If a bolwer has a faulty action like that of Murali due to birth defact then murali is not fit for the came because it gives him the advantage to doing wrong bowling.That is wrong. There are also some fast ballers who balls fast deliveries but when they run too fast they loose control and throw the ball. This does not appear to every umpires but Hair is sharp and he is getting punished for doing write thing for the cricket.I donot think Hair is bad person but he follows rules strictly though he made a few decision wrong giving out batsmen. But every body can make a mistake and Hair is a human being. You cannot let a person become a bolwer if he is defective.
More than umpiring error Hair was removed because he handled the whole thing badly and in an officious way. Beside that, without any evidence he penalized Pakistan team, just because 'he think so' (that there is ball tampering). Of course there is commercial aspect, otherwise ICC would not act like this, because Pakistan team or sub-continet is more important for them than Hair. But when you earn in millions you have to consider the related issues and from whom you are benefited. Still ICC and its match referees handle Aust, SA or English players more softly than sub-continent players, but it is changing.
RE:Hair and ICC
by HARISH NAYAK on Feb 07, 2007 06:34 PM
Hair is losing it probably because he is out of the international scene and has to blame somebody
RE:Hair is a scapegoat
by Sharath Mohan on Feb 07, 2007 04:42 PM
i beg to differ; Simon Taufel is an Australian and he is the best we have in world today.
We tend to prejudge people and be coloured in our views by our perceived "racism" of the person who is in the centre of controversy. The Murali episode is a case in point. The umpire is well within his right to call a bowler for throwing if he feels that he straightens his arm at the point of delivery. That the ICC subsequently permitted bowlers a leeway of 15degree bears this out. I am sure we are not permitting captains of teams to sit in judgement over the correct interpretation of rules. That Hair was made out to look like the villian of the piece in the whole Murali affair is a result of politicisation of the game & the ICC.
The refusal of Pakistan to return to the field left the umpires with no option to declare that Pakistan had forfeited the game. What transpired subsequently " on mail" is a manifestation of the whole process of how the umpire was tricked into be shown as the " real villian out to make a fast buck".
I do not ubscribe to the view that Hair is right in calling ICC a racist, but yes, he has been done in by the machinations & was made the scapegoat for having dared to call Murali. It takes guts to call a bowler for throwing if you are convinced that his action is not fair.That he should have called Lee or others is unfair as the umpire would call for throwing only if he is convinced of the suspect action.
RE:Hair is a scapegoat
by faisal tabrez on Feb 07, 2007 04:28 PM
This is very much agreeable. Games are more of politics and less of sportmanship. May be it is due effect of commercialization of games.
RE:Hair is a scapegoat
by Sanjay Rao on Feb 07, 2007 04:42 PM
I think you are bit confused here. The issue does not involve Muthia Muralitharan at all. The issue was between Umpire Hair and Pakistan and it was triggered by Umpire Hair's allegation that Pakistan had indulged in ball tampering. What is important to note here is that Umpire Billy Doctrove did not agree with Umpire Darrell Hair on this. I am not saying that Pakistan was justified in not taking to the field and Inzamam Ul Haq was also rightly punished. Umpire Darrell Hair got what he deserved.
RE:RE:Hair is a scapegoat
by dilip sinha on Feb 07, 2007 10:23 PM
Hi Sanjay,
The reference to the case of Murali is merely an illustration. This is not the first time when doubts have been raised by various teams about Pakistan doing things to the ball, when old. Indian players like Sunny have in the past hinted at the sleigh of hand by the Pakistani players. There are innumerable instances when Imran & other Pakistani bowlers have suddenly started getting prodigiuos swing & have rattled batsmen.Venkat, a much respected bowler & spinner of eminence had spoken highly of Hair in the post forfeiture period & had rated him as one of the best umpires in the world.
It is food for thought as to why only Sri Lankan & Pakistani players had come out expressing happiness in the way Hair was handled. Ball tampering is nothing new & on numerous occassions many teams had expressed doubts on the sudden swing induced on the ball.
We need to maintain our balance & call a spade a spade. Of course Hair is accusing the ICC of racism without ay evidence that could stand legal scrutiny.
RE:RE:Hair is a scapegoat
by on Feb 07, 2007 08:04 PM
And, just in case one forgets: when the ICC carried out the tests on how much straightening of the arm occurs with different bowlers, every bowler (except Sarwan) was found to be over the legal limit. How come only Asian players were being called (primarily by Australian umpires) and never Mcgrath or even Brett Lee. Lee had a prominent kink in his action when he began; never heard of any umpire excercise his right "to call a bowler for throwing if he feels that he straightens his arm at the point of delivery." Never heard of players like Martin Crowe writing to ICC about his action, and being given so much publicity. Hair has a book in which he calls Murali's action diabolical and says he will call him again. This after Murali was cleared by ICC. ICC still lets him be in its elite panel. Hair has had issues with every Asian team. How can it be that every Asian team is racist when dealing with him? ICC should stop involving him in any matches from now on. Although I doubt it will happen, because as Akram says, ICC is still largely a preserve of Aussies, English and the South Africans.
