BREAKING NEWS: Hair removed from the Elite Panel

[social]

False.
Murali was charged with throwing- a charge made categorically irrelevant and thus inapplicable by scientific evidence- which , if you pardon my insolence, you neither have a clue about it and nor are you in any position to dispute this statement of mine.

If you are gonna latch on to the oh-so-predictable 'he does have a bend in his elbow' clause, surely, you are not dim enough to overlook the idea that castigating someone for doing something that everyone is doing translates into victimisation.



Nothing more than denial here, i see.



All the more reason someone with questionable ethics and overall poor competence shouldnt venture beyond the village cricket level.



Invalid and inapplicable.
Umpiring pressures and personalitie have undergone significant changes in the last 10 years or so, essentially with commercialisation of cricket. Dickie Bird's experience of umpiring is no more relevant to this discussion than WG Grace's experience in being a cricketer in a conversation discussing cricketer's experiences.



You clinically avoid the nexus argument against Hair, so i will bottomline it out for you once and for all.
Hair is the 'judge' in this scenario. He has to make decisions based on evidence presented to properly execute his job. However, judges themselves are accountable to the processes and credibility of their verdicts are open for contestation- otherwise they wouldnt be judges, they'd be dictators. Clearly, a term that is not intended to be synonymous or cricketing equivalent of umpires. As such, Hair's judgement has been proven erroneous. Further, he had highly ambiguous grounds to've persued such an accusation. True, umpires have their personal discretion of accusing someone of tampering or throwing. Just like you have the right to file a case against anyone. However, your case needs some basic minimum circumstantial evidence, at the very least, to be even lodged and even if it qualifies under the abovementioned terms, it can still be nullified.
As such, Hair was free to charge anyone with anything. Which he did. Since he was free to charge, his charges were entertained. However, since he had very little to account for due processes or credible decisionmaking, he now bears the reponsibility of his irresponsible act.
Ie, in short, if you charge someone with a serious crime without any grounds, you leave yourself open to- and rightly so, i might add- to counter-charges of defamation, incompetence and hidden agendas.
Hair is guilty precisely of that.
He isnt a scapegoat- he is someone who should've been a goner a long long time ago.
He has an obligation to not abuse his authority- which he has in this case.
I hope this make it clear for you.

Besides, personal descretion has always carried hindsight perspective as an inescapable companion. If you 'call' something and you are wrong, you take the fall for it. Period. Such is the nature of personal descretion or any decision making job where a credible, verifiable and logical chain of decisionmaking cannot be evaluated. If you 'think' someone is cheating and follow your hunch- you pay the consequences for your 'hunch' being wrong.

Sorry C_C, but absolute nonsense.

Hair called Murali for throwing and every single piece of evidence collected confirms his opinion

The "trial" for ball tampering was a joke

The "prosecution" (Hair) brought 11 expert witnesses including the 2 umpires, the match referee, the "fourth umpire" and scientists

The "defence" (Pakistan) called 2 journalists and a former umpire who was not present at the match

The "judge" (Madugalle) refused to hear any evidence other than that gleaned from a one-off inspection of a ball wrapped in plastic.

Naturally, everyone deemed the evidence to be inconclusive because there was no control sample, no video evidence and no credence given to the umpires' testimony

As a result, the charge was dismissed.

Hair was rail-roaded, pure and simple

If not for the very, very, very remote chance that the payout would somehow find its' way into the hands of people who help develop young cricketers, I have no qualms about saying that I hope Hair gets an absolutely massive cheque form a thoroughly corrupt organising body

 

[C_C]

Hair called Murali for throwing and every single piece of evidence collected confirms his opinion

I urge you to read this part of my previous post carefully :

If you are gonna latch on to the oh-so-predictable 'he does have a bend in his elbow' clause, surely, you are not dim enough to overlook the idea that castigating someone for doing something that everyone is doing translates into victimisation. <addendum> And i am sure you realise that the charge of victimisation ( punishing someone for a crime while letting others openly in violation go) overrides almost every other charge outside of criminal jurisdiction, thereby, as i mentioned earlier, proving Hair's decision to be flawed nonetheless.

The "trial" for ball tampering was a joke

I disagree. It was a credible trial in my opinion.

The "judge" (Madugalle) refused to hear any evidence other than that gleaned from a one-off inspection of a ball wrapped in plastic.

I disagree. Madugalle considered all the evidence presented - which, if you are familiar with the definition of the word, you will find limits itself to only two possible sources : analysis of the ball and (depending on availability) video evidence.
The rest are opinions . Now, i highly doubt that Madugalle refused either party the proper opportunity to state their case, so i do think you are being frugal with the truth in claiming that he 'refused to hear any evidence'. In my opinion, Madugalle quite cogently drew a line seperating evidence from opinion in weighing out the scales.

Naturally, everyone deemed the evidence to be inconclusive because there was no control sample, no video evidence and no credence given to the umpires' testimony

Kind of redundant now but i will still mention it once again. From the highlighted parts in your sentence, i do believe that you are either unaware of or misusing the definitions to paint a completely false picture.

I have no qualms about saying that I hope Hair gets an absolutely massive cheque form a thoroughly corrupt organising body

I wouldnt protest too much if Hair is allowed to leave with his dignity intact. Pay him out i suppose. However, if that often incorrect person does make a big deal out of it, he should not be given a penny and reminded that being fired from the job for inappropriate use of authority does not qualify oneself for a payout.

 

[social]

I urge you to read this part of my previous post carefully :

If you are gonna latch on to the oh-so-predictable 'he does have a bend in his elbow' clause, surely, you are not dim enough to overlook the idea that castigating someone for doing something that everyone is doing translates into victimisation. <addendum> And i am sure you realise that the charge of victimisation ( punishing someone for a crime while letting others openly in violation go) overrides almost every other charge outside of criminal jurisdiction, thereby, as i mentioned earlier, proving Hair's decision to be flawed nonetheless.





I disagree. It was a credible trial in my opinion.



I disagree. Madugalle considered all the evidence presented - which, if you are familiar with the definition of the word, you will find limits itself to only two possible sources : analysis of the ball and (depending on availability) video evidence.
The rest are opinions . Now, i highly doubt that Madugalle refused either party the proper opportunity to state their case, so i do think you are being frugal with the truth in claiming that he 'refused to hear any evidence'. In my opinion, Madugalle quite cogently drew a line seperating evidence from opinion in weighing out the scales.




Kind of redundant now but i will still mention it once again. From the highlighted parts in your sentence, i do believe that you are either unaware of or misusing the definitions to paint a completely false picture.



I wouldnt protest too much if Hair is allowed to leave with his dignity intact. Pay him out i suppose. However, if that often incorrect person does make a big deal out of it, he should not be given a penny and reminded that being fired from the job for inappropriate use of authority does not qualify oneself for a payout.

In relation to Murali, Hair simply applied the laws of the game as they then stood and was indisputably correct.

The fact that later testing proved that virtually every bowler had some degree of flexion in their elbow, albeit invisible to the naked eye, is totally irrelevant.

The Oval incident is similarly clear-cut.

According to the laws of the game, Hair was correct.

There should never have been an "inquiry" at all - under the laws of the game, the incident should have finished with the umpires' (notice the plural) decision.

Given that there was a hearing, the only people qualified to make expert testimony were the umpires as they were the only ones party to all the facts. Unfortunately, the "judge" chose to totally ignore their testimony.

In any event, nothing will change the following:

For better or worse, Hair is gone;

He has been singled out as the culpible party thereby totally ignoring Doctrove and Procter's contribution;

Pakistan are still being warned for ball tampering; and

Australia is still by far the best team in the world.

Cricket loses, but can you tell me just who wins.

 

[marc71178]

Which is why a Kerry Packer is hailed as a supposedly saviour of cricket while a man who did far far more for cricket than Packer ( Dalmiya) is/was generally hated.

Erm, how do you work that one out then?

 

[Sanz]

This thread should be closed.

 

[marc71178]

Hair wasnt right in most of his high profile decisions- he was wrong about Murali and he had zero reasons to investigate Pakistan for ball tampering apart from prejudiced perspective putting Pakistan up on 'suspicious' list.

Except he was correct to call Murali under the laws in place at the time.

As for the zero reasons, I can only assume you saw the ball the last 2 times they checked it then, because I don't remember seeing anyone apart from the 2 umpires out there...

 

[C_C]

The fact that later testing proved that virtually every bowler had some degree of flexion in their elbow, albeit invisible to the naked eye, is totally irrelevant.

False.
It is totally relevant.
What it proved is that Hair was wrong to call Murali ( see addendum, previous post, about victimisation) and that he ( or other umpires) are not competent enough to call chucking in real time situations.

According to the laws of the game, Hair was correct.

Err no.
There are no 'laws of the game' involved in the steps you take to form the decision to charge someone with a fault and the validity of it. What Hair did fairly correctly, was exercise his power consistent with the methodology. What he did extremely incorrectly, was arrive at the decision to exercise the said power.

There should never have been an "inquiry" at all - under the laws of the game, the incident should have finished with the umpires' (notice the plural) decision.

Sorry but as i said, umpiring is not synonymous with dictatorships. An umpire's verdict that potentially threatens the career of a player is most definately grounds enough to evaluate the umpire himself/hereslf so that they do not abuse their powers.

the only people qualified to make expert testimony were the umpires as they were the only ones party to all the facts.

False.
Every individual present in that room were equally privvy to the facts - which are, as i said, analysis of the ball and video footage(if any). Rest are opinions that are inadmissible in a hearing where the umpire's credibility is at stake.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Except he was correct to call Murali under the laws in place at the time.

As for the zero reasons, I can only assume you saw the ball the last 2 times they checked it then, because I don't remember seeing anyone apart from the 2 umpires out there...

Yes, I have no problems with him calling Murali at that time. I would have called him too, and I now know he's ok after the testing. I think a lot of people like to apply the benefit of hindsight to that decision.

 

[C_C]

As for the zero reasons, I can only assume you saw the ball the last 2 times they checked it then, because I don't remember seeing anyone apart from the 2 umpires out there...

Err i do believe that the ball was analysed and presented at the hearing.

Erm, how do you work that one out then?

Quite simple really.
Both their contributions were in terms of economics of the game. So one takes your hot dog cart out by the park and turns it into a hot dog restaurant. Then another come along and turns your hot dog restaurant into a multinational hot dog restaurant chain. Pretty obvious where each person's contributions lie.

 

[social]

False.
It is totally relevant.
What it proved is that Hair was wrong to call Murali ( see addendum, previous post, about victimisation) and that he ( or other umpires) are not competent enough to call chucking in real time situations.



Err no.
There are no 'laws of the game' involved in the steps you take to form the decision to charge someone with a fault and the validity of it. What Hair did fairly correctly, was exercise his power consistent with the methodology. What he did extremely incorrectly, was arrive at the decision to exercise the said power.



Sorry but as i said, umpiring is not synonymous with dictatorships. An umpire's verdict that potentially threatens the career of a player is most definately grounds enough to evaluate the umpire himself/hereslf so that they do not abuse their powers.



False.
Every individual present in that room were equally privvy to the facts - which are, as i said, analysis of the ball and video footage(if any). Rest are opinions that are inadmissible in a hearing where the umpire's credibility is at stake.

C_C

Hair applied the existing laws correctly.

Take your argument up with Alim Dar on that one because he agrees with me.

 

[C_C]

C_C

Hair applied the existing laws correctly.

Take your argument up with Alim Dar on that one because he agrees with me.

It is not application of the laws for Pete's sake !
This isnt about following the law to the letter in the process of charging someone and following all the protocols involved. This is about whether the cause of the charge merited a charge. If you are arrogant and irresponsible enough to try and take out someone's career on non-existant rationale or cause simply because you can play the 'personal descretion' card, the price for that is your career gets nuked if you are wrong.
Hair had nothing more than personal descrition - a whim- to go by when he filed the charge. And he is correctly paying the price for such a whimsical action.

 

[social]

Erm, how do you work that one out then?

Dalmiya is regarded by his own countrymen as a pariah whilst virtually all modern day cricketers worship the ground on which Packer used to walk

C_C's devotion to that corrupt bastard is misplaced worship at its worst

 

[C_C]

Dalmiya is regarded by his own countrymen as a pariah whilst virtually all modern day cricketers worship the ground on which Packer used to walk

You will find that media management and PR is a wonderful thing. Opinions are irrelevant at the hand of the facts presented. Factually, it is undeniable that while Packer turned cricket from being worth a peon's salary to something far more respectable and sustainable, Dalmiya introduced the real cash into the equation. Essentially globalised cricket.

C_C's devotion to that corrupt bastard is misplaced worship at its worst

Every businessman, by definition, is a corrupt bastard. The moment you pull a contact for a deal, you are corrupt by definition ( as corruption is antithesis to meritocracy).
Levels the playing field out considerably there.

 

[social]

It is not application of the laws for Pete's sake !
This isnt about following the law to the letter in the process of charging someone and following all the protocols involved. This is about whether the cause of the charge merited a charge. If you are arrogant and irresponsible enough to try and take out someone's career on non-existant rationale or cause simply because you can play the 'personal descretion' card, the price for that is your career gets nuked if you are wrong.
Hair had nothing more than personal descrition - a whim- to go by when he filed the charge. And he is correctly paying the price for such a whimsical action.

Murali "threw" under the laws applicable at the time

He was absolutely the worst offender ever under the old laws and Hair was absolutely correct in calling him

You're obviously too young to remember the stir his "action" created at the time but there was nothing controversial about Hair's call other than the fact that no-one wanted to see it happen to anyone because it was a virtual death sentence as far as his career was concerned.

 

[C_C]

Murali "threw" under the laws applicable at the time

He was absolutely the worst offender ever under the old laws and Hair was absolutely correct in calling him

There is no credible basis on concluding the above highlighted part as it is a function of an illusion (and thereby, not a fact but fiction). Besides, my comment was addressing the ball tampering issue.

You're obviously too young to remember the stir his "action" created at the time but there was nothing controversial about Hair's call other than the fact that no-one wanted to see it happen to anyone because it was a virtual death sentence as far as his career was concerned.

Do not assume.
Hair was ultimately in error. Period. It was a notch in the mistake column-something he refused to learn from, given the remarkably stagnant (and non-existant) methodology he has in applying the laws.

 

[social]

There is no credible basis on concluding the above highlighted part as it is a function of an illusion (and thereby, not a fact but fiction). Besides, my comment was addressing the ball tampering issue.



Do not assume.
Hair was ultimately in error. Period. It was a notch in the mistake column-something he refused to learn from, given the remarkably stagnant (and non-existant) methodology he has in applying the laws.

No point going over old ground

It was never an illusion

His "birth defect" did not prevent him from straightening his arm

He is legal under the new laws but not the old

Move on

 

[social]

You will find that media management and PR is a wonderful thing. Opinions are irrelevant at the hand of the facts presented. Factually, it is undeniable that while Packer turned cricket from being worth a peon's salary to something far more respectable and sustainable, Dalmiya introduced the real cash into the equation. Essentially globalised cricket.



Every businessman, by definition, is a corrupt bastard. The moment you pull a contact for a deal, you are corrupt by definition ( as corruption is antithesis to meritocracy).
Levels the playing field out considerably there.

Dalmiya capitalised on a growing and increasingly wealthy sub-continental population.

However, his contribution to cricket could be summarised on the head of a pin

 

[C_C]

He is legal under the new laws but not the old

Move on

Nobody is or ever was legal under the old laws. As i said, read my commentary on the victimisation aspect again.

Dalmiya capitalised on a growing and increasingly wealthy sub-continental population.

However, his contribution to cricket could be summarised on the head of a pin

If same standards are applied, even less can be said about Packer.

 

[social]

Nobody is or ever was legal under the old laws. As i said, read my commentary on the victimisation aspect again.



If same standards are applied, even less can be said about Packer.

So what was Hair, a visionary?

The guy applied the existing laws absolutely correctly

 

[marc71178]

Err i do believe that the ball was analysed and presented at the hearing.

Yes, the ball when it was switched was available for analysis.

However the ball from 5 overs or so previously was not - and only 2 people saw it, the 2 who decided to take action...