View Poll Results: Should Darrell Hair be standing as an Umpire at Champions Trophy

Voters
33. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    16 48.48%
  • No

    17 51.52%
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 49

Thread: ICC appoints Hair for Champions Trophy

  1. #1
    Cricketer Of The Year JASON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    At Work
    Posts
    7,558

    ICC appoints Hair for Champions Trophy

    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=124012
    Just hot off the press - ICC has rejected Pakistan Cricket Board's request that Hair not be appointed for the Champions Trophy.
    It seems Hair will stand as an Umpire at the Champions Trophy .

    WTF is wrong with the ICC ? You would think when an Umpire has been so much under criticism for his performance not only in the Test but also for his cash demand of $500,000 in the aftermath and with impending hearing coming up over next few days , Common Sense would dictate that Darrell be kept out of Champions Trophy particularly given the Champions Trophy is in the subcontinent. But unfortunately not many at the ICC seem to have common sense or any sense at all.

    Here's a poll - Do you think Darrell Hair should be allowed to stand as an Umpire at the Champions Trophy ?

  2. #2
    U19 Debutant _TiGeR-ToWn_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Pub
    Posts
    393
    Do you have an intense hatred of him JASON?
    "I can accept failure, but I can't accept not trying." MJ

  3. #3
    International Vice-Captain Dasa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,955
    Whether Hair was right or wrong about the ball-tampering accusations, the ICC should have waited until after the hearing to announce whether he was to stand in the Champions Trophy or not. By appointing Hair for the tournament before the outcome of the hearing, the ICC is just stoking the fire.

  4. #4
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Pratters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Kolkata, India
    Posts
    20,847
    The cash thingy means he never should umpire a game again regardless of the outcome of the hearing. That they didn't wait for the outcome is further ridiculous.


  5. #5
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Pratters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Kolkata, India
    Posts
    20,847
    Quote Originally Posted by _TiGeR-ToWn_
    Do you have an intense hatred of him JASON?
    He is not the only one who has said no in the poll. So it is a very much a legitimate question.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Jupiter
    Posts
    1,355
    I think what Wasim Akram had said about ICC was absolutely right.

  7. #7
    School Boy/Girl Cricketer Loots's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    England (But I'm a South Africa fan)
    Posts
    74
    He should not stand, every decision he makes will come under massive, massive scrutiny after recent events.

    Surely the ICC won't be daft enough to assign him a match with an Asian team in it, after all the allegations made against him it would be a very awkward scenario.
    "Bring me the toolshed, for I am hungry"

  8. #8
    School Boy/Girl Captain
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Kingsdale
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by Dasa
    Whether Hair was right or wrong about the ball-tampering accusations, the ICC should have waited until after the hearing to announce whether he was to stand in the Champions Trophy or not. By appointing Hair for the tournament before the outcome of the hearing, the ICC is just stoking the fire.
    Thats absurd logic. Going by that same logic, Pakistan should not have been allowed into the Champions Trophy before the outcome of the hearing. It works both ways.

  9. #9
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426
    I voted Yes. He deserves the same presumption of innocence as Inzamam and the Pakistani guys. Until the facts of the case have been determined in a better forum than trial by media/internet for either party, I have no problem with Hair standing matches, or the alleged ball-tamperers playing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Irfan
    We may not like you, your filthy rich coffers or your ratbag scum of supporters but by god do we respect you as a football team
    GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010

    Is Cam White, Is Good.

  10. #10
    International Captain Dravid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    New Jersey, United States
    Posts
    5,096
    O great. I'm not a big Hair fan and just hope he doesn't cause anymore trouble without proof.

  11. #11
    World Traveller Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Super Happy Fun Sugar Lollipop Land!
    Posts
    34,131
    If any other teams, Asian or not don't do anything wrong then anything won't happen.
    Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick once and you suck forever...

    RIP Fardin Qayyumi, a true legend of CW

    Quote Originally Posted by Boobidy View Post
    Bradman never had to face quicks like Sharma and Irfan Pathan. He wouldn't of lasted a ball against those 2, not to mention a spinner like Sehwag.

  12. #12
    International Vice-Captain Dasa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,955
    Quote Originally Posted by Fratboy
    Thats absurd logic. Going by that same logic, Pakistan should not have been allowed into the Champions Trophy before the outcome of the hearing. It works both ways.
    That makes no sense. Firstly, the ICC have a choice as to what umpires they appoint for the trophy - they can't pick and choose what teams they want. Secondly, Pakistan were already to play in the Champions Trophy - Hair wasn't confirmed to umpire in the tournament. Thirdly, Hair has (rightly or wrongly) been the one accused of bias (on this incident and others), so it's obviously going to be controversial to appoint him for the trophy - every decision he makes will come under scrutiny. In fact, your logic would be more sensible if you also argued that Inzy should be allowed to play in the Champions Trophy no matter what the decision of the hearing is.

    If the hearing proves Hair is correct, then there is no problem. However, by saying that he will umpire in the tournament before the outcome of the hearing, the ICC is provoking certain teams and is setting itself up for controversy. Not the most sensible move.

  13. #13
    School Boy/Girl Captain
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Kingsdale
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by Dasa
    That makes no sense. Firstly, the ICC have a choice as to what umpires they appoint for the trophy - they can't pick and choose what teams they want. Secondly, Pakistan were already to play in the Champions Trophy - Hair wasn't confirmed to umpire in the tournament. Thirdly, Hair has (rightly or wrongly) been the one accused of bias (on this incident and others), so it's obviously going to be controversial to appoint him for the trophy - every decision he makes will come under scrutiny. In fact, your logic would be more sensible if you also argued that Inzy should be allowed to play in the Champions Trophy no matter what the decision of the hearing is.

    If the hearing proves Hair is correct, then there is no problem. However, by saying that he will umpire in the tournament before the outcome of the hearing, the ICC is provoking certain teams and is setting itself up for controversy. Not the most sensible move.
    Simply lack of choice when it comes to teams isn't an excuse. Hair is on the Elite panel and the ICC have every right to pick him. Thirdly, Pakistan are the ones trying to fight off claims of ball tampering. If every decision Hair makes will be under scrutiny, it is safe to expect that every action Pakistan takes on the field will be too. I haven't opposed Inzy being allowed to play the Champions Trophy. I have only opposed the notion you have that Hair shouldn't be allowed while Inzy gets a free run. Also it is hypocrisy to claim that the ICC is setting itself up for controversy by proposing Hair's name while not opposing with the same passion the statements made by the Pakistanis that they would boycott the tournament if Hair figured in it.

  14. #14
    International Vice-Captain Dasa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,955
    Quote Originally Posted by Fratboy
    Simply lack of choice when it comes to teams isn't an excuse. Hair is on the Elite panel and the ICC have every right to pick him. Thirdly, Pakistan are the ones trying to fight off claims of ball tampering. If every decision Hair makes will be under scrutiny, it is safe to expect that every action Pakistan takes on the field will be too. I haven't opposed Inzy being allowed to play the Champions Trophy. I have only opposed the notion you have that Hair shouldn't be allowed while Inzy gets a free run. Also it is hypocrisy to claim that the ICC is setting itself up for controversy by proposing Hair's name while not opposing with the same passion the statements made by the Pakistanis that they would boycott the tournament if Hair figured in it.
    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.

  15. #15
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426
    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?

    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.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Should there be compulsory Drug Testing before Champions Trophy ?
    By JASON in forum ICC Champions Trophy 2006
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 23-10-2006, 10:23 PM
  2. The Challenger Trophy (Indian Domestic Season)
    By adharcric in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 19-09-2006, 05:09 AM
  3. English players to skip the champions trophy.
    By brockley in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-08-2006, 03:59 PM
  4. Hair cuts in school
    By Pratters in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-03-2006, 12:53 AM
  5. 'advanced Hair...... Yeah Yeah!!!'
    By BARMY_LAD in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 15-06-2005, 02:20 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •