Darrell Hair returns to test matches

[smssia0112]

maan just wat i wasnt asking for, he is a good umpire i admit, but he downgraded pakistan cricket. well thats the way we pakistanis felt anyways. we werent ball tampering and he just wudnt listen, and plus gave 5 runs to england. another incident is with murali, his action had passed the icc thingy, but the guy still gave him no bal. despite this i hope the new Mr. Darrel Hair is as good as the other elite umpires. now i hope this was constructive tom

Yes he passed the testing after the No Ball incident caused the ICC to change their rules. Hair did nothing wrong at the time.

 

[lancashire666]

please god can we not have another does murali chuck argument on here

 

[WestIndian]

Ok well for my bit of it, I strongly believe that Hair has shown disdain to Asian and West Indies players. For those that was at the game and even better for those of us who saw it on television, he had no evidence to support his claim, that is why they had him dismissed, from all the reports and all the cameras there, nothing was seen to support his claim. I honestly supported Inzi, and I believe that he did the right thing.
For those that say it should have been done after the game, like many issues that have been left for after the game, it would have been swept under the rug by the ICC. And by the way, it was the ICC that set the precedence as it relate to who can say who stand in their game and more recently, being held ransom by the BCCI, they have made bad matters worst, if the Indians can ask and enforced it then all boards should have the same previlage.
It is true that the umpire is in control of the game, but I have seen instances where guys like Ponting, Smith and other such captains getaway with murder and the lesser fortunate captains are pulled up: Can anyone remembered when Ricky ponting demand the 3rd umpire be called in a match??
The fact is he is back and chatting here can do nothing about it, I guess this gives an additional person to the panel and spread the work load, that said, and for the good of the game and himself, I hope that he have learnt a few things while resting and that he has a changed attitude towards players in general, because he will be put to the test abd the fiasco of 2006 will be pointing at him and every test he stands in will be monitored by all and sundry, more so those that he have offended in the past.

 

[BaggyGreen83]

Good to hear he's returning, he's a good umpire.

 

[Owzat]

Ok well for my bit of it, I strongly believe that Hair has shown disdain to Asian and West Indies players.

Strong beliefs often count for very little. Didn't people get burned at the stake and drowned as witches based on strong beliefs?

For those that was at the game and even better for those of us who saw it on television, he had no evidence to support his claim, that is why they had him dismissed, from all the reports and all the cameras there, nothing was seen to support his claim. I honestly supported Inzi, and I believe that he did the right thing.

Well the laws stated, at the time, the umpires are the sole arbitors of fair play. So not the spectators in the ground or people sat on their a rse at home watching. The judgement was based on the condition of the ball, just because YOU didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Even when the farce that was the subsequent hearing took place they used OPINIONS regarding the condition of the ball based entirely on it's then condition. Umpires regularly check the ball, how can Simon Hughes or anyone judge how much and how rapidly the condition of the ball has changed on TV pictures and the CURRENT condition of the ball?!?!?

I'm not saying there was ball tampering, I'm saying a lot of people drew a lot of conclusions based on 'lack of evidence' and took into account perceptions of bias and worse. It was never going to be fair to Hair, he applied the laws and was hung out to dry for it. The game was abandoned according to the laws and Pakistan were penalised according to the laws regarding tampering. Whether he was right in his BELIEF that the ball had been tampered with is immaterial, he didn't base it on SEEING them do it either but on the condition of the ball. And if the other umpire did not agree then he should not have agreed to the course of action THEY took.

If there was "no evidence" as you suggest then I doubt Hair would have done it. And why? England had won the series and were battling back to a draw, WHY would Hair suddenly penalise Pakistan for no reason? You can argue why would Pakistan cheat, fair enough, but there was nothing for England to gain from Hair's actions as the series was already decided. There'd also been no hint of it in the previous three Tests, I think you and all those who like to slate Hair are basing it on this not uncommon belief he is biased or the other stronger version based on race. There is actually NO EVIDENCE of that whatsoever but people believe it anyway.

Believe what you want to, you will anyway