BREAKING NEWS: Hair removed from the Elite Panel

[LA ICE-E]

I agree with that part but my point is, the laws themselves are wrong in this instance. Because you cant have the umpire as the ULTIMATE authority when he is the person who is being questioned. When serious doubts are cast over an umpire's decision, he ceases to be the ultimate authority, no matter what the LAW says. It is like how a judge's decision is final and he is the ultimate authority but when you file a suit against his verdict and name him as an accused, he ceases to be the ultimate authority and has to explain his judgement to another judge or jury.

acctually the laws aren't even the ultimate thing and the umpires are the ultimate authority, Its the ICC that amends the laws and its the ICC who has the ULTIMATE authority

 

[honestbharani]

Er, no. Far from. Umpires, judges, whatever you want to call it will have two approaches into making decisions. Some will follow the letter of the law and hence will be legalist in their approach and others will apply other methods into their judgement and hence have an activist approach to the matter. On the High Courts of countries around the world both these type of adjudicators are present. It has absolutely nothing to do with levels in which you can apply the law. Everyone is equal under rule/law and no one should be given unfair leeway.

What Hair did was right. Regardless of it's reaction. Just because the Pakistanis are kicking up a fuss won't make him any less right. And that is all that matters. No law-applying body should ever be swayed by these kind of sentiments. In that context, Hair is of the highest quality.

(LOL, just read my own post. If I hadn't written it I would have thought it was Richard )

The point is, Kazo, that he could NOT have been sure that it was a Pakistan player who tampered with the ball. He saw the ball, thought it was tampered and so changed it. That is all fine and good. But he also fined Pak 5 runs when he didn't actually see any Pakistan player tamper with it. He just seems to have assumed it to have been so because of his previous ideas about Pakistan (I am speculating here. I am not insisting on this previous sentence of mine. That is just an opinion.) He never said anything in the hearing about having seen any Pak player tamper with the ball. So it is obvious he was just guessing and cricket experts have pronounced that the marks on the ball could have been of natural causes as much as from human tampering. Therefore, it is obvious that he made a hasty and wrong decision (wrong because when there is so little evidence, you have to give the fielding side the benefit of the doubt).


It is unfortunate because I do believe that he was one of the better umpires (and I was not at all surprised at his #2 rating, BTW) when it comes to normal caught behind, LBW type decisions. But I have seen act differently when subcontinental sides are playing. Maybe he was hurt by the way the subcontinent went up against him when he called Murali. I am not sure but he does seem to act bossy around subcontinental sides. So I dont mind one bit that he is out of the elite panel.

 

[HowsThat]

And for the ICC to allow any team to dictate who will or will not umpire their matches is atrocious, and something that set the precedent for this mess.

What other option do ICC had? you feel greatful 2 see Muralitharan in action, so am i and million others.The mess was created by Hair and ICC had 2 stop him.



[/QUOTE]
Funny how Hair's judgment was backed up by EVERY ICC official at the match, eh? BOTH umpires (Hair and Doctrove) testified that they believed that the ball had been tampered with, along with the match referee Mike Proctor, the third umpire Peter Hartley, the fourth umpire Trevor Jesty, and the ICC Umpires and Referees Manager Doug Cowie..[/QUOTE]

Doctrove said that he wasn't sure that the ball was tampered and wanted to continue with the same ball yet keep an eye.Also a lot of ex cricketers and pundits covering the match rubbished off the tampering charges.

 

[Ikki]

Whether in jest or not, doesn't excuse anything.

Anyway, I'd rather you wouldn't personally attack me further by questioning my intelligence.

For quoting my posts in a derogatory manner, one that was flawed even in comparison, do not ask for the kindness you do not afford to others.

 

[Ikki]

i know KaZoH0lic, bracken how are you defending this guy who asked for $500,000 as bribe to quite? Would it be ok then if the icc just paid him and he quited? hell no we dont have confident in an umpire who asks for bribes

And you defend a board that harbours drug cheats?

 

[Ikki]

The point is, Kazo, that he could NOT have been sure that it was a Pakistan player who tampered with the ball. He saw the ball, thought it was tampered and so changed it. That is all fine and good. But he also fined Pak 5 runs when he didn't actually see any Pakistan player tamper with it. He just seems to have assumed it to have been so because of his previous ideas about Pakistan (I am speculating here. I am not insisting on this previous sentence of mine. That is just an opinion.) He never said anything in the hearing about having seen any Pak player tamper with the ball. So it is obvious he was just guessing and cricket experts have pronounced that the marks on the ball could have been of natural causes as much as from human tampering. Therefore, it is obvious that he made a hasty and wrong decision (wrong because when there is so little evidence, you have to give the fielding side the benefit of the doubt).


It is unfortunate because I do believe that he was one of the better umpires (and I was not at all surprised at his #2 rating, BTW) when it comes to normal caught behind, LBW type decisions. But I have seen act differently when subcontinental sides are playing. Maybe he was hurt by the way the subcontinent went up against him when he called Murali. I am not sure but he does seem to act bossy around subcontinental sides. So I dont mind one bit that he is out of the elite panel.

My friend, it may have been the wrong decision in the end but it was still a decision he is allowed to make - as said in the laws of the game. Now, whether that means he should be kicked out or not is up to argument. What I am sure is clear is that certain boards have certain influence. I personally don't have a huge interest in the case but I do see irregularities on both sides.

 

[honestbharani]

No Sri Lankan shed a tear. What a surprise.

Again, Hair didn't have to be sure that Murali was throwing- for him NOT to call no ball, he had to be sure that Murali WASN'T throwing. Big difference, although I doubt you'll appreciate it.

And for the ICC to allow any team to dictate who will or will not umpire their matches is atrocious, and something that set the precedent for this mess.



Funny how Hair's judgment was backed up by EVERY ICC official at the match, eh? BOTH umpires (Hair and Doctrove) testified that they believed that the ball had been tampered with, along with the match referee Mike Proctor, the third umpire Peter Hartley, the fourth umpire Trevor Jesty, and the ICC Umpires and Referees Manager Doug Cowie.

Not a SINGLE ICC official involved in the match believed that the ball hadn't been tampered with. Not ONE- and they all testified to that fact during the hearing.

And how many of them testified that a Pakistan player was the one who did the tampering? How many of them believed that, except Hair? That is the question here.

I suppose that your version of "common sense" would entail having EVERY official involved in the match putting aside their judgment and allowing the game to continue with a ball that they all, in their informed, educated, experienced opinions, believed had been tampered with- in direct contradiction of their duty according to the laws of the game?

And your version of "common sense" doesn't get the fact that most of us heren't arguing that the ball wasn't tampered with.... We are just saying that there was no real evidence to back up that it was done by a Pakistan player. Had Hair only believed that the ball was tampered and just changed it and got on with it, would Inzy have walked out? I think not.

Why didn't EVERY ICC official involved get "demoted" and prohibited from officiating in matches involving test nations? They all made the same "mistake" in judgment, right?

Here's another question for you: why did the Pakistan team management NOT go through with their threat to bring Hair up on charges of bringing the game into disrepute, instead of getting rid of Hair through their stacked vote? Surely having Hair found guilty of this sort of offence in an open hearing would have added a bit of legitimacy to their claims that Hair was the bad guy?

Wouldn't be because they knew that Hair did everything by the book, and was completely within his rights, would it? Much easier to rally the bloc and stack a vote in the ICC, right?

You haven't come out with a single thing that contradicts the fact that Hair was sacked for upholding the same rules that he was contracted to uphold.

The very reason he was sacked was because they thought he wasn't doing a good enough job. And they decided to drop the charges of "bringing the game into disrepute" to let the issue die. Not hard to understand.

You mean the email that followed the conversation with Cowie, where Cowie asked Hair to consider the idea that it might be better for the game if the ICC paid Hair an amount to walk away, suggested the amount, and then asked Hair to put the amount in writing?

I think I'll wait for the court hearing to test the validity of the "bribe" claims before I condemn him for it.

How are so sure that Cowie initiated the offer? If my memory serves me right, all that was said in Hair's email that was shown was "as per our earlier discussions". What makes you so sure that Hair didn't initiate the offer?

 

[Dasa]

For quoting my posts in a derogatory manner, one that was flawed even in comparison, do not ask for the kindness you do not afford to others.

Get over yourself, and get over this idea that you have some sort of moral superiority over me or anyone else. I quoted your posts to point out your hypocrisy in attacking other people. Where the hell did you pull that kindness crap from? I said nothing about it, I asked you to not attack me personally - not only is it unnecessary, it's against the forum rules.

 

[HowsThat]

My friend, it may have been the wrong decision in the end but it was still a decision he is allowed to make - as said in the laws of the game. Because he simply didn't have to prove it on the field at the time. Now, whether that means he should be kicked out or not is up to argument. What I am sure is clear is that certain boards have certain influence. I personally don't have a huge interest in the case but I do see irregularities on both sides.

He had the power 2 make a decision, and unfortunately he made a bad one.Since umpires don't have 2 prove anything on field he would have never thought taht he would get into trouble, but during that hearing proceeding he was asked 2 explain the charges and was found wanting.

 

[Ikki]

Get over yourself, and get over this idea that you have some sort of moral superiority over me or anyone else. I quoted your posts to point out your hypocrisy in attacking other people. Where the hell did you pull that kindness crap from? I said nothing about it, I asked you to not attack me personally - not only is it unnecessary, it's against the forum rules.

Me get over myself? LMAO, looky who's telling who.

I was joking with one member, in which that same member ended up insulting me. Now what it had to do with you is still a mystery to me. I will question your intelligence until you use it.

 

[honestbharani]

My friend, it may have been the wrong decision in the end but it was still a decision he is allowed to make - as said in the laws of the game. Now, whether that means he should be kicked out or not is up to argument. What I am sure is clear is that certain boards have certain influence. I personally don't have a huge interest in the case but I do see irregularities on both sides.

I agree that neither the ICC nor the individual boards (be it Australia, India or Pakistan or anyone else) are any angels either. And I am sure that the ICC did sell Hair short the way they leaked his email, even if he had been the one who initiated the offer, simply because it is perfectly clear they wanted to go along that road at first and only after he named a big sum, they changed their minds and decided to play heroes. But all of this doesn't nullify the fact that Hair and his methods were doing cricket more harm than good and the game is better without characters like him. You look at a Daryl Harper or a Mark Benson. They make blatantly wrong decisions too but people don't complain about these guys that much. They are friendly with the sides, enforce the rules with a bit of common sense and generally ensure smooth running of the game. That is what Hair couldn't or did not do.

 

[James]

Me get over myself? LMAO, looky who's telling who.

I was joking with one member, in which that same member ended up insulting me. Now what it had to do with you is still a mystery to me. I will question your intelligence until you use it.

KaZoH0lic - Take a moment to relax before hitting the Reply button. There's no need to get heavy handed towards another member. It doesn't do anyone any good in the end does it.

 

[pasag]

For quoting my posts in a derogatory manner, one that was flawed even in comparison, do not ask for the kindness you do not afford to others.

Wasn't going to get involved here, but you've attacked two members - IndianByHeart and LA ICE-E twice and then when you get pulled up on it by Dasa you have a go at him. Poor form for mine and you're continuing to make a bigger hole for yourself here by continuing.

 

[Ikki]

KaZoH0lic - Take a moment to relax before hitting the Reply button. There's no need to get heavy handed towards another member. It doesn't do anyone any good in the end does it.

Indeed it doesn't.

What is worse is when you see a STAFF MEMBER try to belittle you whilst another member is directly insulting you. I have nothing against this fine site and I enjoy reading posts more than I do actually posting, so I will do as you say James. But I shouldn't be the only one taking care of his/her posts, though.

 

[pasag]

Indeed it doesn't.

What is worse is when you see a STAFF MEMBER try to belittle you whilst another member is directly insulting you. I have nothing against this fine site and I enjoy reading posts more than I do actually posting, so I will do as you say James. But I shouldn't be the only one taking care of his/her posts, though.

It was a staff member rolling his eyes at you for attacking other members, I see nothing wrong with that.

 

[Ikki]

Wasn't going to get involved here, but you've attacked two members - IndianByHeart and LA ICE-E twice and then when you get pulled up on it by Dasa you have a go at him. Poor form for mine and you're continuing to make a bigger hole for yourself here by continuing.

Sure sure, it is me attacking others.

Rubbish!! Hair was dead wrong, a truly disgraceful person, and just because Aussies are whining over his disgraceful yet fully deserving sack, it doesn't make Mr Hair right.

Cricket world is better off without charecters like Hair.

KaZoH0lic yeah i dont think so coming from someone as ignorant as yourself who refuses to understand the situation

pure ignorance man, why dont you ****ing dumb asses try to acknowledge the points thats being made like thousand times.

So even though you are an idiot yet you still have some intelliegence to have an opinion.Looks like we have a relative of Hair over here.

guess what im neither a pakis, indian or sri lankan or aussie fan and so my point of view is pretty fair and after i see all these points, and you still refuse to ackknowledge them and just be stupid you can drive people crazy

----

Gee, why was I so angry?

 

[Ikki]

It was a staff member rolling his eyes at you for attacking other members, I see nothing wrong with that.

Well looking at the continuous barrage of 'idiot' calls doesn't seem to warrant even a rolling of the eyes it seems.

But my post did...funny that.

 

[pasag]

Rubbish!! Hair was dead wrong, a truly disgraceful person, and just because Aussies are whining over his disgraceful yet fully deserving sack, it doesn't make Mr Hair right.

Cricket world is better off without charecters like Hair.

Actually I'm of the opinion that cricket would be better off without characters like yourself.

Actually quite clearly here IndianByHeart is speaking about the topic at hand and you have made the decent into petty insults, thus dragging down the thread.

 

[Ikki]

Actually quite clearly here IndianByHeart is speaking about the topic at hand and you have made the decent into petty insults, thus dragging down the thread.

Yes, he was insulting Australians as a whole (look at the actual post) and I said the cricket world would be better without him? Now, where does that tip the balance here? Is what I said equal to the ones I quoted? I find it very very disheartening that a member usually as fair and balanced as yourself is even making such a counter argument here.

What I said wasn't a patch on what was given to me and others. Now why am I being vilified here when I stopped much shorter? Hmm?

 

[HowsThat]

Yes, he was insulting Australians as a whole (look at the actual post) and I said the cricket world would be better without him? Now, where does that tip the balance here? Is what I said equal to the ones I quoted? I find it very very disheartening that a member usually as fair and balanced as yourself is even making such a counter argument here.

What I said wasn't a patch on what was given to me and others. Now why am I being vilified here when I stopped much shorter? Hmm?

Read his post all it said taht Australians were whining over Hair exit, to say that that's an insult to Australian nation is completely absurd.