Oval Test result 'to be changed'

[Sureshot]

I think the efforts to justify Darrell Hair's "settlement" are badly placed, especially given it was under-the-table and not really any sort of formal compensation method.

He didn't do it in the right way, but it wasn't blackmail.

 

[m_vaughan]

So you think a team tampering with a ball in a Cricket match against England is politics?

Imagine that a umpire was Pakistani and he accused the Aussies of ball tampering in a Ashes series, I know Ponting is likely to continue the match, but what would be the fans reaction... I?d like you know? are you guys that good..

Thats my point. They should have continued to play and try and win the game, so that the game had a proper result. They could have complained about the Hair's decision at the end of the game and challenged it in court of whatever. But they chose to not to take the field, and in doing so broke a rule, and because of that the umpires had the right to award the game to the opposition. Which they did.

I dont have anything against Pakistan's reason for doing what they did that day, but I am against the method they choose to show their disapproval, which involved breaking of rules, and hence must be penalised.

You might argue that Pakistan did eventually agree to get back to playing, but I'm afraid you cant keep changing your mind. Had the umpires then reconsidered their decision it would set a bad precedent because one would think that if they do stay off the field for sometime and then decide to play again, it would be fine.

 

[Insomniac]

If the umpire thinks the keeper took the bails off with his gloves, it can be a simple mistake to make as the gloves of the keeper can very close to the stumps. I even pointed out that I've been involved in games where it has happened. I've seen it on TV aswell.



Your evidence is for him being biassed against Pakistan is weak. If it weren't the PCB would have used it to their advantage.



Because they threatened to pull out of any matches he was umpiring in, he wasn't 'banned'.




He admitted his wrong-doing by offering his resignation in the letter. The $500,000 was for loss of earnings for the money he would have earned from the rest of his contract. Compensation settlement/buying out his contract, whatever you want to call it.

He has served his punishment. I am now happy to see him back behind the stumps. I'd certainly have him over some other current umpires. Bowden and Harper for instance.

The fact the man received death threats is an indication of how utterly ridiculous the over reaction was/has been.

Sureshot - tell me, have you seen the video evidence of the incident in question? If not, please shut your mouth.

And Sureshot, can you tell me why the Sri Lankans refused to play in games with Darrell Hair?

Bad umpiring is always the complaint, there have been some pretty bad decisions going against all countries, Australia was robbed of the Ashes by Billy Bowden but we don't go around crying bias. Everyone gets bad decisions, calling someone biased without any basis (bad decisions are not evidence of bias) simply because he's white and Pakistan get a bad run from him is ridiculous. Once again, if Hair was completely biased against Pakistan he would never have

IIRC Hair was suspended by the ACB (as they were known back then) from Sri Lanka matches to avoid further controversy and outcries from the Sri Lankan Cricket Board and the ICC, not to mention the fact that they had no choice because Sri Lanka were going to refuse to play if he umpired.

So now you're creating a ridiculous analogy of precedents. Hair certainly didn't do the whole thing for money. He is a very courageous umpire who is willing to apply the laws as he sees them without fear of controversy. I see him as one of the few people out there who are standing up against the raging politics in cricket.

Dean - tell us, why Hair was suspended by the ACB and why Sri Lanka refused to play if he umpired? Did he not accuse a fine offspinner bowler in that time as well of cheating?

Also Dean, are you suggesting that Pakistan did tamper the ball? You say he is courageous - I agree, it takes quite a bit of courage to accuse a team of tampering with the ball.

It was certainly misguided, but I don't think it was as bad as some people make it out to be. I'm not justifying it, but if he felt his job was under threat then asking for some settlement money wouldn't be an unfair reaction. Maybe I am justifying it.

Well Dean, how about Darrell Hair go through the "official channels" as you call it for the $500,000?

Of course his job was under threat! He accused a team of CHEATING and he had NO evidence to back himself up. Even Mr. Billy Doctrove said that he felt that the ball should not have been changed at that point in time.

He didn't do it in the right way, but it wasn't blackmail.

Then what was it? Exactly what was it, if it wasn't blackmail?

I would at this time like to bring out some significant points now.

One is that Darrell Hair walked out of the ball-tampering meeting on the evening of the 4th Day during the Oval test when Inzamam asked him and I quote, "Why are we being accused?"

I would also like to bring out some excerpts (sp?) out of Duncan Fletcher's autobiography, Behind the Shades.

"I went to the umpires' room and it occurred to me that I should have a look at the ball. Pakistan had only bowled 18 overs at us the previous evening and I was interested to see what sort of state it was in. Normally you would only look at a ball after 50 or 60 overs.

"However, TV umpire Peter Hartley and reserve umpire Trevor Jesty said I couldn't see the ball until Hair and Doctrove had arrived."

He was not allowed to see the ball even on Hair's arrival. "I went out to begin the warm-ups. Hair then approached me. 'I'm not going to show you the ball,' he said bluntly, 'but we've got a handle on it and are monitoring the situation.' 'No problem, we are more concerned about the start of play,' I replied."

Before Dean and Sureshot start flanking me about how everyone was already suspicious I will bring up that the ball WAS INSPECTED at the 5th ball of the 52nd over when Alastair Cook was dismissed. The ball was deemed "good" to play.

At the end of the 56th over, a period of a little under 30 minutes, Darrell Hair asked for the ball, inspected it, and asked for the box of balls.

In 2007, during Darrell Hair's "tribunal", Darrell Hair called on Billy Doctrove to come and support him. Except one glitch - he refused to come to help his "co-umpire".

Dean - you say that Darrell Hair is brave and "right" for doing what he believed was right.

Lets read this quote by the match referee, Ranjan Madugalle:

"I believe for any case to be proven there must be concrete evidence." In any aspect of life that isn't cricket, this is a perfectly reasonable statement. In cricket, however, it provides a terrific pickle for the law doesn't even make any mention of evidence anywhere

The ICC Chief Match Referee, Ranjan Madugalle, said that the ball wasn't tampered with because there was no evidence of it being done. Effectively, Madugalle is saying that the ball itself and the umpires' assertion that tampering has occurred (though they haven't seen anyone do it) is not concrete enough as evidence. The umpires, then, were not only wrong but the law, by implication, was wonky.

I would also like to go back to Sureshot's comment about how Darrell Hair's wish for $500,000 was

not blackmail

I will now quote Darrell Hair in one of his e-mails sent to the ICC.

1 A one-off payment to compensate the loss of future earnings and retain a payment over the next four years which I believe would have been the best years I have to offer ICC and world umpiring. This payment is be the sum of [US dollars] 500,000 - details of which must be kept confidential by both parties. This sum to be paid directly into my account by 31st August 2006.

If its not blackmail, why must it be held confidential?

Thats my point. They should have continued to play and try and win the game, so that the game had a proper result. They could have complained about the Hair's decision at the end of the game and challenged it in court of whatever. But they chose to not to take the field, and in doing so broke a rule, and because of that the umpires had the right to award the game to the opposition. Which they did.

I dont have anything against Pakistan's reason for doing what they did that day, but I am against the method they choose to show their disapproval, which involved breaking of rules, and hence must be penalised.

You might argue that Pakistan did eventually agree to get back to playing, but I'm afraid you cant keep changing your mind. Had the umpires then reconsidered their decision it would set a bad precedent because one would think that if they do stay off the field for sometime and then decide to play again, it would be fine.

Have we not suffered for that? Inzamam received a 4 match ban for bringing the game into disrepute (not taking the field on time)

Possibly lost the ICC Champions Trophy 2006 due to it (or a semi-final birth anyway)


I expect appropriate responses from Sureshot and Dean to the points I have outlined above.

 

[usy]

Well let me tell you the media in England and Pakistan were talking about racism, and some ignorant Pakistani cricket fans.

We’ve not labelled Hair as a racist, but we won’t also come in terms that he is any great person or any sort. We're not cheats, and thats what every Pakistani is standing against him.

Also don't forget Cricket wasn’t a racism-free game in past too..

 

[Insomniac]

Well let me tell you the media in England and Pakistan were talking about racism, and some ignorant Pakistani cricket fans.

We’ve not labelled Hair as a racist, but we won’t also come in terms that he is any great person or any sort. We're not cheats, and thats what every Pakistani is standing against him.

Also don't forget Cricket wasn’t a racism-free game in past too..

Just to add to that, if you guys start talking about respect to umpires and how their decision is "final", I recall a few English players getting quite upset in 1989...

Just a hint.

 

[shefellover93]

Like I've said a million times, this was not just another umpiring decision. I cannot see how anyone fails to grasp that idea.


IIRC Pakistan were well in control of that game so this whole theory gets thrown out of the window. Besides the fact that they did not throw a hissy fit to get the result changed, they staged a protest because they thought they were unjustly being accused of cheating. The whole result being changed is a compound of political agreements as well as the ICC's lack of common sense.

Actually it wasn't your right, Pakistan were penalized 5 runs, England, 2 wickets, I think that's a bit more important.
Why do people think that he was doing it to be biased, I mean he was acting in good faith (Like Yorkshire but that's for another post) cheating must be stamped out and if he thought Inzamam (I can't spell his name) was cheating then it would be unfair on England not to do something, he penalized 5 runs, and Pakistan refused to come back out to play the game. Now if you think that means that Pakistan deserve a draw then you must either be

A) Pakistani
B) Crazy
or C) The ICC CEO

 

[usy]

Actually it wasn't your right, Pakistan were penalized 5 runs, England, 2 wickets, I think that's a bit more important.
Why do people think that he was doing it to be biased, I mean he was acting in good faith (Like Yorkshire but that's for another post) cheating must be stamped out and if he thought Inzamam (I can't spell his name) was cheating then it would be unfair on England not to do something, he penalized 5 runs, and Pakistan refused to come back out to play the game. Now if you think that means that Pakistan deserve a draw then you must either be

A) Pakistani
B) Crazy
or C) The ICC CEO

Also, your directly calling Pakistani Cricket team of being cheats, without any evidence. Making up history, isn’t the first time I’ve seen.

 

[Insomniac]

Actually it wasn't your right, Pakistan were penalized 5 runs, England, 2 wickets, I think that's a bit more important.
Why do people think that he was doing it to be biased, I mean he was acting in good faith (Like Yorkshire but that's for another post) cheating must be stamped out and if he thought Inzamam (I can't spell his name) was cheating then it would be unfair on England not to do something, he penalized 5 runs, and Pakistan refused to come back out to play the game. Now if you think that means that Pakistan deserve a draw then you must either be

A) Pakistani
B) Crazy
or C) The ICC CEO

Can this post be deleted?

It adds nothing to the argument as to whether Darrell Hair was in his right to remove the bails because Ranjan Madugalle ruled that there was no evidence at all.

He hasn't even read any of this thread after the post he quoted.

We had a right to protest, and we did. We suffered by losing Inzamam for 4 matches because he brought the game into disrepute.

And he is directly calling the Pakistan team a bunch of cheats.

Just shut up, and leave. And don't let the door kick your butt on the way out.

 

[FreddieFan]

Have only just spooted this thread, and will hopefully be able to add my opinion without it making the argument worse.

In my opinion, all Hair did in the Oval Test was apply the letter of the rules. That is all. At no point did he do anything except follow the rules laid down by the ICC. The Umpires are entitled to award 5 runs if they believe the ball has been tampered with. They did so. There is nothing in the rules that says evidence needs to be provided afterwards. The rules alao say that a team refusing to play is equivilent to forfeiting the match. Pakistan refused to come out and play, so the umpires took it as a forfeit - following the letter of the rules.

The Umpires are in the game to ensure the rules are followed. It is possible that some people might consider the rules to be wrong (although this is a whole different point) but that is the fault of the ICC, not the umpires. If Umpires were free to pick and choose which rules they personally think are right and enforce only them, it would be havoc. The fault is with the rules set by the ICC, not by the umpires for enforcing them.

Someone mentioned South Africa returning to the field late in the Lord's Test. I believe this was because they were told the wrong restart time and they can hardly be blamed for this.

Moving on to Hair's requested payoff, he did absolutely nothing wrong. After the Oval, the ICC had no grounds at all to sack him. If they didn't want him to umpire, they would have to pay him to sit at home until his contract runs out. This doesn't look great for the ICC, so Hair offered them a way to finish the problem much sooner. However, why would he resign for free and do himself out of a significant amount of money - would you? I'd rather sit and wait at home being paid, personally. He was doing the ICC a favour by asking for the rest of his contract to be paid, after which he would resign. The ICC get to close the episode, and Hair hasn't lost out, everybody is happy. As for the confidentiality, would you like your finances spread all over the newspapers?

Also, I seem to remember that Hair was, judged purely in terms of decision making, the best Umpire on the ICC panel, so if he was biased against Pakistan as zMario suggests, he wasn't doing it much.

EDIT - Just remembered another point I wanted to make, with regards the changing of the result - what a shambles. Imagine, going into the 06/07 Ashes series, England forfeited every game protesting about an umpiring decision. The results are later changed to draws, the series is 0-0, and England retain the Ashes.

The decision rewards teams for following an innapropriate course of action. Good idea? Not to me.

 

[Insomniac]

Have only just spooted this thread, and will hopefully be able to add my opinion without it making the argument worse.

In my opinion, all Hair did in the Oval Test was apply the letter of the rules. That is all. At no point did he do anything except follow the rules laid down by the ICC. The Umpires are entitled to award 5 runs if they believe the ball has been tampered with. They did so. There is nothing in the rules that says evidence needs to be provided afterwards. The rules alao say that a team refusing to play is equivilent to forfeiting the match. Pakistan refused to come out and play, so the umpires took it as a forfeit - following the letter of the rules.

Ranjan Madugalle, Chief ICC Match Referee, ruled that evidence was required. Stop speaking out of your backside.

We suffered for our protest, which in the end led to us being proven innocent.

The Umpires are in the game to ensure the rules are followed. It is possible that some people might consider the rules to be wrong (although this is a whole different point) but that is the fault of the ICC, not the umpires. If Umpires were free to pick and choose which rules they personally think are right and enforce only them, it would be havoc. The fault is with the rules set by the ICC, not by the umpires for enforcing them.

What the hell does this have to do with this thread?

Someone mentioned South Africa returning to the field late in the Lord's Test. I believe this was because they were told the wrong restart time and they can hardly be blamed for this.

Actually they were busy arguing with the members in the Lord's gallery (according to Sky Sports)

Moving on to Hair's requested payoff, he did absolutely nothing wrong. After the Oval, the ICC had no grounds at all to sack him. If they didn't want him to umpire, they would have to pay him to sit at home until his contract runs out. This doesn't look great for the ICC, so Hair offered them a way to finish the problem much sooner. However, why would he resign for free and do himself out of a significant amount of money - would you? I'd rather sit and wait at home being paid, personally. He was doing the ICC a favour by asking for the rest of his contract to be paid, after which he would resign. The ICC get to close the episode, and Hair hasn't lost out, everybody is happy. As for the confidentiality, would you like your finances spread all over the newspapers?

Blackmailing your employers is nothing wrong? Are you seriously in your sane mind?

Also, I seem to remember that Hair was, judged purely in terms of decision making, the best Umpire on the ICC panel, so if he was biased against Pakistan as zMario suggests, he wasn't doing it much.

Prove it. The fact that the decisions made count every dot ball doesnt show much.

My responses in bold.

zMario added 1 Minutes and 21 Seconds later...

EDIT - Just remembered another point I wanted to make, with regards the changing of the result - what a shambles. Imagine, going into the 06/07 Ashes series, England forfeited every game protesting about an umpiring decision. The results are later changed to draws, the series is 0-0, and England retain the Ashes.

The decision rewards teams for following an innapropriate course of action. Good idea? Not to me.

This isn't an ordinary umpiring decision. Are you absolutely serious? This man accused us of cheating. We wanted to argue that we don't cheat.

End of story.

Besides, you tell me FreddieFan what the appropriate course of action is? Please, we're all DIEING to hear about it.

 

[usy]

Have only just spooted this thread, and will hopefully be able to add my opinion without it making the argument worse.

In my opinion, all Hair did in the Oval Test was apply the letter of the rules. That is all. At no point did he do anything except follow the rules laid down by the ICC. The Umpires are entitled to award 5 runs if they believe the ball has been tampered with. They did so. There is nothing in the rules that says evidence needs to be provided afterwards. The rules alao say that a team refusing to play is equivilent to forfeiting the match. Pakistan refused to come out and play, so the umpires took it as a forfeit - following the letter of the rules.

Then we need to remove the rule, as simple as that.

If there is any rule as such mentioned, because directly accusing a team of ball tampering without and evidence or video is simply wrong.

example: I can accuse you of killing my best mate without any evidence, how’d you like that?

 

[Insomniac]

Then we need to remove the rule, as simple as that.

If there is any rule as such mentioned, because directly accusing a team of ball tampering without and evidence or video is simply wrong.

example: I can accuse you of killing my best mate without any evidence, how’d you like that?

Already has been - Ranjan Madugalle ruled that for such a charge of ball tampering and with the technology at hand, it is common sense that evidence has to be shown.

Heres another key issue. Darrell Hair is TO THIS DAY yet to NAME a PAKISTANI Player that ball tampered.

He is YET to name ONE person. Why?

Because he has no proof. How the hell does Hair know what a tampered ball looks like anyway?

 

[FreddieFan]

The appropriate course of action, as m vaughan has stated, is to continue with the match (which you'd have won anyway, IIRC) and then make your protest after the match.

Madugalle ruled, after the match, that evidence is required. Until the ICC start employing phsycic umpires, it is difficult to see how they are supposed to take future judgements into account when making decisions - all they can do is follow the rules as they stand.

What the hell does this have to do with this thread?

It has nothing to do with the thread title and everything to do with the argument that has been going on in this thread.

Actually they were busy arguing with the members in the Lord's gallery (according to Sky Sports)

I only repeated what I heard on Test Match Special. It's not really relevent anyway, I didn't bring it up.

Blackmailing your employers is nothing wrong? Are you seriously in your sane mind?

That's not blackmail. I suggest you real my point again.

Prove it. The fact that the decisions made count every dot ball doesnt show much.

That's not how it works. After the match, I believe all appeals and wickets are reviewed to ensure the correct decision was made. Therefore a 'wicket' not given my Hair would be checked independantly, unless you now believe the whole of the ICC is anti-pakistan.

 

[usy]

Simply means, the accusation part just rips through Hair, and reality people out there need to face.

usy added 1 Minutes and 19 Seconds later...

unless you now believe the whole of the ICC is anti-pakistan.

It's acuallty Pro-Asia now days.

 

[m_vaughan]

Have we not suffered for that? Inzamam received a 4 match ban for bringing the game into disrepute (not taking the field on time)

Possibly lost the ICC Champions Trophy 2006 due to it (or a semi-final birth anyway)


I expect appropriate responses from Sureshot and Dean to the points I have outlined above.

I dont know why are you getting suffering and all into this. Inzaman was rightfully banned because he did bring the game into disrepute. And on the same note because they dint take the field, the game was awarded to England. Again I stress on the fact that I am NOT talking about the reason for Pakistan's actions but the action itself. Pakistan had every right to protest but they chose the wrong method of protesting.

They dint take the field, and hence forfeited the game. Match, as per the rules, is awarded to England. End of story.

Whatever happens later is irrelevant, Pakistan still broke the rules, and the result should never have been changed. The ICC only once again proved how spineless they are.