BREAKING NEWS: Hair removed from the Elite Panel

[Lillian Thomson]

You mean Cricket Australia weren't at the Executive Board meeting where they actually participated in the vote (and if reports are to be believed, refused to say anything in his defense, and let the ECB do it)?

Thats like George Bush demanding an explanation of why we went into Iraq.

James Sutherland of Cricket Australia is quoted as saying that it sets a dangerous president when umpires are removed for calling decisions as they see them.

 

[silentstriker]

James Sutherland of Cricket Australia is quoted as saying that it sets a dangerous president when umpires are removed for calling decisions as they see them.

Yes, of course. They voted against the removal so we know they disagree. My question is why are they 'demanding an explanation' when they were there at the executive meeting. I'm sure they heard an explanation there, they just didn't agree with it.

Just because you disagree with an explanation, doesn't mean you didn't get one.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yes, of course. They voted against the removal so we know they disagree. My question is why are they 'demanding an explanation' when they were there at the executive meeting. I'm sure they heard an explanation there, they just didn't agree with it.

Just because you disagree with an explanation, doesn't mean you didn't get one.

The headline to the story is "Australia demand Hair explanation". Whether they have demanded anything or whether it's just good old British journalistic sensationalised headline making is not really clear.

 

[social]

not at all...most people have been straight-forward here, and i can appreciate that even if i don't agree with them, it's just that this guy has been throwing ridiculous, supposedly subtle hints and innuendos, just shows a lack of anything decent to argue with....

They're not subtle hints or innuendos!

Hair has been removed because the balance of political power lies with the sub-continent - fact

Hair got sacked whilst Inzy got the absolute minimum penalty for his part in possibly the biggest fiasco in the history of the game - fact

The ICC professes to "have lost confidence" in Hair despite the sub-continent's leading umpire (and virtually everbody else) supporting the legality of Hair's actions - fact

Pakistan have been warned for ball tampering 10 times in 16 months and Hair has been the only umpire with the balls to actually make a stand - fact

At the same meeting where Hair was dumped, the ICC reinstated a convicted match-fixer who, surprise surprise, is from the sub-continent - fact

At the same meeting where Hair was dumped, the ICC failed to resolve the issue of compensation to the ECB for lost revenue due to Pakistan's forfeit - fact

You dont have to be Einstein to work out that everything above benefits one nation

That is not innuendo or inference - that is a fact

 

[Fusion]

You dont have to be Einstein to work out that everything above benefits one nation

That is not innuendo or inference - that is a fact

So this "one nation", Pakistan obviously, is so powerful and strong that it can get ICC to sack a competent umpire for no reason, consistently get away with ball tampering, and reinstate a banned player? Those are not facts, they're just delusions of a vast conspiracy.

 

[social]

So this "one nation", Pakistan obviously, is so powerful and strong that it can get ICC to sack a competent umpire for no reason, consistently get away with ball tampering, and reinstate a banned player? Those are not facts, they're just delusions of a vast conspiracy.

Oh please, wake up!

The balance of power has changed and things are being voted along political lines - just like they always have been

 

[Legglancer]

QUOTE=social]They're not subtle hints or innuendos!

Hair has been removed because the balance of political power lies with the sub-continent - fact

Hair got sacked whilst Inzy got the absolute minimum penalty for his part in possibly the biggest fiasco in the history of the game - fact

Fact--- ICC appointed Hair eventhough many Asian countries have requested not to. ICC appointed match Referee concluded That there was insufficient evidence to Justify Hair's cheating Charge against Pakistan which again questions his judgement and biases.Hair's Insensitive handling provoked an ugly sitiation where Inzy reacted with less brain and more emotion.

ICC professes to "have lost confidence" in Hair despite the sub-continent's leading umpire (and virtually everbody else) supporting the legality of Hair's actions - fact

Fact--- You Are missing the point !

Pakistan have been warned for ball tampering 10 times in 16 months and Hair has been the only umpire with the balls to actually make a stand - fact

So if anyone is breaking the law, first catch them and make sure you have concret evidence before punishing them.

At the same meeting where Hair was dumped, the ICC reinstated a convicted match-fixer who, surprise surprise, is from the sub-continent - fact

Whats the Relevance ? let's talk about the original "match fixers mark Waugh and shane Warne who the ACB covered up for years !

At the same meeting where Hair was dumped, the ICC failed to resolve the issue of compensation to the ECB for lost revenue due to Pakistan's forfeit - fact

You dont have to be Einstein to work out that everything above benefits one nation

FACT :- Pakistan, Sri Lanka, India, Bangladesh, West Indies, South Africa is NOT one nation !
That is not innuendo or inference - that is a fact[/QUOTE]

Facts facts and more facts

 

[Fusion]

Oh please, wake up!

The balance of power has changed and things are being voted along political lines - just like they always have been

Of course the balance of power has changed towards Asia. But that hasn't given Pakistan the ticket to cause havoc and destroy cricket itself, like you seem to be implying. The fact that you mentioned Ata-ur-Rehman's reinstatement as if PCB had been lobbying and waiting for it is completely ridiculous! You are also forgetting that Pakistan had only one vote on the Hair issue. There were other nations that voted him off as well. All you have done recently is single out Pakistan/PCB for faults and take numerous shots in the process. That is highly unfair. Pakistan obviously enjoys the benefits of voting with the Asian block. However, it's not like the Asian block will let Pakistan get away with murder either. So stop with the whining of "Pakistan is destroying the very fabric of the game" etc.

 

[Anil]

Oh please, wake up!

The balance of power has changed and things are being voted along political lines - just like they always have been

ok i for one have woken up.... and i completely agree with you that things are being decided politically like always, now you also say the balance of power has changed, so tell us who had the power before and in whose favour was everything being decided before?

 

[Legglancer]

ok i for one have woken up.... and i completely agree with you that things are being decided politically like always, now you also say the balance of power has changed, so tell us who had the power before and in whose favour was everything being decided before?

Well before things were perfect .... dont you agree ?

 

[Scaly piscine]

It would be nice if you edited your 'fact' post so it was a bit more readable Legglancer.

Anyways:

So if anyone is breaking the law, first catch them and make sure you have concret evidence before punishing them.

Whats the Relevance ? let's talk about the original "match fixers mark Waugh and shane Warne who the ACB covered up for years !

Kinda hung yourself there.

As for:

Fact--- You Are missing the point !

FACT :- Pakistan, Sri Lanka, India, Bangladesh, West Indies, South Africa is NOT one nation !

I fail to see how he's missing the point, he's simply stating facts and making his own points. He also said his facts benefitted one nation, you're just stating who was in favour of the decision to sack Hair.

 

[Dasa]

I fail to see how he's missing the point, he's simply stating facts and making his own points. He also said his facts benefitted one nation, you're just stating who was in favour of the decision to sack Hair.

If the decision benefited only one nation, why did six others (including the West Indies as one 'nation' even though they're not) vote against Hair as well? Could it possibly be they had legitimate grievances and thought it would be best for everyone if he no longer umpired?

 

[Anil]

If the decision benefited only one nation, why did six others (including the West Indies as one 'nation' even though they're not) vote against Hair as well? Could it possibly be they had legitimate grievances and thought it would be best for everyone if he no longer umpired?

don't be silly, of course not, read social's facts on the previous page, all questions will be answered...

 

[social]

If the decision benefited only one nation, why did six others (including the West Indies as one 'nation' even though they're not) vote against Hair as well? Could it possibly be they had legitimate grievances and thought it would be best for everyone if he no longer umpired?

It's already been openly stated that the WI have sided with the sub-continent because they need the advertising dollars that those countries bring to prop up their financial base.

Ditto Zimbabwe and Bangladesh

India has obviously done a deal over something else because they refused to support Pakistan's original no-support motion and nothing else cricket-wise has come to light since that time.

Sorry to shatter your illusions, but not even the ICC is above political manouvering.

 

[Scaly piscine]

If the decision benefited only one nation, why did six others (including the West Indies as one 'nation' even though they're not) vote against Hair as well? Could it possibly be they had legitimate grievances and thought it would be best for everyone if he no longer umpired?

Na, if their grievance was with the ball tampering decision then they should have been after Doctrove's blood as well. Accumulation of bad decisions isn't a viable argument either in my opinion, he's no worse than other umpires. So I just think that Pakistan begun to believe some of its own persecution complex theories that elements of the media and fans came up with. I personally think Hair is too officious and stubborn to be swayed by or for him to even think about race or anything like that.

 

[Fusion]

India has obviously done a deal over something else because they refused to support Pakistan's original no-support motion and nothing else cricket-wise has come to light since that time.

Sorry to shatter your illusions, but not even the ICC is above political manouvering.

So it is a vast consipiracy by Pakistan to take over the ICC!!! And to continue the conspiracy argument (and in tribute to Scaly), this was done after Pakistan paid off the ICC to switch the ball used as evidence in the hearing. They framed him I tell ya! And what are those rascals going to do next? Well according to sources, PCB will soon pass a law (oh yeah by paying off India of course) banning any player from performing well against the Pakistani team. What's next after that for this evil entity? Well, taking over the world of course! Too bad Social has figured out their plan and hence will probably foil it.

 

[social]

So it is a vast consipiracy by Pakistan to take over the ICC!!! And to continue the conspiracy argument (and in tribute to Scaly), this was done after Pakistan paid off the ICC to switch the ball used as evidence in the hearing. They framed him I tell ya! And what are those rascals going to do next? Well according to sources, PCB will soon pass a law (oh yeah by paying off India of course) banning any player from performing well against the Pakistani team. What's next after that for this evil entity? Well, taking over the world of course! Too bad Social has figured out their plan and hence will probably foil it.

So why dont you explain to us all why India back-flipped

Did they suddenly wake up in the morning and discover that after all these years of endorsing Hair they were wrong? And this, in spite of the fact that Hair hadnt appeared on any cricket field since their last show of support nor has any new evidence come to light in the intervening period.

It's all about politics and money

As for paying off people to underperform against Pakistan, no-one could act well enough to get away with it

 

[C_C]

It's already been openly stated that the WI have sided with the sub-continent because they need the advertising dollars that those countries bring to prop up their financial base.

Ditto Zimbabwe and Bangladesh

India has obviously done a deal over something else because they refused to support Pakistan's original no-support motion and nothing else cricket-wise has come to light since that time.

Sorry to shatter your illusions, but not even the ICC is above political manouvering.

Nothing's changed then, has it ?
Before it was racists from England and Australia holding ICC as its imperial fiefdom- today its the subcontinent.
Atleast the majority is in power right now.

 

[C_C]

It's all about politics and money

Not always. Its all about the opportune moment.
Do not mistake BCCI's tolerance of a hopelessly biassed, vindictive, money-grabbing, and incompetent umpire such as Hair as endorsement of him.
Its tough to break into the 'old white men's club' that the ICC is. 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.
Besides, i find that lot of your commentary is nothing more than pure speculation on the intent of various boards.
But the bottomline is Hair is gone and cricket is so much better for drop-kicking a stain(Hair) from its roaster.

 

[C_C]

Accumulation of bad decisions isn't a viable argument either in my opinion

Your opinion is flawed.
Precedence and track record do not make the current/latest action any more/less criminal/offensive. But it sure affects the penalty significantly in just about any fair,logical and basically, cogent justice system.

I personally think Hair is too officious and stubborn to be swayed by or for him to even think about race or anything like that.

Somehow i dont buy that.
For people who have experience with racism, it isnt very hard to identify one based on their intent or actions. Hair not only has the 'i am a racist ignorant aussie' aura all over him, his categoric victimising of particular ethnic teams quite starkly stands out as circumstantial evidence- which may not be conclusive enough for prosecution but certainly visible enough to warrant his removal from position of power.