ICC appoints Hair for Champions Trophy

[Dasa]

Originally Posted by Matt79

Dasa - if the hearing finds that someone in the Pakistan team DID tamper with the ball, or at least that Hair had reasonable cause to suspect they had, would your concern at his standing in the Champion's Trophy cease?

Yes. No problem if the hearing goes that way.

Originally Posted by Matt79

I don't see what the problem is - if the hearing concludes that Hair was seriously out of line, then I don't doubt the ICC will drop, or at least "rest" him from the Elite Panel and the tournament. Until that happens, he's still one of the Panel, he's an official of the governing body of the sport, and teams aren't allowed to veto the appointment of umpires.

While Hair remains on the Panel, they pretty much can't leave him out of the normal rotation of umpires - doing so would amount to prejudging the results of the hearing and make Hair a lame (if not dead) duck. It also sets a pretty disasterous precedent and would make any attempt to ever again enforce respect for umpires an absolute joke.

The thing is, the ICC didn't have to announce that Hair would be umpiring in the Champions Trophy. According to what I've read, Hair himself said he would be umpiring in the tournament, and a seemingly anonymous ICC source said that would be a "safe bet".
Given that the ICC didn't have to name the umpires in the Trophy, they could've just given a simple "no comment" and left it until after the hearing.

[Fratboy]

Originally Posted by Dasa

1. Inzy wouldn't get a free run if found guilty - the thing is, the decision will be made after the hearing - same as what should have been done with Hair. I haven't suggested Inzy should be allowed to play either. Again, if he is to play, it'll all depend on what happens at the hearing.
2. The Pakistanis haven't said they will boycott the tournament if Hair umpires.

1. Why expose your double standards repeatedly ? If Inzy gets to play, Hair officiates. If the presence of Hair is objectionable even though a decision of guilty on him has not yet been pronounced, it should hold true for Inzy too, and by Inzy I mean the entire Pakistani team for whom he's had to cop the flak as representative.
2. http://content.cricinfo.com/ci/conte...ry/260022.html

[Matt79]

I would say its a safe bet that Hair was asked whether he would be standing the CT. Given he is obviously convinced he's done nothing wrong, and is one of the most senior members of the Elite Panel, answering 'Yes' is a pretty straightforward response - unless he's heard something to the contrary, why wouldn't he be.

The ICC hasn't announced it. An anonymous source has briefed a reporter somewhere, which is different from the ICC deliberately stirring the pot before the hearing. You're assuming perhaps, that this was a sanctioned leak of the ICC's position on the matter, but it may be unsanctioned, and may not even reflect that position at all. For the ICC to come out and contradict Hair's statement that, so far as he's aware, he'll be at the CT gets us back to the problems of the ICC not wanting to undermine one of their own officials.

I think despite the media's understandable interest to keep this going, all these discussions and concerns are based on hypotheticals until the hearing.

[Dasa]

Originally Posted by Fratboy

1. Why expose your double standards repeatedly ? If Inzy gets to play, Hair officiates. If the presence of Hair is objectionable even though a decision of guilty on him has not yet been pronounced, it should hold true for Inzy too, and by Inzy I mean the entire Pakistani team for whom he's had to cop the flak as representative.

What I've been saying is pretty much what you've said above. I said before that it was foolish of the ICC to say Hair would officiate in the Champions Trophy before the hearing - it would also be foolish to say Inzy, as the representative of the Pakistani team, will play in the Trophy before the hearing.

Originally Posted by Fratboy

2. http://content.cricinfo.com/ci/conte...ry/260022.html

I have already read that article. Again, they haven't said they will boycott the tournament if Hair is present. They have said it is one of a number of options.

Also, I don't appreciate being accused of double standards.

[Matt79]

Also, after the disgrace of Hair's email "offering" to resign (which was not what he was actually trying to do at all IMO) it would be best for everyone if the leaks and anonymous briefings stopped altogether. This issue directly involves the credibility of a senior umpire, and a senior captain (and by extension the Pakistani team). Everyone in the ICC should know better than to try and manipulate this story.

I suppose the problem is that the journos will simply make up stuff to fill the vacuum if nobody is talking to them.

[Dasa]

Originally Posted by Matt79

I would say its a safe bet that Hair was asked whether he would be standing the CT. Given he is obviously convinced he's done nothing wrong, and is one of the most senior members of the Elite Panel, answering 'Yes' is a pretty straightforward response - unless he's heard something to the contrary, why wouldn't he be.

The ICC hasn't announced it. An anonymous source has briefed a reporter somewhere, which is different from the ICC deliberately stirring the pot before the hearing. You're assuming perhaps, that this was a sanctioned leak of the ICC's position on the matter, but it may be unsanctioned, and may not even reflect that position at all. For the ICC to come out and contradict Hair's statement that, so far as he's aware, he'll be at the CT gets us back to the problems of the ICC not wanting to undermine one of their own officials.

I think despite the media's understandable interest to keep this going, all these discussions and concerns are based on hypotheticals until the hearing.

I agree with that. I just assumed that the ICC had announced it when it was just an anonymous source. Given that I brought up the anonymous source, I probably should've realised there was no official announcement! My mistake.

[Fratboy]

Originally Posted by Dasa

What I've been saying is pretty much what you've said above. I said before that it was foolish of the ICC to say Hair would officiate in the Champions Trophy before the hearing - it would also be foolish to say Inzy, as the representative of the Pakistani team, will play in the Trophy before the hearing.

I have already read that article. Again, they haven't said they will boycott the tournament if Hair is present. They have said it is one of a number of options.

Also, I don't appreciate being accused of double standards.

I'm glad we agree on that first point then. And that article carries as much weight as the one in the main post of this topic, the one being used as a sure sign of the ICC having appointed Hair already.

[Langeveldt]

I support the decision in principle, if he is going to carry on being an umpire, you can't just stop him from officiating with subcontinental teams, so he had to come back some time.. If it's not okay for him to umpire anywhere in the world, then he shouldn't hold his current post..

What does concern me is that if any thing does go on, Hair could never point the finger or do anything about it because he obviously has so little respect now.. So he would go from being someone who pointed the finger whether or not there was any trouble, to a totally spineless waste of time who won't be able to assert any kind of authority on anyone..

[Matt79]

Oh I reckon he'll point the finger, no trouble. The question is whether the security guys get to him before the mob does, if and when...

[Slow Love™]

Yeah, as people have mentioned, it looks like this is largely unsubstantiated - in fact, in the very article cited, it reports:

"The official, however, said indications were that the ICC was not on a confrontation path and would adopt the policy of keeping Hair out of Pakistan's matches in the tournament.

"The signals we have got is they will hold back the announcement for the semi-finals and final and if we qualify, decide later. They will only announce umpires for the league matches now," he added."

In any case, the only thing that would really concern me would be if Hair was to umpire a game featuring Pakistan before the inquiry was resolved, because that would clearly be inappropriate.

[Slow Love™]

It's also kinda funny that there was no "I don't know, I'll wait and see what comes up in the hearing" option in the poll.

[Anil]

oh what the hell, let's wait and see what happens instead of assuming a lot of things...there are no good or bad guys in all of this, it's just politics....

[Eyes_Only]

Originally Posted by Craig

If any other teams, Asian or not don't do anything wrong then anything won't happen.

Well said and I totally agree.

Am glad the ICC isn't bowing to pressure but not allowing him to umpire but I think things will get interesting with the Asian teams. Guess we all just have to wait and see what happens...should be interesting either way..

[JASON]

Originally Posted by _TiGeR-ToWn_

Do you have an intense hatred of him JASON?

No I want uncontroversial , Neutral and Fair Umpires in Cricket at the highest Level , is that too much to ask for ?

[Pratters]

Originally Posted by JASON

No I want uncontroversial , Neutral and Fair Umpires in Cricket at the highest Level , is that too much to ask for ?

Haha.