posted Mar 26, 2008

Good day, DL. May your dreams about people's 'reasonableness' come true some day.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 27, 2008

Again:

If Pakistan had walked back onto the field in a match they were in charge of at the time WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION.

They petulantly refused to do so.

It wasn't Hair who told them to lay down and refuse to continue the contest. That decision was Inzamam's.

Blaming Hair for the inevitable results of that stupidity is merely a psychological defense mechanism.

If you're not prepared to take the field, you lose by default. Those are the rules of the game.

I can just imagine Bill Woodfull refusing to go back out during the Bodyline series: "That nasty Jardine and the rest of those colonial bullies (sob)... We're not going back out there. It's all sour grapes anyway! (whine/whinge)"

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 28, 2008

"If you're not prepared to take the field, you lose by default. Those are the rules of the game."

I am glad Pakistan did not take the field. They were unjustly accused of ball tampering. Pakistan's (and India's) freedom were won by the sacrifice of blood and swaet and tears and lives of thousands of unarmed heroes. There is no point in compromising when falsely accused by an umpire with the wrong attitude. Well done Pakistan!

Afetr all it was only a silly game of cricket. National pride is far more important. Inzamam Ul Haq did the right thing.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 28, 2008

Are you seriously comparing it Pakistan (and India's freedom)? You've totally lost the plot on this one. You're saying it's a silly game of cricket but in the same breath comparing it to that? They were wrong, plain and simple. The umpires simply followed the rules, Pakistan chose not to.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 28, 2008

Incredibly, I believe he may be, SportingKnowledge.

It makes you laugh, doesn’t it?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 28, 2008

Sporting Knowledge.

Very good points made two days ago. I have taken some time out to reflect on some of the comments you have been saying and also DL.

If you look at the facts on their own I agree that the case for Hair being racist or anything untowards is a weak one. His case for applying the rules is a strong one and in that context it is very difficult to suggest his work contains bias.

Someone asked me to point out facts against Hair and I have struggled to present what might be described as hard evidence.

So in reflection I have changed my stance slightly. I was thinking what else could be driving me to think the man is not fair. I guess it comes to mannerism. I know that sounds daft and would never hold up but i guess it's like when you are interviewing someone and 9/10 you can trust your natural instinct.

Hairs mannerisms are suspect for me. Again I realise how daft this sounds but I have given this proper thought following the challenges some guys here have laid and I admit that I am probably going on gut feel, together with some facts that are open to interpretation and in that context I am able to step back and I guess not hold as strong a view as I did before.

One thing is for sure, controversy follows him as common as it follows Pakistan - in the end this great and underestimated game suffers....

Do my comments make sense?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 28, 2008

There is another point I have to add.

So Hair applied the rules but although that is a point it is not the full picture and maybe the rules need altering.

I would have liked Hair or Doctrove or both to have explained to Inzy what their thinking was. In this modern age of media and television, how come no one spotted ball tampering. Imagine if you were Inzy, and you genuinely did not cheat but had been accused of it... and then mix in the recent history of the Pakistani team - you can understand his sensitivities!!!!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 28, 2008

Perfect sense, ya_dafty. Whatever one thinks about Hair, I doubt many would say that he comes across as overly friendly towards players and being a particularly warm individual, but heck, everybody’s different. Such impressions need to be put aside though when one is commenting purely upon the rights and wrongs of an individual’s actions.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 28, 2008

Ya_dafty

The whole point of the debate my friend, I have had many views changed in discussions on these boards when met by a different perspective. I understand what you say about his mannerisms, and in some ways I'd agree he does seem a bit overbearing at times. But I've met many people like this in all walks of life and not always found my gut feeling to be correct. And I think when you're so far removed like we are from the actual characters involved, you've just got to go with what is factual and not believe the hype.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 28, 2008

Pub time. Hurrah!

add comment | complain about this comment