posted Nov 5, 2006

As far as all the comments being made that Aussies are only sticking up for Hair out of patriotism,let me say this.I thought that Warne got off lightly in 2003 as many of my Aussie friends did,and should've been banned for 2 years,not 1.He tested positive for a banned diuretic that while not being performance enhancing can mask the presence of other banned drugs.A few months before the last World Cup he injured his shoulder in a fielding accident and most experts doubted that he would be fit in time for the Cup,but he made a 'miraculous' recovery.The circumstances led many rational Australians to suspect that he had taken an illegal drug to aid his recovery,then taken the diuretic to mask the first drug,and when caught used the pathetic "my Mum gave it to me" excuse.I believe in all cases being judged on the facts,regardless of a person's nationality.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 5, 2006

This is a the current state of affairs. 90% of the revenue for ICC comes from Indian sub-continent and the ICC can't ignore their unethical opinion hence ban became imminent. Hair was definitely right sometimes - like Muthaiah Muralidharan's case. With this ban no umpire will dare to if check bowlers' action for legality.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 5, 2006

ScoreCard
1> D.Hair b ICC $500,000
2> S.Akhter runout(PCB) 2 Years
3> M.Asif retd hurt 1 Year

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 5, 2006

doctorasfaq

Your statement proves the point. hare thought the ball had been tampered with. The law does not require that he sees the tampering. He acted as the law required.

The pakistan team would have been able to continue had they made only a token protest. Law 21 requires the umpires to determine that the match has been ended if both umpires decide that there is a wilful refusal to play.

The actions of the umpires during the match have not been invalidated at all.

The independent adjudicator has decided that he does not agree with the decisions about tampering, and therefore dismissed the charge brought by the cricketing authorities.

He confirmed the second charge, and punished the captain of the Pakistan team accordingly.

Hair may well have been wrong in his judgement about the tampering. However the laws placed the onus of making a decision upon him and the other umpire. From then on, and whatever his style or manner, the umpires had no choice but to implement the laws of the game.

In even contemplating a later resumption of play, the match referee was demonstrating a marked lack of awareness of the laws of cricket. It was too late to say, " OK I will come back later" the laws are precise and clear.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 5, 2006

I think we are missing the most important point here. The umpure stands correctly if he decides to declare a forfeit. But decissions by such people of authority cannot go unquestioned in regard to their merits. This particular individual has a history of calling out decisions which were questionable. This cannot go unchecked. And had that always been the case, if decissions by figures of authority had always gone unquestioned then, I guess segregation would have been an integral part of the American Society.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 5, 2006

Eastmann

The name you are seeking is:-

UMAR GUL

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 5, 2006

keith1949
Yes you are right, that the ICC was wrong but not in the matter of making the laws but they have realise their mistack and did, what they shoud have done verry earlier..

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 6, 2006

Shaftdrive, I have read your posts on this forum and it is blatantly obvious your tongue when in use disengages your brain (a good dose of pride doesn't help!)

I won't bother to justify my statement to which you answered as you could not see reason if it sttod an inch from you!

As for accusing me of 'acting just like Hair' well that just shows how narrow minded you are... You don't know me at all do you?

Cricket is unlikely to recover from this debacle and the PCB can feel proud at the damage they have done.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 6, 2006

I disagree slightly with DroysdenFC - it will recover because money speaks!! But it will not be the same game. All Elite panel umpires will now have other things (career, salary etc)on their mind before making on-field decisions. The standard of umpiring will necessarily get worse - not better.

I do not think we have heard the last of Darrell Hair - or his lawyers.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 7, 2006

In my view it was wrong on part of ICC to ban Darrel Hair from umpiring. Even the Pak umpire Aleem Dar had supported Hair. Also if any action was to be taken against Darell Hair, then why nothing agains Billy Doctrove and the match referee. They were also equal party to the decision of the Hair.
You may call Hair controversial but I do not think he was so wrong in his decisions? There was nothing wrong in calling Murali since he was and is a chucker. However, now the rules have been changed to suit him since ICC could not have undone all the wickets taken by Murali by chuckin g the ball. Even BS Bedi calls Murali a "chucker" religiously every month.
I do not why Indian Board opposed Hair who had never wronged Indian cricket team, except rebuking them for "appealing like monkeys" during a side game (was it against Victoria?) during last Indian cricket tour to Australia a cople of years back.
I do not want to sound like a racist but aren't Pak pace bowlers have earned notoriety of being ball tamperers?
I agree that decision of ICC to ban Darel Hair is wrong and will send very wrong signals to all the umpires in Emirates' panel

add comment | complain about this comment