ICC reinstates Darrel Hair as Test & ODI umpire

Best South Park episode ever!

HH_pink wrote:Polly Prissy Pants.

HH_pink wrote: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.

So in your book the Pak shennanigins at the Oval back in Sept 2006 was acceptable was it?
But badly handled ... right?
I am astonished that Kofi Annan wasn't flown over nor Nelson Mandela's advice not sought on an "acceptable compromise".
Weren't kid leather gloves provided ? Social Services consulted ? Counselors in attendance?

Here's an exercize in diplomacy and law abidance -
Let's switch England for say errrr... India, or WI or indeed Sri Lanka against pakistan in that match.
Would the 'henious robot' then have been castigated or lauded for his thoroughness in upholding the law?
Think verycarefully about it before ripping a reply from your rear end.

FFS

Yes, merlin. I would still have said the same thing. There's nothing racial in any of these arguments yet you insist on bringing race into it. Why didn't you include Australia or New Zealand or South Africa in your "hypothetical scenario"? I think it's you that needs to think a bit more carefully before going on tirades with personal insults thrown in. So far it looks like my rear end is doing a good job, so you wouldn't want to see what my front and top ends can do.

I apologise Pinkie - personal insults were not intended and are withdrawn unconditionally - sometimes the myopia and "tolerance" factor seem overwhelming excuses that get strewn around in order to degrade a decent official, and these drive me to distraction.

But do let's get one thing straight - my comments have absolutely NOTHING to do with racist attitudes, racism or any such crap - SO LET'S DROP THAT CARD OKAY,

Concentrate instead on the fervour with which Indian fans support their cricket.
So, an Umpire (Hair in this case) spots an infringement against the Indian team
which he labels as blatant cheating.
Do you honestly believe that the affair would have been handled any differently -
by the robot, or his fellow umpire or indeed the match officials?
Would you have wanted it to have been?
And what of the reaction of said Indian fans as the effigy manufacturers worked overtime on the monstrously large inflamable Inzaman figures?

I digress with frivolity.... but think about it.
Would there be kisses and forgiveness and demands for humility and tolerance and understanding from the BCCI when they had a billion fans baying for restitution?

Treading on eggshells is not for the faint hearted Pink.
The robot suspected cheating, he called it like he saw it, and I would suggest that India would have applauded the decision ....
but heavens ... a nations "honour" was suddenly brought to the fore (and THAT, I would submit WAS an emotive race card being played by the PCB)... as were 20 barristers and assistants!
And yet - Hair was absolved and now, a year later, restored to full duty again.

The law is just that.
It is there to protect and be upheld.
There is no easy way of introducing diplomacy to a situation that bordered on cheating.
As Tap dancing Afridi knows only too well !!

i think hair is an effective umpire...and we are short of them at the moment...

nonetheless it is a bit like Australia selecting Magoo - who can be an effective bowler in the right circumstances - or India selecting ganguly - or england selecting bell...or any team selecting slaw

like these players, Hair can be effective but is he good for the game?...does he uphold the spirit of cricket? the answer should be a resounding no

fwiw i supported his calling of mumu (it was correct under the then laws) but did not support his handling of the pakistan ball tampering fiasco...the guy has not one ounce of sense in his noggin

get ******, horrie . . .

hmmn...a reasonable response in the circumstances, ie given it was a tac posting ...my first 6* of the day...

It's always good to get the first one in early . . .

rofl...zimmy would be pleased!!...do you agree with my view of Hair>

Not really . . . I think he and Billy had found signs of tampering and acted accordingly, but the Paksters used the fact it was Hair (they had already made murmuring of him being racist by that stage) to escalate things . . . if it wasn't at the Oval it would have happened somewhere else. Pakster "national pride" was a ticking time bomb.

i expect the call was right...tho the evidence was not there later...just think he did not handle the situation well...of course the paksters, guilty or not, would have kicked up a storm anyway...will prolly stop them doing it for a while

horace wrote:i expect the call was right...tho the evidence was not there later...just think he did not handle the situation well...of course the paksters, guilty or not, would have kicked up a storm anyway...will prolly stop them doing it for a while

the evidence was not there? What did Madugalle say, it was equally possible that it was not tampering as tampering? He saw the ball days later, whereas the umpires were examining it on a regular basis. Sounds like a lame attempt by Madugalle to brush to patch up a compromise and appease the Paksters.

Sorry to labour the point, but Billy Doctrove was equally responsible for the decisions that were made on that fateful afternoon...

Absolutley, FDello, soemthing which is often quite conveniently forgotten . . . but, of course, Doc was the junior umpire . . .

Yes, and hence the responsibility ought to be shared unevenly. Plus, he has a history in such matters, so it is only fair to assume that it was more or less his decision and Doctrove just played along.

Yes, a professional umpire just played along and didn't have any thoughts of his own.

tac wrote:Absolutley, FDello, soemthing which is often quite conveniently forgotten . . . but, of course, Doc was the junior umpire . . .

He was so junior that he barely existed. ICC president Ray Mali didn't even know Doctrove was West Indian, IIRC...

HH_pink wrote:Yes, and hence the responsibility ought to be shared unevenly. Plus, he has a history in such matters, so it is only fair to assume that it was more or less his decision and Doctrove just played along.

Massive NSR, Pinky. There is no such thing as a "junior" umpire

HH_pink wrote:Yes, and hence the responsibility ought to be shared unevenly. Plus, he has a history in such matters, so it is only fair to assume that it was more or less his decision and Doctrove just played along.

NSR.

There's no such thing as a junior umpire.

Double the point, double the power.

Fark, that's scary, JD!

Are you both the same person?

It's like when women spend too long in the company of each other and their menstrual cycles start to synchronise.

Or something...

I'm telling you, Dello's a twisted evil genius. 80% of the characters on this forum are his creations. He posts with all of them using his army of slave monkeys. He's even managed to invent something as outlandish as tac.