Hair booted from ICC panel

[Timbo]

Skeepe's a f**king idiot, and you know it.

Whether or not Murali chucks (now, or under the rules then) is not relevant.

Hair was wrong then, because

1. He ignored an ICC directive that called for umpires to report those with suspect actions to be tested and evaluated.
2. He was at the f**king bowler's end anyway.

It's this gung-ho bullsh*t behaviour that has cost him his job - not whether he adhered to the rules as he read them, that he treated people and directives with contempt. Disturbingly, the people he seemed to treated with most contempt were of Asian extraction.

From the laws of cricket (Law 24 section 2):

For a delivery to be fair in respect of the arm the ball must not be thrown. See 3 below.
Although it is the primary responsibility of the striker's end umpire to ensure the fairness of a delivery in this respect, there is nothing in this Law to debar the bowler's end umpire from calling and signalling No ball if he considers that the ball has been thrown.
(a) If, in the opinion of either umpire, the ball has been thrown, he shall
(i) call and signal No ball.
(ii) caution the bowler, when the ball is dead. This caution shall apply throughout the innings.
(iii) inform the other umpire, the batsmen at the wicket, the captain of the fielding side and, as soon as practicable, the captain of the batting side of what has occurred.
(b) If either umpire considers that after such caution a further delivery by the same bowler in that innings is thrown, the umpire concerned shall repeat the procedure set out in (a) above, indicating to the bowler that this is a final warning. This warning shall also apply throughout the innings.
(c) If either umpire considers that a further delivery by the same bowler in that innings is thrown,
(i) the umpire concerned shall call and signal No ball. When the ball is dead he shall inform the other umpire, the batsmen at the wicket and, as soon as practicable, the captain of the batting side of what has occurred.
(ii) the umpire at the bowler's end shall direct the captain of the fielding side to take the bowler off forthwith. The over shall be completed by another bowler, who shall neither have bowled the previous over nor be allowed to bowl the next over.
The bowler thus taken off shall not bowl again in that innings.
(iii) the umpires together shall report the occurrence as soon as possible to the Executive of the fielding side and any Governing Body responsible for the match, who shall take such action as is considered appropriate against the captain and bowler concerned.

Or in simple english, you're wrong JJ. As per usual.

 

[El Diablo]

From the laws of cricket (Law 24 section 2):



Or in simple english, you're wrong JJ. As per usual.

maybe people should put it in their sig lol

when Hair no balled chucky that directive had not been introduced.

 

[IanG]

I remember Alec Stewart telling lard arse what a disgrace he was in that game at Adelaide.

Yeah Alec told him as it was. "You behavious today has been appauling for a country captain" Were his exact words. Before that has told him that we'd had enough chaso that day with Ajuna's behavior. It's enough to tell the subbie to F**k off and die.

 

[JJ]

when Hair no balled chucky that directive had not been introduced.

not what Steve Dunne said

and as I said, Hair was at the bowler's end - Dunne had primary responsibility, but Hair just had to jump in for what's right and true :roll:

obviously I'm wrong in that he made his position untenable, that's why he was sacked eh?

 

[El Diablo]

you were born wrong

 

[JJ]

awwww was your idol sacked....

 

[Timbo]

Read the rule again JJ.

Doesn't matter if he's at square leg or not.

 

[El Diablo]

he cant read

 

[lockyno1]

He's a Kiwi, give him a break!

 

[El Diablo]

give him a bullet

 

[JJ]

Read the rule again JJ.

Doesn't matter if he's at square leg or not.

I read it Timbo - and you're right, but it says this...

Although it is the primary responsibility of the striker's end umpire to ensure the fairness of a delivery in this respect,

as I understand it, Steve Dunne (who was at sqauare leg) was adamant that Murali should not be called, but that he should be reported to the ICC as per the directive. Hair ignored this and called him, Dunne still disagrees with Hair's actions...

again, correct to the letter of the law, but against instruction and showing a huge pig-headedness that has now cost him a job that he presumably loved.

 

[JJ]

as an aside, what is the story with the tri-series?

Can the ACB appoint Hair for those games? It's not always "elite panel" umpires in ODIs, is it? Will the ACB appoint him? I'd imagine there's no reason not too, given the teams are Aust, NZ and England

 

[Twizzle]

ICC asked to explain Hair decision

Cricket Australia (CA) have asked the International Cricket Council (ICC) to explain their reasons for standing down umpire Darrell Hair from their international panel.

The Australian umpire has been dumped after Pakistan lodged a complaint against him for his role in the forfeited Test against England at The Oval in August.

Hair claimed Pakistani players had tampered with the ball and declared they had forfeited the Test when they later refused to take the field in protest.

CA said they do not agree with the ICC's decision, claiming it might lead to umpires being concerned about the off-field consequences of their decisions.

http://www.abc.net.au/sport/content/200611/s1782405.htm

 

[JJ]

that would suggest that they'd be keen to appoint him for ODIs unless that's not possible given the ICC ruling

 

[JJ]

Hair banned from officiating in internationals

Siddhartha Vaidyanathan in Mumbai

November 4, 2006



Hair's fate has been confirmed © Getty Images



Darrell Hair, the Australian umpire who accused Pakistan of ball tampering during the Oval Test in August against England this summer, has been banned from umpiring in internationals. The announcement was made by Percy Sonn, the ICC president, at a press conference in Mumbai at the end of a two-day ICC meeting.

"The board has discussed this matter with great sincerity," said Sonn, "and gave lots of attention to it and they've come to the conclusion that they've lost confidence in Mr Hair. They've given instructions to the management to discuss Mr Hair's future with him. I think we owe Mr Hair the courtesy of allowing his future to be discussed by him with our management before we go anywhere further in the matter. He shall not be allowed to officiate in any future international games until the end of this contract."

However, both Malcom Speed, the CEO of the ICC, and Sonn made it clear that there was "no issue" about the result of The Oval Test. "With regard to compensation, there is a claim by the ECB against the PCB. That is unresolved. It may end up being referred to the ICC disputes resolution committee but at this stage there's been no request for that to happen."

Both also confirmed that the future of Billy Doctrove, the other umpire involved the Oval drama, was secure adding, "The executive board didn't discuss Doctrove".

It was widely rumoured yesterday that Hair's future was in doubt, when a reliable source at the ICC leaked the news to a TV station in India. "The Asian bloc comprising India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh tabled a motion at the meeting that Hair be taken off the panel," the source said. "The motion was put to vote and was passed by a 7-3 majority. The four Asian nations plus South Africa, Zimbabwe and the West Indies voted against Hair. England, Australia and New Zealand wanted him to continue."

Pressure from the four-nation Asian bloc has seemingly forced the ICC's hand and Hair will no longer be permitted to officiate in internationals involving any full member side. Speed revealed that he'd spoken to Hair last night, after the decision was taken and added that they will make an effort to protect Hair's interests. "I've said a number of times that I hope we can find a way for Darrell to umpire," he said. "The board has resolved that they don't wish Darrell Hair is appointed to umpire international matches. I spoke to Darrell yesterday after the decision was made. I told him about it and he was very disappointed. David Richardson, who is the ICC General Manager of Cricket, and myself will speak to Darrell over the next few days and talk about what it means to him.

"ICC has a number of lawyers on staff, who are well aware of our legal position," he continued when asked if the ICC had considered the legal recourse that Hair might consider. "It's correct that Hair is contracted till March 2008. But we need a little time to discuss the matter with him, to protect whatever interests he has."

Speed also made it clear that this wasn't a decision taken at the spur of the moment, confirming that the board had considered the issue in detail. "The ICC board - which consists of 13 representatives from the member countries - was presented with a very detailed paper that rain into 15-20 page. The board certainly had a lot of information before it started its procedure yesterday. They had two hours of discussion on the issue. As it was reported the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) had lodged a formal charge under the ICC code of conduct. That was also considered by the board. This was no knee-jerk reaction. The board had a good deal of information in front of it as is the case of any decision on the board."

Siddhartha Vaidyanathan is staff writer of Cricinfo

says "any international", so I guess the answer to my question is "no"

 

[JJ]

November 5, 2006



Arjuna Ranatunga, who had his fair share of run-ins with Hair, is happy with the ICC decision © AFP



Arjuna Ranatunga, the former Sri Lankan captain, has welcomed the ICC's decision to ban Darrell Hair from umpiring in international matches. The decision came after Pakistan lodged a complaint against him after he accused them of ball-tampering in the Oval Test, which led to the game being forfeited.

"This should have happened long ago, but I am happy with the way the ICC handled the Pakistani complaint," Ranatunga told AFP. Ranatunga and Hair have had a fractious relationship since Hair repeatedly no-balled Muttiah Muralitharan for throwing during the Melbourne Test on Sri Lanka's tour of Australia in 1995-96.

Hair later claimed in his autobiography that Muralitharan's action was "diabolical", and said he would call Murali again if his action did not improved. His remarks irked the Sri Lankans and prompted the Sri Lankan board to ask the ICC to suspend him for bringing the game into disrepute. Following the incident, Hair did not umpire in any Test involving Sri Lanka till 2003.

Meanwhile, Faruq Ahmed, the Bangladesh chief selector, backed the ICC's decision too, saying that Hair had committed a gross misconduct by penalising Pakistan five runs at The Oval without sufficient evidence. Habibul Bashar, the Bangladesh captain, felt that Hair could have handled the situation in a more diplomatic manner.

"I think what the ICC has done is the right thing," Bashar told AFP. "Hair should have spoken to Inzamam and explained things to him before bringing charges of cheating against Pakistan. He does not understand what sort of stress a captain faces during a Test match."

Arjuna is about as objective as the bullsh*t you post

http://content-nz.cricinfo.com/ci/content/current/story/266951.html

to the mod who keeps deleting my post - I've put a source there each time!!!!!!!!

 

[El Diablo]

no you didnt

 

[JJ]

yes I f**king did, it was behind Arjuna... it's even in the PM you sent me - tosser

 

[El Diablo]

yes I f**king did, it was behind Arjuna... it's even in the PM you sent me - tosser

you're an idiot

one post at 11:19am and another at 11:20am have no link whatsoever.

Timbo or Twiz can check them on page 3 and thy will verify it.

 

[JJ]

in both cases you will find the link to the source behind the player's name concerned - i.e, "Inzy" and "Arjuna".

I couldn't give a stuff who checks or otherwise - it's always funny when small minded bigots call others idiots, fools etc etc... you do a lot of that, you're a sad little man