How good - or bad - an umpire is Darryl Hair?

[honestbharani]

He once admonished the great AA like he was a school boy.. Bad Umpire

He deserves to be on the CW black list for that alone.

 

[honestbharani]

People haven't claimed Bucknor was a racist because his exploits were for the most part, solely against the Indian team, resulting in Ganguly giving him a 0 rating and various Indian fans just being ****ed off. If you don't like Indians specifically, that doesn't make you a racist by the strictest terms does it? That's further personified if you only don't like the Indian cricket team. On top of that, Bucknor's exploits don't compare to Hair really. Not at all, when it comes to continous actions for over a decade which lead people to believe Hair has something in it for South Asians.

Also, isn't it odd that Hair's 'martyr' like behaviour seems to always be against a sub-continental team? What is this mission he's on that only involves sub-continental teams going against it?

Subcontinental and perhaps the West Indies on the odd occasion, I guess.

 

[JASON]

He is the most racist umpire in the panel without doubt imo. Especially against Asian nations. If you look at the footage of the LBW's and caught behind decisions he has given against them and not against their opposition its simply diabolical. I am amazed how no one seems to take notice. India Pakistan And Sri Lanka has repeatedly implored the ICC not to officiate him for their matchers, But ICC looks the other way.

Agree with that 100 Percent !!

Absolutely spot on , and this is the Umpteenth time he has had problems.

I had previously stated that Darrell Hair was a problem for the ICC, and lo and behold he has proven it absolutely here .

But believe me , he will still survive this . That's the way with the ICC !! (especially as there are powers that be who will back him and keep him going !!)

 

[vic_orthdox]

Most other umpires would have just changed the ball, while Hair imposed the 5 run penalty as well.

He just wants to be central to the match far too often, IMO.

 

[SJS]

Most other umpires would have just changed the ball, while Hair imposed the 5 run penalty as well.

He just wants to be central to the match far too often, IMO.

It is still not clear whether Hair actually SAW someone tampering with the ball. Unless that had happened, he could not 'presume' that a Pakistani player had done so. It is important to get a clarification from Hair on this.

From whatever one has seen so far, it would appear that he didnt and went by what he saw as a change to the ball condition which he then 'assumed' to be a case of tampering by one of the fielding side players. All he seemed to have done was point out a rough bit on the ball to the other umpire and assuming this couldnt have come in the normal course of play. He never pointed to a player though he was shown closely following the movements of some players once they had the ball in their hands.

This is central to whether Hair was right or wrong in awarding five runs and the ugly insinuation that went with it.

 

[SJS]

Most other umpires would have just changed the ball, while Hair imposed the 5 run penalty as well.

He just wants to be central to the match far too often, IMO.

He clearly assumed it was one of the fielders who was responsible for whatever change he observed in the ball surface. If he believed that was indeed the case, he HAD to award the five runs AND let the batsmen chose the next ball. Whats not clear is WHY he assumed what he assumed.

 

[Slow Love™]

Even if Hair was universally biased against all subcontinental teams in all situations, that still wouldn't make him racist.

I reckon you're straining a little too hard there, Faaip. It'd be pretty likely, and under those circumstances, a quite defendable accusation. Unless the only way you could possibly believe somebody can be a racist is if they publicly self-identify as one.

 

[_TiGeR-ToWn_]

He clearly assumed it was one of the fielders who was responsible for whatever change he observed in the ball surface. If he believed that was indeed the case, he HAD to award the five runs AND let the batsmen chose the next ball. Whats not clear is WHY he assumed what he assumed.

Spot on SJS

Havent seen the footage of what has happened by what I have read on here and on cricinfo. I didnt mind Hair, he umpired it as it was and I doubt very much so that he would call something that wasnt there be to be called. I want to know what Hair has to say on the incident, not what everyone is assuming happened.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I reckon you're straining a little too hard there, Faaip. It'd be pretty likely, and under those circumstances, a quite defendable accusation. Unless the only way you could possibly believe somebody can be a racist is if they publicly self-identify as one.

People can certainly be racist without admitting it, but I don't believe a handful of controversial umpiring decisions or even a bias against a particular side are any sort of evidence of racism. There has to be a reason to believe that the bias is racial in nature, other than the race of the players in question.

Basically, there are two assumptions people are making when talking about Hair. One, that he is biased against particular teams, which I don't really buy, but obviously it's a fairly popular argument among the fans of particular teams. Two, that he is biased against those teams because he is racist and wishes to persecute either the people of the nations those teams represent or the racial group that most of the players fall into. That has no evidence at all, it's just an assumption based on his conduct as an umpire, and an utterly ridiculous one IMO.

Hell, it may be that Hair is racist, I don't know the guy, but you certainly can't just assume he is because he is harsh on some players from the subcontinent. Same goes for Bucknor, Chris Broad and everyone else.

 

[Jono]

People can certainly be racist without admitting it, but I don't believe a handful of controversial umpiring decisions or even a bias against a particular side are any sort of evidence of racism. There has to be a reason to believe that the bias is racial in nature, other than the race of the players in question.

Basically, there are two assumptions people are making when talking about Hair. One, that he is biased against particular teams, which I don't really buy, but obviously it's a fairly popular argument among the fans of particular teams.

Fans AND players, past or present.

 

[howardj]

Hair left them stranded.

 

[Jono]

Fair play Howard.

 

[Dasa]

Might end up being a case of Hair today, gone tomorrow.

 

[Smudge]

I think they'll have to comb the video footage to find some evidence...

 

[Langeveldt]

I think the ICC will want to part with Mr.Hair's services

 

[Neil Pickup]

Also, isn't it odd that Hair's 'martyr' like behaviour seems to always be against a sub-continental team? What is this mission he's on that only involves sub-continental teams going against it?

Zimbabwe v New Zealand, September 2000

New Zealand were chasing 132 for victory on the fifth and final day of the match when Hair, officiating from square leg, no-balled Grant Flower three times in his second over.

GW Flower called for throwing 3 times by umpire DB Hair from square leg in the 8th over of New Zealand's 2nd innings (the 2nd, 4th and 6th deliveries bowled in his 2nd over). Captain HH Streak withdrew Flower from the attack and GJ Rennie completed the remaining 3 deliveries in the over.

Kinda scuppers that theory.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

He's just a deadly strict applier of the rules, doing what common sense tells everyone else not to do.

 

[Dasa]

Kinda scuppers that theory.

Not really...Jono may have been incorrect in saying "always" (although I'm sure he didn't mean it literally), but it seems that most of the time the controversy surrounding Hair does involve subcontinental teams. That article didn't mention other incidents - for instance, dealing rather harshly withDanish Kaneria for running on the danger area in his follow through when England were in Pakistan.

 

[FRAZ]

Now the thing which is going to prevail now a days in the ridiculous media is that "They will try to prove that Hair is an overall junk and not a targeted one".
Pathetic , what else ICC wanna see now ...

 

[benchmark00]

Looks like if he's wrong, there'll be hell toupee.