BREAKING NEWS: Hair removed from the Elite Panel

[FRAZ]

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...

Marc what eventualy you want the decision to be ? And would you like to punish Pakistan for the Tampering at Oval?

 

[marc71178]

As I've said all along - the only 2 people who know exactly what has happened are the 2 in the middle - they're the only ones who know the condition of the ball at the 2 points in time.

On one hand, I do find it hard to believe that anyone would make such an accusation without proof (simply because they would know the ramifications if there's no charge upheld), but on the other hand I appreciate that there's no footage to suggest that anything was done to the ball.

As for Hair, I think that the ICC have set him up badly (with the leaked email) and as soon as that happened, it was clear to me that he'd got no future in the game, regardless of whether he was right or not.

 

[FRAZ]

As I've said all along - the only 2 people who know exactly what has happened are the 2 in the middle - they're the only ones who know the condition of the ball at the 2 points in time.

On one hand, I do find it hard to believe that anyone would make such an accusation without proof (simply because they would know the ramifications if there's no charge upheld), but on the other hand I appreciate that there's no footage to suggest that anything was done to the ball.

As for Hair, I think that the ICC have set him up badly (with the leaked email) and as soon as that happened, it was clear to me that he'd got no future in the game, regardless of whether he was right or not.

Should I assume that you mean Pakistan were at fault at Oval (base of your worries) , And Darrel Hair if says "I will look for the other options if money is not paid , Then who was seting up ?

 

[marc71178]

Assume what?

I've made my position on it all quite clear and haven't changed it.

As for the bit about Hair possibly saying something, what are you trying to say? He didn't say such things, and the email transcript (which I still suspect you've either not seen or are ignoring) states what's happened in the first sentence.

 

[honestbharani]

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...

why did they decide to take action 5 overs late, then, Marc?

 

[honestbharani]

Assume what?

I've made my position on it all quite clear and haven't changed it.

As for the bit about Hair possibly saying something, what are you trying to say? He didn't say such things, and the email transcript (which I still suspect you've either not seen or are ignoring) states what's happened in the first sentence.

the email only said "as we discussed" or something to that effect. What makes u so sure that Hair didn't initiate the offer?


And if Hair had initiated the offer, it is not so bad that the ICC set him up.

 

[marc71178]

why did they decide to take action 5 overs late, then, Marc?

That's not what I was saying.

What I am saying is that only 2 people know the condition of the ball 5 overs before the change - and that is never going to change since we cannot go back in time.

 

[FRAZ]

That's not what I was saying.

What I am saying is that only 2 people know the condition of the ball 5 overs before the change - and that is never going to change since we cannot go back in time.

So concrete evidence is it for the action taken by Hair ? RIght ?

 

[marc71178]

Again, I'm afraid I don't understand what you are asking here, so cannot attempt to answer it.

 

[SJS]

Well done indeed Social. Great stuff.

 

[Anil]

So what was Hair, a visionary?

The guy applied the existing laws absolutely correctly

really! then how come the "visionary" didn't apply those same laws to all those other bowlers who were breaking those very same existing laws under his watch?

 

[chipmonk]

So what was Hair, a visionary?

The guy applied the existing laws absolutely correctly

Quite right ..... But with a complete lackof "common sense"

 

[Son Of Coco]

really! then how come the "visionary" didn't apply those same laws to all those other bowlers who were breaking those very same existing laws under his watch?

I think you can answer that yourself. Unless you honestly believe Murali's action looked the same as everyone else's at that time...there was no way Hair could be expected to pick up what is being referred to in the ICC's 'everybody chucks' statement, whereas I can certainly see why questions would have been asked about Murali's action in 1995. It's easy to say in hindsight that Murali was ok, but if anyone can say they knew 100% his action was fine by watching it back then they deserve the "visionary" tag.

 

[Anil]

I think you can answer that yourself. Unless you honestly believe Murali's action looked the same as everyone else's at that time...there was no way Hair could be expected to pick up what is being referred to in the ICC's 'everybody chucks' statement, whereas I can certainly see why questions would have been asked about Murali's action in 1995. It's easy to say in hindsight that Murali was ok, but if anyone can say they knew 100% his action was fine by watching it back then they deserve the "visionary" tag.

right so you are saying no one really was a visionary back then....i agree...that's what my sarcasm implied as well...

 

[Son Of Coco]

right so you are saying no one really was a visionary back then....i agree...that's what my sarcasm implied as well...

Which to me suggests that you'd have to call Murali's action based on what you saw.

I don't think anyone's a visionary now

 

[Anil]

Which to me suggests that you'd have to call Murali's action based on what you saw.

I don't think anyone's a visionary now

i never suggested i was one...i was just mocking the absurd notion that hair could be called one.....

...and what he saw and what a lot of people thought was later proved to be an optical illusion because under the old rules, there were plenty of other bowlers with supposedly smooth and silky actions who were actually flexing it more than murali(at least for his regular off spinner)....so what it suggests to you doesn't really mean much....

 

[vic_orthdox]

Hair To Sue for Racial Discrimination

Doesn't really seem like stopping any time soon. Oh well.

Linkus maximus.

 

[adharcric]

 

[pasag]

Far out, thought this thing was dead and buried already.

 

[Perm]

He's not going to go down without a fight is he?