ICC reinstates Darrel Hair as Test & ODI umpire

ICC has reinstated Darrel as Test and ODI umpire. he as suspended from test duty after oval fiasco 18 months ago.

Best thing they've done in years.

20 page thread coming up.

20 Aussies ejaculating coming up.

Don't reckon so. It was the right thing to do. Everyone knows that, who doesn't have some sort of racial bias to them.

Na i doubt it, don't think anyone can be bothered, even though the Aussies & the Mario brothers are ejaculating over the thought of 20 pages of shouting 'subi cnuts' 'subi cheats'.

Justice has been done.

Bearing in mind this thread was started by Buckaroo, are we even sure this is true? It's not on cricinfo.

It's on PakPassion . . . of course

http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/icc-set-to-reinstate-hair-following-lengthy-spell/2008/03/18/1205602391946.html

yes, just what the game needs, hair back to umpiring. the icc has lost it

Yeah, he's a little incompetant but at least he wont truckle to threats I suppose.

Brass Monkey wrote:Yeah, he's a little incompetant but at least he wont truckle to threats I suppose.

you mean like calling a murali delivery a no-ball if he wanted to? instead of looking at younger and better umps the icc seems happy to recycle the same old sh!t

But he was one of their top umpires prior to the lay-off. Hardly 'same old shoite'...

The One wrote:
you mean like calling a murali delivery a no-ball if he wanted to? instead of looking at younger and better umps the icc seems happy to recycle the same old sh!t

Murali chucks, at least his doosra. Sorry to inform you of this.

Rules now dictate that he waits to report it rather than calling it real-time. So, as he's always followed the letter of the law, then no.

JKLever wrote:But he was one of their top umpires prior to the lay-off. Hardly 'same old shoite'...

Maybe on past records, but his standard was deteriorating, you can't deny his umpiring for that series was utter tosh and even on the previous leg when Eng went to Pak.

Makaveli wrote:

JKLever wrote:But he was one of their top umpires prior to the lay-off. Hardly 'same old shoite'...

Maybe on past records, but his standard was deteriorating, you can't deny his umpiring for that series was utter tosh and even on the previous leg when Eng went to Pak.

Saying that Rudi is just as bad, if cr@p umpires like Rudi can get onto the 'elite' panel don't see why good old Darrell can't.

Brass Monkey wrote:Rules now dictate that he waits to report it rather than calling it real-time. So, as he's always followed the letter of the law, then no.

thats one of the main reasons i'm not in favour of hair standing as ump. he follows only the letter of the law, or the law as he seems to understand it backed by his ridiculous sense of self-righteousness, and has no intelligence or nous to judge real-life situations, esp explosive ones, and deal with them. with cricket getting more and more acrimonious he is a ticking time-bomb

The One wrote: thats one of the main reasons i'm not in favour of hair standing as ump. he follows only the letter of the law, or the law as he seems to understand it backed by his ridiculous sense of self-righteousness, and has no intelligence or nous to judge real-life situations, esp explosive ones, and deal with them. with cricket getting more and more acrimonious he is a ticking time-bomb

Precisely.

The One wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:Rules now dictate that he waits to report it rather than calling it real-time. So, as he's always followed the letter of the law, then no.

thats one of the main reasons i'm not in favour of hair standing as ump. he follows only the letter of the law, or the law as he seems to understand it backed by his ridiculous sense of self-righteousness, and has no intelligence or nous to judge real-life situations, esp explosive ones, and deal with them. with cricket getting more and more acrimonious he is a ticking time-bomb

So he should let the laws get flouted, just in case someone or a team throw a tantrum??

The One wrote:thats one of the main reasons i'm not in favour of hair standing as ump. he follows only the letter of the law, or the law as he seems to understand it backed by his ridiculous sense of self-righteousness, and has no intelligence or nous to judge real-life situations, esp explosive ones, and deal with them. with cricket getting more and more acrimonious he is a ticking time-bomb

What should he have done? He saw the ball marked, reckoned it was due to tampering, called a 5 run penalty, called for England to choose a new ball and then that was that.

holcs wrote:

The One wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:Rules now dictate that he waits to report it rather than calling it real-time. So, as he's always followed the letter of the law, then no.

thats one of the main reasons i'm not in favour of hair standing as ump. he follows only the letter of the law, or the law as he seems to understand it backed by his ridiculous sense of self-righteousness, and has no intelligence or nous to judge real-life situations, esp explosive ones, and deal with them. with cricket getting more and more acrimonious he is a ticking time-bomb

So he should let the laws get flouted, just in case someone or a team throw a tantrum??

no, but he should be more than sure when levelling a very serious charge against a team and player, esp considering his limited capabilities with regards to situations that require intelligence. and more often than not a good umpire defuses a potentially ugly incident before it happens. hair seems to do the opposite

Brass Monkey wrote:

The One wrote:thats one of the main reasons i'm not in favour of hair standing as ump. he follows only the letter of the law, or the law as he seems to understand it backed by his ridiculous sense of self-righteousness, and has no intelligence or nous to judge real-life situations, esp explosive ones, and deal with them. with cricket getting more and more acrimonious he is a ticking time-bomb

What should he have done? He saw the ball marked, reckoned it was due to tampering, called a 5 run penalty, called for England to choose a new ball and then that was that.

groannnnnn.....groundhog day

lets not get into specific instances, this could be very tedious. what i said pretty much applies to his whole career as an ump

The One wrote:

holcs wrote:

The One wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:Rules now dictate that he waits to report it rather than calling it real-time. So, as he's always followed the letter of the law, then no.

thats one of the main reasons i'm not in favour of hair standing as ump. he follows only the letter of the law, or the law as he seems to understand it backed by his ridiculous sense of self-righteousness, and has no intelligence or nous to judge real-life situations, esp explosive ones, and deal with them. with cricket getting more and more acrimonious he is a ticking time-bomb

So he should let the laws get flouted, just in case someone or a team throw a tantrum??

no, but he should be more than sure when levelling a very serious charge against a team and player, esp considering his limited capabilities with regards to situations that require intelligence. and more often than not a good umpire defuses a potentially ugly incident before it happens. hair seems to do the opposite

Ah, so excuse Mr Arjuna... I do believe your man here MUrali is chucking. Could you ask him please to keep his arm straight?

Or Excuse me Mr Ul-Haq, now i'm not sure, but I do believe one of your players may well have been tampering with this here ball. No i would kindly ask you to request they do not do it anymore?

Impossible to do. Laws are laws, whether you enforce them with a giggle and smile on your face, or whether your dead-pan and over-officious. Either way they should be enforced. Its unfortunate that in both instances the captains of both teams took the tantrum option, instead of actually going down the normal route of appeal etc...

So in fact its the players fault on both occassions IMO, for not using their intelligence and knowledge of the workings of the processes in cricket.

Wooooooooooooooohoooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!