Politics November 4, 2006

Hair no more

It seems awful to celebrate the end of anybody's career but today's news from Mumbai will bring some cheer to Pakistan fans reeling from the loss of their two best bowlers
25

It seems awful to celebrate the end of anybody's career but today's news from Mumbai will bring some cheer to Pakistan fans reeling from the loss of their two best bowlers. The ICC's verdict will also cheer Indian and Sri Lankan fans, all of whom have suffered by Darrell Hair's finger. The Australian umpire has been brazen and unapologetic about his role in the first forfeited match in the history of Test cricket. The rights and wrongs of this incident have been debated to death but one point stands out above all others for me: no official is important enough to end a game when all the players and spectators want it to continue. Hair's end is a triumph for Inzamam but also for cricket as entertainment. Let's never again forget what really matters.

Kamran Abbasi is an editor, writer and broadcaster. He tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Ramesh Rajaduray on February 8, 2007, 0:39 GMT

    Darrell Hair's character is going to be questioned. How would anyone here like it if one of your employees says "Look, I've made a mistake. I'll do the honourable thing and resign and you pay me $500,000 as compensation". Those e-mails have really made a mess of Darrell Hair's case. As Malcolm Speed pointed out, the e-mails were inappropriate at that time. Sorry Darrell, but you've shot yourself in the foot big time!

    Darrell Hair strikes me as either incredibly naive or incredibly pig-headed. It sounds like the latter. I'm sure the ICC lawyers are going to have a field day shredding his case in court. Firstly, if someone felt they were right, why would they offer to resign? You could argue that he was under pressure, but then to put forward a plausible case for $500k?

    The court case will be fun

  • Zahra on December 1, 2006, 12:42 GMT

    Mr. Ahmed if shoaib Akhtar may be a show off to you. But can anyone imagine, why he is called a showoff. Because people are scared of him, jelous of his blasting bulls...to which no one can be compared. People call Him show off. I call those people Jealous.

  • intrepid on November 18, 2006, 23:32 GMT

    So Mr Hair was the ICC's second best umpire when the Asian bloc decided that his courage and willingness to uphold the laws of cricket could no longer be tolerated..a black day for cricket, and maybe the beginning of the end for a single world cricket body..Pakistan fans would obviously be keen to go back to the days of having their own umpires, when Javed could stand in front of his stumps knowing he would never be given out LBW..when Hair called Murali, he was proved correct, and the Asian dominated power bloc had the Law changed to allow the dacoit (Mr Bedi's assessment) to continue..and his stand on ball tampering will also lead to a change in the Law (which as a former bowler is fine by me!)

  • Azfar Alam on November 17, 2006, 11:32 GMT

    Today I was surprised to see the news that Hair is the 'Umpire of the year'....maybe for all the wrong reasons !! Anyway, it is great to see the back of Mr. Hair...cricket can do without such characters. Umpires are there to facilitate and officiate the game.If they try to take centrestage then they are headed for trouble.That was precisely Mr. Hair's problem. Shakoor Rana had the same problem and hence the number of incidents associated with him.

    Hair considered himself the crusader who is there to clean up the game. It is another matter that most often his crusades used to be against the Asian Teams!! I doubt if he got along with any of the players. All the great umpires we have had like Dickie Bird, David Shepard etc used to get along with the players and the players used to take their odd bad decision sportingly. Hair never appeared to enjoy what he was doing....he seemed like an stern headmaster. Inzi was taken to task by most people for taking such a stand...but that's precisely what has brought the end of Mr Hair's career. The blame lies with ICC for persisting with an umpire who was so controversial and biased. It was ICC's way of getting back against the Asian Countries who were flexing their muscles to show that all ICC revenue comes from there......

  • radha on November 12, 2006, 8:46 GMT

    either the pauls and nathans of this world are ignorant of hair's history or are laughably disingenuous or both. the asian nations have been complaining for years about hair's bias and high-handedness. his recent run-in with the pakistanis was merely the last straw. i wonder what these guys were saying when england and australia had two votes each at the icc and veto power. were they as indignant as they are now about asian dominance? it's a good guess they weren't. otherwise things might have changed much earlier and asia would not have nursed this massive grievance. and see who's talking of racism! these were the guys who were playing with aparthied south africa for 60 years. but when mugabe dispossesses a few whites, they begin a concerted campaign camouflaged in self-righteousness against him and zimbabwean cricket.

  • MSZ on November 11, 2006, 15:40 GMT

    Think about it. If Inzi didn't do his "stupid" act of sit-in Hair would still be an "elite" umpire. The whole matter would have been swept under the carpet as the ICC has often done to "protests." The cricketing world would have continued in "bliss." BTW we all know what ignorance is. Oh yeah and Pakistan would have gone on to win the match if they would have played...but it's better to lose "honourably" than to win.

  • Owais2010 on November 11, 2006, 13:18 GMT

    Great to see ICC do what was required. People who advocate for rule of law like Eucepth Ahmed, Nathan, Ricky Ponting, Steve Waugh consider that rule of law is important but what about the fool who is applying the rules of law ? Talking about asian bloc, why is it that only crickets, present and ex, only from Australia have supported Hair ? why Richards, Holding, Atherton, Boycott, Nasser Husain, Andew Miller (writer), Ramiz, Imran, Ranatunga have supported Pakistan ??? Why only the countries with pre-dominantly white population, Australia, England and NZ voted for Hair ? This is clearly a case where these countries took everyone else for granted and lot of people are finding it difficult to accept the new reality. Where everyone is equal.

  • THS (Asian Aussie in the US) on November 11, 2006, 6:37 GMT

    To all the so-called "Asian bloc" supporters crowing about Hair's sacking; I feel it is the worst day in cricket's history. What a spineless, hypocritical mob the ICC are to give in to this hysterical "bloc". As someone said here, racial lines are a 2-way street - wait until a SL, Indian or Pakistani umpire does something similar to a "white" team! Oh, I'm sorry, that would still be racist behaviour fromt he whites wouldn't it?! Yes, he is no diplomat, but he's doing his job which no umpire will ever do from now on. Why don't we just have Hawk-Eye do the umpiring now & deprive the game of its great uniqueness??! All this crap about insulting a nation, etc - what?! This is sport, not the UN. Inzy should have been banned for a year, not 4 ODI's irrespective of the ball-tampering judgement! As far as I'm concerned, the ICC should have let the Asian bloc keep the game to themselves - see how long you like seeing an endless round of games between SL, Ind & Pak! The "white" teams will suffer too, but we would just have to see who outlasts who! But of course the mighty dollar or rupee talks too convincingly now doesn't it? All cricket (int'l) umpires should go on strike!! And what about Doctrove & the other 2 umpires/referees involved in that game!?? Why do they get off free?

    For the record, I'm Asian, an Aussie, an Aussie cricket team supporter & also LOVE watching SL, Ind & Pak teams play and am also forever cringing at the Oz team's perrenial boorishness & racist behaviour. I hope Hair sues the ICC for as mcuh as he can! The whole affair, from Inzy's behaviour, the so-called judgement & finally Hair's sacking absolutely makes me sick! BTW - I thought neutral umpires were brought in to stop allegations of bias & wretched decisions, especially from "sub-continental" teams !?

  • partha on November 10, 2006, 11:34 GMT

    bravo to pakistan team, they are disunited generally, but during oval they were united. Indian teams never fought against racist umpires or match referees, as Pakistan has done. I remember only once did India fight during the South african tour when Sehwag was fined for excessive appealing. Pakistan has been fighting the racism since years, hats off to them. They always are forthright and provide the balance needed in international cricket. Indians should take a leaf out of Pakistan attitude and start dominating the world cricket. No more racist taunts can shake us.

  • Paul on November 8, 2006, 23:48 GMT

    I think why Ponting made the comments he did was obvious. It has nothing to do with Hair being a fellow Australian, it was his bewilderment that he could be sacked because a group of angry and powerful stakeholders is offended.

    In his comments Speed makes clear that Hair is not being sacked for his lack of competency but because the Asian nations voted for it. It's a serious misstep, because not only does it give Hair good grounds for a legal appeal, but it means from here on in the ICC is a lame duck because the Asain bloc knows it will not try and stand up t them. Don't get me wrong, i'm not that sorry Hair's gone, but the point is that in the real world you can only sack someone if they have proved themselves incapable of doing the job they are hired to do. Now there's a good case to be made for that (granted there's a good case to be made against it also) but Speed didn't even try to make it, and that says everything.

    He should go, because he's been as naive and incompetent in his comments this week as a certain former Pakistani Captain and tribunal member was a couple of weeks ago.

  • Ramesh Rajaduray on February 8, 2007, 0:39 GMT

    Darrell Hair's character is going to be questioned. How would anyone here like it if one of your employees says "Look, I've made a mistake. I'll do the honourable thing and resign and you pay me $500,000 as compensation". Those e-mails have really made a mess of Darrell Hair's case. As Malcolm Speed pointed out, the e-mails were inappropriate at that time. Sorry Darrell, but you've shot yourself in the foot big time!

    Darrell Hair strikes me as either incredibly naive or incredibly pig-headed. It sounds like the latter. I'm sure the ICC lawyers are going to have a field day shredding his case in court. Firstly, if someone felt they were right, why would they offer to resign? You could argue that he was under pressure, but then to put forward a plausible case for $500k?

    The court case will be fun

  • Zahra on December 1, 2006, 12:42 GMT

    Mr. Ahmed if shoaib Akhtar may be a show off to you. But can anyone imagine, why he is called a showoff. Because people are scared of him, jelous of his blasting bulls...to which no one can be compared. People call Him show off. I call those people Jealous.

  • intrepid on November 18, 2006, 23:32 GMT

    So Mr Hair was the ICC's second best umpire when the Asian bloc decided that his courage and willingness to uphold the laws of cricket could no longer be tolerated..a black day for cricket, and maybe the beginning of the end for a single world cricket body..Pakistan fans would obviously be keen to go back to the days of having their own umpires, when Javed could stand in front of his stumps knowing he would never be given out LBW..when Hair called Murali, he was proved correct, and the Asian dominated power bloc had the Law changed to allow the dacoit (Mr Bedi's assessment) to continue..and his stand on ball tampering will also lead to a change in the Law (which as a former bowler is fine by me!)

  • Azfar Alam on November 17, 2006, 11:32 GMT

    Today I was surprised to see the news that Hair is the 'Umpire of the year'....maybe for all the wrong reasons !! Anyway, it is great to see the back of Mr. Hair...cricket can do without such characters. Umpires are there to facilitate and officiate the game.If they try to take centrestage then they are headed for trouble.That was precisely Mr. Hair's problem. Shakoor Rana had the same problem and hence the number of incidents associated with him.

    Hair considered himself the crusader who is there to clean up the game. It is another matter that most often his crusades used to be against the Asian Teams!! I doubt if he got along with any of the players. All the great umpires we have had like Dickie Bird, David Shepard etc used to get along with the players and the players used to take their odd bad decision sportingly. Hair never appeared to enjoy what he was doing....he seemed like an stern headmaster. Inzi was taken to task by most people for taking such a stand...but that's precisely what has brought the end of Mr Hair's career. The blame lies with ICC for persisting with an umpire who was so controversial and biased. It was ICC's way of getting back against the Asian Countries who were flexing their muscles to show that all ICC revenue comes from there......

  • radha on November 12, 2006, 8:46 GMT

    either the pauls and nathans of this world are ignorant of hair's history or are laughably disingenuous or both. the asian nations have been complaining for years about hair's bias and high-handedness. his recent run-in with the pakistanis was merely the last straw. i wonder what these guys were saying when england and australia had two votes each at the icc and veto power. were they as indignant as they are now about asian dominance? it's a good guess they weren't. otherwise things might have changed much earlier and asia would not have nursed this massive grievance. and see who's talking of racism! these were the guys who were playing with aparthied south africa for 60 years. but when mugabe dispossesses a few whites, they begin a concerted campaign camouflaged in self-righteousness against him and zimbabwean cricket.

  • MSZ on November 11, 2006, 15:40 GMT

    Think about it. If Inzi didn't do his "stupid" act of sit-in Hair would still be an "elite" umpire. The whole matter would have been swept under the carpet as the ICC has often done to "protests." The cricketing world would have continued in "bliss." BTW we all know what ignorance is. Oh yeah and Pakistan would have gone on to win the match if they would have played...but it's better to lose "honourably" than to win.

  • Owais2010 on November 11, 2006, 13:18 GMT

    Great to see ICC do what was required. People who advocate for rule of law like Eucepth Ahmed, Nathan, Ricky Ponting, Steve Waugh consider that rule of law is important but what about the fool who is applying the rules of law ? Talking about asian bloc, why is it that only crickets, present and ex, only from Australia have supported Hair ? why Richards, Holding, Atherton, Boycott, Nasser Husain, Andew Miller (writer), Ramiz, Imran, Ranatunga have supported Pakistan ??? Why only the countries with pre-dominantly white population, Australia, England and NZ voted for Hair ? This is clearly a case where these countries took everyone else for granted and lot of people are finding it difficult to accept the new reality. Where everyone is equal.

  • THS (Asian Aussie in the US) on November 11, 2006, 6:37 GMT

    To all the so-called "Asian bloc" supporters crowing about Hair's sacking; I feel it is the worst day in cricket's history. What a spineless, hypocritical mob the ICC are to give in to this hysterical "bloc". As someone said here, racial lines are a 2-way street - wait until a SL, Indian or Pakistani umpire does something similar to a "white" team! Oh, I'm sorry, that would still be racist behaviour fromt he whites wouldn't it?! Yes, he is no diplomat, but he's doing his job which no umpire will ever do from now on. Why don't we just have Hawk-Eye do the umpiring now & deprive the game of its great uniqueness??! All this crap about insulting a nation, etc - what?! This is sport, not the UN. Inzy should have been banned for a year, not 4 ODI's irrespective of the ball-tampering judgement! As far as I'm concerned, the ICC should have let the Asian bloc keep the game to themselves - see how long you like seeing an endless round of games between SL, Ind & Pak! The "white" teams will suffer too, but we would just have to see who outlasts who! But of course the mighty dollar or rupee talks too convincingly now doesn't it? All cricket (int'l) umpires should go on strike!! And what about Doctrove & the other 2 umpires/referees involved in that game!?? Why do they get off free?

    For the record, I'm Asian, an Aussie, an Aussie cricket team supporter & also LOVE watching SL, Ind & Pak teams play and am also forever cringing at the Oz team's perrenial boorishness & racist behaviour. I hope Hair sues the ICC for as mcuh as he can! The whole affair, from Inzy's behaviour, the so-called judgement & finally Hair's sacking absolutely makes me sick! BTW - I thought neutral umpires were brought in to stop allegations of bias & wretched decisions, especially from "sub-continental" teams !?

  • partha on November 10, 2006, 11:34 GMT

    bravo to pakistan team, they are disunited generally, but during oval they were united. Indian teams never fought against racist umpires or match referees, as Pakistan has done. I remember only once did India fight during the South african tour when Sehwag was fined for excessive appealing. Pakistan has been fighting the racism since years, hats off to them. They always are forthright and provide the balance needed in international cricket. Indians should take a leaf out of Pakistan attitude and start dominating the world cricket. No more racist taunts can shake us.

  • Paul on November 8, 2006, 23:48 GMT

    I think why Ponting made the comments he did was obvious. It has nothing to do with Hair being a fellow Australian, it was his bewilderment that he could be sacked because a group of angry and powerful stakeholders is offended.

    In his comments Speed makes clear that Hair is not being sacked for his lack of competency but because the Asian nations voted for it. It's a serious misstep, because not only does it give Hair good grounds for a legal appeal, but it means from here on in the ICC is a lame duck because the Asain bloc knows it will not try and stand up t them. Don't get me wrong, i'm not that sorry Hair's gone, but the point is that in the real world you can only sack someone if they have proved themselves incapable of doing the job they are hired to do. Now there's a good case to be made for that (granted there's a good case to be made against it also) but Speed didn't even try to make it, and that says everything.

    He should go, because he's been as naive and incompetent in his comments this week as a certain former Pakistani Captain and tribunal member was a couple of weeks ago.

  • Nathan on November 8, 2006, 0:48 GMT

    JAVED A. KHAN, are you serious with your comments or is this some type of joke?! How can yo go through life with such an unbalanced view of things?

    Basically, what this decision means is that any umpire with the temerity to make a decision that goes against an Asian team will find himself out of a job. Forcing umpires to pander to the whims of a certain section of the cricketing world is not good for the sport.

    It's interesting to note that some posts here accuse Australia, NZ, and England of racism for supporting Hair, yet there are no claims of racism when the Asian bloc do the same in reverse. Racism is a two way street! The continual claims of racism by sub continent cricket followers are tiresome, and would be laughable were they not so offensive. Especially when people make the claims using racist tones and language themselves.

    Racism in any form is unacceptable to me. Unfortunately, to many people it seems quite OK to be racist so long as that racism is directed towards Australians or the English.

  • Hussain on November 7, 2006, 2:40 GMT

    Even though I do agree with Euceph Ahmed's point that the problem was with the law and it would have been a victory for Inzi if that law had been amended or removed. I think we all agree inzi's actions were not the best on that ill-fated day. However, any sane person can see that what Hair did on that day was not just about the law. He did act according to the laws but could he have maybe handled the situation in a better way? As an umpire you can be well within the laws yet discriminate if you want to. To give an example, in case of a close LBW against a team which you don't like, all you have to do is raise your finger up and the batsman's gone. After all according to you it was leg before the wicket. On the other hand, a fair umpire would give the batsman benefit of doubt if he is not sure. Given Hair's record against the Asian teams in the past, how obvious can this case be? And if all these Asian countries joined hands against this particular umpire (they have no problems with any other umpire) because of his past behavior, you are calling it racism? Who was the instigator? Him or them? If the events that followed the Oval test including, Inzi's ban,Financial loss,Chairman resigning,captainship fiasco and sacking of manager was the price of getting rid of Hair, I think it was worth it.If the events that followed the Oval test including, Inzi's ban,Financial loss,Chairman resigning,captainship fiasco and the drugs(no connection with oval but still) was the price of getting rid of Hair, I think it was worth it.

  • mawali on November 6, 2006, 22:40 GMT

    Mr. Abbasi; Certainly Inzy has saved some graces and won my respect by coming out publicly to acnowledge that he derives no pleasure from Hair's removal. I never doubted that Inzy was a decent man. However, I am convinced that he is third rate captain one who is solely responsible for the boneheaded move at the Oval. Inzy's legacy lies in his batting prowess, cause it certainly ain't his cerebral prowess.

  • Syed Waqqas Iftikhar on November 6, 2006, 22:25 GMT

    I don't really know if its appropriate to describe Hair's removal as a triumph for Inzamam but it should definitely be regarded as an indication that high-handedness and condescension have no place in the game.

  • David Furrows on November 6, 2006, 6:54 GMT

    Darrell Hair has arrived at precisely the right outcome for a supposedly "elite" umpire whose final acts in international cricket were to abuse the sanctions for (non-existent) ball-tampering and to declare a match forfeited against the will of both teams, both boards and the match referee.

    But it is absurd to describe this as a victory for Inzamam. Inzamam's failure to act immediately upon the 5 run sanction being imposed, and, worse his reckless sit-in together turned impending victory into a defeat which will never be reversed.

    Imran Khan or Javen Miandad would never have left the pitch during any protest they would have cared to make.

    Darrell Hair may be the sacrificial donkey at present (he ain't no lamb!), but I, for one, consider Inzamam to be neither vindicated nor forgiven for his crass actions.

  • JAVED A. KHAN MONTREAL, CANADA on November 5, 2006, 17:16 GMT

    MR. EUCEPH AHMED ... I am not trying to criticise your opinion but I am only trying to give a full picture of the Oval incident for you to understand the feelings of the people after this decision.

    1. No one is saying Hair's suspension from International cricket is a triumph for Inzamam. In fact Inzamam himself has repeated a few times that he has forgiven him. 2. You insist that Hair should not be blamed as he has simply applied the law and the law itself is unfair. Actually, Hair didn't apply the law correctly, and not in all fairness, in fact he acted in a very biased manner. You may not have seen the whole proceedings, when Hair saw Inzamam was leading his team back in to the ground, he removed the bails and started walking back towards the pavilion. It was Hair's attitude through out that was questionable and there is no doubt that he acted in bias. 3. And he did not even bother to discuss it with the match referee about forfeiting the game. The match referee and the rest of the world came to know by 10:00 p.m. about the forfeiture. 4. When he awarded the 5 runs on charges of ball tampering he did not tell anyone on the field, whereas, as per rule book it is umpire's duty to inform the fielding captain. 5. When he came to the Pakistan team's dressing room, Inzamam asked him why did you give those 5 runs? Hair replied, I am not here to discuss that with you....... Did you see that attitude? 6. After all Inzamam is a human being to feel hurt. First you accuse a team, rather a nation as "cheats" and then you don't even talk properly to the captain or any member of the team or their officials and don't even give them any reason for awarding those five runs, and finally taking a unilateral decision to forfeit the match. To me the other umpire Billy Doctrove appeared subdued and intimidated by Hair's decisions and kept a low profile through out. I won't be surprised if Billy Doctrove comes up with the real version of the story after a few years about what his views were and how Hair reacted and why he did not speak and acted so dummy! 7. If you haven't seen the proceedings live or heard the expert comments, then you should at least read the time-line of those proceedings to correct your perception before coming to a conclusion that HAIR is INNOCENT and the law is UNFAIR. 8. People who were unhappy over Hair's controversies appears to be happy now especially in Pakistan, because its a moral victory for them. As a nation they all were labeled as "cheats". Now that has been removed. First by the decision when Inzamam was cleared (still do not understand why they banned him for 4 matches?) and now Hair has been sacked. 9. It proves that Hair was wrong and he was also biased against Asian countries, and its on record that all his controversial decisions were against, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka players and even against the West Indies players and surprisingly none against England or New Zealand. 10. Dickie Bird the famous English umpire was very critical of Hair's decisions and so was Boycott, Mike Atherton, David Gower, Nasser Hussain and even Ian Bothom called Hair's decision as severely harsh and unjust.

  • Victor on November 5, 2006, 16:12 GMT

    Dear Mr. Euceph Ahmed, Hat's Off to your style of reasoning too, any sincere person would be confounded by your logic. You are appear to be suffering from 'Stockhom Syndrome'; hence your views are the natural offshoot :)

    I still appreciate Mr. Kamran for his candid and lucid views.

  • Mustafa Moiz on November 5, 2006, 14:56 GMT

    I don't really think you should celebrate when something like this happens to someone. But again, it's Hair. The nations against him are the ones that aren't entirely Hair's preferred ones and he benefits NZE, AUS and ENG.

  • T.Khan on November 5, 2006, 8:12 GMT

    Truth always prevails. Hats off to Inzi for taking a moral stands to expose Mr. Hair’s hairy side. Hair will always be remembered as “the Hairy Umpire.”

  • Euceph Ahmed on November 5, 2006, 3:20 GMT

    Kamran,

    I must say that I am saddened to see your thoughts and also by some of the comments posted here. You have mentioned that "Hair's end is a triumph for Inzamam but also for cricket as entertainment". Can I ask you and those who support you that in exactly what sense was this a triumph for Inzamam? It's unfortunate that no one has ever talked about the rule (or law as it is called in cricket) that was applied to adjudge the Pakistan team guilty of ball tempering. More than the man (Darrell Hair) who applied the law, it was the law itself that was unfair. Inzamam's leadership would really have counted if he led a fight against such an unjust law and get it either removed or appropriately ammended. He may be a great batsmen (one of my all-time favorites)but I do not expect such vision from him. However, I would've expected it from people like you.

    Then you mentioned that this was a triumph for cricket. I think this truly was a sad day for cricket... sadder than the end of the Oval test. Looking at how the board's vote was split along racial lines, I thought that a major crack has been caused in the goodwill of the game. Whoever thinks that this matter has ended here is living in a fool's paradise. I wouldn't condone the racism that prevails among the Aussies and the Kiwis, but looking at some of the remarks here it appears we're not lagging far behind either. Or perhaps we're blindly falling in the trap and always reacting to provocation without stopping to think about the repurcussions. I do not beileve that you can fight racism with more racism.

    Then, in response to the third part of your sentence which relates to cricket being entertainment, I'd like to say that I found it unfortunate to say the least. But I guess I'm one of those foolhardy fans who still believe in cricket being a sport. I know there's a Bollywood-led movement to turn cricket into entertainment, but it would be one doomsday when cricket, like WWF, becomes entertainment instead of sport. Then again, what can I say to people who ardently believe that the success of cricket lies in promoting showboys like Shoaib Akhtar - role models for all the wrong reasons. I marvel at your reasoning.

  • Shariq Butt on November 4, 2006, 14:41 GMT

    Indeed this is a great win for the Pakistan nation. The pride and morals of the nation as a whole were at stake.

    Cheers to all!!!!!!!

    Ricky Ponting should see the other side of the issue also, instead of giving statements in favour of his country man.

  • §unnY on November 4, 2006, 14:28 GMT

    Hair (Mini Hitler by Imran Khan) has finally got what he deserves. Irrespective of decisions he took against the Asian teams, his ability as an umpire is also questionable. But the most important thing in the voting was the 3 votes he received favoring him to umpire in future matches. The three votes were from Australia, New Zealand and England. This simply shows that racism does exist in cricket. Any sensible board would vote against Hair after the series of decisions he took.

  • JAVED A. KHAN FROM MONTREAL, CANADA on November 4, 2006, 14:10 GMT

    "Justice delayed is justice denied".

    The inevitable has finally come to an end. Pakistan and especially Inzamam suffered a lot at the hands of this so called "Hitler of Cricket". I must say "Good Riddance"!

    I am glad to see the unity shown by the Asian Block which paved the way to create the balance of voting rights at the ICC head quarters, which uptil now appeared lop sided. To be more specific, it was dominated by Australia and England. Both these countries behaved as if cricket is their property and ICC as their care-taker. The rest of the world did not matter to them.

    When the Oval fiasco started, the initial reaction of BCCI was different. Mr. Niranjan shah of BCCI publicly commented that they are not on Pakistan's side but ICC's.

    But, as the events unfolded and Hair's fractured skull was exposed to radiation not by anyone else, but by his own brain wave, things changed dramatically thereafter.

    Inzamam must have prayed whole heartedly and asked Almighty to help him out of this trouble and he was well rewarded. The four match ODI ban is still a big question mark as one charge was related to the other, but everyone including Inzamam accepted it.

    However, this news of yesterday is not Hair raising anymore. I think it was more like, "The rise and fall of Darrel Hair".

    No matter how many books Hair may write to defend himself and also to make money, he will still be remembered as a culprit and a poor umpire.

    No matter how hard Australia, NZ and England may try to push his case further he won't be back to raise his finger again. And they must learn to respect Alim Daar, Asad Rauf, Steve Bucknor. Gone are the days of Mike Gatting insulting Shakoor Rana. Its a new world order today!

    Kamran, in Quebec, every single car license plate says this: "Je me souviens" i.e., we will never forget, which is a reference to some old political grudge. Even though Inzamam said, "I forgive Hair for what he did as my religion encourages me to pardon.... and I (Inzi) will not hold any grudge ...."

    I think it is very easy to forgive but very difficult to forget. Besides, it will remain in the history books for ever that, it was the blackest day in the history of cricket when Hair forfeited this match in sheer vengeance. As they say "vengeance is a food that is to be eaten cold." Hair couldn't digest it and that finally lead to his pathetic demise.

    Justice was delayed ..... hope this won't happen again.

  • Raza on November 4, 2006, 13:49 GMT

    I don't think Hair's end would be a triump for Inzamam, after all, Inzamam had already forgiven him. Inzamam's success was when the ball-tampering case was won.

    To be a good umpire you do not only need to have good decision making skills but your attitude plays an important role in umpiring. Hair's attitude was not suitable for an International Umpire at all, he wasn't willing to communicate with the players, nor the captain. After losing the ball-tampering case, he never for once accepted it was his own mistake and persisted with the decision he had made; even though experts had examined the cricket ball and didn't find much wrong with it.

    On top of that he asked his employer for $500,000 for him to retire. Thats exactly not the attitude ICC would want from one of it's umpires from the elite panel. No wonder Percy Sonn stated that the ICC had "lost confidence" in him.

    In the meantime, lets look forward and see who replaces Hair in the Elite panel of Umpires.

  • Ali on November 4, 2006, 13:15 GMT

    It does seem odd to celebrate the end of someones career, but lets look at the positives, match results will be much fairer and we will see much less teams complaining about the level of umpiring. It will be interesting to see what Darryl Hair has to say about this decision by the ICC.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Ali on November 4, 2006, 13:15 GMT

    It does seem odd to celebrate the end of someones career, but lets look at the positives, match results will be much fairer and we will see much less teams complaining about the level of umpiring. It will be interesting to see what Darryl Hair has to say about this decision by the ICC.

  • Raza on November 4, 2006, 13:49 GMT

    I don't think Hair's end would be a triump for Inzamam, after all, Inzamam had already forgiven him. Inzamam's success was when the ball-tampering case was won.

    To be a good umpire you do not only need to have good decision making skills but your attitude plays an important role in umpiring. Hair's attitude was not suitable for an International Umpire at all, he wasn't willing to communicate with the players, nor the captain. After losing the ball-tampering case, he never for once accepted it was his own mistake and persisted with the decision he had made; even though experts had examined the cricket ball and didn't find much wrong with it.

    On top of that he asked his employer for $500,000 for him to retire. Thats exactly not the attitude ICC would want from one of it's umpires from the elite panel. No wonder Percy Sonn stated that the ICC had "lost confidence" in him.

    In the meantime, lets look forward and see who replaces Hair in the Elite panel of Umpires.

  • JAVED A. KHAN FROM MONTREAL, CANADA on November 4, 2006, 14:10 GMT

    "Justice delayed is justice denied".

    The inevitable has finally come to an end. Pakistan and especially Inzamam suffered a lot at the hands of this so called "Hitler of Cricket". I must say "Good Riddance"!

    I am glad to see the unity shown by the Asian Block which paved the way to create the balance of voting rights at the ICC head quarters, which uptil now appeared lop sided. To be more specific, it was dominated by Australia and England. Both these countries behaved as if cricket is their property and ICC as their care-taker. The rest of the world did not matter to them.

    When the Oval fiasco started, the initial reaction of BCCI was different. Mr. Niranjan shah of BCCI publicly commented that they are not on Pakistan's side but ICC's.

    But, as the events unfolded and Hair's fractured skull was exposed to radiation not by anyone else, but by his own brain wave, things changed dramatically thereafter.

    Inzamam must have prayed whole heartedly and asked Almighty to help him out of this trouble and he was well rewarded. The four match ODI ban is still a big question mark as one charge was related to the other, but everyone including Inzamam accepted it.

    However, this news of yesterday is not Hair raising anymore. I think it was more like, "The rise and fall of Darrel Hair".

    No matter how many books Hair may write to defend himself and also to make money, he will still be remembered as a culprit and a poor umpire.

    No matter how hard Australia, NZ and England may try to push his case further he won't be back to raise his finger again. And they must learn to respect Alim Daar, Asad Rauf, Steve Bucknor. Gone are the days of Mike Gatting insulting Shakoor Rana. Its a new world order today!

    Kamran, in Quebec, every single car license plate says this: "Je me souviens" i.e., we will never forget, which is a reference to some old political grudge. Even though Inzamam said, "I forgive Hair for what he did as my religion encourages me to pardon.... and I (Inzi) will not hold any grudge ...."

    I think it is very easy to forgive but very difficult to forget. Besides, it will remain in the history books for ever that, it was the blackest day in the history of cricket when Hair forfeited this match in sheer vengeance. As they say "vengeance is a food that is to be eaten cold." Hair couldn't digest it and that finally lead to his pathetic demise.

    Justice was delayed ..... hope this won't happen again.

  • §unnY on November 4, 2006, 14:28 GMT

    Hair (Mini Hitler by Imran Khan) has finally got what he deserves. Irrespective of decisions he took against the Asian teams, his ability as an umpire is also questionable. But the most important thing in the voting was the 3 votes he received favoring him to umpire in future matches. The three votes were from Australia, New Zealand and England. This simply shows that racism does exist in cricket. Any sensible board would vote against Hair after the series of decisions he took.

  • Shariq Butt on November 4, 2006, 14:41 GMT

    Indeed this is a great win for the Pakistan nation. The pride and morals of the nation as a whole were at stake.

    Cheers to all!!!!!!!

    Ricky Ponting should see the other side of the issue also, instead of giving statements in favour of his country man.

  • Euceph Ahmed on November 5, 2006, 3:20 GMT

    Kamran,

    I must say that I am saddened to see your thoughts and also by some of the comments posted here. You have mentioned that "Hair's end is a triumph for Inzamam but also for cricket as entertainment". Can I ask you and those who support you that in exactly what sense was this a triumph for Inzamam? It's unfortunate that no one has ever talked about the rule (or law as it is called in cricket) that was applied to adjudge the Pakistan team guilty of ball tempering. More than the man (Darrell Hair) who applied the law, it was the law itself that was unfair. Inzamam's leadership would really have counted if he led a fight against such an unjust law and get it either removed or appropriately ammended. He may be a great batsmen (one of my all-time favorites)but I do not expect such vision from him. However, I would've expected it from people like you.

    Then you mentioned that this was a triumph for cricket. I think this truly was a sad day for cricket... sadder than the end of the Oval test. Looking at how the board's vote was split along racial lines, I thought that a major crack has been caused in the goodwill of the game. Whoever thinks that this matter has ended here is living in a fool's paradise. I wouldn't condone the racism that prevails among the Aussies and the Kiwis, but looking at some of the remarks here it appears we're not lagging far behind either. Or perhaps we're blindly falling in the trap and always reacting to provocation without stopping to think about the repurcussions. I do not beileve that you can fight racism with more racism.

    Then, in response to the third part of your sentence which relates to cricket being entertainment, I'd like to say that I found it unfortunate to say the least. But I guess I'm one of those foolhardy fans who still believe in cricket being a sport. I know there's a Bollywood-led movement to turn cricket into entertainment, but it would be one doomsday when cricket, like WWF, becomes entertainment instead of sport. Then again, what can I say to people who ardently believe that the success of cricket lies in promoting showboys like Shoaib Akhtar - role models for all the wrong reasons. I marvel at your reasoning.

  • T.Khan on November 5, 2006, 8:12 GMT

    Truth always prevails. Hats off to Inzi for taking a moral stands to expose Mr. Hair’s hairy side. Hair will always be remembered as “the Hairy Umpire.”

  • Mustafa Moiz on November 5, 2006, 14:56 GMT

    I don't really think you should celebrate when something like this happens to someone. But again, it's Hair. The nations against him are the ones that aren't entirely Hair's preferred ones and he benefits NZE, AUS and ENG.

  • Victor on November 5, 2006, 16:12 GMT

    Dear Mr. Euceph Ahmed, Hat's Off to your style of reasoning too, any sincere person would be confounded by your logic. You are appear to be suffering from 'Stockhom Syndrome'; hence your views are the natural offshoot :)

    I still appreciate Mr. Kamran for his candid and lucid views.

  • JAVED A. KHAN MONTREAL, CANADA on November 5, 2006, 17:16 GMT

    MR. EUCEPH AHMED ... I am not trying to criticise your opinion but I am only trying to give a full picture of the Oval incident for you to understand the feelings of the people after this decision.

    1. No one is saying Hair's suspension from International cricket is a triumph for Inzamam. In fact Inzamam himself has repeated a few times that he has forgiven him. 2. You insist that Hair should not be blamed as he has simply applied the law and the law itself is unfair. Actually, Hair didn't apply the law correctly, and not in all fairness, in fact he acted in a very biased manner. You may not have seen the whole proceedings, when Hair saw Inzamam was leading his team back in to the ground, he removed the bails and started walking back towards the pavilion. It was Hair's attitude through out that was questionable and there is no doubt that he acted in bias. 3. And he did not even bother to discuss it with the match referee about forfeiting the game. The match referee and the rest of the world came to know by 10:00 p.m. about the forfeiture. 4. When he awarded the 5 runs on charges of ball tampering he did not tell anyone on the field, whereas, as per rule book it is umpire's duty to inform the fielding captain. 5. When he came to the Pakistan team's dressing room, Inzamam asked him why did you give those 5 runs? Hair replied, I am not here to discuss that with you....... Did you see that attitude? 6. After all Inzamam is a human being to feel hurt. First you accuse a team, rather a nation as "cheats" and then you don't even talk properly to the captain or any member of the team or their officials and don't even give them any reason for awarding those five runs, and finally taking a unilateral decision to forfeit the match. To me the other umpire Billy Doctrove appeared subdued and intimidated by Hair's decisions and kept a low profile through out. I won't be surprised if Billy Doctrove comes up with the real version of the story after a few years about what his views were and how Hair reacted and why he did not speak and acted so dummy! 7. If you haven't seen the proceedings live or heard the expert comments, then you should at least read the time-line of those proceedings to correct your perception before coming to a conclusion that HAIR is INNOCENT and the law is UNFAIR. 8. People who were unhappy over Hair's controversies appears to be happy now especially in Pakistan, because its a moral victory for them. As a nation they all were labeled as "cheats". Now that has been removed. First by the decision when Inzamam was cleared (still do not understand why they banned him for 4 matches?) and now Hair has been sacked. 9. It proves that Hair was wrong and he was also biased against Asian countries, and its on record that all his controversial decisions were against, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka players and even against the West Indies players and surprisingly none against England or New Zealand. 10. Dickie Bird the famous English umpire was very critical of Hair's decisions and so was Boycott, Mike Atherton, David Gower, Nasser Hussain and even Ian Bothom called Hair's decision as severely harsh and unjust.