ICC appoints Hair for Champions Trophy

[_TiGeR-ToWn_]

Why is there no thread asking if Doctrove should stand?

Exactly, but people are only seeing Hair. There were two umpires out there remember.

Until the hearing is held and completed then Hair can continue to umpire, if Pakistan or any other team has a problem then they can continue to take it too the ICC and have a whinge.

 

[Anil]

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

it would seem so...

 

[Fratboy]

Billy Doctrove isn't white. That is why he isn't a convenient scapegoat.

 

[The Baconator]

Doesn't look like he'll be standing now

India against Hair standing

 

[Slow Love™]

Billy Doctrove isn't white. That is why he isn't a convenient scapegoat.

Dunno about that - the Indians haven't been backward in their criticism of Bucknor in the past.

Anyhow, it looks like Hair definitely isn't standing in the Champions Trophy now - safety concerns are being cited. *nudge nudge wink wink*

 

[Jono]

No need to nudge me down there SL.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Dunno about that - the Indians haven't been backward in their criticism of Bucknor in the past.

Anyhow, it looks like Hair definitely isn't standing in the Champions Trophy now - safety concerns are being cited. *nudge nudge wink wink*

The same safety concerns they had about the England team playing in Zimbabwe, understandable really with death threats and all.

Oh, hang on...

 

[Fratboy]

Dunno about that - the Indians haven't been backward in their criticism of Bucknor in the past.

Anyhow, it looks like Hair definitely isn't standing in the Champions Trophy now - safety concerns are being cited. *nudge nudge wink wink*

I was speaking relatively mate. The smoke screen of the 'junior umpire' tag, along with the hatred of Hair in certain sections might have let Doctrove off, doesn't change the fact however that Doctrove was the one more experienced on the application of Law 42.3.

"Ball tampering controversies are not new to Doctrove, who was one of the standing umpires in 1995 when the Barbados Under 19 team was punished for ball tampering and in the 2004 Carib Beer Series when the Barbados senior team conceded penalty runs against Guyana. On neither occasion were individual offenders identified."

Source: http://www.caymannetnews.com/cgi-script/csArticles/articles/000054/005497.htm

I don't know what the procedure is when the umpires disagree on a decision, as Doctrove claims they did, but it certainly seems, given his history, that Doctrove has little ground to pin the blame on Hair. He was experienced enough on the application of that law, more so than Hair was, and once he assented to awarding 5 runs to England, he should cop more of the blame as far as I am concerned.

 

[Slow Love™]

I was speaking relatively mate. The smoke screen of the 'junior umpire' tag, along with the hatred of Hair in certain sections might have let Doctrove off, doesn't change the fact however that Doctrove was the one more experienced on the application of Law 42.3.

"Ball tampering controversies are not new to Doctrove, who was one of the standing umpires in 1995 when the Barbados Under 19 team was punished for ball tampering and in the 2004 Carib Beer Series when the Barbados senior team conceded penalty runs against Guyana. On neither occasion were individual offenders identified."

Source: http://www.caymannetnews.com/cgi-script/csArticles/articles/000054/005497.htm

I don't know what the procedure is when the umpires disagree on a decision, as Doctrove claims they did, but it certainly seems, given his history, that Doctrove has little ground to pin the blame on Hair. He was experienced enough on the application of that law, more so than Hair was, and once he assented to awarding 5 runs to England, he should cop more of the blame as far as I am concerned.

Yeah, I quoted the info on Doctrove's experience with the rule in cricket chat a few weeks ago, but (perhaps unsurprisingly) it didn't attract much comment. However, I don't think that calling Doctrove the junior umpire to Hair is that much of a smokescreen really - he's had a bit of a shaky start, and we're talking 70+ tests to 9.

Basically, though, the testimony was (and I don't believe Hair contradicted it) that Doctrove felt they should wait and have a good look to see what might be going on, and Hair just wanted to go ahead and impose the penalty sight unseen. I do think Hair gets off a little on that kind of thing, so that, combined with Hair's interpreted history, probably explains why most of the attention has been on Hair in this situation. Even if he did initially voice his caution, it's hard to see Doctrove just plain overriding Hair on the issue.