists in the action the umpires shall award the match in accordance with (a)(ii) above.

 

[zaremba]

There is enough information on the web, suggesting that Doctrove was willing to come out but it was Hair who refused.

Umpire Darrell Hair says ECB officials escalated ball-tampering row | Sport | The Guardian

Here is David Morgan :-

"Everybody in a formal meeting decided that they wanted the game to continue on the final day, but Mr Hair was clearly unprepared to do so, Mr Hair's response was: 'If you send me out you'll make a monkey out of me.'"

Morgan added that Hair's fellow umpire, the West Indian Billy Doctrove, had said: "I can't do it without Darrell."

Fair enough.

But that refusal to re-start the match isn't the whole story. In my view it's pretty hard to dispute that it was reasonable to refuse to re-start a match that had already been forfeited, even though some other umpires might (perhaps reasonably) have bent the rules and pretended that the forfeit had never happened.

Moreover you rely on "Hair's failure to recognize his mistake earlier in the field which caused the whole incident in the first hand" in your other post and in doing so you continue to ignore the part that Billy Doctrove played in that decision. They both formed the opinion that the condition of the ball had been altered; they both formed the opinion that Pakistan were refusing to play; and they both decided that the match was therefore forfeited by Pakistan. If those were the "mistakes which caused the whole incident", the responsibility lies with Doctrove and Hair in precisely equal measures.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

I think this is the point though, neither of the teams get to decide when they play and when they don't. That decision rests with the officials. Pakistan took the decision not to return to the field in this instance, and they suffered for it.

You can't refuse to take the field, and then 30 minutes later go, 'Oh, ok then, we'll play'. That's never your decision to begin with.

As for him calling Murali, umpires were supposed to call players they suspected of throwing, so that's what he did. Whether or not Murali was later proven to have a legitimate action is irrelevant. And anyone saying they knew he didn't throw or who can honestly say his action didn't look suspect is having a lend of themselves I think.

 

[zaremba]

I think this is the point though, neither of the teams get to decide when they play and when they don't. That decision rests with the officials. Pakistan took the decision not to return to the field in this instance, and they suffered for it.

You can't refuse to take the field, and then 30 minutes later go, 'Oh, ok then, we'll play'. That's never your decision to begin with.

As for him calling Murali, umpires were supposed to call players they suspected of throwing, so that's what he did. Whether or not Murali was later proven to have a legitimate action is irrelevant. And anyone saying they knew he didn't throw or who can honestly say his action didn't look suspect is having a lend of themselves I think.

I agree with this. Playing devil's advocate, though, I'm not entirely sure that a decision such as Alvin Kallicharran being reinstated (having been run out in dastardly fashion by Tony Greig, and having been given out by the umpire) fell squarely within the Laws, but nonetheless most people would regard it as having been a good decision to take. Which is why it might have been reasonable to restart the game at the Oval. But even if restarting might have been reasonable, it doesn't follow that Hair's stance in not restarting was unreasonable. Which is why I don't think that Pakistan had any cause for complaint about the decision not to restart the match.

 

[Sanz]

Law 21.

3. Umpires awarding a match

(a) A match shall be lost by a side which
either (i) concedes defeat
or (ii) in the opinion of the umpires refuses to play
and the umpires shall award the match to the other side.

(b) If an umpire considers that an action by any player or players might constitute a refusal by either side to play then the umpires together shall ascertain the cause of the action. If they then decide together that this action does constitute a refusal to play by one side, they shall so inform the captain of that side. If the captain persists in the action the umpires shall award the match in accordance with (a)(ii) above.

I guess Social was talking about Darell's decision to charge Pakistan of ball tampering and award five runs penalty to England

 

[zaremba]

I guess Social was talking about Darell's decision to charge Pakistan of ball tampering and award five runs penalty to England

Quit trolling, please. You are well aware that this is a misrepresentation of the truth, for reasons I've pointed out a number of times, and the only reason I can imagine that you keep repeating it is that you want to raise the temperature of this discussion. It really isn't helpful, and it's getting irritating.

 

[Sanz]

But that refusal to re-start the match isn't the whole story. In my view it's pretty hard to dispute that it was reasonable to refuse to re-start a match that had already been forfeited, even though some other umpires might (perhaps reasonably) have bent the rules and pretended that the forfeit had never happened.

That's your opinion and I disagree with you that "It was reasonable to refuse to restart".

Moreover you rely on "Hair's failure to recognize his mistake earlier in the field which caused the whole incident in the first hand" in your other post and in doing so you continue to ignore the part that Billy Doctrove played in that decision. They both formed the opinion that the condition of the ball had been altered; they both formed the opinion that Pakistan were refusing to play; and they both decided that the match was therefore forfeited by Pakistan. If those were the "mistakes which caused the whole incident", the responsibility lies with Doctrove and Hair in precisely equal measures.

Doctrove, as written in his match report on the incident, was initially of the opinion that the umpires allow play to carry on for a few more overs to help identify the cause of the change in the ball's condition.

Despite the decision of forfeiture, Doctrove was willing to restart the match, Hair was not.

It was Hair, Not Doctrove, who asked to change the ball and awarded the penalty of five runs to England.

That was Doctrove's part. Despite being new to the Elite panel, he showed a lot more maturity than his Sr. colleague.

 

[Jacknife]

So, you mean this is the actual issue eh?

Hope i don't get sued for defamation now.

Faisal,I think your letting your self down here mate, you can clearly see that Bresnan's placing the ball into his 2 fingers of his bowling hand,go and watch videos of him bowl, he places the ball in his hand the same way each time.I saw this posted by someone on pakpassion and couldn't stop laughing at such a failed attempt by someone to deflect the pictures the newspaper took onto a England player.Apart from anything else, why would he be raising the seam on a brand new ball,Pakistan haven't scored a run yet,he opened the bowling.FAIL.

 

[Sanz]

Quit trolling, please. You are well aware that this is a misrepresentation of the truth, for reasons I've pointed out a number of times, and the only reason I can imagine that you keep repeating it is that you want to raise the temperature of this discussion. It really isn't helpful, and it's getting irritating.

Only person who is trying to raise the heat in this discussion is you. What I am saying is common knowledge which you continue to ignore and read what you want to believe.

 

[zaremba]

This thread was never going to end well. Sigh.

 

[Jarquis]

Only person who is trying to raise the heat in this discussion is you. What I am saying is common knowledge which you continue to ignore and read what you want to believe.

Serious, between them, Brumby and Z have literally spelt out the sequence of events to you, yet you still can't grasp it.
Baffling.

 

[sledger]

It's almost like we've never seen this before...

 

[Lostman]

As for him calling Murali, umpires were supposed to call players they suspected of throwing, so that's what he did.

No, No ,No. This was changed in 1995, but Hair didn't think he needed to follow this.
This was the whole point of why Ranatunga led the SL players off the field.

As for Hair being vilified for calling Murali and losing his job is some absolute ****ing garbage.
The man got a nice book deal for his actions, and he still umpired in international fixtures including SL games after this.
He got $ as well as the attention he craved I don't see how this hurt his career.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Didn't Ranatunga lead his players off the field after Emerson called him in an ODI, rather than in the Test match when Hair called him?

 

[Faisal1985]

I think this is the point though, neither of the teams get to decide when they play and when they don't. That decision rests with the officials. Pakistan took the decision not to return to the field in this instance, and they suffered for it.

You can't refuse to take the field, and then 30 minutes later go, 'Oh, ok then, we'll play'. That's never your decision to begin with.

As for him calling Murali, umpires were supposed to call players they suspected of throwing, so that's what he did. Whether or not Murali was later proven to have a legitimate action is irrelevant. And anyone saying they knew he didn't throw or who can honestly say his action didn't look suspect is having a lend of themselves I think.

I have a problem with this. A huge one...

Why is the out come of hearings after irrelevant?

Hair on both occasions, Murali and Pak incident made a huge judgement call. Essentially both of cheating. 1 by calling no ball hence, concluding that Murali throws. Second, claiming Pak tempered with the ball, hence calling cheat. Both occasions, he was found wrong and the evidence proved otherwise. Why is this not important in all this? He is declaring people cheats on the field, penalizing them and then being proven wrong entirely.

The question to ask is. Was he acting in good faith while making these calls. IMO, the answer is no, he was not acting in good faith by any means. He was abusing his powers and creating illegitimate calls based on whatever reason, spotlight, center of attention, biased...etc etc. people can have opinion about this. But there is no way in hell he was acting in good faith for the game as the final results of his calls showed.

 

[Lostman]

Didn't Ranatunga lead his players off the field after Emerson called him in an ODI, rather than in the Test match when Hair called him?

He threatened to do this in 1995, after Hair started calling Murali after an ends change. There were quite a few stoppages in play for this. I don't think they would have taken the field the next day if Murali was going to be called again as well.

 

[Cruxdude]

What Hair did might have been within the rues but if they had come back and played a lot of tension could have been defused, but he refused because of his ego. That was a mistake on his part.

Also I don't remember any other game where 5 runs penalty was handed over for ball tampering even though there have been many cases of ball tampering. Billy Doctrove was indeed on the field at ths point but all the articles sourced here seem to indicate that he was just following Hair the senior official.

If te game had continued this wouldn't have been such a big issue.