Darrel Hair Suing PCB/ICC For Racial Discrimination?

[sohum]

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.

I don't agree. It is just as easy to correct information on Wikipedia as it is to make information incorrect. Also, if you are intelligent enough to spot a good article from a bad article, you can go through to the original sources and find out more.

But this topic isn't about all that.

 

[siddharth2002]

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.

He may have overdone it a bit but someone someday had to do or say something. Cricketers are not emotionless robots and especially when playing for their country, how can someone consume being called or labelled cheats on TV just because someone is well within the rules to make that statement.

On racism issue, I do not want to say anything although Darrel Hair is well within his rights to appeal. He may not win though as ICC has fat pockets and political backing.

 

[stereotype]

it is just the pandora's box that was opened when he was released as an umpire....Darrell has just jumped back in that same box, he has obviously felt the whole time that he was harshly treated...umpires do alot for the game, they arent even allowed to umpire in their own country so most of the year they are away from their country of preference, and they do one of the most critical jobs in cricket...

That is why I think that disrespect to umpires and dissent is so harshly treated, umpires are untouchable...but Darrell Hair was made an example of i guess, based on the fact he was accused of making a racially biased decision, and based on the 7-3 count by other countries i guess...but I think a lot of that was to do with that match in England. I think im going to have to sit on the fence on this one just because there isnt enough evidence either way

 

[sohum]

As you said, umpires are critical for the game; but the game is really about the players because they are the ones who we pay to watch us entertain.

 

[smssia0112]

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

And that includes his umpiring career.

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

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."

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.


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


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.

1. It is evidence, he doesn't need actual video footage of it to prove it, he needs something, and it was still his call.

2. I was agreeing with you, and I am not arguing for the sake of it, we are having a discussion, which is the whole point of a discussion board, to discuss. This is just a heated debate, which is fine. We can both make our points of view heard, and I am doing just that. It has nothing to do with me wanting to beat you.

3. It is not the players who make that decision, it is the boards that voted against him. Players who have barely played under him don't like him, all because of mouth of word. Someone says Hair is a racist to his friend, and he develops that bias. If you spoke to Darrell Hair personally then you don't know that he isn't a very nice guy. You can't accuse someone of racism based on two isolated incidents, and you can't accuse someone of being a bad umpire based on your perception of something.

4. He followed the rules. That is his job. There is no bigger picture than his duty, other than the politics marring this case, but it is still his job to follow the rules, and politics are not part of cricket, or they shouldn't be.

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.

The ICC publicly stated they agreed with the decisions made at The Oval, and had no issue with it.

Before you call something false learn the facts.

 

[sohum]

1. It is evidence, he doesn't need actual video footage of it to prove it, he needs something, and it was still his call.

But he didn't have anything whatsoever. How do you manage to overlook that fairly large piece in the puzzle? He was not able to justify his decision to accuse Pakistan of ball-tampering which puts the original accusation into question.

3. It is not the players who make that decision, it is the boards that voted against him. Players who have barely played under him don't like him, all because of mouth of word. Someone says Hair is a racist to his friend, and he develops that bias. If you spoke to Darrell Hair personally then you don't know that he isn't a very nice guy. You can't accuse someone of racism based on two isolated incidents, and you can't accuse someone of being a bad umpire based on your perception of something.

Surely the boards would take some consideration of the players. Especially given many of the boards today are managed by former cricketers. Players are not allowed to openly speak out against officials or they will get fined or suspended. Their board is the proxy they have to go through to get their voice heard.

4. He followed the rules. That is his job. There is no bigger picture than his duty, other than the politics marring this case, but it is still his job to follow the rules, and politics are not part of cricket, or they shouldn't be.

Having a set of rules to follow doesn't mean you do not use your head when you have to make a decision. The reason umpires are still in the game is to get a human element in. Why have a human element if the umpire becomes automatic:

1) I see scratch marks, there is probably a 57% chance that there was ball tampering involved.
2) Look up rule.
3) Fine Pakistan 5 runs.
4) Observe the chaos of mutation caused by side-effects that I had forgotten about.

Certainly Hair did not feel that accusing a team of ball-tampering would be taken as just another application of the rules, such as LBW?

 

[smssia0112]

But he didn't have anything whatsoever. How do you manage to overlook that fairly large piece in the puzzle? He was not able to justify his decision to accuse Pakistan of ball-tampering which puts the original accusation into question.

Surely the boards would take some consideration of the players. Especially given many of the boards today are managed by former cricketers. Players are not allowed to openly speak out against officials or they will get fined or suspended. Their board is the proxy they have to go through to get their voice heard.

Having a set of rules to follow doesn't mean you do not use your head when you have to make a decision. The reason umpires are still in the game is to get a human element in. Why have a human element if the umpire becomes automatic:

1) I see scratch marks, there is probably a 57% chance that there was ball tampering involved.
2) Look up rule.
3) Fine Pakistan 5 runs.
4) Observe the chaos of mutation caused by side-effects that I had forgotten about.

Certainly Hair did not feel that accusing a team of ball-tampering would be taken as just another application of the rules, such as LBW?

1 & 3. He had the state of the ball. He and Doctrove looked at it carefully, and felt it had been tampered with. That is the human element of it, they have to make that call. It is not up to the players to argue with that, it is still their call no matter what, and they made that call together based on their experience with cricket balls. That is the human element, they had to make that call. Also there was more than just scratch marks, they were surprised with the fact that it was reverse swinging at that age. Sure you can argue that he shouldn't have made the decision, because it's almost robotic, but he still did what is in the rules, that is what he is there for, not to be a human, but to be an umpire. He made the decision within the rules and surely that is all that matters.

 

[sohum]

1 & 3... Sure you can argue that he shouldn't have made the decision, because it's almost robotic, but he still did what is in the rules...

So he did number 2.

He made the decision within the rules and surely that is all that matters.

There's number 4. He made the decision purely based on the rules and not considering the obvious side-effects of it.

Making decisions is definitely a problem of computer science, and I feel that Hair made his decision like a very small state machine would.

 

[smssia0112]

So he did number 2.

There's number 4. He made the decision purely based on the rules and not considering the obvious side-effects of it.

Making decisions is definitely a problem of computer science, and I feel that Hair made his decision like a very small state machine would.

But that is his job mate, and I can see we aren't going to sway each other since we're both stuck on the same argument, so it might be time to agree to disagree sohum, this is getting mighty repetitive. Any other points we may like to discuss?

 

[usy]

The only thing i know is you call some country a "cheat", where the hell does "White & Black" come from? olden days movies?

It's that I did'nt think The umpire was a Racist, but same to Pakistan Team.

 

[Demon_fire]

Well the latest news is that Darrell hair has dropped charges against PCB. So guess who was right? i told u guyz long ago that he didnt stand a chance against PCB. so good decision by hair imo..

 

[Gunner786]

well hes still suing icc apparently

 

[puddleduck]

The only thing i know is you call some country a "cheat", where the hell does "White & Black" come from? olden days movies?

This is where it all kind of goes a little bit blurry for me. At the end of the day they are a team representing Pakistan, not the whole county itself. When Surrey got accused of ball-tampering the entire county of Surrey didn't all rise up and get all uppety that they were accused of cheating. I realise it's different, in that club sides these days aren't really representing their own county in the way an international side is, but I hope you see the point I'm trying to get at.

As was always the case the racist charge has been dropped, the wrongful dismissal one however could and perhaps will be upheld.

 

[smssia0112]

Well some recent news on this (I hope that I get points for digging up the thread instead of starting a new one), looks like both parties are still being sued.

According to this article Inzamam-ul-Haq is a witness and the trial begins on October 1.

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/pakistan/content/current/story/312055.html

Says that Inzamam is only being called up because he is currently in England playing for Yorkshire.

Interesting news.

 

[Sureshot]

Had Inzamam been in Pakistan rather than in England - playing county cricket for Yorkshire - the tribunal would not have had the power to call him, the report said.

Don't be confused with thinking that they only called him because he is in England, maybe I'm slightly mis-reading you, but there is a difference albeit slight.