Darrell Hair

[marc71178]

Didn't Ranatunga lead his players off the field after Emerson called him in an ODI, rather than in the Test match when Hair called him?

Yes, but why let the facts ruin a good rant?

 

[sledger]

I have a problem with this. A huge one...

Why is the out come of hearings after irrelevant?

Hair on both occasions, Murali and Pak incident made a huge judgement call. Essentially both of cheating. 1 by calling no ball hence, concluding that Murali throws. Second, claiming Pak tempered with the ball, hence calling cheat. Both occasions, he was found wrong and the evidence proved otherwise. Why is this not important in all this? He is declaring people cheats on the field, penalizing them and then being proven wrong entirely.

The question to ask is. Was he acting in good faith while making these calls. IMO, the answer is no, he was not acting in good faith by any means. He was abusing his powers and creating illegitimate calls based on whatever reason, spotlight, center of attention, biased...etc etc. people can have opinion about this. But there is no way in hell he was acting in good faith for the game as the final results of his calls showed.

Care to substantiate that with something tangible and not entirely speculative?

 

[Migara]

Faisal,I think your letting your self down here mate, you can clearly see that Bresnan's placing the ball into his 2 fingers of his bowling hand,go and watch videos of him bowl, he places the ball in his hand the same way each time.I saw this posted by someone on pakpassion and couldn't stop laughing at such a failed attempt by someone to deflect the pictures the newspaper took onto a England player.Apart from anything else, why would he be raising the seam on a brand new ball,Pakistan haven't scored a run yet,he opened the bowling.FAIL.

Exact thing which we are asking to do with Shoaib!

 

[Lostman]

Yes, but why let the facts ruin a good rant?

So the procedure for calling suspects actions was not changed in 1995?

 

[Faisal1985]

Care to substantiate that with something tangible and not entirely speculative?

The mere fact that his call was unfounded and wrong upon proper trial and hearing. The ball was not tampered with and Murali's action was legit.

 

[Faisal1985]

@ Jacknife, the only reason i posted the pic was to show that pictures can be deceptive....as is the case with Bresnan's and i am quite certain with Shoaib's as well.

 

[social]

The mere fact that his call was unfounded and wrong upon proper trial and hearing. The ball was not tampered with and Murali's action was legit.

Total nonsense

No-one could prove that the ball HADNT been tampered with so the ICC rolled bent over and gave in to Pakistan (look where that has got us ) and the rules were changed to accommodate Murali and others

Hair was right

 

[Faisal1985]

Total nonsense

No-one could prove that the ball HADNT been tampered with so the ICC rolled bent over and gave in to Pakistan (look where that has got us ) and the rules were changed to accommodate Murali and others

Hair was right

What a load of ****

If no one can prove that the ball hadn't been tampered with then HOW the **** can someone prove it WAS tempered with. With a naked eye!

Hair was wrong as there was no proper evidence to prove any of the party's were guilty.

 

[social]

What a load of ****

If no one can prove that the ball hadn't been tampered with then HOW the **** can someone prove it WAS tempered with. With a naked eye!

Hair was wrong as there was no proper evidence to prove any of the party's were guilty.

2 supposedly impartial and unbiased judges determined that it had been tampered with

1 totally corrupt and morally bankrupt cricketing nation objected

1 totally inept and weak-kneed organisation tried to support them to appease their "big brother"

Soft-**** Doctrove rolled over to save his own career

Thankfully the truth prevailed and Hair has been totally vindicated

 

[Migara]

Total nonsense

No-one could prove that the ball HADNT been tampered with so the ICC rolled bent over and gave in to Pakistan (look where that has got us ) and the rules were changed to accommodate Murali and others

Hair was right

And this others included McGrath as well. Under the old law he would have been chucking most of his deliveries.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Sigh.

Think we're about done here now, eh?

 

[marc71178]

So the procedure for calling suspects actions was not changed in 1995?

Relevance to my comment?

 

[sledger]

The mere fact that his call was unfounded and wrong upon proper trial and hearing. The ball was not tampered with and Murali's action was legit.

The fact that he was proved wrong in a hearing doesn't mean he acted in bad faith, it doesn't even suggest that in any way whatsoever.

 

[Faisal1985]

2 supposedly impartial and unbiased judges determined that it had been tampered with

1 totally corrupt and morally bankrupt cricketing nation objected

I take extreme offense on this comment hope the mods take a look before i officially answer to it in similar fashion.

1 totally inept and weak-kneed organisation tried to support them to appease their "big brother"

Who is the big brother?

Soft-**** Doctrove rolled over to save his own career

Or may be he had a bit of fairness left in him to indicate partial truth to his stance.

Thankfully the truth prevailed and Hair has been totally vindicated

And will always be remembered by millions as a ***k head.

 

[Faisal1985]

The fact that he was proved wrong in a hearing doesn't mean he acted in bad faith, it doesn't even suggest that in any way whatsoever.

Yes it does. If you are penalizing a team for the first time in history for ball tempering. You better be darn sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the ball was tempered with.

You are acting in bad faith when you are in a position of authority and based on next to no evidence you pass a judgment of guilty. It is called injustice and requires a review of the person's ability or capacity to remain in that position of authority.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Every thread like this kills a fairy. Or a leprechaun. I forget which.