ICC appoints Hair for Champions Trophy

[JASON]

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=124012
Just hot off the press - ICC has rejected Pakistan Cricket Board's request that Hair not be appointed for the Champions Trophy.
It seems Hair will stand as an Umpire at the Champions Trophy .

WTF is wrong with the ICC ? You would think when an Umpire has been so much under criticism for his performance not only in the Test but also for his cash demand of $500,000 in the aftermath and with impending hearing coming up over next few days , Common Sense would dictate that Darrell be kept out of Champions Trophy particularly given the Champions Trophy is in the subcontinent. But unfortunately not many at the ICC seem to have common sense or any sense at all.

Here's a poll - Do you think Darrell Hair should be allowed to stand as an Umpire at the Champions Trophy ?

 

[_TiGeR-ToWn_]

Do you have an intense hatred of him JASON?

 

[Dasa]

Whether Hair was right or wrong about the ball-tampering accusations, the ICC should have waited until after the hearing to announce whether he was to stand in the Champions Trophy or not. By appointing Hair for the tournament before the outcome of the hearing, the ICC is just stoking the fire.

 

[Pratters]

The cash thingy means he never should umpire a game again regardless of the outcome of the hearing. That they didn't wait for the outcome is further ridiculous.

 

[Pratters]

Do you have an intense hatred of him JASON?

He is not the only one who has said no in the poll. So it is a very much a legitimate question.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

I think what Wasim Akram had said about ICC was absolutely right.

 

[Loots]

He should not stand, every decision he makes will come under massive, massive scrutiny after recent events.

Surely the ICC won't be daft enough to assign him a match with an Asian team in it, after all the allegations made against him it would be a very awkward scenario.

 

[Fratboy]

Whether Hair was right or wrong about the ball-tampering accusations, the ICC should have waited until after the hearing to announce whether he was to stand in the Champions Trophy or not. By appointing Hair for the tournament before the outcome of the hearing, the ICC is just stoking the fire.

Thats absurd logic. Going by that same logic, Pakistan should not have been allowed into the Champions Trophy before the outcome of the hearing. It works both ways.

 

[Matt79]

I voted Yes. He deserves the same presumption of innocence as Inzamam and the Pakistani guys. Until the facts of the case have been determined in a better forum than trial by media/internet for either party, I have no problem with Hair standing matches, or the alleged ball-tamperers playing.

 

[Dravid]

O great. I'm not a big Hair fan and just hope he doesn't cause anymore trouble without proof.

 

[Craig]

If any other teams, Asian or not don't do anything wrong then anything won't happen.

 

[Dasa]

Thats absurd logic. Going by that same logic, Pakistan should not have been allowed into the Champions Trophy before the outcome of the hearing. It works both ways.

That makes no sense. Firstly, the ICC have a choice as to what umpires they appoint for the trophy - they can't pick and choose what teams they want. Secondly, Pakistan were already to play in the Champions Trophy - Hair wasn't confirmed to umpire in the tournament. Thirdly, Hair has (rightly or wrongly) been the one accused of bias (on this incident and others), so it's obviously going to be controversial to appoint him for the trophy - every decision he makes will come under scrutiny. In fact, your logic would be more sensible if you also argued that Inzy should be allowed to play in the Champions Trophy no matter what the decision of the hearing is.

If the hearing proves Hair is correct, then there is no problem. However, by saying that he will umpire in the tournament before the outcome of the hearing, the ICC is provoking certain teams and is setting itself up for controversy. Not the most sensible move.

 

[Fratboy]

That makes no sense. Firstly, the ICC have a choice as to what umpires they appoint for the trophy - they can't pick and choose what teams they want. Secondly, Pakistan were already to play in the Champions Trophy - Hair wasn't confirmed to umpire in the tournament. Thirdly, Hair has (rightly or wrongly) been the one accused of bias (on this incident and others), so it's obviously going to be controversial to appoint him for the trophy - every decision he makes will come under scrutiny. In fact, your logic would be more sensible if you also argued that Inzy should be allowed to play in the Champions Trophy no matter what the decision of the hearing is.

If the hearing proves Hair is correct, then there is no problem. However, by saying that he will umpire in the tournament before the outcome of the hearing, the ICC is provoking certain teams and is setting itself up for controversy. Not the most sensible move.

Simply lack of choice when it comes to teams isn't an excuse. Hair is on the Elite panel and the ICC have every right to pick him. Thirdly, Pakistan are the ones trying to fight off claims of ball tampering. If every decision Hair makes will be under scrutiny, it is safe to expect that every action Pakistan takes on the field will be too. I haven't opposed Inzy being allowed to play the Champions Trophy. I have only opposed the notion you have that Hair shouldn't be allowed while Inzy gets a free run. Also it is hypocrisy to claim that the ICC is setting itself up for controversy by proposing Hair's name while not opposing with the same passion the statements made by the Pakistanis that they would boycott the tournament if Hair figured in it.

 

[Dasa]

Simply lack of choice when it comes to teams isn't an excuse. Hair is on the Elite panel and the ICC have every right to pick him. Thirdly, Pakistan are the ones trying to fight off claims of ball tampering. If every decision Hair makes will be under scrutiny, it is safe to expect that every action Pakistan takes on the field will be too. I haven't opposed Inzy being allowed to play the Champions Trophy. I have only opposed the notion you have that Hair shouldn't be allowed while Inzy gets a free run. Also it is hypocrisy to claim that the ICC is setting itself up for controversy by proposing Hair's name while not opposing with the same passion the statements made by the Pakistanis that they would boycott the tournament if Hair figured in it.

1. Inzy wouldn't get a free run if found guilty - the thing is, the decision will be made after the hearing - same as what should have been done with Hair. I haven't suggested Inzy should be allowed to play either. Again, if he is to play, it'll all depend on what happens at the hearing.
2. The Pakistanis haven't said they will boycott the tournament if Hair umpires.

 

[Matt79]

Dasa - if the hearing finds that someone in the Pakistan team DID tamper with the ball, or at least that Hair had reasonable cause to suspect they had, would your concern at his standing in the Champion's Trophy cease?

I don't see what the problem is - if the hearing concludes that Hair was seriously out of line, then I don't doubt the ICC will drop, or at least "rest" him from the Elite Panel and the tournament. Until that happens, he's still one of the Panel, he's an official of the governing body of the sport, and teams aren't allowed to veto the appointment of umpires.

While Hair remains on the Panel, they pretty much can't leave him out of the normal rotation of umpires - doing so would amount to prejudging the results of the hearing and make Hair a lame (if not dead) duck. It also sets a pretty disasterous precedent and would make any attempt to ever again enforce respect for umpires an absolute joke.

 

[Dasa]

Dasa - if the hearing finds that someone in the Pakistan team DID tamper with the ball, or at least that Hair had reasonable cause to suspect they had, would your concern at his standing in the Champion's Trophy cease?

Yes. No problem if the hearing goes that way.

I don't see what the problem is - if the hearing concludes that Hair was seriously out of line, then I don't doubt the ICC will drop, or at least "rest" him from the Elite Panel and the tournament. Until that happens, he's still one of the Panel, he's an official of the governing body of the sport, and teams aren't allowed to veto the appointment of umpires.

While Hair remains on the Panel, they pretty much can't leave him out of the normal rotation of umpires - doing so would amount to prejudging the results of the hearing and make Hair a lame (if not dead) duck. It also sets a pretty disasterous precedent and would make any attempt to ever again enforce respect for umpires an absolute joke.

The thing is, the ICC didn't have to announce that Hair would be umpiring in the Champions Trophy. According to what I've read, Hair himself said he would be umpiring in the tournament, and a seemingly anonymous ICC source said that would be a "safe bet".
Given that the ICC didn't have to name the umpires in the Trophy, they could've just given a simple "no comment" and left it until after the hearing.

 

[Fratboy]

1. Inzy wouldn't get a free run if found guilty - the thing is, the decision will be made after the hearing - same as what should have been done with Hair. I haven't suggested Inzy should be allowed to play either. Again, if he is to play, it'll all depend on what happens at the hearing.
2. The Pakistanis haven't said they will boycott the tournament if Hair umpires.

1. Why expose your double standards repeatedly ? If Inzy gets to play, Hair officiates. If the presence of Hair is objectionable even though a decision of guilty on him has not yet been pronounced, it should hold true for Inzy too, and by Inzy I mean the entire Pakistani team for whom he's had to cop the flak as representative.
2. http://content.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/260022.html

 

[Matt79]

I would say its a safe bet that Hair was asked whether he would be standing the CT. Given he is obviously convinced he's done nothing wrong, and is one of the most senior members of the Elite Panel, answering 'Yes' is a pretty straightforward response - unless he's heard something to the contrary, why wouldn't he be.

The ICC hasn't announced it. An anonymous source has briefed a reporter somewhere, which is different from the ICC deliberately stirring the pot before the hearing. You're assuming perhaps, that this was a sanctioned leak of the ICC's position on the matter, but it may be unsanctioned, and may not even reflect that position at all. For the ICC to come out and contradict Hair's statement that, so far as he's aware, he'll be at the CT gets us back to the problems of the ICC not wanting to undermine one of their own officials.

I think despite the media's understandable interest to keep this going, all these discussions and concerns are based on hypotheticals until the hearing.

 

[Dasa]

1. Why expose your double standards repeatedly ? If Inzy gets to play, Hair officiates. If the presence of Hair is objectionable even though a decision of guilty on him has not yet been pronounced, it should hold true for Inzy too, and by Inzy I mean the entire Pakistani team for whom he's had to cop the flak as representative.

What I've been saying is pretty much what you've said above. I said before that it was foolish of the ICC to say Hair would officiate in the Champions Trophy before the hearing - it would also be foolish to say Inzy, as the representative of the Pakistani team, will play in the Trophy before the hearing.

2. http://content.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/260022.html

I have already read that article. Again, they haven't said they will boycott the tournament if Hair is present. They have said it is one of a number of options.

Also, I don't appreciate being accused of double standards.

 

[Matt79]

Also, after the disgrace of Hair's email "offering" to resign (which was not what he was actually trying to do at all IMO) it would be best for everyone if the leaks and anonymous briefings stopped altogether. This issue directly involves the credibility of a senior umpire, and a senior captain (and by extension the Pakistani team). Everyone in the ICC should know better than to try and manipulate this story.

I suppose the problem is that the journos will simply make up stuff to fill the vacuum if nobody is talking to them.