ICC reinstates Darrel Hair as Test & ODI umpire

TO's point with an illustration:

Take the Sidebottom>Jesus thread. If I had wanted to post 'Is Sidebottom better than Mohammad?', I'd have probably annoyed or offended some of the Muslims on this forum. So I wouldn't post it out of respect for Makaveli and others. However, I have every right to post such a statement due to my freedom of speech and I also believe that I should be able to post it if I want to. However, I wouldn't out of respect and diplomacy.


I'm not saying I fully agree with it but I think that's the point TO's trying to make in reference to Hair. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:TO's point with an illustration:

Take the Sidebottom>Jesus thread. If I had wanted to post 'Is Sidebottom better than Mohammad?', I'd have probably annoyed or offended some of the Muslims on this forum. So I wouldn't post it out of respect for Makaveli and others. However, I have every right to post such a statement due to my freedom of speech and I also believe that I should be able to post it if I want to. However, I wouldn't out of respect and diplomacy.


I'm not saying I fully agree with it but I think that's the point TO's trying to make in reference to Hair. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Darrel Hair didn't do anything racial at all. WTF??????????

All he did was say, I think your man is chucking and I think your ball tampering within my professional opinion as an umpire and under the rules of cricket.

ICC reinstates Darrel Hair as Test & ODI umpire

If it is indeed true (I always take Buckeye's post with an ocean of salt) ...
.... then Hoooof**kingray.
Justice at last - and I hope to hell he's claimed back pay from the wimps dating back to september 2006.

holcs wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:TO's point with an illustration:

Take the Sidebottom>Jesus thread. If I had wanted to post 'Is Sidebottom better than Mohammad?', I'd have probably annoyed or offended some of the Muslims on this forum. So I wouldn't post it out of respect for Makaveli and others. However, I have every right to post such a statement due to my freedom of speech and I also believe that I should be able to post it if I want to. However, I wouldn't out of respect and diplomacy.


I'm not saying I fully agree with it but I think that's the point TO's trying to make in reference to Hair. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Darrel Hair didn't do anything racial at all. WTF??????????

All he did was say, I think your man is chucking and I think your ball tampering within my professional opinion as an umpire and under the rules of cricket.

I didn't say he did do anything racial. As far as I can tell TO was not just talking about the Oval. He was talking about Hair's lack of respect, diplomacy and people skills. I tried to show how respect, diplomacy and people skills are used on the forum.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:TO's point with an illustration:

Take the Sidebottom>Jesus thread. If I had wanted to post 'Is Sidebottom better than Mohammad?', I'd have probably annoyed or offended some of the Muslims on this forum. So I wouldn't post it out of respect for Makaveli and others. However, I have every right to post such a statement due to my freedom of speech and I also believe that I should be able to post it if I want to. However, I wouldn't out of respect and diplomacy.


I'm not saying I fully agree with it but I think that's the point TO's trying to make in reference to Hair. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong.... and so is the point TO's trying to make (especially as he refers to Hair as unintelligent)
WTF has diplomacy got to do with upholding the letter of the law?

Example:
Cop to Drunk Driver : Sir, you've been drinking.
Drunk: Coursh not ossifer, be very careful when you accuse me.
Cop: Well I believe you have been drinking sir, but, as your specialist army of barristers could possibly sue
my arse off on some uncertain technicality, with respect, sod the farkin' laws because I'm going to be
awfully diplomatic and let you off scot free ... I'm merely saving my ass.


LLL - you either CALL IT - or you don't. The Laws are there to be observed and upheld.
Leave the diplomacy back at the UN and stop fence sitting.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:He was talking about Hair's lack of respect, diplomacy and people skills. I tried to show how respect, diplomacy and people skills are used on the forum.

Dickie Bird had all that in abundance. But he would get ripped apart in todays hawkeye/internet messageboard/365 different replays age...

Had to be knocking middle out halfway up before he'd even consider an lbw.

Ask TO, it's his opinion. Yes, you do call the laws but you do it in a way that doesn't get people's backs up. That's his point.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:

holcs wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:TO's point with an illustration:

Take the Sidebottom>Jesus thread. If I had wanted to post 'Is Sidebottom better than Mohammad?', I'd have probably annoyed or offended some of the Muslims on this forum. So I wouldn't post it out of respect for Makaveli and others. However, I have every right to post such a statement due to my freedom of speech and I also believe that I should be able to post it if I want to. However, I wouldn't out of respect and diplomacy.


I'm not saying I fully agree with it but I think that's the point TO's trying to make in reference to Hair. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Darrel Hair didn't do anything racial at all. WTF??????????

All he did was say, I think your man is chucking and I think your ball tampering within my professional opinion as an umpire and under the rules of cricket.

I didn't say he did do anything racial. As far as I can tell TO was not just talking about the Oval. He was talking about Hair's lack of respect, diplomacy and people skills. I tried to show how respect, diplomacy and people skills are used on the forum.

IMO, the example is horribly flawed then LLL.

I'm not sure Hair does have a lack of respect. I think its the fact he respects the laws of the game too much that is his problem. He also believes in following the rules to the letter, and not pandering to players ego's etc...

As for diplomacy and people skills, yes they may be lacking, but to be honest, as long as he calls it down the line and makes decisions to the letter of the law, I couldn't care less.

As I have said before, in both the examples I have given, the players/captains reactions to him following the laws was IMO disrespectful to the game, and also disrespectful to the position of the umpire, any umpire. Whether you like the farker in white or not that is standing, his decision goes on the field of play, and if it is proven wrong through the correct procedures off the pitch, then he is wholly accountable.

In this instance Hair was proved wrong in a (Kangaroo) court and has served his penance. Doesn't take away the fact he was one of the best umpires there was on the ICC lists at the time.

Not that I agree with the ruling one bit!!!

JKLever wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:He was talking about Hair's lack of respect, diplomacy and people skills. I tried to show how respect, diplomacy and people skills are used on the forum.

Dickie Bird had all that in abundance. But he would get ripped apart in todays hawkeye/internet messageboard/365 different replays age...

Had to be knocking middle out halfway up before he'd even consider an lbw.

Dickie Bird stood in an age where you still had the remnants of gentlemen playing the game.
I'm NOT (repeat NOT) saying they're not gentlemen today - but the game is much more professional
and steeped in money - where a single decision could make the difference of £50k to a player ...
professional appealing, antics on the field, antics off the field, taking teams off the field in a huff ...

Face it - Dickie didn't have all that shit (plus 16 TV cameras watching his every decision) ...
Wonder how much his respect and diplomacy would have lasted in todays game?
Not a great deal, I'd wager ... nice man though he is.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Ask TO, it's his opinion. Yes, you do call the laws but you do it in a way that doesn't get people's backs up. That's his point.

Wrong. You accept when you enter the field the umpire is the ultimate power of decision making on the field. If you are getting done by the umpire because you're running on the pitch or scuffing the ball up, you need to look at yourself before apportioning blame IMO.

Like I said - not my point, TOs. I was just trying to understand and illustrate his view.


Anyway, this has all been done before (at great length). We'll all be waking up to "I got you babe" and trying to top ourselves if we do it again.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Like I said - not my point, TOs. I was just trying to understand and illustrate his view.


Anyway, this has all been done before (at great length). We'll all be waking up to "I got you babe" and trying to top ourselves if we do it again.

I get TO's views, I just think they are wrong. Just thought your example was slightly flawed.

Horribly slightly?

Potayto potarto, horribly, slightly. Let's call the whole thing off.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Like I said - not my point, TOs. I was just trying to understand and illustrate his view.


Anyway, this has all been done before (at great length). We'll all be waking up to "I got you babe" and trying to top ourselves if we do it again.

Any diversion from the 'We demand justice' thread is only a good thing.

Yeah, yeah ... just coz tac and Danny boy ignored your pleas !

Have to say though ... their made my "spat" with LLL seem like a tete a tete over a pillow fight !!

Said at the time he surprisingly withdrew his case against the ICC (which he appeared to be winning) that he'd probably done a deal where he gets reinstated after the dust has settled.

Good luck to him - seems like a bit of a tool, but he's a decent umpire and didn't deserve the crap thrown at him for the heinous crime of enforcing the rules as they're written.

Pakpassion is going mental about this.

Justice at last - should not have been banned in the first place though.

Agreed.

Rob I wrote:Pakpassion is going mental about this.

Not suprising really. Just something else for them to cry racism over.

He might've been an excellent umpire, with a robotic knowledge of every specific detail of the rules and laws of the game, but that he wasn't intelligent enough to be independent and discerning in his judgements is the point some are trying to make, I think. In most cases, he did not have nearly enough data, and that's where the need for him to be diplomatic (meaning, upholding the laws in spirit rather than by the book (the latter, a robot can do just as well, and maybe even better)) came in. He could've taken it backstage and waited until he got more data, consulted the referee, etc. But no, he was a showman. I don't understand why many of you think he was nice (he was a good umpire, yeah, but not a nice umpire), because to me he always seemed to be up his own arse.

TO and Mak's postion nicely surmised, HH. Not bad for a stupid person.

Sorry, I'm in fisticuffs mode.

That's OK, Laura dear, I understand your need to always be in such a mode. Now go have a little tea set party with Miss PPP, LLL.

Yeah, it better be alright thicko!

Who's Miss PPP?

Polly Prissy Pants.