Hair has been "strung up" for the reasons I sateted before, I don't know the statistics in terms of error rate (and i suspect you are extracting that assumption from your rear) but I have always considered him a technically mediocre umpire at best - never mind his man and situational managemnt skills.
Such a suggestion is ridiculouos and a vile allegation to level at people of the integrity of Taufel, Bucknor and Bowden, not to mention respected match referees like Broad whom I suspect would leave the game in protest before acting in the way you suggest.
Nothing, bar the usual, has been extracted from my rear:
"An detailed investigation published in the Sydney Daily Telegraph revealed confidential information prepared by the ICC's umpiring bosses which showed that Hair was ranked equal-second on the ICC's elite panel – with Simon Taufel believed to be No. 1. In pure decision-making, Hair was the top-ranked umpire on the panel, making 253 of 263 correct decisions last year – a success rate of 95.5 per cent compared with 94.8 per cent for other umpires."
(From
this site.)
Again, the guy who made the most correct decisions in the world was sacked for following the rules that he was contracted to follow.
I have no issue with the responsibility to decide on what constitutes a forfeit passing to the match referee- frankly, that rule change is the only good thing to come out of this mess. The fact remains, though, that Hair followed the rules as they were at the time, and has been sacked because of it.
Hair didn't helped himself by blackmailing ICC for money, he didndn't helped himself my tormenting SL players for years even though ICC had declared that Murali's action was legal, he didn't helped himself by maintaining his ugly attitude towards the third Asian country in India.
When a player break a law he's punished by ICC, but unfortunately Hair had been breaking law by no-balling Murali, even though ICC had declared Murali's action legal.Hair should have been thrown out of the game long time back, an umpire who refuses to obey the laws of game's goerning body, who blackmails the ICC president to get $$$ should find no place in the game of cricket.
This is absolute tripe.
Have you ever actually READ the laws of cricket? At the time that Murali was called for throwing, the law (24.2 if you want to look it up) said that if either umpire had any doubt as to the legitimacy of the delivery, he is obliged to call no-ball.
Note that it doesn't say that the umpire has to be sure that it's a throw- it says that he has to be sure that it isn't, otherwise he has to call the no ball. I think that Murali has a legitimate action, but I know that I wouldn't bet my house on it. Looking at his action in real time, his action does look like it MIGHT be illegitimate- that means that Hair was perfectly justified in calling no ball. It didn't matter that the ICC "cleared" him- they didn't change the rules to reflect that the ICC actually COULD clear him, therefore Hair was within his duty to make the decision.
(Before you start bleating about me being a Hair supporter and being against poor Murali, I will say that as a cricket fan I am eternally glad that Murali continued, as he is brilliant to watch and a great competitor. I have always loved watching him bowl.)
But to say that Hair was "tormenting" the Sri Lankans, or that he was breaking some law of the game, is completely asinine.
)
