Pakistan-v-Darrell Hair

[hans kraay fan club]

Its the square leg umpire who can call for nb in these circumstances

Hair was the standing umpire when he called Murali though, not square leg.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Murali,is a chucker.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Hair was the standing umpire when he called Murali though, not square leg.

I was just making the point that the square leg umpire has the juristriction to call nb.

However as an umpire myself i believe you see the action of a bowler. its a question of how far back you stand. Personally i stand around five feet behind the stumps this allows you to see nb's and the action of the bowler. So often you see inexperienced umpires standing directly behind the stumps, this makes it very differcult to look down then focus at the batsman at point of delivery.

 

[Woodchip]

The ball did look a bit ify though.

I think Hair made the right decision by not coming back out. It took them 40 minutes to enter the field of play, not the "few minutes protest" they keep on about. Looks like their protest backfired on them.

 

[Frutos]

Surely the point here is,no country can dictate who they have as umpires?

Isn't it just the same principle as the Albion having that twat Phil Prosser replaced when he was supposed to be officiating one of our home games either last year or the year before after the infamous Sheffield United game of a few years ago?

I didn't see a problem with it then, and I don't now if Pakistan have some concrete reason to believe that Mr. Hair might not be impartial.

 

[Grendel]

Sorry,Glendal. Surely if the umpire is watching a bowler he call no-ball when that ball is bowled not later??

Just to clarify this, as it isn't entirely clear cut:

The laws of the game, as they currently stand, state that the square leg umpire is primarily responsible for calling a no-ball if he considers the bowler to have an unfair action, although the umpire at the bowlers end is also permitted to call a no-ball under these circumstances if he sees fit to do so.

However, the ICC policy at the time of the Murali incident (which occurred in 1995, if memory serves) stated that a bowler should not be called for throwing during the match. Rather, he should be reported to the match referee at the close of play. Technically, Hair was acting within in the laws of the game when he called Murali for throwing but in doing so, he was in contravention of the policy of his own governing body.

The ICC policy has now been amended to include, amongst other things, the following: "Nothing contained herein shall override an umpire's responsibility and discretion to apply Law 24.", although umpires are still encouraged not to call bowlers for throwing during the match and instead go through the review process.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Just to clarify this, as it isn't entirely clear cut:

The laws of the game, as they currently stand, state that the square leg umpire is primarily responsible for calling a no-ball if he considers the bowler to have an unfair action, although the umpire at the bowlers end is also permitted to call a no-ball under these circumstances if he sees fit to do so.

However, the ICC policy at the time of the Murali incident (which occurred in 1995, if memory serves) stated that a bowler should not be called for throwing during the match. Rather, he should be reported to the match referee at the close of play. Technically, Hair was acting within in the laws of the game when he called Murali for throwing but in doing so, he was in contravention of the policy of his own governing body.

The ICC policy has now been amended to include, amongst other things, the following: "Nothing contained herein shall override an umpire's responsibility and discretion to apply Law 24.", although umpires are still encouraged not to call bowlers for throwing during the match and instead go through the review process.

Spot on.

 

[Gritt23]

But once again he let his ego and self-importance get in the way of doing things properly.

He called Murali 7 times in three overs, despite the ICC ruling [at the time] that if an umpire suspected an illegal action, he should report it to the match referee at the close of play, who would then review the footage and decide what action to take.

Sri-lanka left the field in protest, then returned and simply switched Murali to the other end, where the umpire found no cause to call him.

It's the second part of that which I found bizarre. You would have thought - and I see you've explained this point elsewhere in the thread - Hair would have been MORE likely to have called him from square leg, rather than leaving it to Dunne at the bowlers end. Dunne of course didn't no-ball him, as he believed (probably rightly) that suspect actions were not to be called, but reported instead.

Having said that, I think the degree to which Murali was chucking at the time was a disgrace or "diabolical" as Hair described it in his book, and something needed to be done. Someone needed to make a stand, and that happened to be Hair.

 

[Gritt23]

Given that Hair has a history of giving shit decisions against them, it isn't suprising.

Examples?







P.s and not one's about lbw decisions etc, as all umpires get some of those right and some wrong. Personally I find Hair has a better record than most on those decisions.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

It's the second part of that which I found bizarre. You would have thought - and I see you've explained this point elsewhere in the thread - Hair would have been MORE likely to have called him from square leg, rather than leaving it to Dunne at the bowlers end. Dunne of course didn't no-ball him, as he believed (probably rightly) that suspect actions were not to be called, but reported instead.

Having said that, I think the degree to which Murali was chucking at the time was a disgrace or "diabolical" as Hair described it in his book, and something needed to be done. Someone needed to make a stand, and that happened to be Hair.

Agreed, but he could have made that stand at the close of play like he was supposed to. Sri Lanks had already walked once. If Hair had called him from square leg, the test would have been over, and there may well have been a riot.

The Oval crowd on Sunday, considering how shabbily they were treated behave unbelievably well.

 

[Gritt23]

Agreed, but he could have made that stand at the close of play like he was supposed to. Sri Lanks had already walked once. If Hair had called him from square leg, the test would have been over, and there may well have been a riot.

The Oval crowd on Sunday, considering how shabbily they were treated behave unbelievably well.

So you are saying Hair IS in fact sensitive to the situation, and knew the ramifications of calling him again from square leg. As opposed to what the Pakistanis - and many commentators are saying.

Personally I don't think he thinks like that at all - and that'snot a criticism. He calls it as he sees it, the fact that a team don't like him doesn't make a difference, and nor should it. You can't have an umpire not doing what he thinks is right because of the reaction it will cause.


I just think Hair and Dunn, must have agreed that the moment Murali straightened his arm, was at such a moment in the delivery stride that by standing back from the stumps you could see it happen, and still have time to see where his front foot lands, and then look up in time to see it pitch. You certainly couldn't do that for a quick bowler, but I can only think they agreed that was the case with Murali. Therefore if you were going to call it you do it from the stumps and not square leg.

I did always think that was a slightly strange element to it, but at the end of the day, he was right, Murali was chucking.

 

[Gritt23]

Where I'm getting rather concerned about this whole issue though is how much Pakistan are deflecting the debate away from whether the ball had been tampered with or not.

Stop talking about Hair should have done this, shouldn't have done that, etc, why are they not concentrating on talking about the condition of the ball.

If I get accused of something, and I've done it, I will look to blame someone else for something else, talk about something else, anything but what I've done. Whereas if I'm innocent I want to talk about nothing else. Talk about it in every minute detail, so that I can explain away the incidents that have left me suspected of being guilty. I don't stop talking about it until everyone accepts I didn't do it and my accuser accepts it too.

Pakistan are not talking about the ball, the state of it when it was passed to hair, what was wrong with it, what hair may have seen, and telling us how the ball could have come to be in that state. Nothing, none of that at all. Instead we are getting to hear all about how Hair doesn't like the sub-continent, how he shouldn't be umpiring, whether they will play the ODI's, and today Inzy has come out with wanting the game result annulled!!

What? If you are innocent of this, what the f*** does it matter whether the series has gone down as a 2-0 defeat or 3-0??

Nice change of subject guys, but let's get back to the central issue, were you tampering with the ball to get it to reverse swing?

 

[Grendel]

Examples?







P.s and not one's about lbw decisions etc, as all umpires get some of those right and some wrong. Personally I find Hair has a better record than most on those decisions.

The Inzamam run-out last time we were out there.
Forcing Kaneria to withdraw from the attack on the Windies tour last year.
Giving Pietersen not out at Headingly.
Reporting Shoaib Akhtar for throwing.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/australia/content/story/230793.html

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Where I'm getting rather concerned about this whole issue though is how much Pakistan are deflecting the debate away from whether the ball had been tampered with or not.

Stop talking about Hair should have done this, shouldn't have done that, etc, why are they not concentrating on talking about the condition of the ball.

If I get accused of something, and I've done it, I will look to blame someone else for something else, talk about something else, anything but what I've done. Whereas if I'm innocent I want to talk about nothing else. Talk about it in every minute detail, so that I can explain away the incidents that have left me suspected of being guilty. I don't stop talking about it until everyone accepts I didn't do it and my accuser accepts it too.

Pakistan are not talking about the ball, the state of it when it was passed to hair, what was wrong with it, what hair may have seen, and telling us how the ball could have come to be in that state. Nothing, none of that at all. Instead we are getting to hear all about how Hair doesn't like the sub-continent, how he shouldn't be umpiring, whether they will play the ODI's, and today Inzy has come out with wanting the game result annulled!!

What? If you are innocent of this, what the f*** does it matter whether the series has gone down as a 2-0 defeat or 3-0??

Nice change of subject guys, but let's get back to the central issue, were you tampering with the ball to get it to reverse swing?

But they did say immediately that they felt that the ball was only showing reasonable wear and tear. They have since said that there were no significant scratches on the ball, and they have repeatedly asked for the ball to be made available to the media so that people can actually see it and make up their own minds. What more can they say or do?

 

[Gritt23]

The Inzamam run-out last time we were out there.
Forcing Kaneria to withdraw from the attack on the Windies tour last year.
Giving Pietersen not out at Headingly.
Reporting Shoaib Akhtar for throwing.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/australia/content/story/230793.html

That's what I meant by not including cases of an umpire giving someone out or not, as all umpires have controversy with all teams about that. Ashoka gave some dreadful decisions against us over the last few years but no-one says he has it in for white teams. that just happens.

So that leaves two. Kaneria and Akhtar.

Akhtar's action has often come into question, and not just by Hair.
Kaneria, I didn't see the incident, but wasn't he taken off for running on the pitch? If so, that's not so unusual.

Unfortunately, Hair's become the Henderson of International cricket, whereby every decision he makes that goes against the sub-continent is blown out of all proportion, just as Henderson gets stick almost everytime the ball comes into the area - well, he was on Saturday courtesy of the post-labotomy patients sat behind me.

 

[Gritt23]

But they did say immediately that they felt that the ball was only showing reasonable wear and tear. They have since said that there were no significant scratches on the ball, and they have repeatedly asked for the ball to be made available to the media so that people can actually see it and make up their own minds. What more can they say or do?

It just concerns me when they seem to spend all of their time talking about every subject around this to the virtual exclusion of the main point.

I heard the PCB Chairmen pretty much dismiss the damage to the ball with a comment about it being hit into the stands by Pietersen, despite the fact that it never happened. KP has a solitary 4 at the time it was changed, if fact the ball that had been withdrawn was never hit for 6.

Deflection is a classic defence tactic of the guilty. That's all.

 

[Gritt23]

Reporting Shoaib Akhtar for throwing.

As I say it's not just Hair.

Akhtar reported again

 

[Albion Dan]

Hair is a total idiot, a classic case of Premiership Referee syndrome, where he has made himself the talking point rather than the cricket.

The fact is he has NO evidence that the ball was tampered with, but penalised the Pakistanis regardless, which is unforgivable.

He could have easily managed his suspicions in a way that allowed the game to continue, and the name of cricket ot be spared this utter farce.

 

[Pavilionaire]

My feeling is that Pakistan are making too much of this.

1. They've just forfeited a match that they had a strong possibility of winning.

2. They're making a stand against an elite umpire appointed by the ICC who, in all likelihood, will retire imminently.

It seems that the majority of the media have great sympathy with their defence, and Hair has certainly had his fair share of controversy and made mistakes in his time, but they absolutely blew it by not coming out to play after tea.

Their primary obligation is to the people that pay their wages, i.e. the punters. They should have played on - it would not have detracted from their defence or made them look any worse, in fact it would have made them look a whole lot better.

Bob Woolmer should have realised this and sent them out on time.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Deflection is a classic defence tactic of the guilty. That's all.

Complete lack of evidence is a classic sympton of being innocent too. Not saying that they are innocent btw, just unconfortable with the general acceptance that they must be, because Hair said so, despite there being no supporting facts whatsoever. [Except the ball itself, which they will not show us!]