Darrell Hair

[Himannv]

Disagree with this. I think Hair no-balling Murali was ultimately the right decision. As someone who believes that Murali's action is legit, there's still no doubt that it looks pretty damn bad. Without the proper scientific testing, there was no way for Hair, or anyone, to know whether he was bowling it properly or throwing. It was really just a case of how you believed he delivered the ball; now we actually know. Something did have to be done, because otherwise the man could've gone through his career untested, and for all we know, bowling illegally.

Getting no-balled lead to Murali being tested, as well as greater scrutiny being put on other bowlers with suspect actions, eventually leading to the rules being overhauled when it turned out that the existing limits were ridiculous.

Never said he should not have called it. It was up to him to do whatever the hell he wanted although I admit I somewhat dislike the way in which it was done. My point was that there was nothing even remotely courageous about it as the OP and a few others indicated.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Brumby, aren't you forgetting something ? Let me refresh the memory :-

BBC SPORT | Cricket | The Ashes | Day four: How the controversy unfolded

1724: Here come the Pakistan team! They're trudging down the pavillion steps to a deafening chorus of boos from the Oval crowd. But where are the umpires?

1727: They're going back in! With no sign of the umpires, the Pakistan team are returning to the pavillion. Rumours are flying around that Darrell Hair is now refusing to come out.

1730: Apparently a deal had been brokered between the two teams, but no-one thought to involve the umpires. The umpires apparently took the Pakistan no-show to mean that the match had been conceded.

1733: "Darrell Hair is refusing to budge. That's the impasse." Jonathan Agnew, Test Match Special





Remember, 1727, 1730 and 1733 all happened after 1724.


Yes Pakistan team was responsible and so was Hair. Your post fails to suggest that.

Except that isn't how decisions are reached, is it? Players don't get told they're out, go away and have a think for a couple of hours and then graciously deign to continue playing, do they? No, it's a decision in the remit of the umpire and refusal to play after having been warned about the consequences of doing so means the blame lies squarely at the feet of the Pakistan team.

 

[Jarquis]

So in other words, the English bowlers did everything that Shoaib is shown to be doing, right ? But it was okay for them to be doing whatever they did, but Shoaib is a cheat for the same thing, right ?

no. Just no.
That's me done, refuse to debate ball tampering on here, some people are just ridiculous.

 

[Burgey]

Had the pleasure of meeting Dazza Hair last year when he was a spectator in the crowd of a match I was playing in.

Seemed a good bloke at the time.

By "crowd", you mean "was one of three people watching".

 

[marc71178]

Brumby, aren't you forgetting something ? Let me refresh the memory :-

BBC SPORT | Cricket | The Ashes | Day four: How the controversy unfolded

1724: Here come the Pakistan team! They're trudging down the pavillion steps to a deafening chorus of boos from the Oval crowd. But where are the umpires?

1727: They're going back in! With no sign of the umpires, the Pakistan team are returning to the pavillion. Rumours are flying around that Darrell Hair is now refusing to come out.

1730: Apparently a deal had been brokered between the two teams, but no-one thought to involve the umpires. The umpires apparently took the Pakistan no-show to mean that the match had been conceded.

1733: "Darrell Hair is refusing to budge. That's the impasse." Jonathan Agnew, Test Match Special





Remember, 1727, 1730 and 1733 all happened after 1724.


Yes Pakistan team was responsible and so was Hair. Your post fails to suggest that.

Yes, and all those happened after this so are actually irrelevant:

1654: The umpires have walked to the wicket and so have the England batsmen. But still no Pakistan team. In fact, Kamran Akmal is sitting on the balcony reading a newspaper. This one could run and run.

1657: The England players are walking off again, as are the umpires. The umpires have taken the bails with them. Could this be the end of the match?

 

[zaremba]

The one i posted. I thought we were commenting on that all along....deflecting attention??? how?

No-one (so far as I was aware) was discussing Anderson or Bresnan. The only reason I can imagine you brought those up was to defend Shoaib, on the "attack is the best form of defence" basis that served Ijaz Butt so well.

Turning then to those pictures, we know what Anderson was doing and if you call that ball tampering then that's up to you.

As for Bresnan, it's hard to tell what if anything he was doing with his thumb from that picture. Doesn't look nearly so compelling as the pictures of Shoaib, but maybe I'm biased. However I don't think it's bias since I'm a much bigger fan of Shoaib than of Bresnan.

 

[zaremba]

Yes, and all those happened after this so are actually irrelevant:

1654: The umpires have walked to the wicket and so have the England batsmen. But still no Pakistan team. In fact, Kamran Akmal is sitting on the balcony reading a newspaper. This one could run and run.

1657: The England players are walking off again, as are the umpires. The umpires have taken the bails with them. Could this be the end of the match?

Gotta say Sanz walked straight into that one

 

[Cevno]

Darrell hair was always suspicious against the Asian Teams for some reason.
His general attitude seemed very snobbish.

At the time i beleive i listed a list of events and quotes varying 5 to 10 years about his attitude and decisions against some teams which made him disliked first by Srilanka,then India and then Pakistan.

 

[Migara]

Turning then to those pictures, we know what Anderson was doing and if you call that ball tampering then that's up to you.

That's because you've seen the video. What we ask is to bring on the video evidence. Sun is not doing it because they know they are misinterpreting the pictures. What would have been your reactions to the pictures Faisal posted if you've not seen the actual videos?

As for Bresnan, it's hard to tell what if anything he was doing with his thumb from that picture. Doesn't look nearly so compelling as the pictures of Shoaib, but maybe I'm biased. However I don't think it's bias since I'm a much bigger fan of Shoaib than of Bresnan.

Your biasness is very evident even if you try to cover it up. Bresnana is ball tampering according to that picture, if you use the same standards that you used to judge Shoaib.

 

[benchmark00]

By "crowd", you mean "was one of three people watching".

 

[zaremba]

That's because you've seen the video. What we ask is to bring on the video evidence. Sun is not doing it because they know they are misinterpreting the pictures.

It's quite amusing to see you make allegations like this without a shred of evidence, and then have the gall to accuse others of leaping to conclusions about Shoaib without having sufficient evidence.

And FTR I think you mean the Daily Mail rather than the Sun.

As for calling me biased - well you can think what you want to think, son, but you genuinely don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Faisal1985]

No-one (so far as I was aware) was discussing Anderson or Bresnan. The only reason I can imagine you brought those up was to defend Shoaib, on the "attack is the best form of defence" basis that served Ijaz Butt so well.

Turning then to those pictures, we know what Anderson was doing and if you call that ball tampering then that's up to you.

As for Bresnan, it's hard to tell what if anything he was doing with his thumb from that picture. Doesn't look nearly so compelling as the pictures of Shoaib, but maybe I'm biased. However I don't think it's bias since I'm a much bigger fan of Shoaib than of Bresnan.

I am talking about Marcuss's comments. Which were for Anderson after i posted the pic. He did comment on those after and i was posting regarding those as well.

I brought it up because we were discussing ball tempering and how one person's action are interpreted differently then another person's similar actions, based on the prohibited discriminatory elements in the civilized world.

Yup by the definitions being used on the forum for ball tempering i.e. using finger nails or thumb nails to scratch the ball, the pic of Anderson falls in the same category.

 

[Faisal1985]

no. Just no.
That's me done, refuse to debate ball tampering on here, some people are just ridiculous.

I know, its quite evident.

 

[Sanz]

Yes, and all those happened after this so are actually irrelevant:

1654: The umpires have walked to the wicket and so have the England batsmen. But still no Pakistan team. In fact, Kamran Akmal is sitting on the balcony reading a newspaper. This one could run and run.

1657: The England players are walking off again, as are the umpires. The umpires have taken the bails with them. Could this be the end of the match?

And this happened after above :-

1730: Apparently a deal had been brokered between the two teams, but no-one thought to involve the umpires. The umpires apparently took the Pakistan no-show to mean that the match had been conceded.

1733: "Darrell Hair is refusing to budge. That's the impasse."

It may be irrelevant to you, but to many of us it is not. Pakistan and Inzi acted poorly and so did Hair.

 

[Sanz]

Gotta say Sanz walked straight into that one

What is the official result of that Test again ?

 

[Faisal1985]

If you think no one had a concern about Murali's action before Hair no-balled him you're mistaken.

There was a hell of a lot of talk about it before he came on that tour. Just because no one else no-balled him doesn't mean there weren't concerns.

I am sure there were people like Bedi who kept on saying stuff in media. But at the official level and among the umps, no one called a no ball which says only one thing to me, that for ICC and all of its umps except Hair, it was a legal delivery.

 

[marc71178]

What is the official result of that Test again ?

An England win because Pakistan refused to take to the field (at 1657, which is before 1730 thus rendering the post 3 above this one pointless)

 

[Faisal1985]

An England win because Pakistan refused to take to the field (at 1657, which is before 1730 thus rendering the post 3 above this one pointless)

I think the ICC gave the result as a drawn game after.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think the ICC gave the result as a drawn game after.

It was briefly declared posthumously a "no result", but now restored as an England win.

 

[Sanz]

Except that isn't how decisions are reached, is it? Players don't get told they're out, go away and have a think for a couple of hours and then graciously deign to continue playing, do they? No, it's a decision in the remit of the umpire and refusal to play after having been warned about the consequences of doing so means the blame lies squarely at the feet of the Pakistan team.

Not, In normal circumstances. But this was not a normal day and It all started with Hair.
Hair proved that he didn't have game's best interest in mind :-

BBC called it early

1434: Inzi's not happy about this - the umpires have picked up the ball and are examining it closely. They call Trevor Jesty on with the box of spare balls, and we could have a diplomatic incident here. They're changing the ball, and that can mean only one thing - the umpires think the Pakistan team have tampered with the ball.
Lordy - Inzamam's furious. To him this is tantamount to being called a cheat. A five-run penalty has been given against Pakistan, and this one's going to run and run.
1430: Gul's getting a bit of reverse swing here. Collingwood pushes him for two into the off-side