Perhaps. But he was scheduled to umpire in those ODI's long before the controversy erupted. If the ICC were to replace him now, they would indirectly be establishing a precedent of removing umpires where they (umpires) have a history with a team. The ICC have long fought against that. In my opinion, the Pakistan team will not have too much a problem with Doctrove anyway. Their whole bone of contention is with Hair.Lillian Thomson said:
Lifelong Ciderman, thank you very much!BoyBrumby said:
marc71178 said:
Because it was HAIR who accused Pakistan of tampering. Because from all accounts, it was HAIR who was refusing to continue once Pakistan were back on the field. Because its HAIR who is overbearing in the way he handles games. Because its HAIR who seems to have nothing but contempt for Pakistan and is more than willing to display that. There is no witch hunt. The person of virtue you're defending has brought all of this upon himself.marc71178 said:
Hair cannot act aloneFusion said:
I've got your coat here, Anil.Anil said:
Hair was the driving force in the shameful event, that should be obvious to all of us.He's the one who told Inzi that they would be penalized with 5 runs, that he would change the ball.He was the one seen with having argument with Pak players.Whether its English media or Indian media, everyone ia talking about Hair, if Hair gets into trouble now then he's hardly a scapegoat but someone who has actually been asking for it.Hair himself said that when truth will come out someone will have to pay, i guess in his hatred he was thinking about Inzi paying for questioning the Almighty, in his greed he might have been thinking of ICC paying him $$$$ , thats a different thing that he end up paying for the big mess himself.social said:
This is just like what the illiterate mullahs do . Getting one line out of the whole text . I think Dar may have said other things too . He (Hair) was partially right about usage of law but he used the law for the evil deeds . Who is questioning the authority of Hair ?There are so many ifs and buts that were gonna follow up "Hair was right" .social said:
Read the whole article. He said Hair had the right to change the ball and award the forfeit, by the letter of the law. Dar never said he would've handled things the same way. In fact, he said other umpires probably would've handled it differently. Even when Taufel gave a statement of support to Hair, he was backing his right (by the letter of the law) to award a forfeit. Even Taufel didn't come out say he would've handled things the same way as Hair.social said:
