Darrel Hair Suing PCB/ICC For Racial Discrimination?

[sohum]

There's a muddling of arguments here. Darrell Hair claims he was dismissed because he was white. People here claim that he was dismissed because it was against the subcontinent.

Furthermore, Darrell Hair is not officially unemployed by the ICC. He still gets paid an ICC retainer fee. The only thing he doesn't have now is the privilege to officiate in international matches. Legally, the highest contributing factor to his termination from the Elite Panel was him offering to accept a pay-out from the ICC--in essence admitting that he was wrong. Given the extenuating circumstances of the situation (the first forfeit in Test cricket, wasn't it?) I feel punishing him with a sacking from the Elite Panel was very much justified.

Billy Doctrove didn't do any such thing. I think the reason is because although he stood by Hair's actions, it was quite clear that he was the follower, not the leader.

 

[smssia0112]

There's a muddling of arguments here. Darrell Hair claims he was dismissed because he was white. People here claim that he was dismissed because it was against the subcontinent.

Furthermore, Darrell Hair is not officially unemployed by the ICC. He still gets paid an ICC retainer fee. The only thing he doesn't have now is the privilege to officiate in international matches. Legally, the highest contributing factor to his termination from the Elite Panel was him offering to accept a pay-out from the ICC--in essence admitting that he was wrong. Given the extenuating circumstances of the situation (the first forfeit in Test cricket, wasn't it?) I feel punishing him with a sacking from the Elite Panel was very much justified.

Billy Doctrove didn't do any such thing. I think the reason is because although he stood by Hair's actions, it was quite clear that he was the follower, not the leader.

There are no followers or leaders. There were two umpires who agreed on a decision. Hair can not be called the decisive factor, because they made the decision and agreed on it together. Rodney Hogg summed it up perfectly when he rejected the 'senior umpire' claims, saying that the two umpires made a decision, and you have to agree with that.

There is no muddling of arguments. He was sacked because he was white, going against the subcontinent. They are together, if it was against England, would England have thrown up such a fuss? No. Why? Because England are white. The subcontinent, as Hair said himself, played a large role in the sacking:

Hair's counsel, Robert Griffiths QC, told the London Central Employment Tribunal on Monday that he suffered racial discrimination and that the India and Pakistan boards heavily influenced the ICC's decision to effectively sack him from umpiring.

As far as the forfeit goes, as I've continuously said, he followed the rules. There is nothing in ICC laws that says that a team can make a temporary or permanant protest, or refuse to take the field. If an umpire makes a decision, that's the decision. If he's out, he's out, and if he tampered with it, he tampered with it. Even if fault is later admitted, the decision stands.

The underline decision for the sacking could be a number of things, but the payout doesn't seem like it. It's more likely that it is, as I said, a combination of the fact that he was labelled a racist, and sent on his way because of it, and the intense pressure that India and Pakistan put on the ICC.

 

[sohum]

There are no followers or leaders. There were two umpires who agreed on a decision. Hair can not be called the decisive factor, because they made the decision and agreed on it together. Rodney Hogg summed it up perfectly when he rejected the 'senior umpire' claims, saying that the two umpires made a decision, and you have to agree with that.

You can choose to believe that there was no senior umpire and hence you will completely ignore the other perspective in this situation. Simply put, the whole fiasco wouldn't have started if Hair wasn't one of the umpires in the mix, regardless of what Doctrove did. You say that Hair is great because he calls it like it is, but you give no credit to Doctrove for calling it like it is. This in itself shows that Hair indeed is the "leading umpire" in the situation.

There is no muddling of arguments. He was sacked because he was white, going against the subcontinent. They are together, if it was against England, would England have thrown up such a fuss? No. Why? Because England are white. The subcontinent, as Hair said himself, played a large role in the sacking:

Would he have called it as ball tampering if it was England? If you are willing to go into hypothetical situations, so am I. I object to your thinking that he would have called it against England. I believe a large part of him calling it against Pakistan was that Pakistan has a history in ball-tampering. However, that does not justify him making a decision without ANY evidence whatsoever.

As far as the forfeit goes, as I've continuously said, he followed the rules. There is nothing in ICC laws that says that a team can make a temporary or permanant protest, or refuse to take the field. If an umpire makes a decision, that's the decision. If he's out, he's out, and if he tampered with it, he tampered with it. Even if fault is later admitted, the decision stands.

The decision stands and it was a poor decision wasn't it? A decision that really put ICC in negative light in the world. And I think they are well within their rights to sack someone over something like that--especially when the person in question was wrong. And you say "if he tampered with it, he tampered with it." But what if he didn't tamper with it? Does the ICC just say, "Oh well, our umpires looked like a bag of crap but who cares. Let me just go snort this cocaine and everything will be happy." That's what they would have done, based on prior conduct, which is why Pakistan took it upon themselves to get served some justice.

And finally he MADE A MISTAKE, and a BIG ONE. In the real world you have, you can easily get fired for making a mistake that puts your company in such negative light all over the world.

 

[smssia0112]

You can choose to believe that there was no senior umpire and hence you will completely ignore the other perspective in this situation. Simply put, the whole fiasco wouldn't have started if Hair wasn't one of the umpires in the mix, regardless of what Doctrove did. You say that Hair is great because he calls it like it is, but you give no credit to Doctrove for calling it like it is. This in itself shows that Hair indeed is the "leading umpire" in the situation.

No it doesn't, how does what I say prove that he was the leading umpire?:

You don't know what would have happened if Doctrove were umpiring, perhaps he wouldn't have called it out loud, but he may have very well though it. Who knows, maybe he did think it and spoke to Hair about it, and Hair decided to look himself and encourage him that the decision should be made.

No one knows what they said except Doctrove and Hair.

Would he have called it as ball tampering if it was England? If you are willing to go into hypothetical situations, so am I. I object to your thinking that he would have called it against England. I believe a large part of him calling it against Pakistan was that Pakistan has a history in ball-tampering. However, that does not justify him making a decision without ANY evidence whatsoever.

He did have some evidence. I've said it so much, even if it's as small as scratch marks, that is evidence. Don't twist the facts.

As for if it were England, Hair is still an umpire with a job to do. He has to be impartial to all nations and if you think that he has lasted this long whilst beign completely biased against Pakistan (or even others) and pro-England, or Australia, I think you're taking a very impartial view to the situation.

The decision stands and it was a poor decision wasn't it? A decision that really put ICC in negative light in the world. And I think they are well within their rights to sack someone over something like that--especially when the person in question was wrong. And you say "if he tampered with it, he tampered with it." But what if he didn't tamper with it? Does the ICC just say, "Oh well, our umpires looked like a bag of crap but who cares. Let me just go snort this cocaine and everything will be happy." That's what they would have done, based on prior conduct, which is why Pakistan took it upon themselves to get served some justice.

All umpires make mistakes. Every one of them. This is not a bigger one than others, and would not have been had Pakistan followed the proper precautions, and allowed the charges to be dismissed in the lawful manner, at the correct time. If that had happened, Hair would have made a mistake, but the intense coverage and shaming would not have been present.

And finally he MADE A MISTAKE, and a BIG ONE. In the real world you have, you can easily get fired for making a mistake that puts your company in such negative light all over the world.

Every business is different, and in this one he was contracted to enforce the laws of the game as he saw them. That's his job, he was fired for it. The laws do not say that he needs overwhelming evidence to do the minimum punishment for ball tapering. He only needs something.

Anyway, Hair has taken a deal that could see him back umpiring after some rehabiliation. Good to see a result that seems to help everyone involved.

 

[sohum]

No it doesn't, how does what I say prove that he was the leading umpire?:

You don't know what would have happened if Doctrove were umpiring, perhaps he wouldn't have called it out loud, but he may have very well though it. Who knows, maybe he did think it and spoke to Hair about it, and Hair decided to look himself and encourage him that the decision should be made.

No one knows what they said except Doctrove and Hair.

Just as I don't know what would have happened if only Doctrove was umpiring, you don't know what happened between the two. So that argument is irrelevant, really. As for my argument about Hair being the senior/leading umpire in the fiasco, I have two points that you have not been able to respond to:

1. Why haven't you and others showered accolades on Doctrove for "calling it like it is" and "upholding the laws of the game"? Why has Hair been singled out for these compliments?

2. Why does Hair's history in calling it like he thinks it is have no effect on determining who the leading umpire was in this case?

In short, by excitedly claiming that Hair is the greatest umpire because he looks at every team equally and calls it like he sees it is without thinking of the repercussions, you are accepting that he was the one who actually started the situation.

He did have some evidence. I've said it so much, even if it's as small as scratch marks, that is evidence. Don't twist the facts.

As for if it were England, Hair is still an umpire with a job to do. He has to be impartial to all nations and if you think that he has lasted this long whilst beign completely biased against Pakistan (or even others) and pro-England, or Australia, I think you're taking a very impartial view to the situation.

That is not evidence. That is an observation. He attempted to make it evidence by attaching a shallow theory on it. And it was quite clear in the aftermath that his little theory was silly. Hence, I'm not twisting the facts... in fact I am looking at the facts and you are twisting them to support Hair.

As for this hypothetical England argument, it is also getting rather ridiculous. And again, for some reason you gravitate towards an extreme. There is no reason for him to be completely biased against any one country. In fact, if you believe he doesn't have some bias against any country in the world, I think you are being a little impractical.

All umpires make mistakes. Every one of them. This is not a bigger one than others, and would not have been had Pakistan followed the proper precautions, and allowed the charges to be dismissed in the lawful manner, at the correct time. If that had happened, Hair would have made a mistake, but the intense coverage and shaming would not have been present.

So you are placing the mistake he made on the same level as, say, someone mis-calling a plumb LBW appeal? I think that is a ridiculous thing to say. He made a mistake of much larger proportions--he accused Pakistan of tampering with the ball. This is a much larger mistake than just calling something wrong, which is what most umpires do. And following the charges in the lawful manner would have been embarrassing for Pakistan because they would be indirectly admitting that they had been tampering with the ball. Also, given ICC's laziness in resolving conflicts in cricket (Zimbabwe issue, anyone?) I'm sure they would have been even more pressed to raise the issue. Thus, validating Hair's mistake by saying all umpires mistake is a broken argument, in my opinion.

Every business is different, and in this one he was contracted to enforce the laws of the game as he saw them. That's his job, he was fired for it. The laws do not say that he needs overwhelming evidence to do the minimum punishment for ball tapering. He only needs something.

Umm... no. He was not fired for doing his job, he was fired for making a mistake while doing his job--a mistake that was significantly larger than most. And Hair really showed a lack of common sense when approaching the situation. For example, why did he not discuss the situation with Inzy at all before he went ahead and made a decision based on the fairy-tale his mind had conjured up? I would have thought he would have at least had a chat with the captain before taking any action.

 

[Sureshot]

He did have some evidence. I've said it so much, even if it's as small as scratch marks, that is evidence. Don't twist the facts.

Let's say IF that was the 'evidence' he had then that isn't strong evidence in the slightest. Cricket balls do get scratched, heck someone in the crowd could've scratched it. Practically the only way you can fairly call ball tampering is being witness to it happening, there are certain obvious circumstances where you wouldn't have to see the ball, but Hair was guessing.

 

[m_vaughan]

Just as I don't know what would have happened if only Doctrove was umpiring, you don't know what happened between the two. So that argument is irrelevant, really. As for my argument about Hair being the senior/leading umpire in the fiasco, I have two points that you have not been able to respond to:

1. Why haven't you and others showered accolades on Doctrove for "calling it like it is" and "upholding the laws of the game"? Why has Hair been singled out for these compliments?

Because it was Hair and not Doctrove who was penalised. The decision and the responsibility lies with both umpires.

2. Why does Hair's history in calling it like he thinks it is have no effect on determining who the leading umpire was in this case?

There is NOTHING known as a leading umpire. I cant understand why you keep bringing back this point. Yes a umpire might have more experience than the other, but in the end, for any decision to be passed it has to be accepted and agreed upon by both. If Hair, or anyone else for that matter, kept making (correct or incorrect) decisions by himself, I am sure the other umpires are not stupid to remain quiet about this.

In short, by excitedly claiming that Hair is the greatest umpire because he looks at every team equally and calls it like he sees it is without thinking of the repercussions, you are accepting that he was the one who actually started the situation.

He can start the situation yes, but it has to be accepted by the other umpire.

As for this hypothetical England argument, it is also getting rather ridiculous. And again, for some reason you gravitate towards an extreme. There is no reason for him to be completely biased against any one country. In fact, if you believe he doesn't have some bias against any country in the world, I think you are being a little impractical.

Definately not. The decision was made against a team, which in this case happened to be Pakistan. It could have been anyone?? How do you know he wouldnt have penalised England for the same observation?

So you are placing the mistake he made on the same level as, say, someone mis-calling a plumb LBW appeal? I think that is a ridiculous thing to say. He made a mistake of much larger proportions--he accused Pakistan of tampering with the ball. This is a much larger mistake than just calling something wrong, which is what most umpires do

Again I repeat, he accused a team of ball tampering. Maybe his evidence wasnt the best, but it by no way means, he made the decision just because the team concerned was Pakistan.

Umm... no. He was not fired for doing his job, he was fired for making a mistake while doing his job--a mistake that was significantly larger than most. And Hair really showed a lack of common sense when approaching the situation. For example, why did he not discuss the situation with Inzy at all before he went ahead and made a decision based on the fairy-tale his mind had conjured up? I would have thought he would have at least had a chat with the captain before taking any action.

The umpires decision stands irrespective of how correct or wrong it is. He is not obliged to consult anyone other that the leg umpire. It would have been nice of both umpires if they had spoken to Inzy about this, but they are not obliged to do so.

Let's say IF that was the 'evidence' he had then that isn't strong evidence in the slightest. Cricket balls do get scratched, heck someone in the crowd could've scratched it. Practically the only way you can fairly call ball tampering is being witness to it happening, there are certain obvious circumstances where you wouldn't have to see the ball, but Hair was guessing.

Maybe. Lets assume it (guess/observation) was indeed Hair's decision, but it had to be approved by Doctrove as well. So unless Doctrove comes out and says he was forced to agree with the decision, the punishment handed out for this should be given to both onfield umpires.

 

[sohum]

Because it was Hair and not Doctrove who was penalised. The decision and the responsibility lies with both umpires.

I can assure you that before any punishments were handed out, Hair was immediately commended by whoever continues to support his decision now, and Doctrove was only given secondary compliments.

There is NOTHING known as a leading umpire. I cant understand why you keep bringing back this point. Yes a umpire might have more experience than the other, but in the end, for any decision to be passed it has to be accepted and agreed upon by both. If Hair, or anyone else for that matter, kept making (correct or incorrect) decisions by himself, I am sure the other umpires are not stupid to remain quiet about this.

He can start the situation yes, but it has to be accepted by the other umpire.

This is quite a simplistic view of the situation. I keep bringing it back because I cannot understand how you cannot comprehend this easy concept. Let's relate it to life. In life, there are leaders and followers. All umpires are not leaders. All umpires are not followers. If one draws on Hair's past decision-making, I think it is quite easy to follow that he is a leader. Doctrove, on the other hand, does not seem to be an outspoken fellow and I would not be surprised to find that he is a follower. Secondly, I do not know why you bring up the point of "kept making (correct or incorrect) decisions". It was one match that this came to light. Yes, any decision has to be agreed upon, but you do not know if there is any level of coercion involved. From what I observe, it leads me to believe quite convincingly that Hair was indeed the leading umpire in the decision. And one more thing. I believe it was Hair who brought up the ball issue. That in itself makes him the leading umpire because he was the first to take action.

Definately not. The decision was made against a team, which in this case happened to be Pakistan. It could have been anyone?? How do you know he wouldnt have penalised England for the same observation?

And how is your answer so definite? I take it you have taken Darrell Hair in for a few psychiatric sessions and you now understand his brain completely. I don't know why you are bringing up the hypothetical England situation again because it is obvious that neither of us can prove if he would judge one way or another. When it comes to bias, everyone has some bias against almost everything. It may not be explicit bias such as "I hate these damn Pakistanis" but it may well be a sub-conscious thing.

Again I repeat, he accused a team of ball tampering. Maybe his evidence wasnt the best, but it by no way means, he made the decision just because the team concerned was Pakistan.

I don't know why you quoted that part of my post to say this. What I was saying is that you cannot possibly equate the mistake of giving someone out LBW incorrectly with the mistake of accusing a team of ball-tampering. I really do not see how bias against Pakistan has anything to do with that section of my points and it looks like you are just trying to earn brownie points by making popular statements.

The umpires decision stands irrespective of how correct or wrong it is. He is not obliged to consult anyone other that the leg umpire. It would have been nice of both umpires if they had spoken to Inzy about this, but they are not obliged to do so.

Of course the umpire's decision stands irrespective of how correct or wrong it is. This is why we saw the match forfeited and the game was not replayed. That has nothing to do with the aftermath of the situation. I did not see the ICC rescind Hair's decision, so I really don't know what you're talking about there. It would have been nice of both umpires if they had spoken to Inzy about this, and Hair would probably still have had a job. Of course, he could not have been that forward-thinking, but surely he must have thought twice before thinking of the magnitude of his allegation?

Maybe. Lets assume it (guess/observation) was indeed Hair's decision, but it had to be approved by Doctrove as well. So unless Doctrove comes out and says he was forced to agree with the decision, the punishment handed out for this should be given to both onfield umpires.

No, it should not. I also did not see Doctrove try to ask for a settlement from the ICC. I really do not know why everyone is trying to pull Doctrove into this. I haven't read Hair complaining about Doctrove not getting pulled up either. Honestly, I haven't, I would be happy to read articles showing the same.

 

[smssia0112]

Let's say IF that was the 'evidence' he had then that isn't strong evidence in the slightest. Cricket balls do get scratched, heck someone in the crowd could've scratched it. Practically the only way you can fairly call ball tampering is being witness to it happening, there are certain obvious circumstances where you wouldn't have to see the ball, but Hair was guessing.

No it isn't. But it's still his job to interpret the laws and enforce them. If he sees something, and consults with the other umpire, and they both agree, then he is entitled to make the decision.

That is what happened.

I can assure you that before any punishments were handed out, Hair was immediately commended by whoever continues to support his decision now, and Doctrove was only given secondary compliments.


This is quite a simplistic view of the situation. I keep bringing it back because I cannot understand how you cannot comprehend this easy concept. Let's relate it to life. In life, there are leaders and followers. All umpires are not leaders. All umpires are not followers. If one draws on Hair's past decision-making, I think it is quite easy to follow that he is a leader. Doctrove, on the other hand, does not seem to be an outspoken fellow and I would not be surprised to find that he is a follower. Secondly, I do not know why you bring up the point of "kept making (correct or incorrect) decisions". It was one match that this came to light. Yes, any decision has to be agreed upon, but you do not know if there is any level of coercion involved. From what I observe, it leads me to believe quite convincingly that Hair was indeed the leading umpire in the decision. And one more thing. I believe it was Hair who brought up the ball issue. That in itself makes him the leading umpire because he was the first to take action.


And how is your answer so definite? I take it you have taken Darrell Hair in for a few psychiatric sessions and you now understand his brain completely. I don't know why you are bringing up the hypothetical England situation again because it is obvious that neither of us can prove if he would judge one way or another. When it comes to bias, everyone has some bias against almost everything. It may not be explicit bias such as "I hate these damn Pakistanis" but it may well be a sub-conscious thing.


I don't know why you quoted that part of my post to say this. What I was saying is that you cannot possibly equate the mistake of giving someone out LBW incorrectly with the mistake of accusing a team of ball-tampering. I really do not see how bias against Pakistan has anything to do with that section of my points and it looks like you are just trying to earn brownie points by making popular statements.


Of course the umpire's decision stands irrespective of how correct or wrong it is. This is why we saw the match forfeited and the game was not replayed. That has nothing to do with the aftermath of the situation. I did not see the ICC rescind Hair's decision, so I really don't know what you're talking about there. It would have been nice of both umpires if they had spoken to Inzy about this, and Hair would probably still have had a job. Of course, he could not have been that forward-thinking, but surely he must have thought twice before thinking of the magnitude of his allegation?


No, it should not. I also did not see Doctrove try to ask for a settlement from the ICC. I really do not know why everyone is trying to pull Doctrove into this. I haven't read Hair complaining about Doctrove not getting pulled up either. Honestly, I haven't, I would be happy to read articles showing the same.

No, it should not. I also did not see Doctrove try to ask for a settlement from the ICC. I really do not know why everyone is trying to pull Doctrove into this. I haven't read Hair complaining about Doctrove not getting pulled up either. Honestly, I haven't, I would be happy to read articles showing the same.

I don't see Doctrove being put under the torch either. Why would he ask for a settlement when his job is safe?

 

[Sureshot]

No it isn't. But it's still his job to interpret the laws and enforce them. If he sees something, and consults with the other umpire, and they both agree, then he is entitled to make the decision.

That is what happened.

And they are both entitled to feel the rap when they get it wrong.

I don't agree with the principle of calling for ball tampering when neither umpire sees the ball being tampered, it's a too risky situation and it's been proven so.