BREAKING NEWS: Hair removed from the Elite Panel

[social]

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.



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.

So why no complaints from England, Aus and NZ?

Or are Mahmood, Panesar, Hussain, Patel, Gillespie, Lewis, Defreitas, Malcolm, Tuffey etc etc etc not "black" enough for Hair to worry about

 

[C_C]

So why no complaints from England, Aus and NZ?

I dont expect complaints against victimisation of certain demographic teams etc. from those abovementioned boards/nations, given their track record and relative infantile stage they still are in grasping the finer points of universal sufferage.

Or are Mahmood, Panesar, Hussain, Patel, Gillespie, Lewis, Defreitas, Malcolm, Tuffey etc etc etc not "black" enough for Hair to worry about

You disappoint me.
You are either unaware or pretending to be unaware on how racism and racists from your neck of the woods work on a public stage- it isnt about attacking individuals or supporting individuals- its the contestation against various establishments of color.The targetting of individuals almost always occurs as an instrument against what they represent. Or atleast, thats how the history of it has been. Panesar, Tuffey, et. al. are largely ignored because they are the 'oddities' in the establishment they work for- not a threat but rather an escape-hatch. They serve as validation in the first line of defence against allegations of racism. Meanwhile, continue to target/victimise the establishments which are different ethnically/racially or culturally from the abovementioned establishments.
If you are half as educated as you pretend to be, you know the above paragraph to be not only true, but a very basic introduction to systemic racism in the west- both historically and the remaining cobwebs today. Unfortunately in some of those cobwebs, the spider still lurks.

 

[chipmonk]

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

So now you are the resident expert of all the Insider information of member countries ? Perhaps the ICC should consult you before negotiating with Mr Modi.

Gimme a break !

 

[chipmonk]

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.

Talk about being Delusional ! your logic is more crooked than Billy's finger.

Could it be more plausible that the BCCI did not want to influence the ICC untill the inquiry by the match referee is complete before making judgement ? Its known that on many occasions Indian managers, Captain, had expressed their displeasure about Hair being appointed for their fixtures.

 

[chipmonk]

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.

Correct me if I am wrong ..... You were the whiner who claimed that the ball was switched before the inquiry ? Talking about persecution complexes, Take a good look at the mirror.

 

[social]

I dont expect complaints against victimisation of certain demographic teams etc. from those abovementioned boards/nations, given their track record and relative infantile stage they still are in grasping the finer points of universal sufferage.



You disappoint me.
You are either unaware or pretending to be unaware on how racism and racists from your neck of the woods work on a public stage- it isnt about attacking individuals or supporting individuals- its the contestation against various establishments of color.The targetting of individuals almost always occurs as an instrument against what they represent. Or atleast, thats how the history of it has been. Panesar, Tuffey, et. al. are largely ignored because they are the 'oddities' in the establishment they work for- not a threat but rather an escape-hatch. They serve as validation in the first line of defence against allegations of racism. Meanwhile, continue to target/victimise the establishments which are different ethnically/racially or culturally from the abovementioned establishments.
If you are half as educated as you pretend to be, you know the above paragraph to be not only true, but a very basic introduction to systemic racism in the west- both historically and the remaining cobwebs today. Unfortunately in some of those cobwebs, the spider still lurks.

Yeah, yeah, yeah

I'd actually give this argument some credibility if Hair had consistently gotten it wrong and those incorrect decisions were constantly against teams of differing race to his own

The facts are, that in his most high profile decisions, he was right

You dont like how he interracts with players from the sub-continent. Tough, he wasnt paid to be their friend, he was paid to interpret the rules on the field

The fact that teams from the sub-continent spat the dummy after being correctly penalised is more an indictment upon themselves than a character reference for Hair

 

[social]

So now you are the resident expert of all the Insider information of member countries ? Perhaps the ICC should consult you before negotiating with Mr Modi.

Gimme a break !

So how do you explain the sub-continent being awarded the WC, a decision that flies in the face of a long-established rotation policy?

Politics, money or random chance?

 

[chipmonk]

So how do you explain the sub-continent being awarded the WC, a decision that flies in the face of a long-established rotation policy?

Politics, money or random chance?

Ahh! the old diversionary tactic ..... Stick to the topic please !

 

[C_C]

Yeah, yeah, yeah

I'd actually give this argument some credibility if Hair had consistently gotten it wrong and those incorrect decisions were constantly against teams of differing race to his own

The facts are, that in his most high profile decisions, he was right

You dont like how he interracts with players from the sub-continent. Tough, he wasnt paid to be their friend, he was paid to interpret the rules on the field

The fact that teams from the sub-continent spat the dummy after being correctly penalised is more an indictment upon themselves than a character reference for Hair

Err no.
Hair wasnt right in most of his high profile decisions- he was wrong about Murali and he had zero reasons to investigate Pakistan for ball tampering apart from prejudiced perspective putting Pakistan up on 'suspicious' list.
Besides, he is an ordinary umpire- very ordinary and if he were from the subcontinent, he'd have been dropped long long time ago like Ashoka deSilva.

An umpire doesnt have the obligation to befriend the players but he does have an obligation to present an equally friendly face on the playground to every player- at the very least, players who've not been openly hostile/unfriendly towards him- which he has failed to do. If you are the judge, you are ethically committed to not be friendly to one player and stoic towards another on the field.
This is professional business, not a friendly village match he is umpiring in- a scenario his mentality and level of compitence are far more suited to than international duty.

 

[FRAZ]

Err no.
Besides, he is an ordinary umpire- very ordinary!
An umpire doesnt have the obligation to befriend the players but he does have an obligation to present an equally friendly face on the playground to every player- at the very least, players who've not been openly hostile/unfriendly towards him- which he has failed to do. If you are the judge, you are ethically committed to not be friendly to one player and stoic towards another on the field.
This is professional business, not a friendly village match he is umpiring in- a scenario his mentality and level of compitence are far more suited to than international duty.

C_C First of all it's freakin 2 A.M. and get some proper life by utilizing the after hours of Ontario on some constructive thing !
Secondly ! I have never seen some one describing the perceived to be racism in such a sweet and polite and digestible manner ..
But I gotta say Today I am going to remove one more medal of honor from my sig . Mogambo is seldom happy ,you know !!!

 

[C_C]

C_C First of all it's freakin 2 A.M. and get some proper life by utilizing the after hours of Ontario on some constructive thing !
Secondly ! I have never seen some one describing the perceived to be racism in such a sweet and polite and digestible manner ..
But I gotta say Today I am going to remove one more medal of honor from my sig . Mogambo is seldom happy ,you know !!!

I dont live in Ontario. I am a Vancouver-ite. Its 11:30 here. Late, i agree, but not late enough.

Sooooo. Speaking of getting a life and being at the messageboard at 2am, arnt you from Ontario ?

PS : 'Touche' would be a good response

 

[FRAZ]

I dont live in Ontario. I am a Vancouver-ite. Its 11:30 here. Late, i agree, but not late enough.

Oh ok westerner ! 'Soft wood lumber issue' guys and people who are extracting better and energetic workers from here to there" .
Yeah it's fine !

 

[C_C]

Oh ok westerner ! 'Soft wood lumber issue' guys and people who are extracting better and energetic workers from here to there" .
Yeah it's fine !

Bullcrap mate. We dont want you here. Vancouver is already overcrowded as it is. You guys come here for the weather,scenery and overall awesome atmosphere. Most Ontarians and Prairie province migrants here admit it freely, so there !

 

[FRAZ]

I dont live in Ontario. I am a Vancouver-ite. Its 11:30 here. Late, i agree, but not late enough.

Sooooo. Speaking of getting a life and being at the messageboard at 2am, arnt you from Ontario ?

Actualy I am Torontonian and I can't sleep cuz I am messed up cuz of closing date of home and I was supposed to recieve some money as a gift from US via wire and the wire has not reached yet ! I am quite worried and the mortgage companies have a law to provide all the material 8 days prior to closing !

 

[FRAZ]

Bullcrap mate. We dont want you here. Vancouver is already overcrowded as it is. You guys come here for the weather,scenery and overall awesome atmosphere. Most Ontarians and Prairie province migrants here admit it freely, so there !

Yeah I am jelous tbh and actualy all of my relatives there own the Taxi plates which is 250,000 each and they eat and sleep and enjoy scenery ! Losers!!!

 

[C_C]

Yeah I am jelous tbh and actualy all of my relatives there own the Taxi plates which is 250,000 each and they eat and sleep and enjoy scenery ! Losers!!!

Taxi driving in Vancouver is not fun (though better than Toronto) - Toronto has far more boorish passengers while Vancouver just has really stupid drivers (ofcourse that our roads arnt all perfectly flat and straight like Toronto doesnt help).
Besides, rush-hour driving in Vancouver is like being stuck in one long traffic jam ( Vancouver, btw, doesnt have a SINGLE highway in it and only two highways seve the entire lower mainland- the Richmond-Surrey and the Transcanada way that passes through north shore and burnaby-coquitlam).
Oh and beside- just to rub it in, I also am a former Ontarian ( lived in Kingston for almost 2 years and Ottawa for 1) and i admit- i DID move out here because of the weather, atmosphere and lifestyle ( it helped that i knew lotta Vancouverites in Ontario).
Anyways, enough OT chit-chat. Lets get back on topic or the whingers will start whinging soon.

 

[FRAZ]

Lets get back on topic or the whingers will start whinging soon.

Yup Hair = Loser !!!

 

[social]

Err no.
Hair wasnt right in most of his high profile decisions- he was wrong about Murali and he had zero reasons to investigate Pakistan for ball tampering apart from prejudiced perspective putting Pakistan up on 'suspicious' list.
Besides, he is an ordinary umpire- very ordinary and if he were from the subcontinent, he'd have been dropped long long time ago like Ashoka deSilva.

An umpire doesnt have the obligation to befriend the players but he does have an obligation to present an equally friendly face on the playground to every player- at the very least, players who've not been openly hostile/unfriendly towards him- which he has failed to do. If you are the judge, you are ethically committed to not be friendly to one player and stoic towards another on the field.
This is professional business, not a friendly village match he is umpiring in- a scenario his mentality and level of compitence are far more suited to than international duty.

He was proven to be correct with Murali.

Murali was an average test bowler with an horrific action when he was called. No-one bar his team-mates and very few bystanders disputed the decision at the time on a technical basis and EVERY scientific investigation over the course of ten years into his action proved one thing - Hair was right

Pak has been warned 10 times in 16 months for ball tampering.

Apparently, they are serial offenders but no-one other than Hair has taken it to the next level - gee, go figure given the punishment to Hair

And yet, Hair has been made a scapegoat in an attempt to vindicate certain teams' actions - I can't tell you how laughable it was that doping charges were proven and even more ball tampering charges were being levelled whilst Hair's fate was being decided

BTW, if you want a good insight into the personalities and pressures facing umpires, read Dickie Bird's autobiography.

The guy is a massive egomaniac (introduces himself as "Dickie Bird - test umpire") that takes credit for every successful resolution of a potential problem that occurred whilst he was officiating.

However, what is abundantly clear is that the players themselves are resposible for the outcomes.

On any no. of occasions, Dickie was on the verge of making decisions similar to Hair's.

However, on each and every occasion, the captain of the team in the wrong spoke to his players and avoided conflict, i.e. handled it differently to Inzy

Given the above, would someone please explain to me why the following scenarios resulted in different outcomes?

1. Hair to Inzy at the Oval: "ball has been tampered with, penalty is 5 runs and ball change."

Inzy's response: Forfeit

Pakistani response: National insult

ICC response: Hair sacked

2. On 9 other occasions in the last 16 months, umpires to Pakistani captains: "Warning for ball tampering."

Pakistani respone: Nada, nothing, zilch

ICC response: Nada, nothing, zilch

Conclusion: witch-hunt

As for Hair's treatment of players of different nationalities: crap

The guy is regarded by all and sundry as being difficult to get along with - read Allan Border's and Syeve Waugh's quotes as evidence.

Unfortunately, some have more to hide than others and choose to use any excuse available to them

 

[social]

Ahh! the old diversionary tactic ..... Stick to the topic please !

ICC = political animal

Pretty simple really

 

[C_C]

No-one bar his team-mates and very few bystanders disputed the decision at the time on a technical basis and EVERY scientific investigation over the course of ten years into his action proved one thing - Hair was right

False.
Murali was charged with throwing- a charge made categorically irrelevant and thus inapplicable by scientific evidence- which , if you pardon my insolence, you neither have a clue about it and nor are you in any position to dispute this statement of mine.

If you are gonna latch on to the oh-so-predictable 'he does have a bend in his elbow' clause, surely, you are not dim enough to overlook the idea that castigating someone for doing something that everyone is doing translates into victimisation.

As for Hair's treatment of players of different nationalities: crap

Nothing more than denial here, i see.

The guy is regarded by all and sundry as being difficult to get along with - read Allan Border's and Syeve Waugh's quotes as evidence.

All the more reason someone with questionable ethics and overall poor competence shouldnt venture beyond the village cricket level.

BTW, if you want a good insight into the personalities and pressures facing umpires, read Dickie Bird's autobiography.

Invalid and inapplicable.
Umpiring pressures and personalitie have undergone significant changes in the last 10 years or so, essentially with commercialisation of cricket. Dickie Bird's experience of umpiring is no more relevant to this discussion than WG Grace's experience in being a cricketer in a conversation discussing cricketer's experiences.

Apparently, they are serial offenders but no-one other than Hair has taken it to the next level - gee, go figure given the punishment to Hair

You clinically avoid the nexus argument against Hair, so i will bottomline it out for you once and for all.
Hair is the 'judge' in this scenario. He has to make decisions based on evidence presented to properly execute his job. However, judges themselves are accountable to the processes and credibility of their verdicts are open for contestation- otherwise they wouldnt be judges, they'd be dictators. Clearly, a term that is not intended to be synonymous or cricketing equivalent of umpires. As such, Hair's judgement has been proven erroneous. Further, he had highly ambiguous grounds to've persued such an accusation. True, umpires have their personal discretion of accusing someone of tampering or throwing. Just like you have the right to file a case against anyone. However, your case needs some basic minimum circumstantial evidence, at the very least, to be even lodged and even if it qualifies under the abovementioned terms, it can still be nullified.
As such, Hair was free to charge anyone with anything. Which he did. Since he was free to charge, his charges were entertained. However, since he had very little to account for due processes or credible decisionmaking, he now bears the reponsibility of his irresponsible act.
Ie, in short, if you charge someone with a serious crime without any grounds, you leave yourself open to- and rightly so, i might add- to counter-charges of defamation, incompetence and hidden agendas.
Hair is guilty precisely of that.
He isnt a scapegoat- he is someone who should've been a goner a long long time ago.
He has an obligation to not abuse his authority- which he has in this case.
I hope this make it clear for you.

Besides, personal descretion has always carried hindsight perspective as an inescapable companion. If you 'call' something and you are wrong, you take the fall for it. Period. Such is the nature of personal descretion or any decision making job where a credible, verifiable and logical chain of decisionmaking cannot be evaluated. If you 'think' someone is cheating and follow your hunch- you pay the consequences for your 'hunch' being wrong.