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

[Smudge]

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

That's almost worthy of a Skull...






See what I did there?

 

[Langeveldt]

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

Haha, brilliant

 

[IndianByHeart]

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.

Also telling Pakistan team not to appeal like monkies while playing in Australia, scolding Salmab Butt in a lunatic manner for running on the pitch and above all conituining to no ball Muralitharan when the governing body had ruled his action legal.The guy thinks he's above the law and can do anything and can get away with it.

Don Bradman described Hair as the most disgraceful umpire ever (during the Hair-murali episode)

 

[Steulen]

Also telling Pakistan team not to appeal like monkies while playing in Australia, scolding Salmab Butt in a lunatic manner for running on the pitch and above all conituining to no ball Muralitharan when the governing body had ruled his action legal.The guy thinks he's above the law and can do anything and can get away with it.

Don Bradman described Hair as the most disgraceful umpire ever (during the Hair-murali episode)

I believe he described the no-balling as the most disgraceful bit of umpiring he had ever seen, which is sligtlhy different from what you're saying.

 

[Goughy]

Personaly, I dont like Hair because he has a large dose of the 'Collinas'. He seems to revel being in the spotlight, which is never good for an Umpire. However, I do admire the fact that he is willing to make decisions he believes are correct when others would be fearful of a political backlash.

A number of players, umpires and administrators talk very differently in private than they do in public but he (whether you like him or not) does not shy away from potential conflict if he believes something amiss has happened.

As I said, I dont like him as he is a little overofficious and seems to be looking for ways he can become the centre of attention, but he is not the worst I have seen in terms of decisions made.

 

[Steulen]

He's an idiot who makes shocking howlers like the Murali no-balling and yesterday's episode, but at the same time his 'normal' decisions (on LBW's, caughts etc.) place him among the best umpires around, imo. Too bad...

 

[Legglancer]

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.

What do you think he will say ? Here's a guy who after the ICC had cleared Murali for the umpteenth time said in his book that he would "Call him Again". His egocentric personality will compel him to say " Yes I saw a player Tamper the ball but he will remain unnamed"

 

[silentstriker]

Personaly, I dont like Hair because he has a large dose of the 'Collinas'. He seems to revel being in the spotlight, which is never good for an Umpire. However, I do admire the fact that he is willing to make decisions he believes are correct when others would be fearful of a political backlash.

Is he doing it because he thinks its correct or is he doing it because he wants to be the center of attention?

How come 90% of his bad decisions are anti-subcontinental?

 

[Sanz]

I have always preferred to give Hair the benefit of doubt, but after what happened today, I have no doubt in mind that he is the 2nd worst thing to happen to cricket in last 10 years.

 

[Goughy]

I have always preferred to give Hair the benefit of doubt, but after what happened today, I have no doubt in mind that he is the 2nd worst thing to happen to cricket in last 10 years.

Im actually a little confused. I dont quite see what he has done wrong. He suspected the ball had been tampered with, so changed the ball and awarded 5 runs. What were they supposed to do if they believed the ball had been doctored?

 

[Sanz]

Im actually a little confused. I dont quite see what he has done wrong. He suspected the ball had been tampered with, so changed the ball and awarded 5 runs. What were they supposed to do if they believed the ball had been doctored?

 

[Goughy]

Seriously I dont. Im happy that I may have missed something. Im not defending him, I would just like it explained what he has done wrong in this test.

 

[Sanz]

Do you believe Shakoor Rana was right ?

 

[Goughy]

Do you believe Shakoor Rana was right ?

Will someone answer my question about what he has done wrong? Im wanting to learn as I may have missed something not get involved in a game.

Id just like it explained to me so I understand the situation. Thats all

As for Shakoor Rana, it depends what you mean by right. My issue with Rana was how he behaved at the end of the day and paraded around like he had won the lottery with Gattings apology in hand rather than what actually happed on the field.

 

[Fusion]

I have always preferred to give Hair the benefit of doubt, but after what happened today, I have no doubt in mind that he is the 2nd worst thing to happen to cricket in last 10 years.

What's the first?

 

[Jono]

Cronje surely.

 

[Fusion]

Will someone answer my question about what he has done wrong? Im wanting to learn as I may have missed something not get involved in a game.

Id just like it explained to me so I understand the situation. Thats all

As for Shakoor Rana, it depends what you mean by right. My issue with Rana was how he behaved at the end of the day and paraded around like he had won the lottery with Gattings apology in hand rather than what actually happed on the field.

Yes I'll give it a try. First of all, no one is disputing that by "the letter of the law", he had a right to do what he did. However, there is such a thing as common decency and common sense. He knew that the ball tampering accusation was going to create a fire storm, specially given Pakistan's history in England. If he suspected something, why didn't he first have a word with Inzi before changing the ball? Other umpires would have done so. Secondly, given the serious nature of the allegation, he shouldn't have done anything unless he observed someone tampering with the ball (which is apparently not the case). Again, he doesn't have to by law, but he should've. Lastly, after the whole mess happened and Pakistan were ready to come back on the field, why didn't he just come to umpire as well? Even if he thinks Pakistan are in the wrong, why not rise above the situation and continue to umpire? Is his ego so large that he couldn't compromise? Remember, by coming back to umpire, he's not conceding defeat. He has still forced the changing of the ball and he's still going to report Pakistan after the game for tampering. So he had nothing to lose, except his "I'm bigger than the game" attitude.
Frankly, his attitude is not much different from Rana, whom you have a problem with.

 

[Goughy]

Yes I'll give it a try. First of all, no one is disputing that by "the letter of the law", he had a right to do what he did. However, there is such a thing as common decency and common sense. He knew that the ball tampering accusation was going to create a fire storm, specially given Pakistan's history in England. If he suspected something, why didn't he first have a word with Inzi before changing the ball? Other umpires would have done so. Secondly, given the serious nature of the allegation, he shouldn't have done anything unless he observed someone tampering with the ball (which is apparently not the case). Again, he doesn't have to by law, but he should've. Lastly, after the whole mess happened and Pakistan were ready to come back on the field, why didn't he just come to umpire as well? Even if he thinks Pakistan are in the wrong, why not rise above the situation and continue to umpire? Is his ego so large that he couldn't compromise? Remember, by coming back to umpire, he's not conceding defeat. He has still forced the changing of the ball and he's still going to report Pakistan after the game for tampering. So he had nothing to lose, except his "I'm bigger than the game" attitude.
Frankly, his attitude is not much different from Rana, whom you have a problem with.

I have no idea how Hair acted after play or how he behaved. If people said he acted childish then fair enough. However, if he followed the rules on the field there can be no problem there. He cannot suddenly say "Oh its Pakistan, Ill handle the game differently and give them more leeway as it will cause a rumpus" can he?

Also he never accused anyone directly of cheating. Just that the condition of the ball was changed. Changing the ball and a 5 run penalty does not seem that dramatic, certainly not a big enough issue to abandon a Test.

It seems that he is being criticised for being Hair and the team being Pakistan rather than for anything he actually did incorrectly.

As I said in a previous post, I do not like Hair as an umpire or a character but this seems to have been blown out of all proportion.

 

[Fusion]

Also he never accused anyone directly of cheating. Just that the condition of the ball was changed. Changing the ball and a 5 run penalty does not seem that dramatic, certainly not a big enough issue to abandon a Test.

Surely you're pretending to be naïve here? He didn't accuse anyone of cheating?? The ONLY REASON the ball can be changed and 5 runs awarded is if an umpire thinks there was tampering done. He accused Pakistan of cheating. Without having proof. That's not a minor charge and the issue is not being blown out of proportion. I don't know about you, but if someone questions my character, I would react in the strongest possible manner (without violence of course).

 

[silentstriker]

I have no idea how Hair acted after play or how he behaved. If people said he acted childish then fair enough. However, if he followed the rules on the field there can be no problem there. He cannot suddenly say "Oh its Pakistan, Ill handle the game differently and give them more leeway as it will cause a rumpus" can he?

Also he never accused anyone directly of cheating. Just that the condition of the ball was changed. Changing the ball and a 5 run penalty does not seem that dramatic, certainly not a big enough issue to abandon a Test.

It seems that he is being criticised for being Hair and the team being Pakistan rather than for anything he actually did incorrectly.

As I said in a previous post, I do not like Hair as an umpire or a character but this seems to have been blown out of all proportion.

He accused Pakistan of cheating. Its not about the five runs, people keep bringing that up as if five runs made any difference. Its about being labeled cheaters - a label that they already have to live with in England since the early 90s.