As far as I can remember I've never actually tried to hand out any verdict, all along I've stated that there's only 2 people who have the full story, and there is no way they can prove it either way.R_D said:
I agree with that and have said so previously when the Oval issue came up first.PhoenixFire said:
I believe everybody would have seen it on camera, Marc. The amazing close up shots we get can be good enough to at least get like 20% idea of whether the ball was tampered with or not. Anyways, the ball was produced and the experts felt it was not tampered with in such a way that it might assist the bowling team. End of story. Anyways, I am still not inclined to buy that a Pakistan player tampered with the ball and was not caught by one of the 16+ cameras on the ground, one of which is generally assigned to "follow the ball".marc71178 said:
no he saw that something MIGHT have been wrong with the ball, and decided that Pakistan players were the ones who did it (based on suspicion and supposition more than anything else) and slapped them with a penalty for an offence which is an emotive issue for that team. And when it was shown that none of the 16+ cameras actually caught anything and that the ball itself wasn't in such a condition that could have helped the bowling side in any big way than a normal ball which was that many overs old, he still refused to accept that he may have acted hastily. And then he failed to inform the team that he slapped the ban on that they are forfeiting the game by staying off the field and only informed the English team.Matteh said:
really? So the Pakistan players WON'T know what the condition of the ball was 5 overs before?marc71178 said:
And Hair didn't? Is it too much to expect an umpire who already knows that Pakistan are sensitive about ball tampering allegations and that they have also had problems with him in the past to act only after gaining some REAL evidence that Pakistan player(s) HAVE tampered with the ball before going about invoking that penalty?Matteh said:
And when you CANNOT prove that something DEFINITELY did/did not happen, you don't go around throwing a serious accusation against a team for whom it is an emotive issue. THAT is the lack of common sense we are all talking about here and that is the reason he is out of the ELITE panel.marc71178 said:
no, but they can decide whether the level of disruptions in the ball is enough to warrant action and whether it can DEFINITELY be confirmed that the disruptions were actually caused by a human hand rather than other factors and also to CONFIRM that THAT human being was in fact a player of the Pakistan team playing that game. And their findings were negative on all 3 counts. Hence, out goes Hair.Matteh said:
not enough time, I am only here in my lunch breaks these days. Will try and find time to post there this weekend or so.adharcric said:On another note HB, why aren't you voting in the "Ranking the Batsmen/Bowlers" threads? We need quality posters to make their opinions count.
I think one of the other posters hit the nail on the head regarding this issue. The ICC's executive committee has always been spirited in its defence of the Elite umpires and it was pretty much the same with Hair. But it was the member nations that voted him out because they have lost confidence in him. Anyways, I don't believe in the ICC's way of rating umpires. My idea is you take the close calls in the game, and then see whether the umpire made the right decisions there and that's it. Else, simply see the no. of mistakes an umpire makes during each series. Like, IIRC, De Silva has made around 7 or 8 in this first test between Windies and Pakistan. I don't think the ICC's rating of its own umpires is something that should be given too much credibility to.FaaipDeOiad said:
Well said. My beef with Hair has always been that he displays a lack of common sense, and is stubborn to a fault. Issues that can be dealt with sensibly and with normalcy are turned into huge controversial events because of Hair's personality and massive ego.honestbharani said:
i wasn't talking about verdict from people but rather that Hair handing out verdict without solid proof... He gave 5 runs penalty which cleraly reflects that Pakistan are tempering with the ball hence cheating plus change of ball. Hair clearly jumped the gun there.marc71178 said:
I can see umpires getting 90% of the calls right, given that bowled and simple catches are also included in part of that decision.
