• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

BREAKING NEWS : Hair wrote to ICC offering to resign

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
honestbharani said:
But then after a while they realize they will lose the game if they don't come out and decide to come out and play. But by that time, Hair (given his egoistical nature) decides that he will award the game to England, even if England themselves were ready to play.
But that isn't what happened.

After waiting around, the umpires (because there were 2 of them out there, even if one is being ignored) got word to the Pakistanis that if they didn't come out straight away they'd be deemed to forfeit.

They had the chance to continue, but didn't take it.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
honestbharani said:
my point is that Hair is the senior guy and even if Doctrove had not agreed with him, I don't think it would have made a diff. If Hair thought there was no tampering, I think Doctrove would have went with him on that too. It is tough to see a junior disagreeing with a senior, esp. with someone like Hair. If Doctrove thought there was tampering, then there is a little bit more to back up Hair's judgement but even that is not too much, given that Doctrove's word can't be the final thing either. Hair was the one who went to talk to Inzy after they refused to come out and Hair was the one who decided to not let the game restart even both teams (and the ICC) wanted to. I am sorry, but I think it is obvious that Hair is more to blame here than Doctrove as far as the umpires part in this issue is concerned.
For me at least I think Doctrove is getting something of a free ride here. SL's link shows he has got previous on the issue & his role in the debacle has been either ignored or brushed aside as inconsequential.

Hair may've been the driving force behind the decision, but Doctrove can't be much of an umpire if he was afraid to voice a dissenting voice, junior partner or not. I really don't think anyone ascends to umpiring in international cricket if they're afraid to make decisions. Implicitly or explicitly Doctrove supported the decision.

His silence on the issue since last Sunday has been conspicuous too.
 

Rob T

Cricket Spectator
Bob and ball tampering
by Neil Manthorp

Posted on 25 August 2006

You have to admire the Australians for their sense of musketeerism. All for one and one for all. When a sporting colleague comes under fire, they rally around in defence. No matter what the circumstances or the validity of the arguments.
While the majority of the cricket-playing world has expressed its surprise and even dismay at umpire Darrell Hair's actions in penalising Pakistan five runs for ball-tampering and then offering the choice of replacement ball to England's batsmen, Australians have been falling over themselves to defend their countryman.

In some cases, the same people who have known Hair to be cantancerous, stubborn, pig-headed and officious - and have said so - are now praising him for "taking a stand." Nobody, it seems, is bothered much by Hair's lack of evidence. Minor detail.

But perhaps the best example of stabbing wildly in the dark in the hope of making contact with anybody or anything that dares to be critical of anything Australian has been launched by former Aussie captain and former ICC Match Referee Barry Jarman.

A man not known for his quiet tongue or endless patience, Jarman has proudly announced that he 'caught' Bob Woolmer ball-tampering as far back as 1997 when he was in charge of South Africa.

Apparently, it was in a one-day match, in South Africa, against India.

Speaking to the Brisbane Courier-Mail earlier this week, Jarman - who kept the 'tampered' ball as a souvenir having ordered it to be replaced - takes up the story:

"The ball is only 16 overs old, yet one side has been tampered with and you can see where they have run their thumbails down the seam which opens up," Jarman said. "The open seam (which caught the sweat) meant one side was heavier than the other."

Jarman says Woolmer was furious and protested immediately: "They all went beserk, including Bob Woolmer who raced into my office and said 'what's going on?' I said 'your guys are stuffing around with the ball mate.' I told him who it was and he went out with his tail between his legs. I said to him 'if you really want to make something of it I can give it to the press and we'll see what happens then, but I will just give you a warning to cut it out.'

Jarman claims that two South African players later went to his hotel room to apologise.

"I was happy to handle it the way I did because they stopped it and that was what I was trying to do. I felt the more low key I could keep it the best it would be for the game," Jarman says.

Well, fancy that. A man so caring about the game's reputation that he would compromise the job he was being paid to do in order to keep it clean.

By failing to report the incident, Jarman failed in his duty as match referee. Or, perhaps, he wasn't quite sure? But now that he is no longer on the ICC's payroll and a fellow Aussie is copping some flak, Jarman suddenly finds it very easy to tell tales out of school.

"I really admire Darrell Hair for what he's done in England. He is a guy who tells the truth and is suffering for it," Jarman says, all puffy chested. "He is one of the best, an umpire who can lie straight in bed."

And a damn fine, dinkum Aussie, too.

Jarman claims he became suspicious of South Africa's tactics after noticing the ball would be thrown to the same two fielders, no matter where it had been fielded.

"I picked up the binoculars and started watching closer," he told the newspaper. "Even when the bowler fielded the ball he threw it to players specifically designated to mess around with the ball. I saw Allan Donald (who Jarman insists was not one of the players tampering with the ball) all of a sudden start swinging the baIl everywhere on the television and I thought 'hullo what's going on here?'

Any chance Hair thought the same thing during the fourth test between England and Pakistan? 'Hullo, what's going on here? The ball is swinging everywhere! We can't have that!'

For all the hairgel, suncream, vaseline and sugary saliva that has been pasted on the side of balls for a century or more, the first official penalty is imposed on Pakistan without any evidence.

http://www.supercricket.co.za/default.asp?id=4812&des=sportstalk
 

Rob T

Cricket Spectator
Woolmer defends reputation

AFP

August 27, 2006



Bob Woolmer can't remember the incident Barry Jarman has talked about


Bob Woolmer, the Pakistan coach, was forced to defend his reputation after it was claimed South African players tampered with the ball when he was in charge of the team 10 years ago.

Woolmer's Pakistan team have been at the centre of the row which began with last weekend's forfeiture of the fourth and final Test, and continued with Darrell Hair's demand for $500,000 to resign in the wake of the uproar.

Now, on the eve of the Twenty20 international against England in Bristol, Woolmer reacted to claims that South African players lifted the seam.

The claims were made by the former ICC match referee Barry Jarman who alleged that during a triangular one-day tournament involving South Africa, Zimbabwe and India in early 1997 a match ball confiscated after just 16 overs - still in Jarman's possession - bears the ravages of tampering by Woolmer's team.

At a loss to recall anything of the sort, Woolmer said: "I just cannot, and do not, understand why Barry Jarman has said this. As far as I'm concerned, it's fiction.

"As far as I know, I don't ever remember a ball being taken off after the 16th over. I surely would have remembered it. I wasn't ball-scratching. I'm the coach. What does he think ... that I teach ball-scratching?"

A mystified Woolmer has even taken the step of contacting the officials in the match he believes is in question - and he reports they are unaware of any wrong-doing. "Go and ask the two umpires in the same game that I'm supposed to have done this," he advised. "They will say that they don't know anything about it."
 

armchairumpire

U19 Cricketer
Email

To: Mr Malcolm Speed, ICC

In reply to our earlier discussion on how to 'lose' Darrell as quickly as possible, here are a few suggestions.

There are many ways to 'punt' or 'let go' of employees who are no longer 'singing from the same songsheet' as your organisation.

The usual way is to ask the employee to back their car up to your bank, you fill the boot up with money and they drive away into the sunset, never to be heard of again. OK, so you might neeed a HUGE car to fit in $500,000 US, but I'm sure Mr Hair wouldn't mind renting one for the day. This is called redundancy and is most commonly used in 21st century business dealings. It is not inappropriate, just a quick fix for an embarrasing problem.

A cheaper way for you to achieve the same effect is to give that employee all the most uninteresting, unpleasant jobs, so that they eventually leave. Have him umpire Zimbabwe as many times as possbile as you know he doesn't like doing this. He will resign sooner rather than later.

Why not try have Mr Hair umpire so many matches in different parts of the world back to back that he falls asleep on the job. You can then sack him for imcompetence.

If all else fails, you might consider a 'restructure' of the ICC for 'operational reasons'.and as a result, there is now no job for Mr Hair.
 
Last edited:

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
honestbharani said:
sure. equally possible that Hair instigated it. Could be either thing. But Hair was stupid if he thought that he could actually get away with such stuff. Even if he was asked to make the offer by Cowie, he should have thought a while before doing this. As I said, the ICC is a panel of member countries and even if one country wants, it beehoves upon the ICC to show all their correspondence and stuff.
According to ITV news last night or the night before Hair's lawyer had released a statement saying Cowie instigated it. I've not however seen this story elsewhere so it could be rubbish - can't be bothered to check if anyone has already mentioned this.
 

Smudge

Hall of Fame Member
honestbharani said:
my point is that Hair is the senior guy and even if Doctrove had not agreed with him, I don't think it would have made a diff. If Hair thought there was no tampering, I think Doctrove would have went with him on that too. It is tough to see a junior disagreeing with a senior, esp. with someone like Hair. If Doctrove thought there was tampering, then there is a little bit more to back up Hair's judgement but even that is not too much, given that Doctrove's word can't be the final thing either. Hair was the one who went to talk to Inzy after they refused to come out and Hair was the one who decided to not let the game restart even both teams (and the ICC) wanted to. I am sorry, but I think it is obvious that Hair is more to blame here than Doctrove as far as the umpires part in this issue is concerned.
I believe Hair pretty much told Doctrove he'd take all the flak for it. The line uttered, I understand was, "Billy, don't be a hero"...














Is that the time? I best be off. :ph34r:
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
honestbharani said:
my point is that Hair is the senior guy and even if Doctrove had not agreed with him, I don't think it would have made a diff. If Hair thought there was no tampering, I think Doctrove would have went with him on that too. It is tough to see a junior disagreeing with a senior, esp. with someone like Hair. If Doctrove thought there was tampering, then there is a little bit more to back up Hair's judgement but even that is not too much, given that Doctrove's word can't be the final thing either. Hair was the one who went to talk to Inzy after they refused to come out and Hair was the one who decided to not let the game restart even both teams (and the ICC) wanted to. I am sorry, but I think it is obvious that Hair is more to blame here than Doctrove as far as the umpires part in this issue is concerned.
Well, that's pretty much exactly what I thought, HB, until I found that Doctrove had a precedent, twice, for this exact situation - where the condition of the ball preceded a charge that the team had tampered the ball, without any particular player being seen (or accused) tampering with it and a penalty was applied. That didn't affect your assessment of this situation one iota? It sure did mine.
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
That is another reason why I think that Pakistan's stance has been dodgy all along. They seem to have (over)reacted this way because of the individual involved and not because of the actual issue.

Throughout this mess, PCB and fans have been targetting Hair and have not even mentioned Doc.
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
Sanz said:
That is another reason why I think that Pakistan's stance has been dodgy all along. They seem to have (over)reacted this way because of the individual involved and not because of the actual issue.

Throughout this mess, PCB and fans have been targetting Hair and have not even mentioned Doc.
Well, to be honest, I had a similar perspective, in that I believed much of the incident came down to Hair's desire to teach Pakistan a lesson for actions/slights in the past either real or imagined. In fact, a similar concept exists both ways, with so many keen to sink the boot into Hair over the Murali affair, which to this day I will defend Hair's decision over, given the flawed understanding we all had of chucking at the time (which I obviously won't debate in this thread :)).

But reading Cozier's article concerning Doctrove really made me wonder as to some of the presumptions we have made (even if there were understandable reasons for making them). It doesn't necessarily mean Hair didn't push the call, but Doctrove can no longer be considered a non-participant. Given that he has a precedent and Hair doesn't, it actually is plausible that he suggested they take action.
 

armchairumpire

U19 Cricketer
Voltman said:
I believe Hair pretty much told Doctrove he'd take all the flak for it. The line uttered, I understand was, "Billy, don't be a hero"...

And as Billy started to go Darrell said 'keep your pretty head low'...
 

Eyes_Only

International Debutant
Rob T said:
Woolmer defends reputation

AFP

August 27, 2006



Bob Woolmer can't remember the incident Barry Jarman has talked about


Bob Woolmer, the Pakistan coach, was forced to defend his reputation after it was claimed South African players tampered with the ball when he was in charge of the team 10 years ago.

Woolmer's Pakistan team have been at the centre of the row which began with last weekend's forfeiture of the fourth and final Test, and continued with Darrell Hair's demand for $500,000 to resign in the wake of the uproar.

Now, on the eve of the Twenty20 international against England in Bristol, Woolmer reacted to claims that South African players lifted the seam.

The claims were made by the former ICC match referee Barry Jarman who alleged that during a triangular one-day tournament involving South Africa, Zimbabwe and India in early 1997 a match ball confiscated after just 16 overs - still in Jarman's possession - bears the ravages of tampering by Woolmer's team.

At a loss to recall anything of the sort, Woolmer said: "I just cannot, and do not, understand why Barry Jarman has said this. As far as I'm concerned, it's fiction.

"As far as I know, I don't ever remember a ball being taken off after the 16th over. I surely would have remembered it. I wasn't ball-scratching. I'm the coach. What does he think ... that I teach ball-scratching?"

A mystified Woolmer has even taken the step of contacting the officials in the match he believes is in question - and he reports they are unaware of any wrong-doing. "Go and ask the two umpires in the same game that I'm supposed to have done this," he advised. "They will say that they don't know anything about it."
How convenient that he can't remember.8-)

Do you think that he'd really admit it, given what's happened in the last week, even if it did happen?? I seriously doubt it!!
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Slow Love™ said:
Well, that's pretty much exactly what I thought, HB, until I found that Doctrove had a precedent, twice, for this exact situation - where the condition of the ball preceded a charge that the team had tampered the ball, without any particular player being seen (or accused) tampering with it and a penalty was applied. That didn't affect your assessment of this situation one iota? It sure did mine.
Well, then, it will most probably turn out that Doctrove is at fault too. But again, being the junior umpire, he will probably get the lesser punishment than the senior official because of the diff. in experience and stuff. I guess that is the way it works out. For me, Doctrove is still a junior guy and from whatever I have seen is not yet someone who is ready to be confrontational and bossy on the cricket field during an international match, unlike Hair. That is the reason I want Hair out of the panel asap. If Doctrove goes on this way and becomes another 'Hair' in the future, then that will be time to show him the door too.BTW, I think it is really unfortunate that Inzy will be punished for all that the PCB did. I am almost sure that whatever decisions they made, weren't exactly his decisions.
 

Top