Hair sacked from ICC Panel

[aussie1st]

Looks like this case may not be finished for a while longer. Hair is considering legal action against the ICC.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/...n-after-sacking/2006/11/05/1162661553064.html

 

[sohum]

Media speculation has suggested Hair may sue the ICC for sacking him for making a decision he felt an umpire was entitled to make. ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed, however, said the governing body felt it was on a firm legal footing.

He can't really do that because the ICC did not sack him directly for that reason. They sacked him because "member nations had lost confidence in him." I'm not sure under what clauses umpires are contracted, but if the ICC law permits member nations to vote for umpires to be removed from the Elite Panel, then I am sure that Hair has nothing going for him.

 

[smssia0112]

He can't really do that because the ICC did not sack him directly for that reason. They sacked him because "member nations had lost confidence in him." I'm not sure under what clauses umpires are contracted, but if the ICC law permits member nations to vote for umpires to be removed from the Elite Panel, then I am sure that Hair has nothing going for him.

He can do that if he can prove that he was wrongfully terminated, which he was, and he had time on his contract so that strengthens his case. The ICC can make their own decisions but they are too corrupt to do so, I hope Hair wins to stick it in their face.

Now, the only accusations of racism are coming from the people who think the Asian bloc had something nefarious under their sleeves, with regards to Hair's removal. Pakistan's whole stand during the incident was not that Hair was targeting them because he was racist. Their stand was that he had disrespected their country and their cricketing feats by accusing them of ball-tampering without any evidence (and I can safely conclude this after the ICC's investigation).

Now, if Hair did in fact follow the rules to perfection, how come he came out on the wrong side of the ICC investigation? As I said earlier, the ICC admits that Hair was wrong in his decision, and they may have also subtly admitted that their rules are not comprehensive.

What was wrong about his decision? He followed the rules, if the rules are wrong then it is the ICC's fault, but Hair did what he had to do, controversy is not the bad thing you make it out to be, it does not constitute sacking someone, especially when he followed the rules set out by the ICC themselves. Since you can't accept that the ICC bowed down to pressure from the Asian bloc (Am I a racist for saying that?) then you will obviously not understand any of this, but Pakistan Sri Lanka and India have ALL accused him of being racist, which is a disgrace, perhaps they can't accept that they are the only ones doing the wrong thing.

 

[scorpion_rulezz]

The ICC are all afraid of punishing the cheating Pakistanis. (note: I am only refering to the Pakistanis who cheat not all of the Pakistanis)

Please explain without any proof or what you are calling them cheaters as its already proofed that who was guilty who was not!
pathetic

 

[Sureshot]

He was referring to Asif and Akhtar.

 

[sohum]

He can do that if he can prove that he was wrongfully terminated, which he was, and he had time on his contract so that strengthens his case. The ICC can make their own decisions but they are too corrupt to do so, I hope Hair wins to stick it in their face.

Again, legally if his contract allows for such a termination he cannot really prove anything because he had signed on to something that allows him to be terminated in such a way. Also, the decision to terminate him came at the end of a bunch of issues, not just one, so one can say there was a constant deterioration of confidence in him.

What was wrong about his decision? He followed the rules, if the rules are wrong then it is the ICC's fault, but Hair did what he had to do, controversy is not the bad thing you make it out to be, it does not constitute sacking someone, especially when he followed the rules set out by the ICC themselves.

If you prune back to the threads during the incident in the Pakistan matches, you will notice that Hair did not in fact follow the laws to the letter. Also, you keep ignoring the fact that he had NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Pakistan had been ball-tampering. An umpire with even a bit of common sense would understand the implications of accusing a side of such a serious crime, that too without any evidence except what was going on in his head.

Since you can't accept that the ICC bowed down to pressure from the Asian bloc (Am I a racist for saying that?) then you will obviously not understand any of this, but Pakistan Sri Lanka and India have ALL accused him of being racist, which is a disgrace, perhaps they can't accept that they are the only ones doing the wrong thing.

Since your argument fails in this regard, you will accuse me of not understanding what's going on. I guess South Africa, West Indies and Zimbabwe magically decided to go along with the Asians. You would notice that a majority was required and 4 Asian teams does not make a majority. If the Asian teams were the only people having problems with Hair, he would still be out there. Again, if you look at the press releases regarding Hair's removal, you will notice that his sacking did not come as a result of just the Pakistan incident.

 

[kodos]

Well reading from posts on this forum, other cricket related forums and from the media, all Australian's will support Hair and reject the decision to eliminate Hair from the elite panel while those in Asia and the rest of the world will say it is a fair decision. So there is no point arguing because the most likely result is what I posted above

 

[LA ICE-E]

He's an umpire, he doesn't need respect or confidence, and as for him being incompetent, what makes him incompetent? That he follows the rules, he is the only umpire who does so in world cricket, I would easily vote for him as umpire of the year.


Why not? He did it after No-balling Murali, for years even.

They have a lot of influence, they bring a lot of money to cricket and a lot of countries don't like to disagree with them, the ICC even moreso.

There a dozen more posts I could quote and argue with, but it hardly surprises me that the Asians agree with it, as for countries voting against the decision as 'sitting on the fence', why wouldn't Australia vote against it, or England or New Zealand for that matter? They all see through Pakistan's whingeing about racism. The one I'm surprised with is South Africa, clearly they are influenced by the Asians.

All I can say is, when will all of you wake up and realise that the more Pakistan do wrong the more they try and point the finger and blame someone else? Whether they were guilty of ball-tampering or not, Darrell Hair AND BILLY DOCTROVE TOO (there were 2 umpires believe it or not, one of whom is black, big gasp maybe he is racist too and hates his own race) made a decision, you don't need footage of something to suspect it, Police arrest people without evidence all the time if they are suspected of doing something then acting is necessary, and then Pakistan did the wrong thing and wasted the game, before Hair decided enough was enough, and then because somethign went against them they called together the Asians and blamed someone else, and the ICC had to bow to the pressure of their biggest moneymakers. You know it's true, and if you don't then you should open your other eye.

You sound little raicis yourself...calm down dont just go after the asians but i do respect Hair for doing what he thouht was right but unfortunately he got the ball tempering accusation was wrong because as proven he didnt really have any proof...the sack was harsh but he should been ban for just a certain amount of time

 

[barmyarmy]

News today that Darylll Hair has been voted the best umpire by the mischievous readers of Wisden!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/6152352.stm

Strange stuff. I guess that's what you call a sympathy vote because no-one with fully functioning eyes would have called Hair the umpire of the year before or after the Pakistan debacle.

 

[nightprowler10]

Hair has been substandard for quite some time now, and the fact that he was voted best umpire has nothing to do with his ability, just like his termination from the elite panel.

 

[puddleduck]

To be fair Hair has always been fairly consistent. He is a very by the book umpire. He doesn't trigger unless he's sure, and that leads a lot of people to accuse him when he doesn't give the decisions that they want him to give. You see, that's what it says in the rule-books, you give the benefit of the doubt to the batsman, and he very nearly always does. Unfortunately for him, doing things by the book one too many times got him in trouble.

He followed the book in dishing out the ball-tampering penalty, and that book says in the opinion of the umpire. So in the end he did that, which meant with something as subjective as a ball being tampered with, there was never going to be clear evidence in a court, and that turned out to the case. I do feel sorry for the chap, but to finish with he certainly wasn't the best umpire of the year

 

[sohum]

He may have been the 'best umpire' before the event (but he probably wasn't) but he definitely wasn't the smartest one. Playing by the book is one thing but not applying some common sense to a decision is stupid. Did Hair think that he could just accuse the Pakistan team of ball-tampering, just because he thought so, and then be able to sweep it under his carpet?

 

[puddleduck]

No I think he thought that this is what it says to do in the rule book. He then discussed it with his fellow umpire, who unsurprisingly had also read the rule book, and the two of them acted according to what they have been told is the way to act. Unfortunately for them, the rules weren't particularly sensible, and the Icc were particularly spineless.

 

[sohum]

No I think he thought that this is what it says to do in the rule book. He then discussed it with his fellow umpire, who unsurprisingly had also read the rule book, and the two of them acted according to what they have been told is the way to act. Unfortunately for them, the rules weren't particularly sensible, and the Icc were particularly spineless.

That's my point. The rule was flexible enough to allow him to apply his brain to the situation. It was subjective. He was supposed to bring up a discussion with his fellow umpire if he thought Pakistan were ball-tampering. But he should have been at least minutely aware of the far-reaching implications of his actions, whilst he did that.

 

[jeromedascorp]

I definetly do not think that Hair should have been banned. However, when Inzamam was found not guilty, they should have given Hair a ban or something for sometime or charged him with something at least.

The reason I say this is because the only reason Inzamam walked out was because the Pakistan team was accused of cheating.

And at the end of the day all I have to say is why does cricket have a match referee? All the minor things like appealing and arguing the referees get involved, but with an issue like ball tampering, why wasnt the referr consulted?

We can point at one more exception like when Dhoni was given not out in the test against Windies when caught on the boundary. Lara refused to acceot the umpire's decision and snatched the ball out of Asad Rauf's hand. Next thing you know hes patting Dhoni like hes a little boy and telling him to leave the field. I was shocked that Lara wasnt handed any kind of ban because that was delaying the game, disrepute, whatever you want to call it.

So the ICC needs to review its rulebooks for all situations. And defnetly some issues need to be taken to the match referee.

And I think its time that everyone is made to take some kind of exam before they play on the field or Umpire. Because for people to say "I didnt know that rule" after playing 250+ odis is ridiculous.