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

[Sanz]

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).

Dont be surprised, he always does that.

 

[Xuhaib]

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...

Have you ever watched him umpire Pakistan and Sri Lankan matches?

 

[Goughy]

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.

No he followed the Laws of the Game as he is obliged to do.

If he believed the condition of the ball to have changed, are you suggesting he go against the defined procedures because it was Pakistan?

He did not point a finger and call anyone a cheat but followed the laws as he was obliged to do.

As I said if he behaved like a fool afterwards thats a fair enough complaint but I really cannot see what is wrong with doing what you are obliged to do under Law 42.3

 

[silentstriker]

No he followed the Laws of the Game as he is obliged to do.

If he believed the condition of the ball to have changed, are you suggesting he go against the defined procedures because it was Pakistan?

He did not point a finger and call anyone a cheat but followed the laws as he was obliged to do.

By awarding Pakistan 5 runs - he did point a finger and call them cheats. He has every right to award the team five runs - but doing so without actually seeing someone act on the ball, while not agaist the laws, is not appropriate as it is a serious allegation.

Not a single person here accused him of not following the laws of cricket -- only you seem to be stuck on that point. But you can act inappropriately within the rules. Plus it is just the latest incident in a long string of anti-subcontinent bias.

 

[Goughy]

By awarding Pakistan 5 runs - he did point a finger and call them cheats. He has every right to award the team five runs - but doing so without actually seeing someone act on the ball, while not agaist the laws, is not appropriate as it is a serious allegation.

Not a single person here accused him of not following the laws of cricket -- only you seem to be stuck on that point. But you can act inappropriately within the rules. Plus it is just the latest incident in a long string of anti-subcontinent bias.

Well we obviously see it different. I dont think its that serious an allegation as I think the punishment illustrates. 5 runs and a new ball is hardly a serious punishment. I think if they had got on with the game it would not have been that big a deal. If you work on the principle that the punishment fits the crime then the minor punishment shows it to be a minor crime. Ball tampering bothers me a little, but not too much, and certainly far less than forfeiting a game and blowing everything out of proportion. Why does everything have to be a drama?

As for getting stuck on the points of the rules, they exist for a reason. I hardly see how following the set procedure is showing anti-subcontinent bias. Do you ever think he may just have been doing his job?

 

[Sanz]

No he followed the Laws of the Game as he is obliged to do.

If he believed the condition of the ball to have changed, are you suggesting he go against the defined procedures because it was Pakistan?

He did not point a finger and call anyone a cheat but followed the laws as he was obliged to do.

As I said if he behaved like a fool afterwards thats a fair enough complaint but I really cannot see what is wrong with doing what you are obliged to do under Law 42.3

He did the same thing Shakoor Rana had done 20 years ago or so.

 

[silentstriker]

Well we obviously see it different. I dont think its that serious an allegation as I think the punishment illustrates. 5 runs and a new ball is hardly a serious punishment.

It is irrelevent what the punishment was. I have to keep saying this. In any case, in cases of proven ball tampering -- the punishment should be much higher (like 40 runs and the bowler unable to bowl & bat and unable to stay on the field, so they have to play with 10 men). Maybe that will be a good deterrent.

As for getting stuck on the points of the rules, they exist for a reason. I hardly see how following the set procedure is showing anti-subcontinent bias. Do you ever think he may just have been doing his job?

I don't think he would have accused, say Australia, of ball tampering in exactly the same situation. And if he did, then it would mean that he is simply a bad umpire, instead of a biased one. Not letting the accused captain see the evidence that labels him a cheat is pathetic and unworthy of an international quality umpire.

 

[Anil]

Well we obviously see it different. I dont think its that serious an allegation as I think the punishment illustrates. 5 runs and a new ball is hardly a serious punishment. I think if they had got on with the game it would not have been that big a deal. If you work on the principle that the punishment fits the crime then the minor punishment shows it to be a minor crime. Ball tampering bothers me a little, but not too much, and certainly far less than forfeiting a game and blowing everything out of proportion. Why does everything have to be a drama?

As for getting stuck on the points of the rules, they exist for a reason. I hardly see how following the set procedure is showing anti-subcontinent bias. Do you ever think he may just have been doing his job?

he made an assumption that the ball had been tampered with....and based on that assumption he made a decision to punish the pakistan team thereby accusing them of contravening the laws of the game and going against the spirit of the game and effectively labelling them cheats...if the pakistanis were/are innocent, they had/have all the reason to be angry at hair's high-handed decision...

 

[Sanz]

he made an assumption that the ball had been tampered with....and based on that assumption he made a decision to punish the pakistan team thereby accusing them of contravening the laws of the game and going against the spirit of the game and effectively labelling them cheats...if the pakistanis were/are innocent, they had/have all the reason to be angry at hair's high-handed decision...

Not just that, Umpires job is to run the game in the middle and not treat tehmselves as above the game, somthing Darrell Hair fails to do a lot of times.

 

[a10khan]

No he followed the Laws of the Game as he is obliged to do.

If he believed the condition of the ball to have changed, are you suggesting he go against the defined procedures because it was Pakistan?

He did not point a finger and call anyone a cheat but followed the laws as he was obliged to do.

As I said if he behaved like a fool afterwards thats a fair enough complaint but I really cannot see what is wrong with doing what you are obliged to do under Law 42.3

He did not speak to Inzy, did not express his concerns earlier, and when ball was being changed did not offer explanation why he is doing so. He acted like a jerk, which he is. Its his attitude that is a bigger concern. I do not expect Taufel or Bucknor to behave in a similar manner. Hair is easily the most controversial umprie of the last decade or so. He shd have been shown the door long time ago, but for the incompetence and weakness of the ICC.

 

[Goughy]

He did not speak to Inzy, did not express his concerns earlier, and when ball was being changed did not offer explanation why he is doing so. He acted like a jerk, which he is. Its his attitude that is a bigger concern. I do not expect Taufel or Bucknor to behave in a similar manner. Hair is easily the most controversial umprie of the last decade or so. He shd have been shown the door long time ago, but for the incompetence and weakness of the ICC.

That I agree with. Even if he acts correctly he does it in a kind of pompous (sp?) manner that makes a lot of things less palatable than if the same actions were taken by an umpire more skilled in man-management and with a lesser ego.

I still think people are overreacting but Hair is an awkward and overly-righteous umpire whos personality does make things worse.

 

[Chemosit]

A lot has been mentioned about Hair following the exact letter of the law.
I did not have sound where I was watching the match so could not hear what was said, but to me he looked as though when he swapped the balls, he allowed the batsmen to choose the new one. I have always understood the only people to make this decision should be the umpires. If so, that blows the argument about him simple being a stickler for the rules out of the water. You can't pick and choose what rules you follow to the letter.

That aside, I believe he lets personality get in the way of his decisions rather than following a logical line of thought. Umpires decisions should be made on the evidence alone and not personal likes/dislikes. IMO he has too many of the latter to be considered a decent umpire.

Inzi has been charged with bringing the game into disrepute, to my mind it should be Hair who should be charged, and not for the first time.

 

[_TiGeR-ToWn_]

If he suspected foul play, illegal work on the ball then he had to report it. He couldnt let it slip and go up to Inzi and have a "chat" with him about the incident. That would be unfair to England. Remember there are two umpires out there, Billy and Darryl must of both agreed that there was something wrong with the ball to go and get it changed. Pakistan couldn't face the possibility of another ball tampering charge and so threw a hisyfit.

Im interested as to what Hair has to say on it.

Finally, supposidly a paper has a photo of the incident......

 

[Fusion]

Finally, supposidly a paper has a photo of the incident......

Discussed and already discredited. See the main thread.

 

[Slow Love™]

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.

Sure, but this is waffle, and doesn't address what I said. I'm not making the charge that Hair is a racist, based on the occasional incident against subcontinental teams. I'm addressing a statement you made.

Your premise was that: Even if Hair WAS UNIVERSALLY biased against ALL subcontinental teams in ALL situations, that still wouldn't make him racist..

I suppose if you were desperate to avoid a charge of racism in the above situation (god knows why though), you could argue it was religious or cultural bigotry, but the religious backgrounds of these players vary (Christian, Sikh, Muslim, etc). So surely the tie binding them (when it's ALL of them is either where they come from (the entire subcontinental region), the color of their skin or ethnic background, either of which will comfortably qualify someone as a racist in any reasonable person's book.

 

[SJS]

Notwithstanding my criticism of Inzy for his cussedness which led to Pakistan forfeiting the match, I stand by all I said of Hair in November last year. Hair clearly has a problem.

A good umpire must be firm both in perception and in actual fact but firmness (or much stronger forms of the same) do not alone make a good umpire.

He reminds me a lot of Bishen Bedi in his avataar as cricket expert and commentator. Bedi thinks being blunt and forthright is a virtue (so far so good) and then carries it to the extremes of being downright rude, scandalous in his comments and most off-handed in his remarks on the game, the players and everyone else. Bedi sees himself as the epitome of a straight talker but ends up being one of the most disliked past Indian captains.

Hair seems to think firmness means treating players like the virmin , which he probably thinks they are. I wonder what he has against them. Did he fail to make it as a cricketer and now wants to take it out on all those that did.

Giving decisions on appeals by bowlers (and God knows every umpire gives bad ones as well as good ones) is not all that an umpire does. Hair does all the other things pretty badly as far as treatment of his fellow cricket professionals is concerned and no one who is a good professional himself will do that.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

A lot has been mentioned about Hair following the exact letter of the law.
I did not have sound where I was watching the match so could not hear what was said, but to me he looked as though when he swapped the balls, he allowed the batsmen to choose the new one. I have always understood the only people to make this decision should be the umpires. If so, that blows the argument about him simple being a stickler for the rules out of the water. You can't pick and choose what rules you follow to the letter..

That's wrong actually. The playing conditions of the test series (agreed on by both sides prior to it beginning) stated that in the case of ball tampering, the ball was to be changed and the batting side was to select the new ball. This is in addition to the 5 run penalty, and in contrast to usual ball changing, which would be selected by the umpires to be the closest to the old ball in terms of condition.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Sure, but this is waffle, and doesn't address what I said. I'm not making the charge that Hair is a racist, based on the occasional incident against subcontinental teams. I'm addressing a statement you made.

Your premise was that: Even if Hair WAS UNIVERSALLY biased against ALL subcontinental teams in ALL situations, that still wouldn't make him racist..

I suppose if you were desperate to avoid a charge of racism in the above situation (god knows why though), you could argue it was religious or cultural bigotry, but the religious backgrounds of these players vary (Christian, Sikh, Muslim, etc). So surely the tie binding them (when it's ALL of them is either where they come from (the entire subcontinental region), the color of their skin or ethnic background, either of which will comfortably qualify someone as a racist in any reasonable person's book.

Actually, what I was getting at was that he could have been bribed or be a cheat, he could be biased towards countries he is more familiar with, or whatever. The point was merely that you can't assume that bias must be racial in nature simply because of the race of the victims.

Obviously if Hair was biased against all subcontinental teams in all situations the charge of racism would be more valid than it currently is, but I don't think just beacuse it involved subcontinental teams means that race is the definitive factor, any more than in the other cases where officials have been accused of racism. As it is I think he's more of an egomaniac with a martyr complex and a real stickler for the rules than actually biased, so it's irrelevant either way.

 

[SJS]

I have always understood the only people to make this decision should be the umpires.

Your understanding is incorrect as pointed out by Faaip.

Where Hair maybe wrong, unless there is more that we still haven't been told, however, is in adhering to this part of LAW 42 (3) which relates to Fair and Unfair Play (The Match Ball - changing its condition). It reads (in part)

Law 42 (Fair and unfair play)...
.....
3. The match ball - changing its condition.....
.....
b) It is unfair for anyone to rub the ball on the ground for any reason, interfere with any of the seams or the surface of the ball, use any implement, or take any other action whatsoever which is likely to alter the condition of the ball, ....
.....
(d) In the event of any fielder changing the condition of the ball unfairly, as set out in (b) above, the umpires after consultation shall
(i) change the ball forthwith. ....

....(blah, blah, blah)

Its not clear how Hair came to the conclusion that it was a fielder changing the condition of the ball .
This is where he has erred unless , as I said earlier, there is more that we dont know although with every passing day it seemes highly unlikely that there could be more evidence with Hair on this.

ICC need to be clear whether the umpire/s can just assume that a change in the condition of the ball (as noticed by him/them) automatically means there is dirty work afoot and the fielding side (or one/more of its players) is culpable. I think this is where both Hair and ICC are on shaky grounds and this is where Pakistan are justified in their angst and protest.

 

[SJS]

I must add that where Hair may have a small window of escape on this score is in LAW 3(UMPIRES) which unequivocally states that :-

7. Fair and unfair play
The umpires shall be the sole judges of fair and unfair play.

But thats going to be a very sore point if its the final refuge for the umpires in this case.