Ball-Tampering Hearing

[C_C]

But he did have evidence to back it up: the ball, him and Doctrove. Madugale said the condition of the ball was equally consistent with tampering or normal wear and tear, so the evidence wasn't dodgy.

I've highlighted the meat of your statement there.
Which states 'the ball was equally consistent with tampering or normal wear and tear'.
This suggests an inconclusive judgement on the ball and therefore the conclusion of tampering was formed outside of absolute certainty - a certainty Hair is more than competent to guage. Therefore, the conclusion rested on dodgy 'evidence'.
And that, is the bottomline.

But what possible agenda would he have? To kill off his own career?

I would request Top_Cat, with his esteemed views on criminal or boderline activity- on whether this line of resoning is both correct and with precedence.
And if he is unvailable, i'd highly lean on the idea it isnt.
'What motive can i have ? shoot my career in the foot' is a cry raised by every single person on the spot- except it overlooks the basic common FACT that people often let their prejudices get the better of them and the more successful you are (ie, more towering your ego), the more liable you are to think you are gonna get away with it. Prejudice by its very definition is insanity. As such, trying to look for sanity inside that insanity would be fruitless. Many people have shot their careers on the foot donning a KKK mask and getting exposed for it. Some were lawyers, some were magistrates, some were governors. You'd think if this line of reasoning that you are presenting, reflected the reality out there, all criminals would be high school dropouts.

Hair's a contrary figure I don't doubt that but I guess I just find it hard to go the extra stretch and say "he's a racist" You can't just say a bloke's a racist when his job is to enforce the rules as he sees them.

I asked a question, to which i am yet to get a straight answer.
You view this incident all on its own just like every single incident Hair has been embroiled over. You got all the dots but are unwilling to connect the lines.
So i will ask you again : If a person's 'disciplining' record reflects the oerwhelming skewing against ONE demographics- with repeated cases proving the said person to be in error, is not a credible line of thought to assess a person's inclinations or ideas about universal sufferage, what exactly is ?
Can you please tell me, what is the precedent, what is the line of argument and what is the criterias needed beyond that of patternistic behaviour of incorrect victimisations-most of them overruled by higher authorities, to conclude that a person IS prejudiced ?

Even the Pakistani Board aren't saying that

Since when do we use the line of thought that a public corporation takes the 'honourable' route over the 'compromise that keeps the money flowing' ?
This has no bearing in a discussion of whether Hair has ulterior motives or not.

I'm just saying that you cannot on one hand demand an umpire be absolutely sure before calling a player's integrity into question then on the other call an umpire's into question unless we can be absolutely sure that what is alleged is true.

Not quite true.
You see, i am no lawyer here-so please feel free to correct me - but the two examples are not analogous.
For in one case, the evidence for or against is of a tangiable nature and in the other it isnt.
You would find that in a court of law (atleast, in a Canadian one), your patternistic behaviour is quite sufficient grounds to question your standing on an ideology(racism or prejudice of one kind or another in this example), once allied with credible medical opinion.
So you see, i am following the benchmark standard for each scenario.
In a court of law one needs to demonstrate patternistic behaviour allied with credible medical opinion to question a person's moral compass, by whatever arbitary moral guideline we draw up.
In a court of law, vandalism (closest analogy i can think of to tampering with a ball in a civic context is vandalising state property) needs to be, however, backed up by categoric and decisive evidence since the evidence in this case, both for and/or against, is of a tangiable nature.

 

[C_C]

What did everyone expect?

Only evidence was a ball with no comparison between finished condition and that of even a few deliveries earlier.

On that basis, was always going to be inconclusive and Inzy was always going to get a minimal slap on the wrist.

Mate, the only one with the slap on his wrist is the guy who incompetently jumped to a conclusion, like the precedence he has set for his incompetence in this sphere over the past in a very patternistic way. The very same guy, who tried to get a pay off from his bosses and basically make money without working when he knows he's bolloxed up. So please, spare me your spiel.

 

[Slow Love™]

C_C, can you itemise Hair's offences against the subcontinental teams, vs his offences against non-subcontinental teams?

EDIT: Actually, anybody's welcome to do it.

 

[C_C]

C_C, can you itemise Hair's offences against the subcontinental teams, vs his offences against non-subcontinental teams?

Not immediately, no. This exhaustive task would require hours of research from my part to detail every single of his offences- either involving his competency with applying the playing laws or the laws pertaining to conduct on the field (and tampering falls under that, too).

However, if you do wish to categorically challenge my assessment "t it reflects a distinctive pattern in his upholding the rule against one said demographic population", i will undertake this exhaustive venture over the next few weeks.
Please note: a patternistic behaviour is simply the mean denisty line of a statistical sample space. Ie, individual examples on either side of this 'mean pattern' exist and therefore, simply quoting an instance of his behaviour lying on the 'other side' of the line does not negate the existance of the said line.(providing an instance of him fining a Saffie player does not credibly negate the assessment.

PS: Can i please have an answer to my initial question of : " Can you please tell me, what is the precedent, what is the line of argument and what is the criterias needed beyond that of patternistic behaviour of incorrect victimisations-most of them overruled by higher authorities, to conclude that a person IS prejudiced and therefore, bar the said man from performing his acts with further incompetence in future ?"
I am curious about what you think is admissible and inadmisible lines of thought in an argument pertaining to a person's moral compass, since i know for a fact that in my country of residence-a model free western nation to some- patternistic behaviour allied with credible medical opinion is sufficient grounds to judge a person's state of mind or moral compass on a given issue.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

That would make interesting reading C_C if you can be arsed.

 

[C_C]

That would make interesting reading C_C if you can be arsed.

Even if i bothered, it would be ultimately an exercise in futility and controversy. For i can tell you right now what would follow : first the argument would be that the list isnt exhaustive and thus, tailormade to suit the argument regardless of the objective reality. Once that argument is credibly extinguished-if it can be extinguished that is- the next allegation would be in the nature of " that lbw shout was a good one and you are misrepresenting the facts".

But i think there is atleast enough grounds to suggest that the overwhelming majority of Hair's disciplinary actions has categorically been against subcontinental teams and he's been categorically dismissed on multiple occasions for being in error.
For the said cases of his disciplinary actions and actions involving a player's integrity are fairly high profile ones for the most part.

 

[Slow Love™]

Not immediately, no. This exhaustive task would require hours of research from my part to detail every single of his offences- either involving his competency with applying the playing laws or the laws pertaining to conduct on the field (and tampering falls under that, too).

However, if you do wish to categorically challenge my assessment "t it reflects a distinctive pattern in his upholding the rule against one said demographic population", i will undertake this exhaustive venture over the next few weeks.
Please note: a patternistic behaviour is simply the mean denisty line of a statistical sample space. Ie, individual examples on either side of this 'mean pattern' exist and therefore, simply quoting an instance of his behaviour lying on the 'other side' of the line does not negate the existance of the said line.(providing an instance of him fining a Saffie player does not credibly negate the assessment.

PS: Can i please have an answer to my initial question of : " Can you please tell me, what is the precedent, what is the line of argument and what is the criterias needed beyond that of patternistic behaviour of incorrect victimisations-most of them overruled by higher authorities, to conclude that a person IS prejudiced and therefore, bar the said man from performing his acts with further incompetence in future ?"
I am curious about what you think is admissible and inadmisible lines of thought in an argument pertaining to a person's moral compass, since i know for a fact that in my country of residence-a model free western nation to some- patternistic behaviour allied with credible medical opinion is sufficient grounds to judge a person's state of mind or moral compass on a given issue.

Well, if you've got the time, it would be appreciated - of course, it's a request, not a demand.

I think many have their own suspicions perhaps re: Hair, but I think it's one thing to wonder, and another to indict, and I think you're being a bit unintentionally ironic in your clamouring for conclusive evidence in this case, while hanging Hair by the racist noose without that much.

In truth, I think we are probably not talking about enough incidents. My intention isn't to exonerate Hair, but I think much of the ferocity of these allegations dates back to the Murali affair, and I think that Hair's correctness on that call is more than debateable.

I'm not ruling it out - I just think that if you are going to allege that it's a fact, you ought to actually make the argument. I had a conversation with Faaip a while back which implied to me that some would find it nearly impossible to call someone a racist unless they self-identified as one - so I'm sympathetic to the fact that at some point, an observable pattern of behaviour must suffice (it's certainly the way it gets policed in general) but that was based on a premise of unquestionable, demonstrable bias. I don't know that this case has unquestionably been made in Hair's case, particularly given that South Africa seem to have had serious issues with him over time as well, and his inflexibility is something of a character trait in general.

I would suggest that in this instance he was prejudicial, in that he believed that because it was Pakistan, and he's had issues with them before (and they have been accused frequently of ball-tampering), the state of the ball clearly indicated foul play. The question that has to be asked is, supposing the situation was the same, and it was Australia, would he have made that same call, without seeing anybody directly tamper with it. Making calls on the basis of that kind of likelihood is IMO, very bad practice, for what I think are obvious reasons. But it doesn't necessarily make him a racist.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Good point. And yes I can't imagine Hair suspiciously turning around to closely watch McGrath or Flintoff working on the ball as he did with the Pak bowlers at the Oval.

 

[C_C]

I had a conversation with Faaip a while back which implied to me that some would find it nearly impossible to call someone a racist unless they self-identified as one

Perhaps that is the case down under. However, as i said, in my country of residence, the existance of a pattern in your judgements that supports the allegations, once ratified by a medical authority, is grounds enough to judge your moral compass by the standard set.
Precedence exists on this too - People hae been dismissed from their jobs and sometimes even jailed on the back of patternistic evidence (ratified medically) that shows you guilty of unfair exploitation or victimisation.

I don't know that this case has unquestionably been made in Hair's case, particularly given that South Africa seem to have had serious issues with him over time as well, and his inflexibility is something of a character trait in general.

I wouldnt qualify my comments against him as a categoric case-to make one would require a lot more exhaustive work. I am more inclined to think of it as a preliminary hearing.

, the state of the ball clearly indicated foul play

That is false. Madugalle came to the conclusion that, whether the wear and tear of ball was due to human interference or due to natural course of events, is underterminable.
Ie, it did not clearly indicate foul play and that is the fundamental point on which the verdict rests.

But it doesn't necessarily make him a racist.

Okay. Say for a moment you are right. But can you then, please say what are the lines of thought and nature of evidence required to judge a person as racist ?
You mean to say that if my school principal has a record of detaining 90% of Armenian kids after school, when the overall demographics of the school is far more diverse, is not grounds enough to conclude his/her bias against Armenian children, simply because he/she didnt openly admit that they are racist ?
If so, then i disagree utterly with suh a definition or benchmark that is fundamentally flawed since it can never be reached in reality without admission of guilt. And any legal system that exonerates someone simply because they failed to confess a crime is, in my opinion, fundamentally flawed.

 

[social]

Mate, the only one with the slap on his wrist is the guy who incompetently jumped to a conclusion, like the precedence he has set for his incompetence in this sphere over the past in a very patternistic way. The very same guy, who tried to get a pay off from his bosses and basically make money without working when he knows he's bolloxed up. So please, spare me your spiel.

Huh?

One guy has had his career ended and the other has had the absolute minimum penalty imposed for being found GUILTY as charged.

U tell me who got the slap on the wrist.

 

[Slow Love™]

Perhaps that is the case down under. However, as i said, in my country of residence, the existance of a pattern in your judgements that supports the allegations, once ratified by a medical authority, is grounds enough to judge your moral compass by the standard set.
Precedence exists on this too - People hae been dismissed from their jobs and sometimes even jailed on the back of patternistic evidence (ratified medically) that shows you guilty of unfair exploitation or victimisation.

Needlessly inflammatory. That wasn't the point. Either you're reading my post too quickly, or you're just not bothering.

That is false. Madugalle came to the conclusion that, whether the wear and tear of ball was due to human interference or due to natural course of events, is underterminable.
Ie, it did not clearly indicate foul play and that is the fundamental point on which the verdict rests.

For ****'s sake, you just completely removed the context of this statement. I didn't say it was foul play. Please read the post and pay attention to what I'm saying.

Okay. Say for a moment you are right. But can you then, please say what are the lines of thought and nature of evidence required to judge a person as racist ?
You mean to say that if my school principal has a record of detaining 90% of Armenian kids after school, when the overall demographics of the school is far more diverse, is not grounds enough to conclude his/her bias against Armenian children, simply because he/she didnt openly admit that they are racist ?
If so, then i disagree utterly with suh a definition or benchmark that is fundamentally flawed since it can never be reached in reality without admission of guilt. And any legal system that exonerates someone simply because they failed to confess a crime is, in my opinion, fundamentally flawed.

This is stupid. The truth is we don't have a rulebook in this regard, we use common sense. Of course, an established pattern of behaviour can make a case. I have never disputed that, and in fact, in the conversation I cited, that was my friggin' point!

What I am asking if for you, or somebody to actually make a case if you're going to act like it's somehow proven that Hair's a racist. All I ever see is people acting as if it goes without saying. Make the bloody argument.

 

[C_C]

Needlessly inflammatory. That wasn't the point. Either you're reading my post too quickly, or you're just not bothering.

Didnt mean it to be inflamatory. Was commenting on the possibility that laws in Australia work differently than in Canada, given that you have some very credible source ( i respect Faaip's legal knowledge in Aussie matter at the very least) suggesting that, down under, one cannot be accused of conduct unfitting of one to be a believer of univeral sufferage, short of admission of guilt. In Canada, that is quite obviously not the case and thats what i was conveying.

What I am asking if for you, or somebody to actually make a case if you're going to act like it's somehow proven that Hair's a racist.

Will do. I request a few weeks to dig through the archives and compose an exhaustive list of Hair's delivery of punitive measures - if such information is accessible.

 

[nightprowler10]

What I am asking if for you, or somebody to actually make a case if you're going to act like it's somehow proven that Hair's a racist. All I ever see is people acting as if it goes without saying. Make the bloody argument.

The term 'racist' is thrown around a lot these days over every little thing. Of course we don't know exactly what was going through the empty gap between his ears, for all we know he is the racist of the worst kind, but there just isn't enough evidence to suggest that. The evidence we do have suggests that he is an incompetent umpire and an attention whore.

 

[Matt79]

I'm very disappointed in the verdict today. Not because I think Madugalle got the verdict wrong - its seems clear no that there isn't the level of evidence required to sustain the charge that Inzi & team were cheating.

I'm disappointed because I had been prepared to accord Hair quite a bit of respect,and the benefit of the doubt. The verdict has therefore disappointed me because it seems some of that faith was misplaced.

I feel bad for Hair because he clearly felt that his job was to officiate the rules, in a black and white manner, before any othe consideration. While he might be pig-headed about this sometimes, I think he honestly does his best to do so. What he has shown that he doesn't understand is the level of both sensitivity and evidence you need when you level a charge of cheating.

He was failed by the system with the Murali incident - there was no system in place for Hair to act on what he saw as a infringement of the rules but to no-ball Muttiah in a match, based only on his own vision. Thankfully that situation has been addressed.

Here he let himself down by not making sure he properly documented evidence of what he felt was occuring before making an accusation, and by not handling the situation with any tact or common-sense.

I had hoped he would have definite evidence, given how bluntly he acted. Alas that was not the case, and therefore his credibilty, and by extension the standing of all umpires is damaged. How severely remains to be seen.

 

[Slow Love™]

Didnt mean it to be inflamatory. Was commenting on the possibility that laws in Australia work differently than in Canada, given that you have some very credible source ( i respect Faaip's legal knowledge in Aussie matter at the very least) suggesting that, down under, one cannot be accused of conduct unfitting of one to be a believer of univeral sufferage, short of admission of guilt. In Canada, that is quite obviously not the case and thats what i was conveying.

We weren't really arguing on legal terms. We were operating on a hypothetical premise that Hair had shown a demonstrable bias against all subcontinental players, in all situations. My point was that this would probably be enough for me to call him a racist. Faaip's point was that you can't simply accuse someone of racism based on the race of the victim.

I would say you can in that instance, because having a demonstrable pattern of such bias would suffice in most cases (as in the workplace, or similar), so it should be enough in this instance - unless the only way you would consider the charge substantiated would be for somebody to self-identify (which obviously, isn't the only way the charge is made in practical terms). Having say, just a demonstrable bias against Pakistan, or India, or whatever, wouldn't do it - but IMO, all subcontinental players in all situations would appear fairly indicting.

Will do. I request a few weeks to dig through the archives and compose an exhaustive list of Hair's delivery of punitive measures - if such information is accessible.

That would be cool. But you don't have to ask for time from me - like I said, it's a request, not a demand. But I'd like somebody to actually bother.

 

[C_C]

We weren't really arguing on legal terms. We were operating on a hypothetical premise that Hair had shown a demonstrable bias against all subcontinental players, in all situations. My point was that this would probably be enough for me to call him a racist. Faaip's point was that you can't simply accuse someone of racism based on the race of the victim.

I would say you can in that instance, because having a demonstrable pattern of such bias would suffice in most cases (as in the workplace, or similar), so it should be enough in this instance - unless the only way you would consider the charge substantiated would be for somebody to self-identify (which obviously, isn't the only way the charge is made in practical terms). Having say, just a demonstrable bias against Pakistan, or India, or whatever, wouldn't do it - but IMO, all subcontinental players in all situations would appear fairly indicting.

Okay, i get the gist of the picture now. However, i wasnt potting OZ in that comment as you thought- your quoting Faaip's convo in very short did convey an impression to me that laws on this matter works differently down under than up here in iglooville. And not that it would be surprising - its not like laws dont vary slightly in their applications in various countries.

That would be cool. But you don't have to ask for time from me - like I said, it's a request, not a demand. But I'd like somebody to actually bother.

Understood and thank you for making it a request instead of a demand.

 

[C_C]

Huh?

One guy has had his career ended and the other has had the absolute minimum penalty imposed for being found GUILTY as charged.

U tell me who got the slap on the wrist.

Actually, by legal standards, Inzy got the rough end of the stick.
For in legal precedence, if the main charge is thrown out (as was the case againt Inzy), the secondary charge are almost invariably dropped completely.
If you punch a cop because he beat your hiney to a pulp and the court found him wrong for laying the beatdown on you, your act of hitting a cop would almost invariably draw zero penalty.

 

[Slow Love™]

Okay, i get the gist of the picture now. However, i wasnt potting OZ in that comment as you thought- your quoting Faaip's convo in very short did convey an impression to me that laws on this matter works differently down under than up here in iglooville. And not that it would be surprising - its not like laws dont vary slightly in their applications in various countries.

Fair enough, yeah, I did take it as a shot at OZ. Believe it or not, we're a reasonably decent country - if a little less so since the rise of the Poison Dwarf.

 

[C_C]

Fair enough, yeah, I did take it as a shot at OZ. Believe it or not, we're a reasonably decent country - if a little less so since the rise of the Poison Dwarf.

????


PS: i consider Australia to be one of the better places to live around the world. However, i find that many people (not saying you) somehow lose the distinction between the past and the present. For example, when i talk about europeans being a big bunch of taleban-minded people in the crusade era, it is somehow taken as a potshot against europeans today.

 

[Craig]

Violence is never appropriate - especially when in response to something as trivial as sports.

I think Hair should never umpire again, but I am saddened that some people will resort to violence over a sporting issue. I think, just to spite them, I'd have Hair umpire matches in India. You can't give into violence threats.

The way I look at it is these people who make threats of violence to all sports people and officials from any country can not call themselves fans of that sport.