Is Darrell Hair Ok to be on the International Panel ?

[JASON]

Just saw this on Cricinfo.

http://wwwc3.cricinfo.com/australia/content/current/story/258266.html

Now before anyone gets too confused , the Emirates Elite Panel Umpires are the ones who officiate Test Matches. The International panel officiate the ODIs in any country and include the Elite panel + Others nominated by and selected by the national Cricket boards (I did not know this until I read this news item) .


It seems Cricket Australia wants to continue letting Darrell to officiate in ODIs in Australia.

I guess it won't be a problem with SA, NZ or England. (and possibly the Windies) .

But if he were to stand in ODIs in Australia in games v Pakistan, SL and further issues with regard to his decisions were to come about we will be set for more controversy , while the Teams involved may themselves be unhappy with his involvement .

Any opinions ? Please vote on the poll .

 

[_TiGeR-ToWn_]

It depends on if he is found that the ball tampering issue was false and well Hair is stuffed if that is the case. He will either get kicked off the ICC panel or he will retire in disgrace.

 

[JASON]

It depends on if he is found that the ball tampering issue was false and well Hair is stuffed if that is the case. He will either get kicked off the ICC panel or he will retire in disgrace.

Just my gut feeling .... that ball tampering is going to end up with no one really being faulted .....

So Darrell might save face .. just my personal hunch..

 

[_TiGeR-ToWn_]

Well going on you 'gut feeling' I would say yes he can umpire ODIs or Tests and he can officiate any on any team. If he is banned from umpiring the sub-continental teams because of his past umpiring calls that is a joke. He made those calls as he sees them (i commend him for that) and if the ICC were to ban him to keep some teams happy then that is soft. The teams need to go out and play cricket and it doesn't matter who the umpire are.

I for one don't believe that he is a racist (and thats not just because im from Australia)

 

[Matteh]

Well going on you 'gut feeling' I would say yes he can umpire ODIs or Tests and he can officiate any on any team. If he is banned from umpiring the sub-continental teams because of his past umpiring calls that is a joke. He made those calls as he sees them (i commend him for that) and if the ICC were to ban him to keep some teams happy then that is soft. The teams need to go out and play cricket and it doesn't matter who the umpire are.

I for one don't believe that he is a racist (and thats not just because im from Australia)

I agree with this. He's seen as someone that carries out the laws of the game sometimes to the absolute letter (ball tampering, Murali etc.) and so when a decision is questioned, he firmly believes in the fact that his say is correct and he won't move on it. It's for this characteristic that he's been slated for.

 

[Fusion]

I voted no because I think Darrel Hair does not fully understand what being an International Umpire means. I have never accused him of being racist. My reason for disliking him is that he seems to welcome and even pursue controversy. He thinks of himself as being bigger than the game and likes the spotlight. To me, that is an absolute opposite of how an umpire should behave. The umpire should rarely be noticed. If an issue arises, an umpire should seek to defuse it, not escalate it. I'm sure Hair thinks that by being so confrontational and stubborn, he's saving the game from itself. He's actually doing his best to destroy it. If Australia or any other country wants to offer him a job for domestic cricket, they're all the more welcome to have him. He simply doesn't deserve to umpire Internationaly.

 

[JASON]

I voted no because I think Darrel Hair does not fully understand what being an International Umpire means. I have never accused him of being racist. My reason for disliking him is that he seems to welcome and even pursue controversy. He thinks of himself as being bigger than the game and likes the spotlight. To me, that is an absolute opposite of how an umpire should behave. The umpire should rarely be noticed. If an issue arises, an umpire should seek to defuse it, not escalate it. I'm sure Hair thinks that by being so confrontational and stubborn, he's saving the game from itself. He's actually doing his best to destroy it. If Australia or any other country wants to offer him a job for domestic cricket, they're all the more welcome to have him. He simply doesn't deserve to umpire Internationaly.

I agree 100% with all of what you have said .

 

[Sanz]

I voted no because I think Darrel Hair does not fully understand what being an International Umpire means. I have never accused him of being racist. My reason for disliking him is that he seems to welcome and even pursue controversy. He thinks of himself as being bigger than the game and likes the spotlight. To me, that is an absolute opposite of how an umpire should behave. The umpire should rarely be noticed. If an issue arises, an umpire should seek to defuse it, not escalate it. I'm sure Hair thinks that by being so confrontational and stubborn, he's saving the game from itself. He's actually doing his best to destroy it. If Australia or any other country wants to offer him a job for domestic cricket, they're all the more welcome to have him. He simply doesn't deserve to umpire Internationaly.

Ditto

 

[_TiGeR-ToWn_]

I voted no because I think Darrel Hair does not fully understand what being an International Umpire means. I have never accused him of being racist. My reason for disliking him is that he seems to welcome and even pursue controversy. He thinks of himself as being bigger than the game and likes the spotlight. To me, that is an absolute opposite of how an umpire should behave. The umpire should rarely be noticed. If an issue arises, an umpire should seek to defuse it, not escalate it. I'm sure Hair thinks that by being so confrontational and stubborn, he's saving the game from itself. He's actually doing his best to destroy it. If Australia or any other country wants to offer him a job for domestic cricket, they're all the more welcome to have him. He simply doesn't deserve to umpire Internationaly.

Some stupid reason I have to type my response out again, argh

I disagree with some of what you have said Fusion.

I dont feel that he pursues controversy he just makes the big calls that other umpires on the international panel are afraid of making in fear of their name being tarnished. He made the call against Murali which he was correct (until the ICC expanded the laws to allow him to play the game) and now he has made the call against the Pakistan. Good on him, at least one of the umpires shoots straight and calls the game as he sees it.

To say that he escalates situations is a flat out lie. What occured in England was started by Hair and Doctrove (remember there were two umpires) and escalated by the Pakistan team. They chose not to come out after team, thus disrespecting BOTH umpires and having an immature stand against a decision that would be resolved after the game. Choosing not to come out after tea constituted a forfiet in the umpires eyes and that is why I feel that this situation was blown out of proportion, just because of the forfiet. People wouldnt of payed so much attention to it if the game had continued, the matter would of been resolved in the after and it would be old news.

If the ICC boot him out, then he wil retire. No first class matches for him i feel.

 

[Dasa]

until the ICC expanded the laws to allow him to play the game

That is incorrect. The ICC expanded the laws to allow every bowler to legally play the game.

 

[Fusion]

Some stupid reason I have to type my response out again, argh

I disagree with some of what you have said Fusion.

I dont feel that he pursues controversy he just makes the big calls that other umpires on the international panel are afraid of making in fear of their name being tarnished. He made the call against Murali which he was correct (until the ICC expanded the laws to allow him to play the game) and now he has made the call against the Pakistan. Good on him, at least one of the umpires shoots straight and calls the game as he sees it.

To say that he escalates situations is a flat out lie. What occured in England was started by Hair and Doctrove (remember there were two umpires) and escalated by the Pakistan team. They chose not to come out after team, thus disrespecting BOTH umpires and having an immature stand against a decision that would be resolved after the game. Choosing not to come out after tea constituted a forfiet in the umpires eyes and that is why I feel that this situation was blown out of proportion, just because of the forfiet. People wouldnt of payed so much attention to it if the game had continued, the matter would of been resolved in the after and it would be old news.

If the ICC boot him out, then he wil retire. No first class matches for him i feel.

It's only my opinion, but I believe Hair likes the spotlight. I think he likes being the "savior" of cricket. By the way, he has a highly inflated sense of himself. Didn't he state in his autobiography that he would've called Murali again if his action didn't improve? I believe this was after the ICC had given the all clear to Murali's action. So in essence, Hair was saying "screw the governing body of cricket, I MAKE THE RULES".
As for my point about escalating things, most other umpires would've had a word with the captain if they suspected that tampering was going on. If the tampering persisted (in their opinion), they would've then changed the ball and awarded the penalty. Hair didn't do that, thus immediately escalating the issue. That's just one example. The way Hair treats the players is like how a warden treats criminals. Hair is an umpire, not a police officer. There have been numerous run-ins in the past between Hair and players. Again, to me that points to him not being a good manager of the game and escalating issues that could've been handled diplomaticly.
Hair's ego is just too big, as evident by the fact that he refused to continue the Test even though everyone (including England!) were ready to play. All of these are traits that an umpire should not possess, IMO. Hair is bad for cricket, he needs to go.

 

[_TiGeR-ToWn_]

That is incorrect. The ICC expanded the laws to allow every bowler to legally play the game.

Seriously mate the ICC knew how massive the backlash in Sri Lanka would of been if the had kept the law the same (which they should of) and banned the golden child Murali until he had changed his action. Sorry but that is how i feel about the situation and yes i dont respect what the ICC did with the matter and Murali as a bowler. Might be a good bloke but he still chucks the ball.

 

[adharcric]

One of the jobs of an umpire is to ensure the smooth procession of a match. I'm not sure if Darrell Hair really understands that.
He's welcome to make the calls that he believes in whenever he wants to, but he shouldn't go out there with the sole purpose of dictating his authority on the playing field.

 

[Sanz]

Seriously mate the ICC knew how massive the backlash in Sri Lanka would of been if the had kept the law the same (which they should of) and banned the golden child Murali until he had changed his action. Sorry but that is how i feel about the situation and yes i dont respect what the ICC did with the matter and Murali as a bowler. Might be a good bloke but he still chucks the ball.

I am just amazed at how blinded some people can be. They continue to refuse to get themselves educated on some issues yet consider it their birthright to voice their crap opinions on those same issues.

Btw - Let's see how fair you are, just answer this, do you believe Shane Warne is a match fixer ?

 

[social]

All of the major protaginists in this dispute should go.

Hair has made his position as an international umpire untenable by being outmanouvered by Speed

Board of the ICC has shown itself to be weak and/or corrupt by attempting to sweep the whole issue under the carpet.

Inzy has shown himself to be an unfit captain of his country by forfeitting then attempting to black-mail the ICC, all whilst making every excuse under the sun in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

 

[Perry Mason]

Of course, he should. Its like asking whether Pakistan should be allowed to play test cricket after the farce at the Oval.

 

[honestbharani]

Seriously mate the ICC knew how massive the backlash in Sri Lanka would of been if the had kept the law the same (which they should of) and banned the golden child Murali until he had changed his action. Sorry but that is how i feel about the situation and yes i dont respect what the ICC did with the matter and Murali as a bowler. Might be a good bloke but he still chucks the ball.

seriously mate, McGrath's flex was greater than Murali's was at the time Hair called him.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

All of the major protaginists in this dispute should go.

Hair has made his position as an international umpire untenable by being outmanouvered by Speed

Board of the ICC has shown itself to be weak and/or corrupt by attempting to sweep the whole issue under the carpet.

Inzy has shown himself to be an unfit captain of his country by forfeitting then attempting to black-mail the ICC, all whilst making every excuse under the sun in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

I agree.

 

[Anil]

Seriously mate the ICC knew how massive the backlash in Sri Lanka would of been if the had kept the law the same (which they should of) and banned the golden child Murali until he had changed his action. Sorry but that is how i feel about the situation and yes i dont respect what the ICC did with the matter and Murali as a bowler. Might be a good bloke but he still chucks the ball.

sorry but what you feel doesn't change facts, unfortunate i know....

 

[_TiGeR-ToWn_]

Funny about McGrath but okay i believe you.