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

[FaaipDeOiad]

There certainly is precedent for ball tampering calls to be made without singling out any individual player. The Surrey incident that is mentioned a lot at the moment had no particular player singled out.

So, based on that, if the umpires believed the ball was in a state it could not have reached normally, the correct call was to change it and award the 5 run penalty. I'm sure Hair's desire to be in the spotlight and be seen as strict influenced his call to change the ball, but it can't really be argued that he did it outside of the rules. The umpires are allowed to change the ball if they believe it has been tampered with by the fielding team, and they are allowed to do so without singling out any individual as a culprit. Simple as that.

I don't think it was the most sensible call under the circumstances, obviously, and I think Hair might once again find himself on the outer, but if the umpires did agree the ball had been tampered with it correct call according to the laws of the game.

 

[SJS]

...but if the umpires did agree the ball had been tampered with it correct call according to the laws of the game.

Sure. But the trick is in proving that the damage to the ball's condition was such as could not have been caused by non-fielder intervention. Its a tricky one that.

If the damage was the type that would come from using a bottle crown, for example, to make kind of notches on the ball, it would make the umpire's case stronger. But if it is a case of some 'skin-off-the-ball' as appeared to be from the TV pictures of Hair pointing it out to Doctrove, then Hair's judgement could be questioned.

But as I said before, umpires are the sole judge as per the law so thats a point for Hair.

Interestingly Doctrove went alongwith Hair. No one has mentioned his name. The decision of the umpires is not one of umpire Hair alone even if he was the one who may have first pointed it out to his colleague. If Doctrove disagreed he would have said so and Hair could not have taken a unilateral decision.

Surely Billy Doctrove's statement to the adjudicator will be important too. Its just that Hair is the Satan of the Day

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah, I agree. It's obviously a call which can reasonably be disputed if they don't have a very good reason to believe the ball had been tampered with. I also think Doctrove is a part of this every bit as much as Hair, but he's a far less convenient target for a number of reasons. Even if it was Hair who said "I think they've been tampering with the ball", if Doctove didn't think so he certainly would have said something, and from watching the game live it didn't seem like they disagreed at all.

 

[adharcric]

Personally, I don't think Doctrove would interfere in Hair's stand and I can envision him playing the "passive by-stander"'s role in front of a commanding personality. This may just be my wrong opinion of course, but I think Doctrove just went along with what Hair said and so did the match referee, rather stupidly may I add. Of course, if Hair conveyed some evidence to Doctrove and the match ref, that changes matters completely.

 

[_TiGeR-ToWn_]

Personally, I don't think Doctrove would interfere in Hair's stand and I can envision him playing the "passive by-stander"'s role in front of a commanding personality. This may just be my wrong opinion of course, but I think Doctrove just went along with what Hair said and so did the match referee, rather stupidly may I add. Of course, if Hair conveyed some evidence to Doctrove and the match ref, that changes matters completely.

Bit tough to say that Doctrove wouldn't of interfered in Hair's "antics" unless you know him on a personal level and know what he is like. Doctrove had some part in the ball tampering allegations because if he didnt see any substantial illegal damage to the ball, it would be highly risky and doubtful that he would let Hair continue with his allegations. It was a joint decision, started by Hair but the cricketing world seems to have focused only on Hairs part in this, criticized him straightaway because of his past calls. Well thats what i feel.

 

[Steulen]

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

Sorry, but I do not buy the theory that he is a biased racist actively ruling in favour of non-Asian teams.
The man stands in umpteen games a year and there are no more normal issues about him (i.e., bad LBW and caught rulings) than about other umpires. Yes, he's made some bad decisions, some involving subcontinental players, but all umpires do.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

u also respect Bin Laden for doing what he believes is correct?

 

[honestbharani]

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.

so you are saying that if I become the ICC chief tomorrow I can simply fire Hair because I 'suspect' he is not competent enough to be here?

 

[honestbharani]

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

Are you suggesting that the condition of the ball could only have been changed by Pakistan?

 

[honestbharani]

There certainly is precedent for ball tampering calls to be made without singling out any individual player. The Surrey incident that is mentioned a lot at the moment had no particular player singled out.

So, based on that, if the umpires believed the ball was in a state it could not have reached normally, the correct call was to change it and award the 5 run penalty. I'm sure Hair's desire to be in the spotlight and be seen as strict influenced his call to change the ball, but it can't really be argued that he did it outside of the rules. The umpires are allowed to change the ball if they believe it has been tampered with by the fielding team, and they are allowed to do so without singling out any individual as a culprit. Simple as that.

I don't think it was the most sensible call under the circumstances, obviously, and I think Hair might once again find himself on the outer, but if the umpires did agree the ball had been tampered with it correct call according to the laws of the game.

The laws of the game are not perfect. And if this wakes up the ICC to change these stupid laws, then it is one silver lining out of all this.

 

[howardj]

I think it all falls back to the fact that Hair was not at all reluctant to believe the worst. My guess is that he would not have been so suspicious, and willing to make the most damning call in cricket with so little evidence, if a non-Asian side were involved.

 

[SJS]

I think it all falls back to the fact that Hair was not at all reluctant to believe the worst. My guess is that he would not have been so suspicious, and willing to make the most damning call in cricket with so little evidence, if a non-Asian side were involved.

Possible.

 

[Demolition Man]

Average

 

[magsi23]

He is the worst umpire in the game not just ICC panel. I cant think of anyone as bad as him

 

[kvemuri]

IMO, Hair is an average ump, definitely better than some of the others out there. But i think Hair's biggest problem is his ego, he thinks he is bigger than the game and since he is the ump, he can do whilly-nilly as he chooses. In this regard he is one of the worst ump's as instead of difusing situations he is the one creating it or better yet blowing it wide and as others pointed out here if he gets that easily fed up, he is not fit for the job. I would rather have a bad ump who is willing to learn from his mistakes than an average ump who thinks he is better than everyone out there.

 

[marc71178]

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

Since when were South Africa subcontinental, or Zimbabwe or NZ?

 

[marc71178]

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.

Actually, he may well have proof, but be unable to ever show it, since only him and Doctrove (who amazingly seems to be completely ignored in this whole thing) saw the change in condition from the Cook wicket to the change of ball.

 

[magsi23]

Anyone can make bad descions so Hair is no different, what different is however is his attitude towards Sub-Continent teams, for example had it been a test match between England and South Africa it would never have happend what happend at the oval and i can bet anything on that.

 

[Fusion]

Actually, he may well have proof, but be unable to ever show it, since only him and Doctrove (who amazingly seems to be completely ignored in this whole thing) saw the change in condition from the Cook wicket to the change of ball.

First you're making an assumption that he's only concerned over that time period. He could've been dissatisfied about the state of the ball from before and finally decided it was time to intervene. Secondly, he still has no proof that someone tempered. All he has is his assumption that the condition of the ball was changed unnaturally. That's not hard proof, no matter how good (or bad) the assumption.

 

[SJS]

I think by now it might be fair to assume that Hair is going purely by the change in condition of the ball from whenever he saw it last time and when he decided to change it. If there was anything more in the form of having seen a fielder/s 'working' on it, I think it would have come out by now.

If that is the case, Hair maybe treading on a bit of thin ice (lots of assumptions here).

I suspect ICC will back his (and Doctrove's) authority(under the current law) to decide that there was some mischief afoot since the ball changed condition (one may not necessarily agree with that) and may later make ammendmants in the law to strengthen the procedure to be followed by an umpire before apportioning blame.

I think Inzy's charges may stand but the pumishment may be suspended so that he can lead Pakistan in the one day series. Financial considerations, masquerading as compromise may win the day.