Darrel Hair Suing PCB/ICC For Racial Discrimination?

[manee]

Inzamam and his team were on their way to the field (IIRC, if not, let me know) when Hair called off the game, this made Hair in the wrong since he seemed intent in causing a spectacle whereas he could have let Pakistan continue and the incident would not have got half the publicity.

 

[Sureshot]

Just about everything he did was wrong on that day. Assuming that because the ball was scuffed they had tampered with it, etc. I personally think the safest way to dealing with is to ask the host broadcaster (okay this is only possible in international cricket) to have one camera fixated on the ball at all times, then at the end of the day see if anything happened and take it from there.

 

[smssia0112]

Inzamam and his team were on their way to the field (IIRC, if not, let me know) when Hair called off the game, this made Hair in the wrong since he seemed intent in causing a spectacle whereas he could have let Pakistan continue and the incident would not have got half the publicity.

The umpires (as it was a joint decision) called it off before they came out, and refused to continue when they came out again.

Just about everything he did was wrong on that day. Assuming that because the ball was scuffed they had tampered with it, etc. I personally think the safest way to dealing with is to ask the host broadcaster (okay this is only possible in international cricket) to have one camera fixated on the ball at all times, then at the end of the day see if anything happened and take it from there.

He did his job, he has the power to make decisions based on what the believes is going on. No one can have conclusive evidence either way for ball tampering unless they are watching the ball at all times which is impossible.

As I have said before, I stand by Darrell Hair because he has for so long done what he believes is correct, and has been right most of the time, but when he does things that people don't agree with, he is put down.

He will find it hard to prove racial discrimination, but the decision was definitely racially based.

 

[Sureshot]

So he can't prove racial discrimination but you can?

 

[smssia0112]

So he can't prove racial discrimination but you can?

A court of law requires more than common sense. It's not like everyday life.

 

[Sureshot]

A court of law requires facts, I've not seen how what Hair 'suffered' was racial discrimination and I certainly don't see where this common sense is coming from.

 

[smssia0112]

A court of law requires facts, I've not seen how what Hair 'suffered' was racial discrimination and I certainly don't see where this common sense is coming from.

A court of law requires one to be convinced beyond all reasonable doubt based on, yes, actual evidence.

Perhaps I am stressing an opinion too strongly, but it seems rather obvious to me that he was fired because he crossed the Asian bloc on too many times. Billy Doctrove was part of every decision, but there was no motion brought before him.

Reverse racism is a commonly ignored issue. When someone is accused of being a racist, it is often a case of reverse racism.

Darrell Hair was accused of being a racist, and subsequently fired because of all the political pressure that Pakistan put on the ICC and other nations, because he was a white man making tough calls against black (no offence, if there is a colour you prefer to be called ahead of black) cricketing nations.

 

[harishankar]

The so-called "reverse" racism is only a reaction to racism. So blame Darrell Hair for his blatant bias against the sub-continental sides.

I've watched him in action too often and I know that he is an officious, pompous, arrogant, over-rated excuse for an international umpire. His decisions weren't that great anyway and at best he was mediocre.

yes, we hate Darrell Hair and for good reason.

We like other Aussie umpires like Simon Taufel, so you cannot blame us for "reverse racism" because we have an issue only with this specific individual and haven't seriously complained about any other "white" umpire.

 

[Sureshot]

A court of law requires one to be convinced beyond all reasonable doubt based on, yes, actual evidence.

Perhaps I am stressing an opinion too strongly, but it seems rather obvious to me that he was fired because he crossed the Asian bloc on too many times. Billy Doctrove was part of every decision, but there was no motion brought before him.

Reverse racism is a commonly ignored issue. When someone is accused of being a racist, it is often a case of reverse racism.

Darrell Hair was accused of being a racist, and subsequently fired because of all the political pressure that Pakistan put on the ICC and other nations, because he was a white man making tough calls against black (no offence, if there is a colour you prefer to be called ahead of black) cricketing nations.

He wasn't accused of being racist by his employers was he? It was by people like Imran Khan (a man never to have strayed from controversy). Hair made some outrageous comments/demands, like saying he would resign in return for a non-negotiable one off payment of $500,000 dollars. He was an umpire who adjudged a team had been ball tampering because the ball didn't look right, he was guessing, he saw nothing. You CAN'T make allegations of ball tampering without actually seeing it happen. He was sacked because his career was rife with controversy, I never thought he was a good umpire when he wasn't in a controversial game. Anyway since his departure I think umpiring standards have improved and it's a part of cricket history, not to be forgotten but to be put into the history books.

Racial discrimination? No, and I think his case will be thrown out of court as there is no evidence of racial discrimination just someone being sacked due to a serious level of incompetancy.

 

[usy]

OMG My Opinion PCB/ICC and Darrel Hair need reshuffling in the topic sentence..

 

[sohum]

I thought this topic had been discussed to death! Quite frankly, however, I agree with harishankar and Sureshot though I won't take the time to reiterate everything I had said 6 months ago.

 

[smssia0112]

The so-called "reverse" racism is only a reaction to racism. So blame Darrell Hair for his blatant bias against the sub-continental sides.

I've watched him in action too often and I know that he is an officious, pompous, arrogant, over-rated excuse for an international umpire. His decisions weren't that great anyway and at best he was mediocre.

yes, we hate Darrell Hair and for good reason.

We like other Aussie umpires like Simon Taufel, so you cannot blame us for "reverse racism" because we have an issue only with this specific individual and haven't seriously complained about any other "white" umpire.

This is another thing I have to object to. So many people have called Hair an incompetent umpire, and his decisions poor, but that overlooks the fact that he is the best umpire in the world based on decisions correct, and second overall in the umpiring ranks.

Hair has no bias against sub-continent nations. Your basis for this, as is the PCB and other sub-continent nation boards (which is where this discrimination comes from Sureshot, not from the ICC, but he was sacked as a direct result of the racism allegations from the sub-continent bloc) is things like this. No balling Murali, and calling the Pakistani cricket team ball tamperers, and calling the game off because they refused to take the field.

As I've said over and over, the rules of the game do not go against Hair in this decision, the ICC confirmed this. Why was he fired? Because he was labelled a racist. He is being labelled a racist in this very thread, though not so strongly.

Reverse racism is the same as racism. It's just that our oversensitivity to issues like this make it impossible to call someone who isn't white a racist.

 

[Animator!]

He's been made a definite scapegoat of, and it is just because it's a subcontinental side and him in my eyes.

However, he doesn't have grounds for racial discrimination. I'd say he had grounds for wrongful discrimination, because umpiring is all about opinion, it was his opinion that the ball had been tampered with and he made his choice based on his opinion, which was backed up by Doctrove.

 

[tassietiger]

He's been made a definite scapegoat of, and it is just because it's a subcontinental side and him in my eyes.

However, he doesn't have grounds for racial discrimination. I'd say he had grounds for wrongful discrimination, because umpiring is all about opinion, it was his opinion that the ball had been tampered with and he made his choice based on his opinion, which was backed up by Doctrove.

I agree. He's got his claim mixed up. Wrongful dismissal he would have a case with. If the same incident happened to a country that wasn't as money-pulling as the sub-continental countries, for argument's sake let's say the West Indies, then he would still be umpiring. It's not a racial thing at all, more the fact he made allegations against a country that the ICC looks after due to the financial benefits it can gain in return.

 

[smssia0112]

I agree. He's got his claim mixed up. Wrongful dismissal he would have a case with. If the same incident happened to a country that wasn't as money-pulling as the sub-continental countries, for argument's sake let's say the West Indies, then he would still be umpiring. It's not a racial thing at all, more the fact he made allegations against a country that the ICC looks after due to the financial benefits it can gain in return.

The Windies comment is very true. As I said, whilst I believe that there was some racial basis for his firing, it will be hard to prove in a courtroom. Though obviously his lawyers see something in it.