Hair 'could umpire Tests again' - Mali

[Richard]

I think Hair, whatever his virtues as a decision-making umpire, is a grandstanding buffoon. No one man is bigger than a sport &, as he has very clearly lost the faith of a signifcant proportion of the cricketing fraternity of nations, he has no future in the international game. His initial decision to dock Pakistan 5 runs for the "ball tampering" was a terrible one and isn't mitigated by the fact that Inzi's (well, I say Inzi but I have serious doubts that he was the main instigator, but that's beside the point) decision to refuse to come out after tea was worse. I actually believe that the decision to award the game by forfeit was the correct one as a team cannot be seen in to be acting in open defiance of the standing umpires & the playing conditions for their own ends (whatever they may have been).

Hair has been slightly hung out to dry over this issue though because (whatever one thinks of him as an umpire or as a person) it's inescapable that he has been treated differently to Doctrove. Mali's contention that there is no reason why Hair can't umpire tests again is patently a nonsense (too many teams don't want him) but, for whatever reason, he cannot say this. The removal of Hair is already a step down the route of teams choosing their own umpires (or, more accurately, choosing the ones they don't want) but, if this is openly admitted, it shows the ICC to be lead by certain forces. Which means that Mr Mali is left defending the indefensible.

As I said earlier I suspect this will end with a significant pay-out to Hair, possibly by an out of court settlement to further save the ICC's blushes.

TBH, anyone who denies that players have a part to play in the selection of Umpires is a fool. The reason Hair's position became untenable is because the trust between him and Pakistan and Sri Lanka had snapped. Ovalgate was merely the largest of a series of icebergs.

 

[Richard]

The thing is from my understanding it wasn't just the Asian bloc that were over his antics and lack of common sence when umpiring. Pretty sure there were only a couple countries that wanted him to stay on as an umpire.

UIMM England was the only country to vote against the motion to demote Hair from the Panel. Australia absteined, and everyone else voted in favour.

IE, South Africa, West Indies and New Zealand also backed the motion.

 

[Richard]

I don't want Hair to umpire any form of cricket ever again, period.

But I am sure he'll get hired by certain countries in domestic cricket. Unfortunate, but nothing you can do about it.

What's wrong with Hair Umpiring domestic cricket? So long as the domestic sides are happy with him and there is trust, I have no problem at all with it.

It's only Pakistan and Sri Lanka I never want to see him near again TBH. I'd be perfectly happy to see him standing in New Zealand vs West Indies.

 

[BoyBrumby]

TBH, anyone who denies that players have a part to play in the selection of Umpires is a fool. The reason Hair's position became untenable is because the trust between him and Pakistan and Sri Lanka had snapped. Ovalgate was merely the largest of a series of icebergs.

Subtle & diplomatic as always.

You're right that players play a part in the selection of umpires, obviously, but it's through assessment of their performance as umpires rather than a flat refusal to play. There is no getting around the fact that Hair has been treated more harshly than other umpires who've made public howlers (the article mentions the OCI WC final, which was finished in the highest of farces & doesn't reflect well on its umpires general competence) because of his "previous". The ICC is now engaged in a damage limitation exercise, both in terms of their credibility as an independent body (& good luck with that, chaps) and the amount of money it may cost them to settle with Hair.

 

[Richard]

Subtle & diplomatic as always.

It's cold fact. There's just no point pretending otherwise.

You're right that players play a part in the selection of umpires, obviously, but it's through assessment of their performance as umpires rather than a flat refusal to play. There is no getting around the fact that Hair has been treated more harshly than other umpires who've made public howlers (the article mentions the OCI WC final, which was finished in the highest of farces & doesn't reflect well on its umpires general competence) because of his "previous". The ICC is now engaged in a damage limitation exercise, both in terms of their credibility as an independent body (& good luck with that, chaps) and the amount of money it may cost them to settle with Hair.

I$C$C have little credibility with anyone who knows much about cricket and haven't had for years. Not since the matchfixing scandals of '98 and 2000 have they emerged from anything where they've been a notable player in any serious credit.

Aside from that - Hair has been treated more harshly than others (the WC final duo for example) for a reason; as I mentioned in my previous post, Ovalgate is far from the sole piece of evidence for the prosecution. Hair has upset Pakistan multiple times and Sri Lanka more times still. They have good reason to bear grievance towards him. These cases combined present a more damning assessment than any Umpire - even David Constant or Shakeel Khan - have ever been faced with.

This is a shame, because (unlike plenty of subcontinentals) I don't actually believe Hair is a bad person, and as with Shabbir Ahmed it's a shame what's happened to him has happened. But it has, and him being demoted happened for good reason IMO.

 

[Sanz]

Hair has upset Pakistan multiple times

Pardon my ignorance. but when did Hair upset Pakistan before Ovalgate and for what reason ?

Also if you are going to respond to this, Please avoid using abusive and insulting language. If you can't respond in a civil manner, please feel free to ignore this and dont bother replying.

 

[nightprowler10]

Pakistan did file an official complaint against him following the England Tests at home, you clonger.

Phew, almost forgot the name calling.

 

[silentstriker]

Doctrove, who remains on the Elite panel, was supposed to have given evidence on behalf of Hair last week but failed to board his flight from the Caribbean. He has not made contact with Hair since then.

That's a pretty crappy thing to do TBH. Even though I support Hair's permanent removal from all cricket officiating, Doctrove needed to be there.

 

[shortpitched713]

That's a pretty crappy thing to do TBH. Even though I support Hair's permanent removal from all cricket officiating, Doctrove needed to be there.

I personally don't see any reason that he shouldn't be allowed to umpire in Australian domestic cricket, tbh.

 

[Malleeboy]

Firstly can anyone show were Hair went outside the rules of cricket as they were in force when he umpired. The call on Murali upset people but was strictly in accordance with the laws of cricket.The ball tampering incident was also handled according to the rules of cricket. Whereas the fiasco at the One-Day World cup occurred because the umpires failed to apply the rules and appeared not to know them. Umpires should apply the rules without fear or favour. I would prefer an umpire who know the rules and applied them to a bunch of incompenents who clearly failed to even understand them. Compare the punishment for Hair, who didn't breach a single law or rule to the punishment the bunch who made a complete mess of the ending of the World Cup. The ICC by its treatment of Hair has sent the message that it will not uphold its laws and rules but geneflex to political presure. It leaves umpires compromised because they know the ICC will not stand behind them if they make a decision that is unpopular with any group of countries.

Secondly if anyone should be banned from umpiring it should be Doctrove. If he is so weak willed that he allowed Hair to bully him into incorrect decisions, how can he be counted on to have the will to control players in heated situations? If indeed he has failed to front at the Hair case what does that say about him?

From my understanding there is nothing stopping Cricket Australia appointing Hair to our domestic umpire board. It could then appoint him to all first class matches with subcontinent teams in Australia. (Although I doubt they will.)

 

[silentstriker]

The call on Murali upset people but was strictly in accordance with the laws of cricket.

Right, like when he no balled Murali after explicitly agreeing beforehand not to do it and to refer suspect actions to the ICC. He wants controversy so he can be bigger than the game.

 

[Richard]

I'll ask again since you appeared not to notice the post 10 or so up...

Did Hair actually do that? I always thought it was just Emerson there.

 

[Richard]

Pardon my ignorance. but when did Hair upset Pakistan before Ovalgate and for what reason ?

One thing I remember off the top of my head is when he persecuted Kaneria regarding running on the pitch in West Indies in 2006. There were others, though I can't remember any specifics.

When you get someone like Mohammad Akram criticising him and saying he appears to have something against Pakistan, you know it's no mere conspiracy-theorism.

Also if you are going to respond to this, Please avoid using abusive and insulting language. If you can't respond in a civil manner, please feel free to ignore this and dont bother replying.

I'm rarely un-civil.

 

[silentstriker]

I'll ask again since you appeared not to notice the post 10 or so up...

Did Hair actually do that? I always thought it was just Emerson there.

I am almost positive he did. I will try to find a source.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'm rarely un-civil.

TBH, anyone who denies that players have a part to play in the selection of Umpires is a fool.

Firstly can anyone show were Hair went outside the rules of cricket as they were in force when he umpired. The call on Murali upset people but was strictly in accordance with the laws of cricket.The ball tampering incident was also handled according to the rules of cricket. Whereas the fiasco at the One-Day World cup occurred because the umpires failed to apply the rules and appeared not to know them. Umpires should apply the rules without fear or favour. I would prefer an umpire who know the rules and applied them to a bunch of incompenents who clearly failed to even understand them. Compare the punishment for Hair, who didn't breach a single law or rule to the punishment the bunch who made a complete mess of the ending of the World Cup. The ICC by its treatment of Hair has sent the message that it will not uphold its laws and rules but geneflex to political presure. It leaves umpires compromised because they know the ICC will not stand behind them if they make a decision that is unpopular with any group of countries.

Secondly if anyone should be banned from umpiring it should be Doctrove. If he is so weak willed that he allowed Hair to bully him into incorrect decisions, how can he be counted on to have the will to control players in heated situations? If indeed he has failed to front at the Hair case what does that say about him?

From my understanding there is nothing stopping Cricket Australia appointing Hair to our domestic umpire board. It could then appoint him to all first class matches with subcontinent teams in Australia. (Although I doubt they will.)

The issue with Hair isn't so much his decision making (the consensus seems to be he's actually rather good at that), rather his tendency to grandstand and his lack of man-management skills. I'm not saying all umpires have to be touchy-feely, but his handling of the alleged ball-tampering was either staggeringly naive or simply arrogant and high-handed. Hair isn't an idiot so he must've known this was an emotive issue. He could've quietly had the ball changed on some face-saving pretext about it's condition and mentioned his suspicions in his match report. Instead he took the (unprecedented, IIRC) decision to dock Pakistan 5 runs when he hadn't actually seen anything untoward.

 

[Richard]

I fail to see how that's uncivil TBH. As I say, you'd need to be a fool to not realise this; I don't see how this is not the case.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I fail to see how that's uncivil TBH. As I say, you'd need to be a fool to not realise this; I don't see how this is not the case.

I don't think it's civil to imply someone is a fool for holding a contrary position to one's self. Poor choice of noun IMHO.

 

[Richard]

It's not a position of mine, though, as I say - it's basic fact that people need to face to avoid being in denial.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's not a position of mine, though, as I say - it's basic fact that people need to face to avoid being in denial.

It isn't the position, it's the fact that you imply anyone to hold it is a fool. You could've said someone who holds it "is mistaken" or "would be wrong", which would have been civil. To say they're a fool isn't.

As insults go it's a very mild one, but it's an insult all the same.

 

[Richard]

TBH, after the post I mildly chastised myself, as I've managed to avoid the "anyone who thinks X is a fool" stuff mostly for the last 9 months or so.

Nonetheless, I still feel it's pretty nothing, TBH. I do think to deny that would be being in denial about the blatant truth, and I'm sure even you agree that this is foolish.