ICC ranks Hair second best

[Matteh]

I'm beginning to sense that you're a bit obsessed with Hair. You're not about to let this subject go are you?

Being accurate is an essential ingredient to being a good umpire. However, it's not the only ingredient. Common sense is another. Also, there are traits that an umpire shouldn't possess. Grandstanding and wanting to be the center of attention would be high on the no-no list. Hair may have been accurate, but he did not have all the ingredients needed to be a good umpire. That's why he was let go. And no matter what your wish Social, he's not coming back. Good riddance IMO.

Out of all the qualities you mention though, i'd rather have a showboater who got damn near 100% of his decisions correct that someone that wasn't playing to the crowds but changed the outcome of games with mistakes.

 

[marc71178]

ICC ranked Hair second best.

Yes, based on the most recent stats available...

 

[R_D]

Out of all the qualities you mention though, i'd rather have a showboater who got damn near 100% of his decisions correct that someone that wasn't playing to the crowds but changed the outcome of games with mistakes.

But i rather not have a umpire who accuses people of cheating without evidance no matter how good of decision maker he maybe.

 

[marc71178]

Whatever I was posted was true but I've deleted that post so that it may not hurt the feeling of many others like u who think that Hair is a legend.

So you're denying the stats then?

Or are the replays also racist for showing him to be getting things right more often than others?

 

[pasag]

I think Social knows Hair or something... i remember him saying something along the line a while ago in Murali and Warne thread. So you can understand the guy.

I'd like to know the validity of whats being claimed... 95% accuracy hahaha what a joke.
Baring maybe Tauffle i doubt any umpire has accuracy rate of anywhere close to 90%.

"The ICC report effectively ranked Hair as second best in the world, and on decision-making statistics alone, measured from video evidence, he was rated top, with 253 correct out of 263 - a success rate of 95.5%."

Are you claiming that's a lie? That they made that up? Or is it just a feeling you have, and if so, is your 'feeling' contradicting the video evidence. I'm asking here becuase I'm confused.

 

[R_D]

Am i allowed to throw the 'bias' card around willynilly here?

yeah i think you can safely do so... but i thought most people would've learned to ignore most of Buphinder's post by now... i think his every other post seems to be accusing someone of being racist.

 

[marc71178]

I'd like to know the validity of whats being claimed... 95% accuracy hahaha what a joke.
Baring maybe Tauffle i doubt any umpire has accuracy rate of anywhere close to 90%.

And you base this on what exactly?

Are you saying that in International Cricket more than 1 out of every 10 appeals is incorrectly dealt with by the umpires?

Please provide the evidence to back this up, because I for one would like to see where you've got it from.

 

[marc71178]

But i rather not have a umpire who accuses people of cheating without evidance no matter how good of decision maker he maybe.

So you saw the ball 5 overs before the switch took place then did you?

If not, then you cannot say there was no evidence...

 

[pasag]

Out of all the qualities you mention though, i'd rather have a showboater who got damn near 100% of his decisions correct that someone that wasn't playing to the crowds but changed the outcome of games with mistakes.

Nah, in a hypothetical case where we remove all the baggage and issues that exist here, you really wouldn't, imo.

 

[R_D]

"The ICC report effectively ranked Hair as second best in the world, and on decision-making statistics alone, measured from video evidence, he was rated top, with 253 correct out of 263 - a success rate of 95.5%."

Are you claiming that's a lie? That they made that up? Or is it just a feeling you have, and if so, is your 'feeling' contradicting the video evidence. I'm asking here becuase I'm confused.

SO i assume you've seen the ICC report which says that Hair had accuracy of 95% ? How come we haven't heard anything about this report from ICC as of yet ?
COuld this report be a possible imagination of Daily Telegraph ? Until Daily telegraph provide some evidance of the actual ICC report... i think it be pretty safe to assume what they are claiming could possibly be their imagination running wild.

I don't think too many umpires have accuracy rate of 95%.

 

[Matteh]

But i rather not have a umpire who accuses people of cheating without evidance no matter how good of decision maker he maybe.

He thought there was something wrong (and clearly Doctrove did too) and he acted upon it. So now you want someone who isn't as good an umpire and also someone not strong enough to make big and potentially awkward decisions?

 

[R_D]

So you saw the ball 5 overs before the switch took place then did you?

If not, then you cannot say there was no evidence...

Obviosuly there was proof hence why Pakistan was cleared of tempering with the ball right ?

 

[Matteh]

Nah, in a hypothetical case where we remove all the baggage and issues that exist here, you really wouldn't, imo.

Bowden is easily more of a showboater, but noone seems to criticise him for it. All i ever heard about Bowden in that aspect is positive, yet some people are quite ready to shoot down Hair for showboating.

 

[pasag]

SO i assume you've seen the ICC report which says that Hair had accuracy of 95% ? How come we haven't heard anything about this report from ICC as of yet ?
COuld this report be a possible imagination of Daily Telegraph ? Until Daily telegraph provide some evidance of the actual ICC report... i think it be pretty safe to assume what they are claiming could possibly be their imagination running wild.

I don't think too many umpires have accuracy rate of 95%.

Conspiracy theory eh? Did the CIA have anything to do with this?

 

[pasag]

Bowden is easily more of a showboater, but noone seems to criticise him for it. All i ever heard about Bowden in that aspect is positive, yet some people are quite ready to shoot down Hair for showboating.

Nah, noone is using showboater in that context though. The question rephrased being "would you rather an umpire who constantly brings the game into disrepute and many of his actions land on the front page of the paper, but gets it right all the time, as opposed to someone who only gets it right 80-90% of time and may change the course of a match?" I'd go the latter of two dire situations, personally.

 

[R_D]

And you base this on what exactly?

Are you saying that in International Cricket more than 1 out of every 10 appeals is incorrectly dealt with by the umpires?

Please provide the evidence to back this up, because I for one would like to see where you've got it from.

This is my observation from watching cricket at home on tv... much easier coming too the conclusion whether the decision was wrong or right whne you have the aid of tv replays and haw-eye etc.

 

[marc71178]

Obviosuly there was proof hence why Pakistan was cleared of tempering with the ball right ?

What it does show is that there is no proof that they didn't have evidence, since only 2 of them know the condition of the ball at both points, and there is absolutely no way anyone else ever can.

Therefore you cannot claim they had no evidence.

 

[marc71178]

This is my observation from watching cricket at home on tv... much easier coming too the conclusion whether the decision was wrong or right whne you have the aid of tv replays and haw-eye etc.

So how come you're disputing the stats provided by such means then, unless you actually watch it on TV at home without it having TV replays or hawk-eye?

 

[R_D]

He thought there was something wrong (and clearly Doctrove did too) and he acted upon it. So now you want someone who isn't as good an umpire and also someone not strong enough to make big and potentially awkward decisions?

I want someone who actually has enough common sense to realise that you have to have solid evidance before you go around flying accusation of cheating. But common sense is soemthing thats not very common these days.

 

[pasag]

This is my observation from watching cricket at home on tv... much easier coming too the conclusion whether the decision was wrong or right whne you have the aid of tv replays and haw-eye etc.

You're in Melbourne right? So how many of Hair's matches over the past year have you watched exactly?