Darrell Hair

[Sanz]

You keep on doing it - "Hair's decision [not] to come out..." There were two umpires that day. One is less convenient as far as stereotyping goes though, so he gets forgotten.

I am not. Darell Hair behaved in an irresponsible way throughout that incident, Doctrove didn't. Yes Doctrove didn't come out either, but he wa sn't the one refusing to come out.

BBC Reports clearly suggests that "Darrell Hair is refusing to budge. That's the impasse."

Umpires disagreed over timing of ball change | Cricket News | Pakistan in England | Cricinfo.com

It has also emerged that Mike Procter, the ICC match referee, failed to inform Pakistan of their forfeiture soon after the decision had been taken by the umpires in the afternoon. "Hair instructed Procter to tell Pakistan that they had forfeited the game in the afternoon. Procter failed to do so and officially, much later at around 10 pm, did they learn that the Test had been forfeited," claimed the source.

 

[GIMH]

Good riddance the **** is gone. Self aggrandizing biased arrogant prick. Thought he was an integral to the game as much as players. Newsflash douchebag: hold the hats, give out LBWs and be happy that cricket remains backward enough to hold your position in such high regard.

Cant believe anyone would think the game was better with him than without him.

Jeez SS, it's in heady competition but this might just be your worst post. Biased? Surely you don't actually think that, surely you don't actually think that?!

 

[Faisal1985]

I am not. Darell Hair behaved in an irresponsible way throughout that incident, Doctrove didn't. Yes Doctrove didn't come out either, but he wa sn't the one refusing to come out.

BBC Reports clearly suggests that "Darrell Hair is refusing to budge. That's the impasse."

Umpires disagreed over timing of ball change | Cricket News | Pakistan in England | Cricinfo.com

It has also emerged that Mike Procter, the ICC match referee, failed to inform Pakistan of their forfeiture soon after the decision had been taken by the umpires in the afternoon. "Hair instructed Procter to tell Pakistan that they had forfeited the game in the afternoon. Procter failed to do so and officially, much later at around 10 pm, did they learn that the Test had been forfeited," claimed the source.

The article clearly shows, that first of all there was no video or photographic evidence that any of the Pakistan bowlers engaged in ball tempering. I was of the opinion that Pak should have carried on with the game and protested after the game and should have brought legal charges against Hair.

 

[Shri]

Good riddance the **** is gone. Self aggrandizing biased arrogant prick. Thought he was an integral to the game as much as players. Newsflash douchebag: hold the hats, give out LBWs and be happy that cricket remains backward enough to hold your position in such high regard.

Cant believe anyone would think the game was better with him than without him.

Haha. World of Cricketcraft: SS -> Skill Tree -> Ranting = +1

 

[BoyBrumby]

Pakistan's decision was not justified (Have never supported them on the issue, even called for Inzi's banning) and neither was Hair's decision to come out when the two team decided to start the match again.

Again tho, it wasn't their decision by the time they finally condescended to emerge.

The umpires' decision to impose a forfeiture was the correct one and, whilst weaker umpires might've caved, that wouldn't make it right.

 

[zaremba]

I am not. Darell Hair behaved in an irresponsible way throughout that incident, Doctrove didn't. Yes Doctrove didn't come out either, but he wa sn't the one refusing to come out.

BBC Reports clearly suggests that "Darrell Hair is refusing to budge. That's the impasse."

Umpires disagreed over timing of ball change | Cricket News | Pakistan in England | Cricinfo.com

It has also emerged that Mike Procter, the ICC match referee, failed to inform Pakistan of their forfeiture soon after the decision had been taken by the umpires in the afternoon. "Hair instructed Procter to tell Pakistan that they had forfeited the game in the afternoon. Procter failed to do so and officially, much later at around 10 pm, did they learn that the Test had been forfeited," claimed the source.

Let's just begin by observing that the evidence you're relying on to convict Hair is utterly unsourced and unconfirmed. I wonder if you'd be happy for a player or umpire from your country to have the finger of blame pointed at him on the basis of that evidence? Somehow I doubt it, I really do. But Darrell Hair? Well he's fair game isn't he?

But let's leave that aside. Let's assume that the rumours reported in that article are
true. The position remains exactly the same when you read the parts of the report that you failed to mention in your selective quoting from it. Two points:

(1) The umpires agreed on the ball change. They may have disagreed about when to change it, but the decision that it had to be changed was a joint decision: "Hair is thought to have reasoned that if both umpires were in agreement that the condition of the ball had been altered then they should change it immediately. Doctrove then agreed and the ball was duly replaced."

(2) The rumours quoted in the article don't suggest any disagreement between Hair and Doctrove about whether to restart the match after Pakistan had forfeited it.

 

[zaremba]

Regardless of suspicions, concerns, etc etc. Who called the no ball at the end of the day? Not the ones being suspicious or concerned. Why?

I wasn't trying to enter the debate about whether it was right or wrong to call Murali. I was just interested by your post and the fact that Hair was the first to have called Murali, so I did some googling and posted what I found, which seemed to be relevant.

FWIW, my view on calling Murali is:

1. It was unwise and probably wrong;

2. As to whether it took courage, I would say yes. However even Hair may not have foreseen quite the level of character assassination, scapegoating and worst of all cheap and vile allegations of racism that have been thrown his way. But being courageous does not mean that you're right.

 

[Faisal1985]

Let's just begin by observing that the evidence you're relying on to convict Hair is utterly unsourced and unconfirmed. I wonder if you'd be happy for a player or umpire from your country to have the finger of blame pointed at him on the basis of that evidence? Somehow I doubt it, I really do. But Darrell Hair? Well he's fair game isn't he?

But let's leave that aside. Let's assume that the rumours reported in that article are
true. The position remains exactly the same when you read the parts of the report that you failed to mention in your selective quoting from it. Two points:

(1) The umpires agreed on the ball change. They may have disagreed about when to change it, but the decision that it had to be changed was a joint decision: "Hair is thought to have reasoned that if both umpires were in agreement that the condition of the ball had been altered then they should change it immediately. Doctrove then agreed and the ball was duly replaced."

(2) The rumours quoted in the article don't suggest any disagreement between Hair and Doctrove about whether to restart the match after Pakistan had forfeited it.

Why not question what evidence was Hair working with when declaring ball tempering.....and then question other things.

Second, its not a rumor. Read the article it says that Billy mentioned the initial disagreement in his report.

 

[Faisal1985]

I wasn't trying to enter the debate about whether it was right or wrong to call Murali. I was just interested by your post and the fact that Hair was the first to have called Murali, so I did some googling and posted what I found, which seemed to be relevant.

FWIW, my view on calling Murali is:

1. It was unwise and probably wrong;

2. As to whether it took courage, I would say yes. However even Hair may not have foreseen quite the level of character assassination, scapegoating and worst of all cheap and vile allegations of racism that have been thrown his way. But being courageous does not mean that you're right.

I don't see it as courage tbf.

 

[zaremba]

Why not question what evidence was Hair working with when declaring ball tempering.....and then question other things.

I will keep very patient as I say this: it wasn't just Hair who "declared ball tampering", it was Hair and Doctrove. They agreed on the point.

As to what evidence there was, we know, because Hair has spoken about it and indeed given evidence on it at Inzi's disciplinary hearing. It was the condition of the ball. This is something that umpires are required to monitor regularly during a match for precisely this reason. The umpires (plural) considered that the ball was in a dreadful condition and they (plural) formed the opinion that this was due to ball tampering. That was not upheld at Inzi's disciplinary, and he was duly acquitted on that charge. But that's the evidence that Hair and Doctrove had.

Second, its not a rumor. Read the article it says that Billy mentioned the initial disagreement in his report.

Fair point. But for the two reasons I gave in my post, it makes no difference.

 

[Faisal1985]

I will keep very patient as I say this: it wasn't just Hair who "declared ball tampering", it was Hair and Doctrove. They agreed on the point.

As to what evidence there was, we know, because Hair has spoken about it and indeed given evidence on it at Inzi's disciplinary hearing. It was the condition of the ball. This is something that umpires are required to monitor regularly during a match for precisely this reason. The umpires (plural) considered that the ball was in a dreadful condition and they (plural) formed the opinion that this was due to ball tampering. That was not upheld at Inzi's disciplinary, and he was duly acquitted on that charge. But that's the evidence that Hair and Doctrove had.



Fair point. But for the two reasons I gave in my post, it makes no difference.

The evidence was not reasonable for them (plural, as you say) to even initiate an inquiry let alone give five penalty runs. Giving five penalty runs means that they had evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to prove tempering of the ball hence, declaring the players/bowlers cheat. Provided that the ball was around 58 overs old, the shape of the ball was bound to deteriorate and as was found later in the hearing the ball had natural deterioration and nothing that suggested it was tampered with.

Keeping this in mind, it is clear that Hair and Billy were making judgement calls based on their personal like or dislike. As was evident from Hair's prior judgement calls which had no factual or reasonable grounds. Billy's continuing subjective umpiring was even evident in the recently concluded series where he refused to call for the third umpire on a stumping when he had no hesitation to honor a minor appeal from English bowler when the ball deflected off of Afridi's bat and crashed in to the stumps. These are not umpiring mistakes, these genuine cases of judgement calls based on personal like or dislike.

In any case this needs to be washed from Cricket just like the menace of spot fixing or any other type of fixing or favoritism in umpiring.

 

[zaremba]

Umpires make mistakes. Sometimes very bad ones. Sometimes the same team gets the benefit of that a few times. Doesn't mean the umpire's biased towards that team. When Matt Prior dropped a couple of Indian players in the Tests a few years ago, he didn't do it because he was biased towards India. He did it because he's human.

 

[Fusion]

I’m very uncomfortable with the allegations of racism/bias against umpires. As Zaremba states, umpires make mistakes because they're human. That doesn't mean they're racist. Let’s take the case of the subject of this thread, Mr. Hair. Personally, I think he’s a complete and utter ****. Egotistical to the max and has a combination of God and martyr complex. However, I don’t think he’s racist. He tended to get into controversies because he enjoyed the spotlight (IMHO of course). It just happened to be that the controversies during his time revolved around the sub-continental players. Therefore, even though he was technically a very competent umpire, he nevertheless needed to be kicked out of the game.

Along with making the right calls, umpires also need to possess common sense. Something that Hair was lacking. The best of umpires should not be noticed at all. Their job is to simply make the decisions and let the players have the spotlight. When the ump decides that he needs to be as big a headline in next day’s newspaper as a Tendulkar or Warne, we have a problem. I for one am mighty glad that Hair is no longer part of the game.

 

[zaremba]

I'd agree with just about everything that Fusion just wrote.

 

[Burgey]

I’m very uncomfortable with the allegations of racism/bias against umpires. As Zaremba states, umpires make mistakes because they're human. That doesn't mean they're racist. Let’s take the case of the subject of this thread, Mr. Hair. Personally, I think he’s a complete and utter ****. Egotistical to the max and has a combination of God and martyr complex. However, I don’t think he’s racist. He tended to get into controversies because he enjoyed the spotlight (IMHO of course). It just happened to be that the controversies during his time revolved around the sub-continental players. Therefore, even though he was technically a very competent umpire, he nevertheless needed to be kicked out of the game.

Along with making the right calls, umpires also need to possess common sense. Something that Hair was lacking. The best of umpires should not be noticed at all. Their job is to simply make the decisions and let the players have the spotlight. When the ump decides that he needs to be as big a headline in next day’s newspaper as a Tendulkar or Warne, we have a problem. I for one am mighty glad that Hair is no longer part of the game.

This.

 

[sledger]

Yeah, agree with Fusion as well.

 

[morgieb]

I’m very uncomfortable with the allegations of racism/bias against umpires. As Zaremba states, umpires make mistakes because they're human. That doesn't mean they're racist. Let’s take the case of the subject of this thread, Mr. Hair. Personally, I think he’s a complete and utter ****. Egotistical to the max and has a combination of God and martyr complex. However, I don’t think he’s racist. He tended to get into controversies because he enjoyed the spotlight (IMHO of course). It just happened to be that the controversies during his time revolved around the sub-continental players. Therefore, even though he was technically a very competent umpire, he nevertheless needed to be kicked out of the game.

Along with making the right calls, umpires also need to possess common sense. Something that Hair was lacking. The best of umpires should not be noticed at all. Their job is to simply make the decisions and let the players have the spotlight. When the ump decides that he needs to be as big a headline in next day’s newspaper as a Tendulkar or Warne, we have a problem. I for one am mighty glad that Hair is no longer part of the game.

Yep, exactly. Had he made those calls to say....England, no one would've cared.

 

[Sanz]

Again tho, it wasn't their decision by the time they finally condescended to emerge.

The umpires' decision to impose a forfeiture was the correct one and, whilst weaker umpires might've caved, that wouldn't make it right.

The point I am trying to make is :-

A. Two events should not be treated independent of each other. (Yes Pakistan should have come out and played regardless of what Hair did or did not do)

B. While the Umpire's decision to forfeit the match was correct because the other team did not show up, it is not as black and white as you suggest because there were efforts made to start the test match again.

C. Hair's failure to recognize his mistake earlier in the field which caused the whole incident in the first hand as well his refusal to take the field again shows that he was equally to blame for it.

 

[Sanz]

Let's just begin by observing that the evidence you're relying on to convict Hair is utterly unsourced and unconfirmed. I wonder if you'd be happy for a player or umpire from your country to have the finger of blame pointed at him on the basis of that evidence? Somehow I doubt it, I really do. But Darrell Hair? Well he's fair game isn't he?

But let's leave that aside. Let's assume that the rumours reported in that article are
true. The position remains exactly the same when you read the parts of the report that you failed to mention in your selective quoting from it. Two points:

(1) The umpires agreed on the ball change. They may have disagreed about when to change it, but the decision that it had to be changed was a joint decision: "Hair is thought to have reasoned that if both umpires were in agreement that the condition of the ball had been altered then they should change it immediately. Doctrove then agreed and the ball was duly replaced."

(2) The rumours quoted in the article don't suggest any disagreement between Hair and Doctrove about whether to restart the match after Pakistan had forfeited it.

There is enough information on the web, suggesting that Doctrove was willing to come out but it was Hair who refused.

Umpire Darrell Hair says ECB officials escalated ball-tampering row | Sport | The Guardian

Here is David Morgan :-

"Everybody in a formal meeting decided that they wanted the game to continue on the final day, but Mr Hair was clearly unprepared to do so, Mr Hair's response was: 'If you send me out you'll make a monkey out of me.'"

Morgan added that Hair's fellow umpire, the West Indian Billy Doctrove, had said: "I can't do it without Darrell."

 

[social]

The point I am trying to make is :-

A. Two events should not be treated independent of each other. (Yes Pakistan should have come out and played regardless of what Hair did or did not do)

B. While the Umpire's decision to forfeit the match was correct because the other team did not show up, it is not as black and white as you suggest because there were efforts made to start the test match again.

C. Hair's failure to recognize his mistake earlier in the field which caused the whole incident in the first hand as well his refusal to take the field again shows that he was equally to blame for it.

This is where I take issue because Hair was absolutely 100% correct according to the rules of the game