Darrell Hair to sue ICC for racial discrimination

[The Large One]

Hair to sue cricket authorities

Umpire Darrell Hair is taking legal action against world cricket's governing body and the Pakistan Cricket Board for racial discrimination.
Hair feels he was made a scapegoat when he was barred from officiating Test matches after the forfeited Oval Test between England and Pakistan in August. Billy Doctrove, his fellow umpire in the game when Pakistan were accused of ball-tampering, is now back in action.

Hair stood in a match between Kenya and Scotland in Nairobi on Wednesday. His contract as an elite umpire runs until March 2008 but he will not be allowed to stand in games involving Test nations. Doctrove, from Dominica, took several months off before returning to action during Pakistan's recent Test series in South Africa. Hair believes the PCB "unlawfully induced" the International Cricket Council to engage in discriminatory acts when it lobbied for his ban before a November meeting.

PCB chairman Dr Nasim Ashraf said he was "simply outraged" when his lawyer passed on Hair's written claims. "This is adding insult to injury. Race has nothing to do with this," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "Mr Hair was removed from the elite panel of umpires by the full ICC board, which has many countries, because of his poor judgement. This is the most preposterous thing I have heard. This is another manifestation of Mr Hair's mental status."

ICC bosses have admitted that, prior to the meeting off all Test-playing nations, they had hoped Hair could continue his role on the elite panel of umpires. But afterwards, ICC president Percy Sonn said: "It was clear from discussions that the ICC board had lost confidence in Mr Hair." Sonn also stated that Doctrove's status was not discussed at the meeting.

Ashraf added: "It is crass for him to say a black West Indian was let off [whereas] he was a white man and therefore he was charged. Mr Hair was the senior umpire and he literally took over that Oval cricket match. I was present there. There was only one man that evening that did not want cricket to be played. [It was] a black spot on the history of cricket thanks to Mr Hair."

On 20 August, Hair and Doctrove awarded England a five-run penalty because they believed the ball had been interfered with. The Pakistan team refused to resume play after the tea interval in protest against the decision, leading to the first fofeiture in 129 years of Test cricket. ICC adjudicator Ranjan Madugalle later cleared Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq of ball-tampering charges. Hair offered his resignation in exchange for $500,000 (£254,500) in the wake of the match.

 

[Gritt23]

And good on him .... his actions were perhaps over the top, but the ICC clearly just hung him out to dry, and made him the scapegoat. The fact that Inzy refused to play ball because he didn't like a decision seemed to be heavily glossed over after the initial furore. It was Inzy who acted in a way that meant a Test Match was forfeited for the 1st time in the history of cricket.

Hair may have been wrong, he may have been right, I don't know but the ICC didn't do right by him IMHO. The result of their scrapegoating of Hair means that I can't imagine an umpire will ever be brave enough to call a team for ball tampering unless he gets word from the 4th official that's it's be clearly caught on camera. And I don't think that is a good thing.

 

[The Large One]

But where does the race discrimination thing come in? It's what he's suing the ICC for, not for loss of earnings, or even defamation of character...

 

[Man of Harveys]

Christ, what a objectionable, morally-dubious little COCK Darrell Hair is. Thank God he's out of the game.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Kick Pakistan the cheating fucks out of cricket and it would be a better game.

Lowest team playing the game.

He got kicked out not because of england or south africa etc.

It's because the subcontinent teams like Pakistan,Sri Lanka wanted him out because he calls it how he sees it.

And Murilittleturds Cricket board wanted him gone because he found out that little chucker.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Another Bad Hair Day.

How can the guy be taken seriously after his "Give me $500,000" request?

He is a loose cannon and the ICC need to take him out - maybe Liam Plunkett could pepper him with wides?

 

[Normal Rob]

How can the guy be taken seriously after his "Give me $500,000" request?

spot on.

 

[tedebear]

I think the ICC are showing how much they are on the take with this one, such an old boys club if ever I saw one....DH has been strung up to twist in the wind, simply because some particular players couldn't get away with fixing a match...

 

[Man of Harveys]

So is there anyone NOT Australian willing to stick up for the weird and incompetent old Australian racist weirdo?

 

[Buzzer]

That'll be a no, then MoH.

Let's face it, Hare is just a boorish arrogant prick who thinks he's more important than the game. As the PCB chairman said - "only 1 person didn't want that game to go on".

Those aussies don't like it up 'em do they?

 

[tedebear]

I don't know, all I know is that if you follow the decisions he's made over the years, the majority have been proved correct, ball tampering, chucking, etc. he seems the only one confident enough to even raise the issue, yet every time he gets hounded and called racist and a "rules fundamentalist" or whatever Imran Khan called him...

I say good on him for upholding the rules...and shame on the ICC for allowing this mans career to be terminated for correctly calling ball tampering!

 

[Buzzer]

You aussies wouldn't be so supportive of Hare if he was a stinking abo though would ya?

 

[tedebear]

That'll be a no, then MoH.

Let's face it, Hare is just a boorish arrogant prick who thinks he's more important than the game. As the PCB chairman said - "only 1 person didn't want that game to go on".

Those aussies don't like it up 'em do they?

Why would you think him a boorish arrogant prick Buzzer?

 

[tedebear]

You aussies wouldn't be so supportive of Hare if he was a stinking abo though would ya?

Thats completely out of order!

 

[Gritt23]

Am I Australian then?

Buzzer, Inzy clearly didn't want the game to go on because it was his decision not to take to the field that meant the game was forfeited.

The PCB Chairman was re-writing history within an hour of the game being forfeited.

Everyone took to the field, and the Pakistan team didn't. After 2 mins, with it quite clear the Pakistan team were not on their way, everyone returned to the dressing room.

The PCB and the players were informed that play would resume after a short delay. Again, everyone took to the field apart from the Pakistan team, who were clearly refusing to enter the field of play - was it Akhtar who was sat on the balcony reading his paper at this stage? - and after two minutes, as per the regulations, the bails were removed signifying the end of the game. Result = England win by forfeit.

How was that only Hair who didn't want the game to go on, he took the field (twice) while the Pakistan team sat in their dressing room like children who have taken their ball home when something happens that they disagree with.

Inzy's disciplinary record is a disgrace, and yet it's Pakistan who ended up getting all high and mighty about it, and once AGAIN, the ICC bend and twist until they make a decision / announcement that is in favour of the sub-continent.

 

[sten_super]

So is there anyone NOT Australian willing to stick up for the weird and incompetent old Australian racist weirdo?

Yep me.

While the trumped up racism accusation is a bit silly, he was cast as the fall guy by the ICC purely because they didn't want to upset the PCB. Asian teams have accused him of being racist in the past because he has called decisions against him, that others have not dared to make. Murilitharan is a prime example. If you look at the way he was bowling when Hair no-balled him, he was clearly breaking the rules by a significant margin. But the view then was 'well he's been bowling this way for years, we can't suddenly start calling him now' when of course that's exactly what they should have been doing. When Hair did it there was uproar that anyone dare no-ball their fantastic spinner. The fact that it was then proved that his doosra was illegal, and that the rules have since been modified to make his delivery legal, seems to have been missed.

And to say 'only 1 person didn't want the game to go ahead' is simply wrong. The Pakistan team had to be coaxed out of the dressing room to play after they instigated a sit-in protest. They clearly did not want to play. I suspect that they knew that Hair had removed the bails and had thus ended the game, then decided 'hey he'll make a good scapegoat, lets pretend we want to play now'.

I'm not saying he hasn't made mistakes, refusing to restart the game probably was one amongst many he's made, but to blame him for everything that went on that day, and previously, and to then refuse to allow him to continue doing his job because the sub-continent teams don't like him, was hanging him out to dry, pure and simple.

 

[Buzzer]

Why would you think him a boorish arrogant prick Buzzer?

He was given the opportunity to carry on the game but pig-headedly said no. Both captains wanted the game to go on. The crowd wanted the game to go on. The other umpire and the 3rd umpire wanted it to go on.

He then tries to blackmail the ICC with a $500k ransom that, quite rightly, they reject.

Other umpires don't have a problem with the Pakistanis and Sri Lankans. As I recall , Muri's throwing action has been analysed and cleared by an Aussie University.

Quite clearly he regarded himself as more important than anything else in the game and the complete lack of contrition at ruining a great game and having the dubious honour of being the very first umpire ever to force a game to be thrown is something that doesn't bother him one bit.

Apart from that he's a luvverly gent.

IMHO his technical skills are excellent and worthy of the position of international umpire BUT he clearly is lacking in man-management skills and his interpersonal skills appear to be non-existent.

 

[Buzzer]

Thats completely out of order!

*sigh* it's a wind-up innit!

 

[sten_super]

He then tries to blackmail the ICC with a $500k ransom that, quite rightly, they reject.

I may be wrong here, but I thought he effectively wanted that money to be paid off to cancel his contract, no? Since he clearly wasn't going to umpire any important games, and would/will be paid more than that to see out his contract anyway?

 

[Buzzer]

I may be wrong here, but I thought he effectively wanted that money to be paid off to cancel his contract, no? Since he clearly wasn't going to umpire any important games, and would/will be paid more than that to see out his contract anyway?

Reads like an attempted stitch up to me:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/5286994.stm


AND.......tell me, all you ball-tampering experts....

After an exhaustive inquest was Inzamam found guilty or not guilty of ball-tampering?