Hair v ICC, employment tribunal, London, Oct 1st to 9th

> Merls, what Aussies didn't support Hair? Some thought him not the most charming of men, but I can't remember anyone suggesting he wasn't right according to the laws of cricket?


Agree with this. Just about all the Aussies and Poms on the board (and Bliks too I think) supported Hair's right to do what he did (if not the actual decision or how he went about it).

tac wrote:

Merls, what Aussies didn't support Hair? Some thought him not the most charming of men, but I can't remember anyone suggesting he wasn't right according to the laws of cricket?

Yes, I thought that might stir the hornets nest ... but trust me, there were more than a couple of Aussies on the C4 forum who certainly did voice concern at Hair's 'unilateral' action and arrogance.
Believe Bliks was also agin Hair then...
Anyway, it isn't a fabrication, at the time, the two most voiciferous pro-Hair happened to be 2 maybe 3 Poms - viz Chas and myself, Danny too I think, whilst others maintained a deafening silence or neutralised the debate with non committal comments.
We copped serious flak - some abusive, from the Paksters (and Lagster, JayPatel etc) and generally everyone who disliked Hair for whatever reason!! The R card was played aggressively and often causing the demise of at least 3 threads by the Mods for that specific reason.
It matters not in the end tac.

Fact is, back then I recalled how mute the Australian defensive voice was and how ironic that it was Poms who were rallying to the defence of an Aussie umpire...

Anyway - no matter .... let's just celebrate when he wins.

One argument I am willing to concede however is the fact that the Test did not involve the Australian team and as such perhaps interest from Oz wasn't as acute as it would have been and as it was here ... whereas we closely followed every frame of the action, minute by minute, as the fiasco of the 4th day unveiled itself.

But like I said - it matters not ultimately as long as Dazza wins.

Merlin wrote:

tac wrote:

Merls, what Aussies didn't support Hair? Some thought him not the most charming of men, but I can't remember anyone suggesting he wasn't right according to the laws of cricket?

Yes, I thought that might stir the hornets nest ... but trust me, there were more than a couple of Aussies on the C4 forum who certainly did voice concern at Hair's 'unilateral' action and arrogance.
Believe Bliks was also agin Hair then...
Anyway, it isn't a fabrication, at the time, the two most voiciferous pro-Hair happened to be 2 maybe 3 Poms - viz Chas and myself, Danny too I think, whilst others maintained a deafening silence or neutralised the debate with non committal comments.
We copped serious flak - some abusive, from the Paksters (and Lagster, JayPatel etc) and generally everyone who disliked Hair for whatever reason!! The R card was played aggressively and often causing the demise of at least 3 threads by the Mods for that specific reason.
It matters not in the end tac.

Fact is, back then I recalled how mute the Australian defensive voice was and how ironic that it was Poms who were rallying to the defence of an Aussie umpire...

Anyway - no matter .... let's just celebrate when he wins.

Yes, I remember the race card being played hard and often, but I was definitely in the "Back Hair" party.

tac wrote:

Merlin wrote:

tac wrote:

Merls, what Aussies didn't support Hair? Some thought him not the most charming of men, but I can't remember anyone suggesting he wasn't right according to the laws of cricket?

Yes, I thought that might stir the hornets nest ... but trust me, there were more than a couple of Aussies on the C4 forum who certainly did voice concern at Hair's 'unilateral' action and arrogance.
Believe Bliks was also agin Hair then...
Anyway, it isn't a fabrication, at the time, the two most voiciferous pro-Hair happened to be 2 maybe 3 Poms - viz Chas and myself, Danny too I think, whilst others maintained a deafening silence or neutralised the debate with non committal comments.
We copped serious flak - some abusive, from the Paksters (and Lagster, JayPatel etc) and generally everyone who disliked Hair for whatever reason!! The R card was played aggressively and often causing the demise of at least 3 threads by the Mods for that specific reason.
It matters not in the end tac.

Fact is, back then I recalled how mute the Australian defensive voice was and how ironic that it was Poms who were rallying to the defence of an Aussie umpire...

Anyway - no matter .... let's just celebrate when he wins.

Yes, I remember the race card being played hard and often, but I was definitely in the "Back Hair" party.

It always is.

It will be interesting to see what transpires after he wins. Will more umpires be willing to take a firm line on applying the letter of the law?

Nah, I wasn't too vociferous. I got that way after a) race was so vehemently brought into it(at the start it was sooky murmurs) and b) the anti-Hairs started trying to make a faceless tribunal, which in black and white he was treated badly, again into a judgement of their aspersions.

S F Barnes wrote:It will be interesting to see what transpires after he wins. Will more umpires be willing to take a firm line on applying the letter of the law?

We can hope. Although Rudi might struggle next time he stands in a subi test . . .

S F Barnes wrote:It will be interesting to see what transpires after he wins. Will more umpires be willing to take a firm line on applying the letter of the law?

Shock, horrow, might they even have the balls to call bowlers for chucking.

S F Barnes wrote:It will be interesting to see what transpires after he wins. Will more umpires be willing to take a firm line on applying the letter of the law?

I very much doubt that.

In fact, quite the contrary, PCness will be even more rigidly observed by the Umpires (and stressed by the ICC) in order not to upset and irritate those Boards who have fragile tolerance of having their knuckles rapped when knowingly in the wrong.

Re. The ICC - To be shown up as incompetant employers is one thing .... upsetting their paymasters is another.

Well, Darrells case could well be in tatters- Billy Doctrove, his main witness, has failed to show at court today.

Henry wrote:Well, Darrells case could well be in tatters- Billy Doctrove, his main witness, has failed to show at court today.

Coward.

Ooh, wonder why?

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:Well, Darrells case could well be in tatters- Billy Doctrove, his main witness, has failed to show at court today.

Coward.

Thats a farking understatement!

Geez, that isnt at all presumptuous of you, Taipan.

Presumptous of all of you.

Henry wrote:Geez, that isnt at all presumptuous of you, Taipan.

Glad you agree

Batfink Begins wrote:Ooh, wonder why?

Hmmm, been nobbled perhaps....

After this case

I suspect the change the ICC will make will be ...

In televised matches ...the balls will be changed if the Umpires think it has been illegally altered or if they dont like the shape ...No Penalty runs will be awarded....The ball and TV footage will be scrutinised for evidence if tampering ...Big Penalty on anyone caught tampering

Basically ...like the chucking rule ...it will be ignored ...and impossible to police ...but still be on the books

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:Geez, that isnt at all presumptuous of you, Taipan.

Glad you agree

Do you even know what presumptuous means?

Henry wrote:

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:Geez, that isnt at all presumptuous of you, Taipan.

Glad you agree

Do you even know what presumptuous means?

Yes, and if you read what you wrote, very carefully, you will discover you said I wasn't presumptuous.

Game, set and match.

See everyone tomorrow.

Oh yes.....Taipan mr NSR strikes again. Fool.

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:Geez, that isnt at all presumptuous of you, Taipan.

Glad you agree

Do you even know what presumptuous means?

Yes, and if you read what you wrote, very carefully, you will discover you said I wasn't presumptuous.

Game, set and match.

See everyone tomorrow.

NSR?

doremi wrote:

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:Geez, that isnt at all presumptuous of you, Taipan.

Glad you agree

Do you even know what presumptuous means?

Yes, and if you read what you wrote, very carefully, you will discover you said I wasn't presumptuous.

Game, set and match.

See everyone tomorrow.

NSR?

No, taips has just shown that the best way to disarm sarcasm is to take it at face value.

Tac, to borrow a quote from Glenn Mcgrath, what does Taipan's c*ck taste like?