Pakistan-v-Darrell Hair

[Grendel]

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.

The Inzamam case wasn't a question of whether he was out of his ground or not though, as he obviously was. It was the fact that he was clearly trying to evade being hit by the ball whilst trying to make his ground. Under those circumstances, Hair shouldn't even have considered referring it to the 3rd umpire.

Akhtar's action has been questioned, but to report him for throwing a matter of months after his action had been cleared by the same ICC committee that had cleared Murali was insensitive at best.

Kaneria was taken off for running on the pitch, which would be understandable if (a) he was anywhere near the protected area (b) he was a fast bowler and (c) the pitch was showing any signs of being damaged by Kaneria's follow-through. Strangely, whilst he has been warned in four series that I can think of (Windies, Australia, India, England) by Hair, I can't recall any other umpire that has seen fit to speak to him about his follow-through.

There are situations in cricket that could so easily be dealt with by common sense, rather than a strict adherence to the letter of the law. Unfortunately Hair tends towards the latter, to the detriment of the game.

 

[Gritt23]

The Inzamam case wasn't a question of whether he was out of his ground or not though, as he obviously was. It was the fact that he was clearly trying to evade being hit by the ball whilst trying to make his ground. Under those circumstances, Hair shouldn't even have considered referring it to the 3rd umpire.

Akhtar's action has been questioned, but to report him for throwing a matter of months after his action had been cleared by the same ICC committee that had cleared Murali was insensitive at best.

Kaneria was taken off for running on the pitch, which would be understandable if (a) he was anywhere near the protected area (b) he was a fast bowler and (c) the pitch was showing any signs of being damaged by Kaneria's follow-through. Strangely, whilst he has been warned in four series that I can think of (Windies, Australia, India, England) by Hair, I can't recall any other umpire that has seen fit to speak to him about his follow-through.

There are situations in cricket that could so easily be dealt with by common sense, rather than a strict adherence to the letter of the law. Unfortunately Hair tends towards the latter, to the detriment of the game.

I disagree on the Inzy run-out. If he stepped out of his ground to avoid the ball then I'd have had sympathy, but to say he didn't get back into his ground because he was worried about being hit is not relevant in my view. Plenty of players deliberately take a quick single running across the line of the ball so it may hit them rather than run them out, but poor old Inzy just backs away instead. I thought that was OUT, although I'd certainly concede that i wouldn't have been amazed to see a not out. But that's just the rub of the green for me.

As for Akhtar, just because he'd been cleared doesn't exempt him from being reported again. Just ask James Kirtley.

Kaneria. As I say, I didn't see that game, and neither did I read any reports on it. Don't have a link to it by any chance do you?


I'm not saying Hair is above reproach and I do think he has an off-hand way of dealing with situations that will not help at times. But I do think the sub-continent tend to stick together in any controversy and they have never forgiven him for the Murali chucking situation - which I applauded and still do, because his action was awful and he was getting away with it. The rest is just where people have looked for controversy that is no more than many umpires generate.

If I'm wrong and there are examples of him seemingly having it in for sub-continent countries then I'll happily stand corrected, but what i've heard so far (and I don't just mean you) is nothing particularly out of the ordinary.

Pakistan have always had it in for umpires, going back to Imran Khan complaining about David Constance on a regular basis, and it was him who demanded the introduction of neutral umpires. Well Imran, careful what you wish for .......

 

[Gritt23]

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

Is this BREAKING NEWS, the ICC have announced there is no evidence of ball tampering?

If so, then Hair has some serious questions to answer.

Or Dan, do you mean no-one has presented YOU with evidence therefore there can't be any?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Is this BREAKING NEWS, the ICC have announced there is no evidence of ball tampering?

If so, then Hair has some serious questions to answer.

Or Dan, do you mean no-one has presented YOU with evidence therefore there can't be any?

I imagine he means that none of the 27 TV cameras, estimated 72 press cameras or [conservative estimate] 5,000 camera phones in the ground picked up any wrongdoing.

As I have stated earlier, Hair was not wrong to change the ball if he felt it had been damaged beyond normal wear and tear. He could have done this without publically accusing anybody of anything. If he did have his suspicions, but had not actually seen anything, then he should have had a quiet word with Inzy and got on with it. If he felt it appropriate he could have included it in his report and we could have got on with the game.

 

[Grendel]

I disagree on the Inzy run-out. If he stepped out of his ground to avoid the ball then I'd have had sympathy, but to say he didn't get back into his ground because he was worried about being hit is not relevant in my view. Plenty of players deliberately take a quick single running across the line of the ball so it may hit them rather than run them out, but poor old Inzy just backs away instead. I thought that was OUT, although I'd certainly concede that i wouldn't have been amazed to see a not out. But that's just the rub of the green for me.

Whether it's relevant in your opinion or not, according to the laws of the game he shouldn't have been given out. Unfortunately, the 3rd umpire can only rule on whether the player has made his ground or not, which he hadn't.

As for Akhtar, just because he'd been cleared doesn't exempt him from being reported again. Just ask James Kirtley.

It doesn't, I agree, but to report him so soon after he was cleared suggests that the umpire is disregarding what his own governing body has said.

Kaneria. As I say, I didn't see that game, and neither did I read any reports on it. Don't have a link to it by any chance do you?

I'll try and find one, but I won't be able to find video on it as I'm at work and they've kindly barred me from viewing video.

I'm not saying Hair is above reproach and I do think he has an off-hand way of dealing with situations that will not help at times. But I do think the sub-continent tend to stick together in any controversy and they have never forgiven him for the Murali chucking situation - which I applauded and still do, because his action was awful and he was getting away with it. The rest is just where people have looked for controversy that is no more than many umpires generate.

If I'm wrong and there are examples of him seemingly having it in for sub-continent countries then I'll happily stand corrected, but what i've heard so far (and I don't just mean you) is nothing particularly out of the ordinary.

It wouldn't be out of the ordinary at all, were it not that things always seem to flair up when Hair and a sub-continental side are involved. I don't think it can be put down purely to people trying to find him doing something controversial, I think an element of Hair's ego has certainly crept into his umpiring and calling people for throwing is always going to be controversial no matter who the player is. I don't think he's a bad umpire, per se, as I've watched him umpire games between, for example, West Indies and South Africa where he has umpired very well. I've also seen Asian umpires make some appalling decisions against England, Australia, New Zealand etc etc. All umpires have an off-day, but Hair's off-days seem to go a long way beyond the odd iffy LBW decision here and there.

 

[Gritt23]

Whether it's relevant in your opinion or not, according to the laws of the game he shouldn't have been given out. Unfortunately, the 3rd umpire can only rule on whether the player has made his ground or not, which he hadn't.

If it were as black and white as that, I would have thought he'd have been straight off the elite panel.

So why don't players simply flinch a yard short of the crease when they are taking a quick single. "Honestly ump, I couldn't make my ground because I was worried about getting hit."

That's why I'd guess - although from what you say I'm wrong - it all about whether your evasive action took you out of the crease (not out), or whether it prevented you getting back into your crease (out).

If it's not that, then I wonder what the difference it when taking a run, or indeed scrambling back when your partner has sent you back.

 

[Gritt23]

I imagine he means that none of the 27 TV cameras, estimated 72 press cameras or [conservative estimate] 5,000 camera phones in the ground picked up any wrongdoing.

As I have stated earlier, Hair was not wrong to change the ball if he felt it had been damaged beyond normal wear and tear. He could have done this without publically accusing anybody of anything. If he did have his suspicions, but had not actually seen anything, then he should have had a quiet word with Inzy and got on with it. If he felt it appropriate he could have included it in his report and we could have got on with the game.

So, the camera is the only allowable evidence? Blimey, nothing to stop you tampering on the village green then.

The rules of the game simply cannot be like that, it must include the condition of the ball, and seeing as none of us - except perhaps Dan, - have seen the ball yet, I wouldn't say we can announce there to be NO EVIDENCE."

 

[Grendel]

If it were as black and white as that, I would have thought he'd have been straight off the elite panel.

So why don't players simply flinch a yard short of the crease when they are taking a quick single. "Honestly ump, I couldn't make my ground because I was worried about getting hit."

That's why I'd guess - although from what you say I'm wrong - it all about whether your evasive action took you out of the crease (not out), or whether it prevented you getting back into your crease (out).

If it's not that, then I wonder what the difference it when taking a run, or indeed scrambling back when your partner has sent you back.

Here's the Cricinfo take on it http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/columns/content/story/226638.html

That's why I'd guess - although from what you say I'm wrong - it all about whether your evasive action took you out of the crease (not out), or whether it prevented you getting back into your crease (out).

Not at all, you're entirely correct. Sorry if I've posted some ambigious/poorly worded crap above

 

[Gritt23]

Good article, thanks for that. Don't you just LOVE Cricinfo!

That seems clear enough, the issue comes down to whether he was attempting a run, and with Inzy that's pretty tough to judge at the best of times, especially if you are his partner.

This is where I come back to with the obsession the sub-continent have with Hair being against them. There is a judgement about that decision, and a judgement that he consulted Taufel - an excellent umpire in my opinion - and they agreed upon.

As I said, it looked an unlucky dismissal, one that I wouldn't have been shocked to see not out, but I hardly think it classes as having it in for Pakistan.

The other examples quoted at the bottom of the article sound FAR worse, and I know of no throwing up of hands about the umpires that were involved on those occasions ... unless you are about to tell me Hair did those as well!

 

[hans kraay fan club]

So, the camera is the only allowable evidence? Blimey, nothing to stop you tampering on the village green then.

The rules of the game simply cannot be like that, it must include the condition of the ball, and seeing as none of us - except perhaps Dan, - have seen the ball yet, I wouldn't say we can announce there to be NO EVIDENCE."

Obviously, the condition of the ball is part of any evidence, but damage to the ball alone, can not possibly be conclusive evidence of tampering. How could you possibly look at a gouge on a ball and state conclusively that it had been caused illegally, rather than by hitting, for example, a nail in an advertising board or any other perfectly innocent explanation.

That is why any conclusive evidence MUST include some form of recording or testimony illegal actions.

 

[Gritt23]

Obviously, the condition of the ball is part of any evidence, but damage to the ball alone, can not possibly be conclusive evidence of tampering. How could you possibly look at a gouge on a ball and state conclusively that it had been caused illegally, rather than by hitting, for example, a nail in an advertising board or any other perfectly innocent explanation.

That is why any conclusive evidence MUST include some form of recording or testimony illegal actions.

Well they would have inspected the ball at the fall of the Cook wicket, and they then changed the ball just 4 overs later, in which time just 1 four was struck. Presumably what they saw could not have been caused by that solitary boundary.

How could you possibly look at a gouge on a ball and state conclusively that it had been caused illegally,

Perfectly possible. If you saw some skin or finger nail under a raised seem, I'd suggest that pretty conclusive.



What does concern me about the umpires decision is that we are yet to hear details of what they saw. Why? I can't believe the umpires have made this decision without conclusive exvidence, and Sky's inability to show us anything suggests it's all about the condition of the ball, but quite why they didn't announce it or pass it to Sky during Tea I really don't understand.


I was also puzzled by Inzy's reaction at the time. He was shown the ball by Hair as they spoke, but didn't exactly seem animated by it all. I didn't really understand that either, if the ball is just a bit scuffed, I would have expected more of a reaction at that point. The no-show after tea must have come more from teammates than Inzy, and they were not shown the ball by the umpires.


It's certainly a tremendous piece of drama. Sunday's coverage felt like watching Tyson biting Holyfield's ear off. You just knew it was a dreadful moment for the sport, but it was enthralling telly nonetheless. And this story still has quite some way to go yet.

 

[Grendel]

The other examples quoted at the bottom of the article sound FAR worse, and I know of no throwing up of hands about the umpires that were involved on those occasions ... unless you are about to tell me Hair did those as well!

True, though Wasim wasn't overly pleased after the 2nd Test match:

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/79729.html

 

[Gritt23]

True, though Wasim wasn't overly pleased after the 2nd Test match:

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/79729.html

Marvellous quote in there from Wasim Akram.

"Then if a neutral umpire makes a wrong decision both teams will accept it."





I seem to remember Imran "bottle top in my pocket"Khan saying similar things many years back, and yet today he is saying Pakistan should sue Darrell Hair for defamation of character.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Hang on here,look surely 'tampering with the ball' covers a multitude of sins ? For me simply while a bowler walks back to his mark,while polishing the ball,he runs his fingernail along the seam,that to me is tampering. Whether it on the village green or at The Oval. Its covered in the rules and you don't do it.

 

[Gritt23]

I think this article from Martin Samuel sums up the matter perfectly. I'm struggling to find a single word I disagree with.


Martin Samuel

 

[Pavilionaire]

If 2 neural umpires on the field, a neutral third umpire in the box and the match referee can't get this right what hope have we got for a fair contest?