Daryl Hair causes Paki walk off!!

[Rik E Boy]

FFS, ban the pakis, cheating pricks, just like south ahhaha

Bulltish. Hair got it wrong. Regarding Murali, he got it right but the ICC didn't have the balls to back him.

regards,

REB

[blink]

Regarding Murali, he got it right but the ICC didn't have the balls to back him.

Thats what I meant by proved wrong - due to the ICC changing the rules to accomodate Murali. You have no argument there from me.

But what he did in this match is a disgrace, what went on should have occured after the match, behind closed doors. Even Pakistan's president has been getting invovled - calling it a slur against Pakistan and it's honour!!

[JK]

"Darrell Hair is now saying that if Pakistan take the field, he won't."

What a wanker.

Ur kidding me aren't ya?? Surely if a team doesn't take the field then that's game over!!

If Hairs decision regarding tampering wasn't within the rules then he should be hauled over the coals on it, BUT, once the decision was made, right or wrong, if a team thinks they are above the game and refuse to take the field then IMHO, game over, you lose!

[abber]

It's interesting the racist card has been played again.

Dean Jones makes a "terrorist" comment and the spotlight is put on to Australia by the press as to it being a racist country.

Imran Khan calls Hair "Hitler". Not a word said.

[RustyCage]

"Darrell Hair is now saying that if Pakistan take the field, he won't."

What a wanker.

Ur kidding me aren't ya?? Surely if a team doesn't take the field then that's game over!!

If Hairs decision regarding tampering wasn't within the rules then he should be hauled over the coals on it, BUT, once the decision was made, right or wrong, if a team thinks they are above the game and refuse to take the field then IMHO, game over, you lose!

True, but when the other umpire, England, Pakistan and the match referee were happy for play to resume, even if it was at the start of day 5, and then umpire adolf refuses, somethings wrong.

The Pakis should boycott any game for the rest of the tour involving Hair.

[blink]

Imran Khan calls Hair "Hitler". Not a word said.

That is because the people who would care don't even know what cricket is!!

[heater31]

seriously lads, the pakis should have got on with the game and possibly won it then fight it out to clear their reputation not sook like a bunch of year 5s by taking their bat and ball and going home.

[RustyCage]

A matter of honour, says Inzamam

Exclusive by Andrew Miller

August 21, 2006



Inzamam-ul-Haq sticks by his stance, saying it's a matter of honour © Getty Images


Inzamam-ul-Haq has confirmed that the Pakistani stance on their forfeited Test at The Oval is a matter of honour, after the match ball was changed by umpire Darrell Hair midway through the afternoon session.

"This game is about more than winning and losing," he told Cricinfo, "it's about respect and countries come first. If someone says to me you are a cheat and Pakistan is doing wrong things, my first priority is to my country."


Play was held up for 45 minutes after tea, following Pakistan's initial refusal to take the field, but Inzamam insisted: "We were ready to play. The main issue was not whether we were going onto the field, it was whether the ball had been tampered with or not.


"We had lodged our protest and after that we came [down] to the ground as normal as if we are playing. But then the umpires were not coming. It is up to them, and we await the referee's hearing committee."


It is not the first time that Pakistan has crossed swords with the controversial figure Hair, and Inzamam was unequivocal in his stance. "This allegation is mean," he said. "He's not saying what his allegation is, he's just saying your guy is cheating. In my personal opinion, TV will show if anyone is tampering.

"It's very simple," he continued. "There are 26 cameras there [from Sky Sports] and nobody's picked anything. This hearing will not take place in the [referee's] room, it's on the front of the media, everything is on the media."

Inzamam ran through the chain of events in his on-pitch confrontation with the umpires. "They did not warn me," he said, "and then they gave five [penalty] runs. [Hair] did not talk to me, he wasn't telling me when he's changed the ball, he didn't ask me 'can we change the ball?'"

The discussion continued when Hair went up to the Pakistan dressing-room to ask if they would be taking the field. "Personally I asked him: 'why did you change the ball?'", said Inzamam, adding that Hair responded that the ball had been tampered with, but then refused to show Inzamam the ball when he was asked, saying that it was in the referee's room.

"I said it is in my rights to see the ball," he added, "to show that the ball is doing nothing. I wanted to say it's ok, the condition of the ball has not changed, but Hair says 'It's my decision.'"

When asked if Pakistan felt persecuted by Hair, Inzamam responded: "Yes definitely. It's not once [with Hair], it's lots of times, we've already sent a letter before this to the ICC, asking that he does not umpire in Pakistan games. But still he is doing it. The controversy is always there.

"It's a big disappointment for me and my team and especially for cricket, the way this game was going. But I don't think we could carry on like this. If someone like this says "cheat" then this game is not on.

"There is definitely no problem with the England team," he confirmed, after last night's joint statement had confirmed that both teams had been willing to resume the game. "We know people were coming to watch today and we are sorry the game is not on," he added. "But we are sticking on to our decision because it's not the right thing that is going on."

In Inzamam's opinion, at this moment in time the five-match one-day series is not under threat.

Andrew Miller is UK editor of Cricinfo

© Cricinfo

[MagicKiwi]

If Hairs decision regarding tampering wasn't within the rules then he should be hauled over the coals on it, BUT, once the decision was made, right or wrong, if a team thinks they are above the game and refuse to take the field then IMHO, game over, you lose!

What happens when an umpire thinks he's bigger than the game Constant?

Imran Khan calls Hair "Hitler". Not a word said.

I think you'll find he's had to withdraw that foolish statement abber.

I think this is absolutely disgraceful without proof and by the sounds of things, there won't be any to find. I would think Hair's days are numbered umpiring elite games.

[JK]

If Hairs decision regarding tampering wasn't within the rules then he should be hauled over the coals on it, BUT, once the decision was made, right or wrong, if a team thinks they are above the game and refuse to take the field then IMHO, game over, you lose!

What happens when an umpire thinks he's bigger than the game Constant?

Exactly the same as should happen to the Paki's MK ... At the COMPLETION of the game, he is dealt with by the relevant authorites and punished accordingly!

I'm not suggesting one way or another whether Hair's decision was correct or not, but REGARDLESS, NO team can be allowed to dictate when they will or won't play cricket ...

[JK]

Crash Craddock's article this morning is an interesting read ...

TO his great credit Darrell Hair is prepared to poke his nose into grubby areas of cricket most of his fellow umpires refuse to touch.

Over the years he's been called dictatorial and officious and both accusations have at times been correct.
But they should never overshadow the one great strength of his decision-making - the courage to back his opinion even when the protesting millions disagree with it.

He did it by calling Muttiah Muralitharan a chucker 11 years ago and the fallout - including death threats and a broken marriage - were greater than any man deserved to cop for simply applying the rules of the game.

He's done it again in England by finding Pakistan guilty of ball tampering and calling off a Test match.

Even if he is proved right, Hair cannot win because the decision will almost certainly ruin his life.

His name will forever be mud on the Indian subcontinent and among the many Asian folk who live in England where Hair is domiciled with his partner Amanda.

The influential block of four Asian nations who play Test cricket will almost certainly try and run him out of the game and what they want they normally get.

It's a shame.

Cricket needs no-nonsense characters like Hair who keep the game honest.

Over the years I have met several umpires who had no doubt Muralitharan was a chucker but would whisper lines like "but I'm not going to call him because it's just not worth the hassle."

Last year in England I met a county umpire who said he used to sniff cricket balls and laugh with bowlers over the choice of flavoured mints they used to illegally apply to the ball to make it swing.

Upfront Hair has never been like that. Say what you like about him - most people do - but at least he stands up for what he believes in and makes the tough calls most men of his trade shy away from.

Opinion is divided over whether Hair actually saw someone tampering with the ball at The Oval on the weekend but did he really have to?

Before he started a first-class umpiring career that spans 18 years, Hair was a fast bowler who plied his trade in Orange in NSW before heading to Sydney to play grade cricket for North Sydney and Mosman.

He has seen all the tricks. He knows a "tampered" ball when he sees one.

[blink]

NO team can be allowed to dictate when they will or won't play cricket ...

Technically they can...

What if Australia was scheduled to play a test match in a sub-continental country that happen to be in the midst of civil war or hightened security threats - should they be forced to play there.

Of course that situation is completely different but it will be very, very interesting to see how the ICC deals with this fiasco. Like Craddock said in his article these Asian nations seem to regularly get their own way (usually by playing the racism card).

[Peter Falconia]

Well Done Big Dazza.

Once again he has shown that he is the only umpire in world cricket who is willing to uphold the laws of the game. Once again a sub continent country spits the dummy big time and pulls the race card. Whether it's ball tampering, doctoring pitches, betting scandals or suspect bowling actions, the asian countries are right in the middle of it. Shahid Afridi anyone? Doing a nice spin move right on a good length.

Of course this means the end of Hair's career. The ICC don't even have the balls to stand up to the Asian teams and protect their own employee.

[JK]

Just out of interest, would the ICC be able to take the offending ball to expert analysis dudes (like Grisham or Horatio) and have them confirm whether in fact it had or had not been illegally interfered with?

[heater31]

NO team can be allowed to dictate when they will or won't play cricket ...

Technically they can...

What if Australia was scheduled to play a test match in a sub-continental country that happen to be in the midst of civil war or hightened security threats - should they be forced to play there.

Of course that situation is completely different but it will be very, very interesting to see how the ICC deals with this fiasco. Like Craddock said in his article these Asian nations seem to regularly get their own way (usually by playing the racism card).

the game hasnt actually started so all they can do is to refuse on the grounds of safety but these matches are re programmed at another venue or at a more suitable time. the pakis had started the game and the last time i checked that play is between the hours of 11am and 6pm. Asia has the ICC by the balls and if the penalty is too harsh then we will see a revolt of massive proportions. so its very likely not much will happen

[spell_check]

Well Done Big Dazza.

Once again he has shown that he is the only umpire in world cricket who is willing to uphold the laws of the game. Once again a sub continent country spits the dummy big time and pulls the race card. Whether it's ball tampering, doctoring pitches, betting scandals or suspect bowling actions, the asian countries are right in the middle of it. Shahid Afridi anyone? Doing a nice spin move right on a good length.

Of course this means the end of Hair's career. The ICC don't even have the balls to stand up to the Asian teams and protect their own employee.

Exactly. Whether or not Pakistan players were ball tampering, they (and in particular Inzamam and Bob Woolmer) should have been concerned with that after the match had been played. Truly they showed a lack of class and had a dummy spit over it.

[Maddogmike]

Makybe - Darryl Hair should have waited til TEA in the cricket, and then checked with Sky TV to see if he had any evidence to back up his claim that the ball has been tampered with. Sky TV have gone through all of their camera angles, which also follows the ball from the keeper back to the bowler and they still cant find any evidence to suggest ball tampering!

I know the Paki's are stinky, but I think Darryl Hair could have gone about it in a different way also.

If you dont agree with me - F*&k off haha!

[Rik E Boy]

I agree Mike. Yes, the Pakis shouldn't have spit the dummy, but Hair could have handled it differently.

regards,

REB

[MagicKiwi]

Yep I agree too. Poorly handled and a rush of blood decision that will crucify him.

[Dissident]

The spirit of the game is what' simportant, and I see Pakistan as having done wrong by it.Irrespective of whether or not Hair was right or wrong, Pakistan should have taken the field. They refused to do so for a very long time (20 minutes). After the game was called off, they then took the field (30 minutes later),
making the officials look worse. So for me, it is Pakistan who have done far more against the Spirit of Game.

If they don't like the umpires call fine, complain at length and what have you. And if Hair needs to be lynched, then fine, lynch him. But not during the tea break of the fourth day of a game. There is a time and place. None of these problems would be going on if Pakistan had done the right thing and taken the field. Instead, they sat it out like spoilt children who weren't getting it their way.

How about running on the pitch? Is there a difference between doing it accidently and doing it willfully? The former is gaining an unfair advantage, the latter is blantant cheating. But both are still running on the pitch.

What has happened is not good, but it was, once the initial decision was made, the only course of action. Pakistan refused to play. They were given more than enough time to take the field, and a fair chance to explain themselves. They did neither. Sad, but true.