ICC ranks Hair second best

[Slow Love™]

http://www.icc-cricket.com/umpires-referees/umpire_assessment.html

Pretty comprehensive assessment process it seems

So what are your thoughts on the averages and the implicated lack of disparity between umpires? And if we are indeed dealing with all decisions, are we not dealing with a fairly low sample in this case, based on Craddock's numbers?

 

[Slow Love™]

Anyhow, looking at those stats, it's likely that Scallywag said 95%, not 96%. Blame my recall, somebody can probably find the post somewhere.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

So what are your thoughts on the averages and the implicated lack of disparity between umpires? And if we are indeed dealing with all decisions, are we not dealing with a fairly low sample in this case, based on Craddock's numbers?

Isn't that beside the point a bit though? If Hair was assessed as the second best umpire including all the criteria listed on that page, it does really bring into question the motivation behind removing him. If the ICC believed him to be a volatile figure who wanted the spotlight for himself and was biased against certain nations and so on, they couldn't have assessed him so highly on criteria like "empathy for game and situation", "approachability of umpire" and "dealt with players equally".

Regarding the number of decisions, one can only assume it is either limited to "close call" type decisions, or a sample of say 5-7 tests.

 

[Slow Love™]

Isn't that beside the point a bit though? If Hair was assessed as the second best umpire including all the criteria listed on that page, it does really bring into question the motivation behind removing him. If the ICC believed him to be a volatile figure who wanted the spotlight for himself and was biased against certain nations and so on, they couldn't have assessed him so highly on criteria like "empathy for game and situation", "approachability of umpire" and "dealt with players equally".

Regarding the number of decisions, one can only assume it is either limited to "close call" type decisions, or a sample of say 5-7 tests.

Well, I have already made it clear that I don't believe that these statistics in any general sense have much to do with why Hair was removed. That will be far more about particular calls, and how they were made, as well as particular character flaws that people believe affected his integrity as an umpire.

My questions are related to Craddock's claims, and the methods of evaluation cited, and some of it isn't even directed towards Hair specifically. I just find it a little strange that we'd be talking about such a small sample. Don't you? I already made my opinion clear on the glowing references in my first post. I've always been clear that I believe the ICC are incompetent, and they've made it clear that Hair has their support in many articles since the Oval debacle.

EDIT: Mind you, it's not clear that he was assessed more highly than others when it comes to "empathy for game and situation", "dealt with players equally", etc. And Craddock says he is "effectively" ranked second best. See how this works? Look, for all I know, it might be completely glowing, but I'm pragmatically cautious, given who's writing the report and the lack of detail. And I have always had an interest in how the umpires are evaluated, because of the disparity in how we, the "reasonably informed" spectators, see them.

 

[Slats4ever]

The executive branch of the ICC have made it obvious throughout this whole affair that Hair has their support. It's the fact that 7 member countries voted him off the panel that caused all the furore. I wouldn't mind clarification on whether NZ and Eng abstained, as was reported in some papers, rather than voting in his favor - which would mean that only Australia voted for his retention. And whatever you think of that decision, it's clear that Hair was not removed on the basis of poor LBW or caught behind calls.

This really says a lot about what the 7 member countries who voted him off value in an umpire...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Well, I have already made it clear that I don't believe that these statistics in any general sense have much to do with why Hair was removed. That will be far more about particular calls, and how they were made, as well as particular character flaws that people believe affected his integrity as an umpire.

Yeah, but that's exactly what they are evaluating, isn't it? Leaving aside the percentage of correct decisions, there's all sorts of criteria in that evaluation list that deal with his character, his relationship with players, his enforcement of the rules outside of wicket decisions and so on. It's one thing for the ICC to come out and say they support an umpire in general terms and then fire him, but it's another thing entirely for them to have an internal evaluation rate him as one of the best using all those criteria and then still fire him anyway.

If we operate off the assumption that, in the eyes of the ICC, Hair was the second best umpire in world cricket even including his character and all the other things people object to about him, they've done the game a great disservice by firing him. And that's ignoring the precedent that it sets regarding actions against umpires for on-field actions entirely.

 

[Slow Love™]

Yeah, but that's exactly what they are evaluating, isn't it? Leaving aside the percentage of correct decisions, there's all sorts of criteria in that evaluation list that deal with his character, his relationship with players, his enforcement of the rules outside of wicket decisions and so on. It's one thing for the ICC to come out and say they support an umpire in general terms and then fire him, but it's another thing entirely for them to have an internal evaluation rate him as one of the best using all those criteria and then still fire him anyway.

If we operate off the assumption that, in the eyes of the ICC, Hair was the second best umpire in world cricket even including his character and all the other things people object to about him, they've done the game a great disservice by firing him. And that's ignoring the precedent that it sets regarding actions against umpires for on-field actions entirely.

Well, see my edited post for some of what I think of that - we actually aren't certain that Hair was rated highly in those areas, OR that any of this extends for more than a few tests, previous to which his evaluation may indeed have been poor. And I still note Craddock's vague "effectively" comment. Furthermore, this was made just before the Oval test, and it appears the evaluation period was brief. What if he'd been poor, had improved, but then blew a lot of goodwill in the Oval match? We do know that Pakistan protested his involvement prior to the series. We just seem to be hanging an awful lot on a small article by a longtime Hair advocate without much detail.

Some of this is likely a break in perception between the ICC's administration and evaluating body, and the member country representatives. I personally find it hard to vouch for the credibility of the executive branch, but your mileage may vary. My own opinion is that I support Hair's removal, for reasons I've probably stated enough times. And if they indeed gave such a glowing evaluation, I (and I imagine many others) would strenuously disagree with it.

One thing though - we have all been aware that particular country reps, teams and managers have complained about Hair on a reasonably regular basis - and even if people want to dismiss some of the member countries that voted him off as kowtowing to others (for whatever reason), just how plausible do you think it is that he would be so highly rated on issues like "empathy for game and situation", "approachability of umpire" and "dealt with players equally"? Sooner or later you're going to have to acknowledge that at least three countries genuinely wanted him off that panel because they called into question his integrity as an umpire on these issues.

 

[Slow Love™]

As an aside - CAN anybody substantiate the claim that England and NZ didn't vote in support of Hair's retention, and abstained from the vote? A few posters have made the claim, but I haven't really seen that detail myself.

 

[JASON]

I still reckon he was fired for being fat.

 

[social]

I have no doubts that they "genuinely" wanted him off the panel.

As to whether they "genuinely" questioned his integrity or simply saw it as a way of shifting the blame for past transgressions only they could tell you

 

[Slow Love™]

I have no doubts that they "genuinely" wanted him off the panel.

As to whether they "genuinely" questioned his integrity or simply saw it as a way of shifting the blame for past transgressions only they could tell you

But of course - it's certainly worth noting though that there are many critics of Hair on similar grounds who aren't invested in such a way.

Incidentally, what do you make of Steve Dunne's account in his autobiography that, prior to the game where Hair called Murali, the umpires (Hair included) had agreed with the ICC to refer any issues with player actions to the match referee (in order to have the action filmed) rather than call them on the field of play? I had always defended Hair's calling of Murali previously, but this really troubled me, and was something of a last straw (for me) in terms of how I considered Hair overall.

 

[social]

But of course - it's certainly worth noting though that there are many critics of Hair on similar grounds who aren't invested in such a way.

Incidentally, what do you make of Steve Dunne's account in his autobiography that, prior to the game where Hair called Murali, the umpires (Hair included) had agreed with the ICC to refer any issues with player actions to the match referee (in order to have the action filmed) rather than call them on the field of play? I had always defended Hair's calling of Murali previously, but this really troubled me, and was something of a last straw (for me) in terms of how I considered Hair overall.

First I'd heard of it was when someone (maybe your good self) cited said account on here recently.

No. of reactions

1. Based on subsequent events, most out of character for Hair to "pass the buck" on anything under his control - either he wasnt as committed as Dunne thought, he changed his mind or he lied to the other umpires and the ICC

2. Virtually everyone was convinced that Murali threw and the fact that the ICC sought such reassurances from the umpires before the game goes to that point. That being the case, a frank discussion should have been held with the Sri Lankans before the game as well i.e. play him at your own risk

3. Unfortunately, given the discussions that took place, Murali should've been withdrawn from the tour there and then - symptomatic of the weakness of the ICC really

 

[Slow Love™]

First I'd heard of it was when someone (maybe your good self) cited said account on here recently.

No. of reactions

1. Based on subsequent events, most out of character for Hair to "pass the buck" on anything under his control - either he wasnt as committed as Dunne thought, he changed his mind or he lied to the other umpires and the ICC

2. Virtually everyone was convinced that Murali threw and the fact that the ICC sought such reassurances from the umpires before the game goes to that point. That being the case, a frank discussion should have been held with the Sri Lankans before the game as well i.e. play him at your own risk

3. Unfortunately, given the discussions that took place, Murali should've been withdrawn from the tour there and then - symptomatic of the weakness of the ICC really

To be fair, I think the agreement was made at a general conference in Coventry, near the start of the year, and not immediately prior to that particular test.

Either way, it concerned me a little that they were contemplating filming actions at that point, 'cause I think somebody (honest bharani maybe?) had insisted that there was already some interest and research into degree of flexion prior to Murali being called that day, and I had poo-poohed it as not feasible. Of course, it might still not be the case, it just opened a window of doubt for me. In any case, if true, it would have more ramifications for the ICC in general than it would Hair.

Of course, Dunne could also just be covering his behind because he didn't call Murali himself, but I figure the facts of this matter would be easy enough to establish, if Hair was interested in legally challenging the remarks.

 

[R_D]

But, because I'm interested on a general level (so this isn't necessarily an attack on Hair's accuracy specifically), I wouldn't mind knowing what "decisions" mean in this context. As in, 253 correct decisions out of 263. Something tells me it's likely to be "batsmen given out where the correct call was made".
.

You've said it perfectally mate.. thats what i was trying to get at with my first post.

 

[nightprowler10]

Did we really need another thread?

 

[social]

You've said it perfectally mate.. thats what i was trying to get at with my first post.

Nope, all decisions - look at how the umpires are assessed

 

[marc71178]

ok maybe i should've said SOLID enough evidance to prove that pakistan had cheated.. which umpires don't seem to have.

Of course they don't, because as I've said, there's no way of proving the change in condition.

 

[marc71178]

They are claming he had 253 correct decision. Now i don't know but i would have thought it be common thign to ask for evidance rather than beleiving everything the media reports.

Yet when asked for evidence for some of the things you've posted on here - you've not porvided it...

 

[R_D]

Of course they don't, because as I've said, there's no way of proving the change in condition.

Well than shouldn't try to hand out the verdict of calling someone a cheat if you can't back it up with solid proof.

 

[Slow Love™]

As an aside - CAN anybody substantiate the claim that England and NZ didn't vote in support of Hair's retention, and abstained from the vote? A few posters have made the claim, but I haven't really seen that detail myself.

Haha, finding consistent details on this from the press isn't that easy. I found an article at the UK Times that claims that England were the only country to vote in his favor, and even Australia voted for Hair's removal. Don't think it's true though.

One further detail of interest is that the ICC have apparently kicked back law 42.3 to their cricket committee for revising. IMO, as I stated in an earlier thread, this had to be done. I actually don't mind the umpire having the power to penalise a team on the field if they actually witness a player tampering with the ball, but having the rule allow the penalty without actually witnessing the infraction was really asking for trouble. This aspect of the rule (which was quite new) has to bear part of the responsibility for what happened at the Oval.