BREAKING NEWS: Hair removed from the Elite Panel

[Tomm NCCC]

Good, thats one less bigot off the team

 

[Fusion]

Being a racist is a criminal offensive. Being biased isn't. Poor comparision tbh.

If the Murali Incident was a problem, then he'd have been sacked then. If the numerous run-ins with players were a problem, he'd have been sacked because of that. He's been made a scapegoat for Ovalgate and been utterly brutalised for it.

You didn't answer my question. You accused me of being biased. How am I biased? Simply because I support the decision to ban him? If anyone is in support of his ban, are they automatically biased? How ridiculous.

Coming back to Hair, it's NOT just about Ovalgate. It's a culmination of events that led to his dismissal. If that was the first controversy that Hair had been involved in, there is no way he would've been banned for life. Reprimanded in some fashion, but certainly not banned for life. It's convenient for people to ignore his past record and say that he's being made a scapegoat. By the way, even though I'm going to sound like a broken record, I do NOT think Hair is racist. I have always stated that my problem with him is his confrontational attitude and the penchant for being the center of attention. I think those are bad qualities in an umpire. In fact, unforgivable qualities. So if that makes me "biased" in your book, so be it. It's an easy cop out for people to use when they don't want to be bothered with facts.

 

[Jono]

Interesting to read Ponting's view

Its never interesting to read his view.

 

[silentstriker]

Well WI has lately been supporting India, considering India is helping them get out of financial trouble. This wasn't always the case. South African board has also (since they were let back in) supported mostly India.

Its about the money, really. If you want to make money, you better stay on BCCI's good side, or you aren't going to get enough matches with India. Australia and England are wealthy anyway, so they can afford to vote their own ways. Which, most times, tends to be against the Asian bloc. Their problem is that about ten years ago, the balance was fairly even because Bangladesh wasn't a full Test member, and West Indies tended to vote with England/Australia/New Zealand.

Now, the balance of power (with the addition of Bangladesh, and WI supporting Asian bloc) has shifted quite radically and they find themselves in the minority more often than not. You also saw this first hand when it came time to vote for the WC bid.

Unfortunately, most votes these days tend to take place via these political/racial lines. God forbid they actually vote based on their conscience...

Also,I want to add: believe it or not, in the near future (5-10 years) you may see Aussies and English coming back into power again. Not because of anything they did, but because BCCI, realizing that after themselves, most money is generated by England and Australia, and so its in their best interest to chummy up. So my prediction is that soon you may see a BCCI/ECB/CA voting bloc comeinto play.

This wasn't possible with the previous BCCI leadership, as Dalmiya was pretty anti-English. But the new regime cares only about maximizing revenue. So its Silentstriker's prediction! Maybe I'll get a Greigy!

 

[_TiGeR-ToWn_]

I think it is quite sad that people on this forum are throwing the racist card around so easily and so frequently. There is nothing to suggest that he is or ever was a racist towards the sub-continent.

ICC have got it right, if he did continue the backlash would be too great for the ICC to handle.

 

[adharcric]

Good move ... not because Hair is rascist or biased but because he's incompetent.

 

[Anil]

If the Murali Incident was a problem, then he'd have been sacked then. If the numerous run-ins with players were a problem, he'd have been sacked because of that. He's been made a scapegoat for Ovalgate and been utterly brutalised for it.

right! if something had been a problem, it would've always been instantly resolved by the super-efficient icc(...and you clearly believe that on the basis of the above statements....), so it follows that there was no problem before now and the asians just ganged up on him and bullied him out of a job....and you have the temerity to call the people who support his ouster biased....

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

These threads are

 

[FRAZ]

These threads are

pity is that yesterday I made one too !!!

 

[Matteh]

right! if something had been a problem, it would've always been instantly resolved by the super-efficient icc(...and you clearly believe that on the basis of the above statements....), so it follows that there was no problem before now and the asians just ganged up on him and bullied him out of a job....and you have the temerity to call the people who support his ouster biased....

*Ding* Sorry that was the bias bell going off on it's own.

 

[Jono]

Funny, I thought that was the arrogant smart-arse bell.

My mistake then.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Funny, I thought that was the arrogant smart-arse bell.

My mistake then.

No...that one went off when he lead his team off the field

 

[Dasa]

*Ding* Sorry that was the bias bell going off on it's own.

...and you know all about bias.

 

[R_D]

Funny, I thought that was the arrogant smart-arse bell.

My mistake then.

As for Hair.. it was inevitable had to happen sooner or later.
Don't think he's racist but does show his biased side every now and than.
No suprise to see aussie greats backing a fellow aussie.. natural.

 

[Sanz]

Oh please! Let's stop making him out to be a martyr. Hair was not banned for just The Oval fiasco. It's a culmination of wrong behavior that led to his downfall. No one has a problem with him doing his job. It's how he goes about doing it that makes him a bad umpire. Let's analyze some of his history shall we?

- The Murali incident: Hair has a right to call a suspect action, if he feels a bowler is throwing. However, as Slow Love pointed out before, the umpires had decided beforehand that they would refer any suspect action to the match referee and a decision would be made after the game. Hair, who IMO likes to be the center of attention, decided to create a scene and call Murali for throwing. Then, in his biography, Hair states that he would call Muralii again for a suspect action. This is after the ICC has cleared his action!! Whether Hair agreed or disagreed with ICC's decision on Murali, as an umpire employed by the ICC he must follow their rules and guidelines. By saying he would call Murali's action again, Hair was displaying his massive ego and hypocrisy.

Please cut this BS about Hair not following ICC rules on the basis of what he wrote in his book. The fact is he did umpire SL test matches after that incident and he did't call Murali for throwing. So I dont know how you can say he was displaying ego and/or hypocrisy ?

-His numerous run-ins with players: It's been well documented that Hair is not the easiest bloke to get along with. During a match involving India, Hair boorishly warned Ganguly about dissent. Ganguly had pointed out to Hair that the Indian team had seen replays of his decision and they were incorrect. Hair told him "you are not supposed to watch replays...the Pakistani's did that and see what happened to them". What incredible arrogance! He also is reported to have said to Wasim Akram once that "your team is not going to appeal like a bunch of monkeys are they?" And mind you, he has had other run-ins with non-subcontinental players.

Wasim Akram is no saint, he has a habit of making idiotic statements once in a while and I am big fan of him as a cricketer, but outside of it he is as stupid as Dubya, really he doesn't have much credibility, if you took the cricket ball out of his hands. And I dont see why it is wrong to warn a player who is in violation of ICC rule by showing dissent. Most Indian players( except SRT, Dravid and Kumble) , being the primma donnas they are made out in their country, have least regard for cricket, umpires, coaches and fans. First they display their arrogance on the cricket field, when warned/punished they cry like babies and our boards tag along.

-Ovalgate: I firmly believe that any other umpire would've handled the situation differently. Any other umpire who merely suspected that tampering was going on and had no proof would've had a word with the Captain first. If the alleged tampering continued, then he would've taken some action. Also, no other umpire would've been so quick to award the forfeiture. We all know that BOTH teams were eventually ready to play, yet Hair would not change his mind. His ego would not let him. He was rightly admonished for this after the hearing by the head referee. That is why the ICC has now taken the power of awarding the forfeiture away from the umpire.

I am sure some other umpire would have handled it differently and most probably would have restarted the test match after an hour, but I am also sure that he would have lost some self respect by doing that. Hair obviously is not one to do so. While I agree that the way he handled the Ball tampering issue was wrong but I dont fault him at all for test forfeiture. That fault lies totally with Inzamam, Pakistan cricket management and PCB who unfortunately have walked away

The best umpires are those that don't get noticed. Hair's problem, IMO, is that he loves the spotlight and courts controversy. He seems to have a martyr complex about him. That is why he's not a good umpire and deserved to be banned.

The fact is Hair's past comes in a way of everything he does on the field (esp if it is against Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka) and highlighted by the subcontinent media. I dont think he deserves a ban at all, at most he deserved a suspension for few matches( similar to Inzi).

 

[hit_4_six]

great move

 

[Dasa]

The fact is Hair's past comes in a way of everything he does on the field (esp if it is against Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka) and highlighted by the subcontinent media. I dont think he deserves a ban at all, at most he deserved a suspension for few matches( similar to Inzi).

Suspension for what? Hair hasn't been sacked because of this one issue of the ball-tampering - rather, it's been a series of issues that he's had with several teams. They've all added up to this decision which is sensible IMO.

 

[Complicated]

To be honest I just find the whole thing strangley ironic.

You deduct a team 5 runs and it costs you your job on the international umpires panel. Doesn't it seems as if strange and perverse logics have always dominated cricket? And it's still the same now. Maybe that's part of the games charm.

 

[social]

The great thing about our game is that it's bigger than the individual - Bradman is the only guy that hasnt been replaced to date.

Some think Hair should've been sacked, others don't - the game will move on.

 

[Langeveldt]

Bradman is the only guy that hasnt been replaced to date.

Although Smith comes close, nobody has been as thoroughly dislikable as Arjuna Ranatunga yet