Originally Posted by Dasa
That makes no sense. Firstly, the ICC have a choice as to what umpires they appoint for the trophy - they can't pick and choose what teams they want. Secondly, Pakistan were already to play in the Champions Trophy - Hair wasn't confirmed to umpire in the tournament. Thirdly, Hair has (rightly or wrongly) been the one accused of bias (on this incident and others), so it's obviously going to be controversial to appoint him for the trophy - every decision he makes will come under scrutiny. In fact, your logic would be more sensible if you also argued that Inzy should be allowed to play in the Champions Trophy no matter what the decision of the hearing is.
If the hearing proves Hair is correct, then there is no problem. However, by saying that he will umpire in the tournament before the outcome of the hearing, the ICC is provoking certain teams and is setting itself up for controversy. Not the most sensible move.
Simply lack of choice when it comes to teams isn't an excuse. Hair is on the Elite panel and the ICC have every right to pick him. Thirdly, Pakistan are the ones trying to fight off claims of ball tampering. If every decision Hair makes will be under scrutiny, it is safe to expect that every action Pakistan takes on the field will be too. I haven't opposed Inzy being allowed to play the Champions Trophy. I have only opposed the notion you have that Hair shouldn't be allowed while Inzy gets a free run. Also it is hypocrisy to claim that the ICC is setting itself up for controversy by proposing Hair's name while not opposing with the same passion the statements made by the Pakistanis that they would boycott the tournament if Hair figured in it.