Darrel Hair Suing PCB/ICC For Racial Discrimination?

[Cowburn199]

It's politcal correctness gone mad

 

[rickyp]

the whole world has gonna politcally correctly crazy.... that doesnt make sense...

the only reason hair should of been sacked is because he asked for 500k in money he would lose if he was not umpiring at that time (is that not what a redundancy (sp?) payment is?)

he has every right the sue the ICC for what has happened, i just dont see how he will be able to do it based on racism? maybe unfair dismissal would of been a smarter approach

 

[smssia0112]

the whole world has gonna politcally correctly crazy.... that doesnt make sense...

the only reason hair should of been sacked is because he asked for 500k in money he would lose if he was not umpiring at that time (is that not what a redundancy (sp?) payment is?)

he has every right the sue the ICC for what has happened, i just dont see how he will be able to do it based on racism? maybe unfair dismissal would of been a smarter approach

Well logically you are correct, but I do believe that racism was involved here, not by the ICC but by the PCB. Racism against PCB and Unfair dismissal against the ICC would be smarter, but that said I think the overall decision was lead by racism, but that said it will be a difficult charge to prove.

 

[sohum]

It's easy to say that Hair was performing completely under the rules. By doing that, you are also completely taking out the human element of cricket. It is obviously up to the umpire to make the decision according to what he thinks--but surely he has to have some reasoning behind his thinking? Something that he can prove? All of you who claim that Hair was following the rules-- sure, he though that Pakistan were ball-tampering. But did he have any proof? Not that the world can see. Gut instinct is one thing, but an LBW is far, far, far different from accusing a team of LBW.

I believe the reason Hair's contract was terminated by the ICC was because 7 of the 10 test-playing nations called for him to be terminated. ("West Indies, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, South Africa and Bangladesh" source). Do you happen to see any sort of divide there? Perhaps we can draw some inaccurate conclusions from it..? It seems pretty obvious that although on TV we do not see anything regarding Hair's interaction with players, what is experienced by the players is far different from what we see.

If the ICC decided to keep Hair despite having a majority vote against it I'm sure an even larger fiasco would have happened. So what is the solution? Give the Asian bloc only one vote?

Well logically you are correct, but I do believe that racism was involved here, not by the ICC but by the PCB. Racism against PCB and Unfair dismissal against the ICC would be smarter, but that said I think the overall decision was lead by racism, but that said it will be a difficult charge to prove.

If you take a look at the wikipedia entry, I think you will be able to also conclude that the Indians, Sri Lankans and Pakistanis have all been racist against Hair on separate occasions. "He's calling Murali for chucking! It must be because he's white."

There needs to be grounds for someones contract to be terminated, otherwise you can go to the unfair dismissal board. What were the grounds for Hair's termination? (yes the asking for 500k one is obvious)

I believe the grounds were that 70% of the test-playing nations had lost confidence in his ability.

he has every right the sue the ICC for what has happened, i just dont see how he will be able to do it based on racism? maybe unfair dismissal would of been a smarter approach

I don't think the discussion is really about whether Hair has the right or not to sue anyone for anything. I have the right to sue HP for not making brown-colored laptops, but I'd probably be shafted. I just don't think he has much of a case given that he is quite a controversial character and usually ends up on the wrong side, in hindsight.

 

[smssia0112]

It's easy to say that Hair was performing completely under the rules. By doing that, you are also completely taking out the human element of cricket. It is obviously up to the umpire to make the decision according to what he thinks--but surely he has to have some reasoning behind his thinking? Something that he can prove? All of you who claim that Hair was following the rules-- sure, he though that Pakistan were ball-tampering. But did he have any proof? Not that the world can see. Gut instinct is one thing, but an LBW is far, far, far different from accusing a team of LBW.

I believe the reason Hair's contract was terminated by the ICC was because 7 of the 10 test-playing nations called for him to be terminated. ("West Indies, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, South Africa and Bangladesh" source). Do you happen to see any sort of divide there? Perhaps we can draw some inaccurate conclusions from it..? It seems pretty obvious that although on TV we do not see anything regarding Hair's interaction with players, what is experienced by the players is far different from what we see.

If the ICC decided to keep Hair despite having a majority vote against it I'm sure an even larger fiasco would have happened. So what is the solution? Give the Asian bloc only one vote?


If you take a look at the wikipedia entry, I think you will be able to also conclude that the Indians, Sri Lankans and Pakistanis have all been racist against Hair on separate occasions. "He's calling Murali for chucking! It must be because he's white."


I believe the grounds were that 70% of the test-playing nations had lost confidence in his ability.


I don't think the discussion is really about whether Hair has the right or not to sue anyone for anything. I have the right to sue HP for not making brown-colored laptops, but I'd probably be shafted. I just don't think he has much of a case given that he is quite a controversial character and usually ends up on the wrong side, in hindsight.

1. He inspected the ball, and believed it had been tampered with. That is his proof, people get convicted of murder without an eyewitness, all we need is SOME physical evidence. He had some evidence.

2. That is the most biased piece of writing I've read on wikipedia. I'm glad you pointed my attention towards it, it is just ridiculous, talking about his bias against Asians while it is being biased against him. One thing said there is "He claimed to have recieved death threats, yet the source quoted says it definitively.

3. As for calls he was 'incompetent for a long time', an ICC report showed that he was ranked the 2nd best umpire in the world, and the best in correct decisions. If nations have 'lost confidence in him' then they are clearly showing a bias against him because of two isolated incidents. That is the racism in question. And he doesn't need to be liked to be an umpire, he needs to make the correct calls. In Australian Football, if you criticize an umpire you get fined a lot of money or suspended. If an umpire is doing the right job, he doesn't need friends in players.

 

[stereotype]

what upsets me about the whole fiasco from the start was the fact that Pakistan forfeited the match....I believe that Pakistan has a duty of care, especially when the "spirit of cricket" is concerned

Darrell Hair AND the other umpire controlling the match decided TOGETHER that the ball had been tampered with....and due to this Darrell Hair is a racist...

2nd thing is that he called murali for chucking, therefore he is a racist....there are many people around the world who watch him bowl and still thing he chucks....there is no escaping that, but Darrell Hair has undoubtedly umpired the likes of Saqlain Mushtaq, Mushtaq Ahmed, Harbajhan Singh, Anil Kumble etc and has never had any problems with them.

and the third thing refers to the spirit of cricket comment about when Brendan McCullum ran out Murali and there was an uproar....against McCullum!!! when he was the one complying by the laws of the game when Murali had obviously disrespected his wicket.

 

[smssia0112]

what upsets me about the whole fiasco from the start was the fact that Pakistan forfeited the match....I believe that Pakistan has a duty of care, especially when the "spirit of cricket" is concerned

Darrell Hair AND the other umpire controlling the match decided TOGETHER that the ball had been tampered with....and due to this Darrell Hair is a racist...

2nd thing is that he called murali for chucking, therefore he is a racist....there are many people around the world who watch him bowl and still thing he chucks....there is no escaping that, but Darrell Hair has undoubtedly umpired the likes of Saqlain Mushtaq, Mushtaq Ahmed, Harbajhan Singh, Anil Kumble etc and has never had any problems with them.

and the third thing refers to the spirit of cricket comment about when Brendan McCullum ran out Murali and there was an uproar....against McCullum!!! when he was the one complying by the laws of the game when Murali had obviously disrespected his wicket.

Thank you. Exactly what people can't get into their heads. Many people have though Murali chucks it, Hair was just tough enough to make the call. He follows the rules without fear of controversy, and firing him has said don't get on the Asia bloc's bad side, whether you have to supress your own gut feeling to do it. This is a bad thing for cricket, 100%.

Just as I am putting my opinion on the line, even though people have been giving me bad rep. If you're trying to supress an opinion you can keep trying because Darrell Hair has inspired me. You have to stand up for your beliefs, and be unafraid of controversy or abuse. A good umpire is one who isn't afraid to make the tough call. Darrell Hair is that man.

 

[stereotype]

people ask me if i think he chucks...now firstly i never really have a straight answer, because he looks like he does in my opinion....but regardless of that the rules were changed because of him, there are people i know that see him throw normally and say how does his arm has that deformity that doesnt allow him to bowl with a straight arm....yet allow him to throw normally.....

I personally dont mind him bowling.....but i do not get offended if someone says he is throwing the ball....

 

[andrew_nixon]

Back on topic please.

 

[stereotype]

Back on topic please.

i think it is strongly to do with the issue, its what has developed his reputation over the years and is undoubtedly one of the major issues still around darrell hair

 

[andrew_nixon]

i think it is strongly to do with the issue, its what has developed his reputation over the years and is undoubtedly one of the major issues still around darrell hair

No, this thread is about the incident involving Daryl Hair and his suing of the ICC and PCB. Please stick to this topic.

 

[Adarsh]

By the way, and this is for everyone, don't ever, and I mean ever, quote wikipedia on anything. Anyone can edit the information.

"Back on topic" - Darrel Hair's evidence was shown to be inconclusive and therefore his decision was FALSE. This had been discussed in a trial. Therefore, please don't tell me again that he had enough evidence to make the call. It was a horrible decision, which eventually led to the match being forfeited. However, the actual decision to make Pakistan forfeit the game was correct, in my opinion, as I feel Inzy reacted in an immature way.

 

[stereotype]

look if this isnt on topic im sorry, but you must remember there was two umpires, Darrell Hair cannot make a decision on his own......so to say it was soley his decision is against the laws of the game.....if he feels he has been racially treated then obviously he may try to sue

 

[sohum]

1. He inspected the ball, and believed it had been tampered with. That is his proof, people get convicted of murder without an eyewitness, all we need is SOME physical evidence. He had some evidence.

Incorrect. That is not his proof. That is his claim. He claimed that the ball was tampered with. His proof, quite frankly, was inexistent.

2. That is the most biased piece of writing I've read on wikipedia. I'm glad you pointed my attention towards it, it is just ridiculous, talking about his bias against Asians while it is being biased against him. One thing said there is "He claimed to have recieved death threats, yet the source quoted says it definitively.

Again, it seems you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. It's like saying, "He didn't fall into the hole, the hole pulled him into itself."

3. As for calls he was 'incompetent for a long time', an ICC report showed that he was ranked the 2nd best umpire in the world, and the best in correct decisions. If nations have 'lost confidence in him' then they are clearly showing a bias against him because of two isolated incidents. That is the racism in question. And he doesn't need to be liked to be an umpire, he needs to make the correct calls. In Australian Football, if you criticize an umpire you get fined a lot of money or suspended. If an umpire is doing the right job, he doesn't need friends in players.

So all the nations are biased against him except the token 'white' nations? As I said previously, we are not out there playing cricket so we obviously do not know the atmosphere. I am quite sure the atmosphere while playing under Darrell Hair is far different from playing under any other umpire because why would there be a 7-3 split otherwise? The TV coverage doesn't show Hair maltreating the players from those countries.

As for Billy Doctrove getting away without being tarnished, I think it just shows who was the lead umpire in taking the decisions at that stage. It was Darrell Hair who made the initial accusation and since Doctrove was not the senior umpire, he may have decided not to speak up against Hair.

He follows the rules without fear of controversy, and firing him has said don't get on the Asia bloc's bad side, whether you have to supress your own gut feeling to do it.

It seems he follows the rule without regard for the larger picture as well.

By the way, and this is for everyone, don't ever, and I mean ever, quote wikipedia on anything. Anyone can edit the information.

Thank you for your insight, professor. You may also find that Linux is not a good operating system because any one can create a release from its kernel. If you don't notice the long list of cited references, you should do and find that most of the information on Wikipedia is fairly accurate. Also, they have a fairly strong system of reporting and discussing bias of articles on there, and always have rollbacks available when someone has been up to no good. And finally, what makes other sources of information better, because no one can edit it? I'd rather have someone smart edit a stupid article online and read it than read a stupid article in a published magazine.

 

[Adarsh]

Thank you for your insight, professor.

There was no need for the sarcasm, was there. I was merely pointing out that Wikipedia often has many mistakes, relative to say the BBC. For factual information, it is often better to quote reliable sites like the BBC instead of Wikipedia.