Politics February 8, 2007

Hair he goes again

115

Darrell Hair is at it again. Creating a fuss, drawing attention to himself, and generally displaying the indignation of the most righteous man in the world of cricket. But self-righteous is the word that best describes Mr Hair, because the majority of people do not share his view of how we was treated.

Anybody who was involved with events at The Oval knows that Mr Hair was the man responsible for the ball-tampering verdict against Pakistan, Mr Hair was the man who stopped the match from being resumed despite requests from cricket boards and the ICC, and it was Mr Hair who was the senior umpire taking responsibility for the decision-making.

Indeed Mr Hair has upset the Pakistan team with his arrogant manner prior to The Oval, as well as angering India and Sri Lanka. For Mr Hair to now claim that he was the victim of racism is a further affront to the people he has already offended.

Perhaps I should sue Mr Hair for racism? At the press conference following last year's ball-tampering hearing he refused to answer a question I put to him but answered the same question when asked by a white journalist. Frankly, Mr Hair's obnoxious attitude towards me didn't bother me in the slightest, by contrast it was highly revealing. Indeeed, several senior journalists came up to me afterwards to make this very point.

There comes a time when you should draw a line under events, accept where you went wrong, and move on. It's too simplistic to say that Mr Hair had a good record for getting umpiring decisions right. That becomes meaningless when you have a track record of handling major issues badly.

Mr Hair deserved the judgement he received from the ICC, and I'm sure I'm not alone in growing tired of his self-righteousness.

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

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Talal Hasan on February 15, 2007, 20:42 GMT

    ' I suspect that the more we see of TV replays being used to make decisions the more we will realise that they aren't tha panacea they were cracked up to be.'

    Charlie would you not agree that run out/ stumping decisions have improved dramatically because of the use of the third umpire? Are you also saying Third umpires would not be better utilised looking out for front foot no balls. In Tennis they have umpires looking out for faults. This would reduce the pressure on the on field umpires. Hence they may make less mistakes.

  • Charlie on February 15, 2007, 18:30 GMT

    "I think umpires should be accountable for their mistakes. I think the third umpire with the use of technology should have a larger role to play in matches. The decision process will become a lot more fairer and objective as of a result of this."

    Odd to make this comment in a thread that is largely about the failure of a third umpire to give the right decision.

    I suspect that the more we see of TV replays being used to make decisions the more we will realise that they aren't tha panacea they were cracked up to be.

  • Talal Hasan on February 15, 2007, 15:27 GMT

    Charlie

    In regards to accpeting the umpire decision and respecting him. I do agree with those comments. However I think people should be allowed to question the umpire's decision in the future. Especially if technology shows that they have consistently made incorrect decisions.

    I think umpires should be accountable for their mistakes. I think the third umpire with the use of technology should have a larger role to play in matches. The decision process will become a lot more fairer and objective as of a result of this.

  • Ben on February 15, 2007, 15:18 GMT

    Point 1. Inzi run-out

    Look at this pic http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41040000/jpg/_41040422_inzy270.jpg

    Hair should not have referred this to the TV ump

    Point 2. Communication Hair seems to have serious problems communicating. With captains, players, TV umps, media. Being terse, tight-lipped and assuming a superior air, ain't the way to communicate.

    Point 3. Why Hair and not others ? Simply because he has a history.

    The ICC knew that there was tension between Hair and Pakistan and still allowed him to officiate.

    After the Oval debacle, it would be incredibly obtuse for them to allow him to continue.

    The straw that broke the camels back.

  • Keith on February 15, 2007, 13:15 GMT

    the whole cricket world should breathe a sigh of relief that the worst umpire in international cricket has departed. strange that all but 1 or 2 of his citings for chucking have been non white? the less we hear of him the better. the less we talk of him the better. close the topic now?

  • Charlie on February 15, 2007, 8:31 GMT

    "Now, Inzi was taking evasive action and could not be given out regardless. "

    That is not true: if he had been out his ground before taking evasive action he could have been out. That was the line call that needed checking and that the 3rd umpire messed up, either because he didn't know the laws or didn't understand what was being asked of him.

    Again, if it wasn't Hair involved we wouldn't be mentioning the field umpire only the TV umpire. It is this sort of thing that perpetuates the impression of bias where there is none.

  • adil on February 15, 2007, 3:01 GMT

    also pakistan team decieded to not excersice

  • Ben on February 14, 2007, 20:46 GMT

    Point 1. The Inzi run-out

    Had Hair known his rules, he would not have referred it to the 3rd ump.

    The 3rd ump was called upon to ONLY determine if Inzi was in his crease or not. And so the 3rd ump ruled he was out of his crease when the wicket was broken. The 3rd ump is NOT to be blamed for this.

    Now, Inzi was taking evasive action and could not be given out regardless.

    So, Hair did NOT know his beloved laws. And he could not see what's obvious to all. Inzi is a big man taking evasive action. Not a small snick, or a close catch or a run-out type decision.

    Point 2. The $500,000 disclosure

    ICC HAD to reveal the e-mail from Hair publicly. Not doing so would have caused them far more damage if discovered later and would have undermined their credibility.

    Point 3. Umps Opinion I agree that we have to follow the umps opinion. But an ump is not above reproach. His opinion IS questioned. An ump's LBW decision is questioned with video replays. In the past, his run-out decisions were questioned with video replays.

    How does one question an umps opinion about ball tampering ? Is he given carte blanche on this ?

    So, if we can question an umps opinion on the small matter of an LBW, why cant we question an umps opinion on the HUGE matter of accusing an entire team (and nation) of cheating ?

    So technically, an ump cannot be called upon by the ICC to explain his opinions. That's his opinion, right or wrong.

    But beyond the technicality, the jury if you will, nobody wanted him officiating.

    And for good reason.

    Point 1. The Inzi run-out

    Had Hair known his rules, he would not have referred it to the 3rd ump.

    The 3rd ump was called upon to only determine if Inzi was in his crease or not. And so the 3rd ump ruled he was out of his crease when the wicket was broken. The 3rd ump is NOT to be blamed for this.

    Now, Inzi was taking evasive action and could not be given out regardless of whether he was within the crease or not.

    So, Hair did not know his beloved laws. And he could not see what’s obvious to all. Inzi is a big man taking evasive action. Not a small snick, or a close catch or a run-out type decision.

    Point 2. The $500,000 disclosure

    ICC had to reveal the e-mail from Hair publicly. Had they kept it hidden, it would have caused them far more damage if discovered later and would have undermined their credibility.

    Point 3. Umps Opinion I agree that we have to follow the umps opinion. But an ump is not above reproach. His opinion IS questioned. An ump’s LBW decision is questioned with video replays. In the past, his run-out decisions were questioned with video replays.

    How does one question an umps opinion about ball tampering ? Is he given carte blanche on this ?

    So, if we can question an umps opinion on the small matter of an LBW, why cant we question an umps opinion on the huge matter of accusing an entire team (and nation) of cheating ?

    So technically, an ump cannot be called upon by the ICC to explain his LBW opinions. And Hair was not brought forth to the ICC to explain his ball tampering opinion. That’s his opinion, he’s entitled to it, right or wrong.

    But beyond the technicality, the jury if you will, nobody wanted him officiating.

  • Spaceman! on February 14, 2007, 12:23 GMT

    Talal - yes, it was an appalling decision, and i'd have hated to see any batsman get out that way. However, the blame about the decision cannot fall on anyone but the 3rd Umpire. As you say 'from the footage' it can be clearly seen. But an umpire doesn't see 'in footage', he sees things at full, break-neck pace; no replays, no slow-mos. he reffered the decision to the 3rd umpire because he wasn't sure. You are blaming him for another mans mistake.

    As for the ball tampering issue; of course i'd be livid if i was accused of cheating. However, there are other, better ways of dealing with the situation that refusing to play. They held the game to ransom and set a horrible precedent.

    ben: they did not 'risk everything'. they had already lost the series. And Hair doesn't have to show a thing. The laws say 'in the opinion of the umpire'. not 'proven by'. Fair? no. but thats the laws of the game. Again, you are castigating a man for following the laws of the game. Don't like the rules? try and get them changed. but as they stand, dont have a go at a man for doing his job to the letter of the law.

  • Charlie on February 14, 2007, 8:48 GMT

    "However my point is that the decision should have not been referred to the 3rd umpire in the first place. From the footage you can clearly see that inzi left his crease because of the evasive action that he took."

    Exactly, you can see that FROM THE FOOTAGE. That footage was available to the TV umpire, but not to Hair who only had the live action to go on and fel it wasnt clear enough to decide so he, rightly, handed the decision to the TV umpire who messed it up. If it wasn't for the witch hunt against Hair we wouldn't even have mentioned him, the discussion would have been solely about the third umpire who made the mistake.

    "I don;t know who charlie and Spaceman support but if Asad Rauf gave your country's batsman out when they were clearly not out and he did this to your team over a consistent period of time. I ask you,wouldn;t both of you feel highly irritated by this individual?"

    The trouble is that this hasn't happened in the Hair situation. Hair has made mistakes like any umpire (although fewer than most), but because parts of the media has decided that he is biased those involving certain teams are given more prominence and always associated with bias. This has become self perpetuating and continues regardless of any actual bias.

    "Or he took changed the ball because a dramatic amount of reverse swing was happening and he accused the team of tampering with the ball. However he was wrong about the ball tampering allegation, wouldn't you be frustrated?"

    I'm a Gloucs fan and a couple of seaons ago we were accused of ball tampering, there was no TV footage of it, just the word of the umpire (and the opposition's coach). Rather than bang on about how the umpire was 'wrong' I just took his word for it and accepted that we were punished. That is how it should be. If the umpire says it is so, it is so. You have to respect the position, even if you don't respect the man, and get on with the game, otherwise football-style chaos ensues.

  • Talal Hasan on February 15, 2007, 20:42 GMT

    ' I suspect that the more we see of TV replays being used to make decisions the more we will realise that they aren't tha panacea they were cracked up to be.'

    Charlie would you not agree that run out/ stumping decisions have improved dramatically because of the use of the third umpire? Are you also saying Third umpires would not be better utilised looking out for front foot no balls. In Tennis they have umpires looking out for faults. This would reduce the pressure on the on field umpires. Hence they may make less mistakes.

  • Charlie on February 15, 2007, 18:30 GMT

    "I think umpires should be accountable for their mistakes. I think the third umpire with the use of technology should have a larger role to play in matches. The decision process will become a lot more fairer and objective as of a result of this."

    Odd to make this comment in a thread that is largely about the failure of a third umpire to give the right decision.

    I suspect that the more we see of TV replays being used to make decisions the more we will realise that they aren't tha panacea they were cracked up to be.

  • Talal Hasan on February 15, 2007, 15:27 GMT

    Charlie

    In regards to accpeting the umpire decision and respecting him. I do agree with those comments. However I think people should be allowed to question the umpire's decision in the future. Especially if technology shows that they have consistently made incorrect decisions.

    I think umpires should be accountable for their mistakes. I think the third umpire with the use of technology should have a larger role to play in matches. The decision process will become a lot more fairer and objective as of a result of this.

  • Ben on February 15, 2007, 15:18 GMT

    Point 1. Inzi run-out

    Look at this pic http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41040000/jpg/_41040422_inzy270.jpg

    Hair should not have referred this to the TV ump

    Point 2. Communication Hair seems to have serious problems communicating. With captains, players, TV umps, media. Being terse, tight-lipped and assuming a superior air, ain't the way to communicate.

    Point 3. Why Hair and not others ? Simply because he has a history.

    The ICC knew that there was tension between Hair and Pakistan and still allowed him to officiate.

    After the Oval debacle, it would be incredibly obtuse for them to allow him to continue.

    The straw that broke the camels back.

  • Keith on February 15, 2007, 13:15 GMT

    the whole cricket world should breathe a sigh of relief that the worst umpire in international cricket has departed. strange that all but 1 or 2 of his citings for chucking have been non white? the less we hear of him the better. the less we talk of him the better. close the topic now?

  • Charlie on February 15, 2007, 8:31 GMT

    "Now, Inzi was taking evasive action and could not be given out regardless. "

    That is not true: if he had been out his ground before taking evasive action he could have been out. That was the line call that needed checking and that the 3rd umpire messed up, either because he didn't know the laws or didn't understand what was being asked of him.

    Again, if it wasn't Hair involved we wouldn't be mentioning the field umpire only the TV umpire. It is this sort of thing that perpetuates the impression of bias where there is none.

  • adil on February 15, 2007, 3:01 GMT

    also pakistan team decieded to not excersice

  • Ben on February 14, 2007, 20:46 GMT

    Point 1. The Inzi run-out

    Had Hair known his rules, he would not have referred it to the 3rd ump.

    The 3rd ump was called upon to ONLY determine if Inzi was in his crease or not. And so the 3rd ump ruled he was out of his crease when the wicket was broken. The 3rd ump is NOT to be blamed for this.

    Now, Inzi was taking evasive action and could not be given out regardless.

    So, Hair did NOT know his beloved laws. And he could not see what's obvious to all. Inzi is a big man taking evasive action. Not a small snick, or a close catch or a run-out type decision.

    Point 2. The $500,000 disclosure

    ICC HAD to reveal the e-mail from Hair publicly. Not doing so would have caused them far more damage if discovered later and would have undermined their credibility.

    Point 3. Umps Opinion I agree that we have to follow the umps opinion. But an ump is not above reproach. His opinion IS questioned. An ump's LBW decision is questioned with video replays. In the past, his run-out decisions were questioned with video replays.

    How does one question an umps opinion about ball tampering ? Is he given carte blanche on this ?

    So, if we can question an umps opinion on the small matter of an LBW, why cant we question an umps opinion on the HUGE matter of accusing an entire team (and nation) of cheating ?

    So technically, an ump cannot be called upon by the ICC to explain his opinions. That's his opinion, right or wrong.

    But beyond the technicality, the jury if you will, nobody wanted him officiating.

    And for good reason.

    Point 1. The Inzi run-out

    Had Hair known his rules, he would not have referred it to the 3rd ump.

    The 3rd ump was called upon to only determine if Inzi was in his crease or not. And so the 3rd ump ruled he was out of his crease when the wicket was broken. The 3rd ump is NOT to be blamed for this.

    Now, Inzi was taking evasive action and could not be given out regardless of whether he was within the crease or not.

    So, Hair did not know his beloved laws. And he could not see what’s obvious to all. Inzi is a big man taking evasive action. Not a small snick, or a close catch or a run-out type decision.

    Point 2. The $500,000 disclosure

    ICC had to reveal the e-mail from Hair publicly. Had they kept it hidden, it would have caused them far more damage if discovered later and would have undermined their credibility.

    Point 3. Umps Opinion I agree that we have to follow the umps opinion. But an ump is not above reproach. His opinion IS questioned. An ump’s LBW decision is questioned with video replays. In the past, his run-out decisions were questioned with video replays.

    How does one question an umps opinion about ball tampering ? Is he given carte blanche on this ?

    So, if we can question an umps opinion on the small matter of an LBW, why cant we question an umps opinion on the huge matter of accusing an entire team (and nation) of cheating ?

    So technically, an ump cannot be called upon by the ICC to explain his LBW opinions. And Hair was not brought forth to the ICC to explain his ball tampering opinion. That’s his opinion, he’s entitled to it, right or wrong.

    But beyond the technicality, the jury if you will, nobody wanted him officiating.

  • Spaceman! on February 14, 2007, 12:23 GMT

    Talal - yes, it was an appalling decision, and i'd have hated to see any batsman get out that way. However, the blame about the decision cannot fall on anyone but the 3rd Umpire. As you say 'from the footage' it can be clearly seen. But an umpire doesn't see 'in footage', he sees things at full, break-neck pace; no replays, no slow-mos. he reffered the decision to the 3rd umpire because he wasn't sure. You are blaming him for another mans mistake.

    As for the ball tampering issue; of course i'd be livid if i was accused of cheating. However, there are other, better ways of dealing with the situation that refusing to play. They held the game to ransom and set a horrible precedent.

    ben: they did not 'risk everything'. they had already lost the series. And Hair doesn't have to show a thing. The laws say 'in the opinion of the umpire'. not 'proven by'. Fair? no. but thats the laws of the game. Again, you are castigating a man for following the laws of the game. Don't like the rules? try and get them changed. but as they stand, dont have a go at a man for doing his job to the letter of the law.

  • Charlie on February 14, 2007, 8:48 GMT

    "However my point is that the decision should have not been referred to the 3rd umpire in the first place. From the footage you can clearly see that inzi left his crease because of the evasive action that he took."

    Exactly, you can see that FROM THE FOOTAGE. That footage was available to the TV umpire, but not to Hair who only had the live action to go on and fel it wasnt clear enough to decide so he, rightly, handed the decision to the TV umpire who messed it up. If it wasn't for the witch hunt against Hair we wouldn't even have mentioned him, the discussion would have been solely about the third umpire who made the mistake.

    "I don;t know who charlie and Spaceman support but if Asad Rauf gave your country's batsman out when they were clearly not out and he did this to your team over a consistent period of time. I ask you,wouldn;t both of you feel highly irritated by this individual?"

    The trouble is that this hasn't happened in the Hair situation. Hair has made mistakes like any umpire (although fewer than most), but because parts of the media has decided that he is biased those involving certain teams are given more prominence and always associated with bias. This has become self perpetuating and continues regardless of any actual bias.

    "Or he took changed the ball because a dramatic amount of reverse swing was happening and he accused the team of tampering with the ball. However he was wrong about the ball tampering allegation, wouldn't you be frustrated?"

    I'm a Gloucs fan and a couple of seaons ago we were accused of ball tampering, there was no TV footage of it, just the word of the umpire (and the opposition's coach). Rather than bang on about how the umpire was 'wrong' I just took his word for it and accepted that we were punished. That is how it should be. If the umpire says it is so, it is so. You have to respect the position, even if you don't respect the man, and get on with the game, otherwise football-style chaos ensues.

  • paul on February 14, 2007, 8:10 GMT

    We all have our views on this extremely emotive issue and no-one is going to change.

    It's true that the e-mail by Hair offering $500k to resign doesn't help him a lot. However, this was a private e-mail and the ICC were certainly arrogant to release it to the public in advance of his position being determined. Makes one think the decision had already been made, and the ICC were seeking to place public opinion their way. This will no doubt be raised in the forthcoming court matter.

    The courts will now decide the issue. I don't know what these previous issues were but they better be good.

    Interesting how some are blaming Hair for the run out of Inzimam when all he did was refer the call to the third umpire, who then gave the player out.

    Hair gave McDermott out in Adelaide in 1992-3, a decision that cost Australia the Test series. It was the last time the WI beat Australia in a Test series. I've watched it many times and still cannot tell whether McDermott got a touch. Nonetheless Hair has been criticised for that decision, even though he only got to watch it once. He maybe should have given benefit of the doubt, but was satisfied contact with the glove had been made. He calls it as he sees it.

  • Murph on February 14, 2007, 3:42 GMT

    There seem to be a lot of lawyers (or people that think they could be lawyers) commenting on this issue. Lets hope that the Hair cases/accusations are heard publicly. I suspect that there will be a lot of detail revealed publicly for the first time and that this will bring a lot of this situation to a head. Hopefully Cricket and the ICC comes out stronger.

    Australia will win the World Cup (WI to lose the final).

  • Ben on February 14, 2007, 1:14 GMT

    The fact that Pakistan would be willing to forfeit a match that they were leading is indicative of the hurt they must have felt by these baseless accusations. And so, they risked everything. An immense statement. Show me, they said. Show me your allegation of cheating.

    And what did Hair have to show ? Nothing. Or rather, $500,000 to go away.

    Preposterous !

  • Talal Hasan on February 13, 2007, 19:11 GMT

    Charlie and Space man,

    2005. Faisalabad Test. Pakistan vs England. Mr. Hair declares Inzamam run out for leaving his crease while taking evasive action. Cricketing gurus feel it is contradictory to cricketing laws that stipulate that batsman cannot be run out if he leaves his ground due to evasive action. http://pavilionseat.wordpress.com/2006/11/07/hair-ball-ing-controversy/

    I agree that Hair was not completely faultless for this decision. However my point is that the decision should have not been referred to the 3rd umpire in the first place. From the footage you can clearly see that inzi left his crease because of the evasive action that he took.

    This was not just one isolated event, he has on numerous occassions given controversial decisions against Asian teams.

    Pakistan are content with the other umpires. However I believe that the level of umpiring has declined. I feel that teams should be allowed to critique umpires if they feel that their decisions have cost them matches.

    I don;t know who charlie and Spaceman support but if Asad Rauf gave your country's batsman out when they were clearly not out and he did this to your team over a consistent period of time. I ask you,wouldn;t both of you feel highly irritated by this individual? Or he took changed the ball because a dramatic amount of reverse swing was happening and he accused the team of tampering with the ball. However he was wrong about the ball tampering allegation, wouldn't you be frustrated?

    I use Asad Rauf not because he is Pakistani but because his umpire is appalling.

    However he is not alone, umpiring is world cricket has been dreadful.

  • Ben on February 13, 2007, 14:43 GMT

    Point 1. Did Doctrove agree wholeheartedly with Hair ? NO ! From Cricinfo (quotes) : " But Cricinfo has learnt that Doctrove, as written in his match report on the incident, was initially of the opinion that the umpires allow play to carry on for a few more overs to help identify the cause of the change in the ball's condition "

    Hair had the 'rush to judgement'. And in his haste, he got it wrong. When you actively search for something, in your mind you find it...even if it does not exist.

    Madugalle, with all the time and resources at his disposal vindicated Inzi with no charge of ball tampering.

    Point 2. Is Doctrove junior to Hair ? Technically no. But for all intents and purposes, he was. Most articles refer to Doctrove as 'junior to Hair'. And with 9 Tests to Hair's 76, he was 'junior'.

    If Hair wanted to forge ahead in haste and Doctrove wanted to wait before making such a momentous accusation, who gets their way ? Right. Hair, being the 'senior' ump gets his way.

    Point 3. The Laws of the game This is what happens when you bring a lawyer onto the cricket field. They become sticklers for the 'letter of the law' rather than the 'spirit of the game'.

    An elite ump is not a robot. He has to be able to communicate, use discretion, listen to his fellow ump, use the resourcing and so on. Madugalle's report clearly mentions this.

    And even if you grant him that he should strictly follow the letter of the law, he still got it wrong.

    Point 4. Why Hair banned and not Doctrove ? Because it's not just this one match. And not just with Pakistan. A majority of the ICC countries did not want Hair adjudicating for them.

    The very essence of an umpire is that the competitors have faith and confidence in your ability to be fair, neutral, knowledgeable and without prejudice, mediate the match through to its natural conclusion.

    The majority of the ICC nations lost confidence in Hair. Ultimately, that's the bottom line.

  • romeo on February 13, 2007, 13:24 GMT

    Hair doesn't have a case.

    When most of the ICC members dont want him, the ICC could not risk having him ump for fear of another volatile explosion.

    Ultimately, it boils down to this simple truth : When you accuse someone of something, you'd better be prepared to back up that accusation.

    Hair accused Pak of cheating, and was unable to back that up.

    Now he's accusing orgs of racism. Let's see he back that up.

  • Doug on February 13, 2007, 10:32 GMT

    Pakistan deserved to forfeit the Oval Test, not because they had been cheating (the powers that be seem to think that Hair was wrong about ball tampering) but because they chose, of their own free will, to sulk in their dressing room instead of coming onto the field. There are plenty of ways to handle complaints against umpires without acting like the spoiled child who takes his bat and ball and goes home because he is not getting his own way. Pakistan were winning the match, probably would have won it, and (speaking as an England supporter) deserved to win it because they were playing much the better cricket in the match. That doesn't give them the right to ignore the Law that says if the umpire calls "Play!" and you don't play, you forfeit the contest. A player of Inzamam's seniority undoubtedly knows this - and if Pakistan really think Hair was giving them worse than visiting teams used to get in Pakistan, they want their collective heads examined.

  • paul on February 13, 2007, 5:59 GMT

    Once again, Ben, please read the Laws of Cricket.

    Clearly both umpires believed there had been ball tampering.

    If Doctrove did not believe there had been ball tampering, play would have continued with no penalty. That did not happen therefore quite obviously, Doctrove also believed there had been ball tampering. The Laws do not allow for continuing in order to try to catch the culprit. The Laws state the umpires SHALL change the ball and award a 5 run penalty.

    The word SHALL suggests no alternative action is possible. The umpires WILL act in this manner if they both believe there has been ball tampering. Hair, if nothing else, has an unparallelled knowledge of the Laws of Cricket and I will accept that he would have impressed upon Doctrove that keeping the ball in play and waiting was not an option under the game's Laws, and it is incumbent upon him to act in accordance with these Laws, particularly if his fellow umpire is advocating a course of action not in accordance with the Laws.

    Doctrove, if he'd known the Laws of Cricket as well as Hair does, could have had his way simply by expressing the (false) opinion that the ball had not been tampered with. However, this would have meant the risk the game might have suddenly turned Pakistan's way by the ball wildly reverse swinging and a string of England wickets falling.

    Hair, being the stickler for the Laws of Cricket that he is, would have happily continued without acting had Doctrove expressed an opinion that tampering had not occurred, or even that he could not be sure. That did not happen. Doctrove was equally as certain as Hair that ball tampering had occurred.

    If you are not going to umpire in accordance with the Laws of Cricket, if you are going to make up the rules as you go along, you shouldn't be umpiring schoolboys, let alone a Test match.

    There is nothing whatsoever in the Laws of Cricket that one umpire is senior to the other. However, in this case, it is clear one had a greater knowledge and understanding of, and preparedness to enforce the Laws of Cricket than the other.

    The question remains, why did Pakistan not complain about both the umpires who accused them of cheating, and why did the ICC not remove them both from the elite panel if what they did was so wrong?

  • TK on February 13, 2007, 4:44 GMT

    The Australians are very good at playing the mind games. Recent actions by Speed & Hair are a part of the psychological pressure the Australians are putting on Pakistan before the start of the world cup.

  • sobia on February 12, 2007, 18:42 GMT

    I am glad to see so many people taking the side of the right,now is the time for all peoples to try to be fair.Cricket is supposed to be a game of gentlemen and umpires are a part of it too.What surprises me is the length of time it took for the genuine comlaint to be registered with the ICC.As for Mr. Hair's cry of racism ,I can only say that it is out of guilt probably.Mind you Mr Hair could not have withstood the onslought for so many years without support.

    ''

  • Harry on February 12, 2007, 16:14 GMT

    Hi

    I'm not sure his umpiring was personal or racist. I can say for sure that Mr Hair has made some of the most horendous decisions in international cricket I have ever seen of any umpire.

    In the 1994/95 tour of Australia by South Africa, Mr Hair caused the South African team many problems with one match in particular being the highlight of his incompetence. He adjudged a number of South African batters LBW when they clearly were not LBW. He did this with such consistence that I'm sure SA would have when the test series that they drew with the Aussies.

    I'm sorry to say this of any international umpire, but I'm glad that he no longer umpires matches.

    Regards, Harry

  • DR SAFDAR HUSSAIN on February 12, 2007, 14:21 GMT

    I agree Mr HAIR is bold,as bold and insensitive as a Schizophrenic can be.

  • Ben on February 12, 2007, 13:52 GMT

    No Paul, it was mainly Hair to blame for this. Doctrove wanted more time, but was bullied into forging ahead with the penalty by, as you call him the pompous arrogant Hair.

    Hair with 76 Tests to his name was clearly the senior umpire over Doctrove (11 Tests).

    I cannot see Doctrove standing up to Hair. Poor fella, he was dragged into this. Yet he was correct. Time was on their side. This was not an LBW type decision. Had they found out that there was no video evidence of this, they may have acted differently.

    Which is why most of the headlines and brouhaha center on Hair. Not Doctrove.

    And Madugalle's report concluded that there was no evidence of ball tampering.

    Now, for the point on proof. For a Test match to be cancelled, leaving so many high and dry, there had better be clear concrete proof of cheating. Not an opinion. Especially from one whose motives are suspect at best. Otherwise what's to stop another ump from doing exactly the same thing to Eng/Aus in retaliation ?

    The third point on removal from the elite panel is easy. ICC did want him to continue, but all of the nations lost confidence in him, except for Eng and NZ (Aus could not have him anyways). Which makes sense. An elite umpire should have handled this in a far better manner than an unsophisticated ham-handed approach.

    Hair's behaviour was as far from ' elite ' as one could get.

  • Usman on February 12, 2007, 12:52 GMT

    Good riddance Hair

  • RASHID on February 12, 2007, 10:02 GMT

    Mr. Hair is not capable of handling major problems whenever come in world cricket.

  • paul on February 12, 2007, 8:27 GMT

    Ben, first of all it wasn't just Hair, it was Hair and Doctrove.

    Secondly, and for the umpteenth time, the Laws of Cricket do not require ball tampering to be proven by the umpires. If they believe it happened, it happened. BOTH Hair and Doctrove believed it had occurred, from their frequent and irregular inspections of the ball. It is clearly not difficult to do these things out of camera shot (ie inside a pocket, etc). Presumably this is why only both umpire's opinions are needed, and not a greater level of proof. Requiring a greater level of proof, which may or may not be available, would more or less mean that ball tampering becomes legal provided it can't be proven by the umpires, who of course don't have access to TV footage out in the middle.

    Maybe we'll see the laws of cricket changed sometime soon but at the time (and still) these were the Laws of Cricket.

    The ICC have never satisfactorily explained why Hair was removed from his position on the elite panel, except to say that they had lost confidence in him. Even though he acted 100% in accordance with the Laws of Cricket.

    This matter will of course be decided in a tribunal, and I wish Hair all the best. It is in the interests of the game of cricket that this appalling ICC decision is shown to be the sham that it is. The umpire's decision must be final.

    I have no great liking for Hair. He does come across as pompous and somewhat arrogant. But he deserves much better than he has received in this saga and I sincerely hope he is vindicated.

  • RKhan on February 12, 2007, 2:58 GMT

    Opertunist at best. As a layman I have never been able to understand that his decision when declared wrong; he was still able to officiate as an umpire. Can anyone explain the reason behind this logic?

  • tim on February 12, 2007, 1:39 GMT

    Gentlemen,

    After speaking and reading generally and specifically on this problem with many people about "Rogue" umpires, I think people on all sides should accept that there is a cultural/political/economic divide on how various nations view umpires.

    In Australia the umpire in any sport is not supposed to be perfect and regardless any decision is accepted(god or bad)-"take it on the chin" attitude. The umpire is always given the benefit of the doubt with regards to impariality. Their status is above the players.

    In some other contries(notably the Indians I have spoken to) umpires are viewed as minor functonaries, their status is that of an necessary evil and any transgression by them is unforgivable, the players are paramount.

    Take Australia's exit from the Soccer World Cup by a decision for Italy which most of the world thought was just plain wrong but if you follow Italian Soccer and European referrering then you'll understand that big business and entrenched power blocs intimidate most soccer umpires(referrees) to the point that very bad decisions are made.

    Hair's problem is that he doesn't accept the cultural(etc) divide and applies the laws of cricket to the letter, a wiser man would be more prudent but not necessarily as correct. Murali's incident where a supect action was latter made legal due to entrenched politics underlines the point.

    So what do we want as the world mooves closer to sports globalization?. Do we want big business(like European Soccer) or political power blocks to decide sporting outcomes or do we want umpires to give out the letter of the law?

    Everyones call I think

  • Ben on February 11, 2007, 22:38 GMT

    Imagine how foolish the Pak team would have looked, if after staging their protest, evidence surfaced of their tampering with the ball.

    They would have had to be 100% sure that nobody tampered with the ball, for them to take that kind of high-risk action.

    If an ump's opinion overrides the thousands of fans, videocameras, binoculars, photos, Eng batsmen, Eng Team, umps themselves who saw nothing....then what's to stop another ump from doing the same thing again ?

    Imagine a Pak ump doing to Eng/Aus what Hair did to Pak ?

  • Spaceman! on February 11, 2007, 15:04 GMT

    "When it was blatenly obvious that inzi was taking evasive action when harmison threw the ball at the stumps. Hence he could not be given out."

    Thats the one i really don't understand; he reffered the question to the 3rd Umpire, like any other Umpire would. It was the 3rd Umpire - not Hair - who made the final decision and gave Inzi out. If people didn't have an agenda against Hair, thy'd realise this.

  • Mohammed Munir - Sharjah, UAE. on February 11, 2007, 13:03 GMT

    Darrell Hair and Malcolm Speed Connections:

    It was an interesting column from Mr. Kamran, and much more exciting were the comments from both sides of the continents. As eager are the Pakistani fans to blame Darrell Hair, the same way there is equally strong lobby to protect him. Kamran’s article was well-timed, though it gives out a stench of a personal grudge, which is not welcomed from a class journalist.

    There is so much being said, in the forthcoming comments, about Hair, PCB, and Kamran, so I would not dare to say anything new on these subjects. Who is right and who is wrong among them is a never-ending debate.

    Therefore, all said and done, I try to touch a forgotten nerve, a path less traveled and change the subject a bit.

    Why are we forgetting ICC, the employer of Hair, or Mr. Malcolm Speed, the ex-subordinate of Hair. Fair enough, in case any of you do not know, let me tell you a nice little story.

    Once upon a time, Mr. Malcolm Speed was working in some Australian umpire’s associations, where Hair was his direct boss, and Speed was reporting to him. So the two gentlemen do not only share their profession as lawyers, but are also coming from the similar backgrounds, and are best of chums….’Mates’.

    Strange as this may sound, but here is the proof, Mr. Hair is an ex-President of the “The New South Wales Umpires and Scorers Association (NSWCUSA)”, for which Mr. Speed was also a member, (the membership of Speed to NSWCUSA is given in the Advertisement), (see below link + advertisement picture in it):

    http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/268742.html

    So now all you guys would know that where from the support and encouragement, weather in words or actions, of ICC is coming for Mr. Hair. It seems Hair have not only strongly influenced and manipulated Speed’s decisions, but is also holding the entire ICC for ransom. The Following two links shall show how enthusiastically and fanatically did Speed tried to save Hair, and the simple reason for this was his whole-hearted love for his ‘mate’:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sol/ukfs_sport/hi/av/newsid_5280000/newsid_5287400/bb_wm_5287474.stm

    http://www.aussport.com.au/auspost/headlines/ICCHair_071106.htm

    Again, I do not want to enter into a debate whether Hair was right or wrong, but if for the sack of argument, lets consider for a minute that he was ‘right’, still Hair have done enough to bring disrepute to ICC at least, if not cricket. He is still under their official pay-role and is suing ICC, what a shame for ICC.

    Hair have eared millions from writing a book about how he called Murali’s action as ‘Diabolic’, and no balled him for chucking. He is expecting to do the same, this time around, and unless ICC wakes-up and interrupts him, nobody can stop him. After the Hair episode was over, he was barred from umpiring any test playing nations and it seemed for sometimes that the corpse is being buried and at rest, but this was not the case, and the lawyer in him was searching for other opportunities. So in this background, why did ICC brought him back and opened up old wounds?

    Percy Sonn, the President of ICC is not in favour of Hair, so ultimately, it's Speed the CEO of ICC who is on Hair's side this time again.

    After all this and so much bad-name being associated to ICC and Malcolm Speed himself, Speed should be man enough to resign, because he would have made enough livelihood, from sponsors funds and players match-fees, to enjoy his old age peacefully. And still if that is not enough for Speed, then he can also claim his share from the proceeds of Hair's new book.

    PS: My article is not copy-righted, and so is free for anyone to print, circulate, publish, and comment-on. For any direct comments, write to me on manimale@hotmail.com.

  • Charlie on February 11, 2007, 12:36 GMT

    Mr Hasan,

    you claimed that "The pakistan team have no problems with simon taufel and darrel harper", I don't know about Harper but the PCB complained about Taufel a couple of years ago and briefed the press against him, as they have been (ultimately successfully) against Hair for several years.

    "When it was blatenly obvious that inzi was taking evasive action when harmison threw the ball at the stumps. Hence he could not be given out."

    This is also not strictly true, the law says: "(a) he has been within his ground and has subsequently left it to avoid injury, when the wicket is put down." Clearly if he was out of his ground before taking evasive action he could still have been out. It was the third umpire who messed up the decision, Hair was perfectly entitled to ask the question, because there was a possibility that Ul Haq was out. It is only the one-eyed witch hunt associated with Hair that attributes even other peoples errors to him and attempts to ascribe base motives to those errors that he, like all umpires, makes.

  • paul on February 11, 2007, 9:02 GMT

    Hassan they already suspended Inzamam after the Pakistan side forfeited the Test by refusing to play. It was a lenient penalty, to be sure, but the matter is now closed.

  • guymed on February 11, 2007, 5:58 GMT

    He is no more in elite panel,that serves em right,finally some justice was seen. Let em cry...its his turn now.. guymed from NY

  • Spaceman! on February 11, 2007, 4:57 GMT

    OF COURSE Hair has a case. Read the laws of the game - Hair did nothing wrong, absolutely NOTHING. Whether Pakistan had actually tampered with the ball or not is irrelavent. In his opinion, it had been. The entire game is based around the opinion of the umpires. Could he have handled it better? Yes, very much so. Did he do anything wrong? No. the Laws are there, he abided by them. You cannot sack a man for following the laws of the game, otherwise, where will it all end?

  • Hassan Maulana on February 11, 2007, 4:42 GMT

    There he goes again this incredible bloke who shamed cricket.Perhaps he suing for something of his own medicine.The PCB should sue this idiot for depriving the conclusion of a fascinating test match at the oval.This man should be banished into oblivion.

  • John cardiff on February 11, 2007, 4:42 GMT

    WELL WELL WELL u know if what hair has done to pakistan if it was done to england or australia then this hair will be fired immediately thanks to australian citizenship bcoz they controll ICC or if instead of hair there was aleem dar or asad rauf umpiring in ashes then i believe the whole pakistani team would be banned from the international cricket DOUBLE STANDARDS!!!

  • paul on February 11, 2007, 4:07 GMT

    Saiful, and others, you should take a look at the Laws of Cricket. Law 42 to be precise. Ball tampering does not need to be proven by the umpires. It is sufficient that both umpires believe it has occurred. Once both umpires believe it has occurred, the Laws state they SHALL change the ball and they SHALL award 5 penalty runs to the batting side. The umpires had no option under the Laws of Cricket but to take these actions once they believed ball tampering had occurred.

    The umpires acted in unison. So why was one removed from the elite panel and the other not? Why did Pakistan complain about just one umpire when the decisions had been made by both? Would the vote have been carried if it had been Doctrove being removed as well? Would the West Indies have voted for Doctrove's removal? Of course not. Why then did they vote for Hair's removal? Because he is Australian, not West Indian?

    Hair has been removed for carrying out the Laws of Cricket to the letter. Those Laws will be his strongest ally in the coming court case.

    All the above questions, and many more, will be put to the ICC in court.

    In view of the above, it is ludicrous to suggest Hair does not have a case.

  • Ben on February 11, 2007, 3:28 GMT

    So Hair can sue PCB, but PCB cannot sue Hair ?

    And others cannot accuse Hair of racism, but Hair can accuse others of racism ?

  • pat on February 10, 2007, 23:28 GMT

    To everyone claiming that Hair should be sued for forfeiting the test, let me remind you of one very important fact - he was working as an employee of the ICC, so, by law, acting as an agent of the ICC it is the ICC who would be punished for Hair's actions, not Hair himself.

    ALSO, the reason you only hear about Hair's supposed clashes with "blacks/browns" (not my words - other commentors'), is becasuse no player would kick up a stink about "racism" against an umpire of the same colour. Think about it, as a white Australian, who would take me seriously if I accused Rudi Koertzen or Billy Bowden of racism?

  • Ben on February 10, 2007, 23:14 GMT

    Hair doesn't have a case.

    When most of the ICC members dont want him, the ICC could not risk having him ump for fear of another volatile explosion.

    Ultimately, it boils down to this simple truth : When you accuse someone of something, you'd better be prepared to back up that accusation.

    Hair accused Pak of cheating, and was unable to back that up.

    Now he's accusing orgs of racism. Let's see he back that up.

  • Saiful Ansari on February 10, 2007 on February 10, 2007, 21:31 GMT

    Kamran your article is very appropriate. Umpire Hair is intent on leaving an interesting precedent by suing both ICC and PCB on grounds of "Rascism".

    Ironically, Hair believes that he was sidelined by his employer (ICC) because he is white, while Billy Doctrove the junior empire was spared. Both Hair and Doctrove were umpires who played starring roles in the sad saga involving ball tampering allegation leading up to forfeit of a test match (involving Pakistan and England) for the first time in the entire history of test cricket. The accusation of Ball Tempering against Pakistan cricket squad could not be proved. In that test match, the Pakistan team did not take the field after tea, feeling the charge of ball tampering was a dishonor to their country. Inzy as the Captain of Pakistan team was charged with bringing the game of cricket in to disrepute and penalized.

    The only reason for Pakistan team not to take the field in the forfeited test match was prompted by the decision of Umpire Hair to penalize them for ball tampering and give five runs to their opponent. As this charge could not be proved, the second charge on Inzy for bringing the game in to disrepute should have been dropped.

    In addition to it, ICC should have cautioned the standing Umpires for the error and the manner in which they handled the entire affair in that ill- fated test match. On the contrary, even after the discloser that Mr.Hair had sought $500,000 from his employer to quietly go away (resign from his job), no discipilinary action was taken against him by the ICC. This clearly emboldened Mr.Hair and in his first assignment to umpire the matches between Non-Test playing Nations, he used the occassion to advertise his legal action against ICC and PCB.

    A little publicity wont hurt Mr.Hair, but it could come back to haunt ICC.

    Mr. Hair may have grievances against his employer ICC. The employer opted to take Mr.Hair off umpiring assignment in matches involving the Test playing Nations. If Mr.Hair feels, ICC as his employer has wronged him, he is within his rights to take legal action against ICC. However, Mr. Hair has dragged PCB too in his legal suit. Now that clearly makes no sense and will not hold out in the court, even if Hair believes that ICC has acted against him out of pressure brought on it by Pakistan Cricket Board with the support of other Asian Cricket Boards.

    I reckon after demaning half a million in severance from his employers, Hair has clearly lost credibility and whatever little reputation was left will be tarnished if his recent suit is thrown out of the court.

  • Spaceman! on February 10, 2007, 21:27 GMT

    Jack Knowles, Re: "He virtually black-mailed the ICC for half a million dollars, another negative." That amount of money was the amount of money he would have recieved had the ICC not unfairly dismissed him. He was contracted for a period of time and that was the amount of money he was due from the remainder of his contract. If i was considering stepping down from a job due to pressures placed upon me by a party, when i had done nothing wrong i certainly would be seeking the remainder of my pay that i was contracted for.

  • Umair Muzaffar on February 10, 2007, 20:16 GMT

    To; Pete

    Well, I may stand corrected on Ricky Ponting as Ricky Ponting usually does not wait until the end of the match --- even when he gets run out fair and square --- he blasted Aleem Daar for allowing a substitute fielder to run him out.

    If you do not remember please follow the link.

    http://thatscricket.oneindia.in/2005/test_series/eng-aus/0609aleemdar.html

    Also please follow these links to see Ponting’s other glamorous moments.

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/ponting-risks-suspension-after-another-outburst/2006/09/13/1157827018106.html?from=rss

    http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/260584.html

    Somehow even after all this ... Ponting, to my very limited knowledge did not get suspension orders.

    My final word on this topic is:

    The certainly is a different behavior exhibited by current Asian player who do not take crap from anyone --- which is markedly different from the Asian players of the past who always did bend over and.....

    In some quarters of Western world this difference of attitude is somehow still thought of as unacceptable from Asian players while non-Asian player are still deemed justified just because … we can only speculate. ...!!

  • sammy johns on February 10, 2007, 18:15 GMT

    We really should not waste our energy talking about pigs like Darrell hair. He is a racist who has brought the nobel game of cricket to shame.Since ICC itself is full of bigots,the pig is lucky enough to find himself still officiating some games.I some times wonder how that pig can even look at his face in the mirror everyday .Shame on him and shame on every one else who have the nerve to support that nasty creature.Please don't let him come again to spoil the beauty of the game,he is a dirt and deserves a place in dirt.

  • Talal Hasan on February 10, 2007, 16:56 GMT

    Whether mr Hair is a racist or not isn't really the issue.

    The issue is that his performance has suffered and he has become more incompetent as an umpire. To a mr TONY you can quote all the laws of the ICC but you also need to understand that mr HAIR has made many mistakes and his mistakes can be described as amatuerish.

    One real pertinent example was in 2005 when he referred inzi to the 3rd umpire. When it was blatenly obvious that inzi was taking evasive action when harmison threw the ball at the stumps. Hence he could not be given out. Now any one who is has the most elementary understanding of cricket knows this rule. YET MR HAIR FAILED TO APPLY IT.

    Mr Hair is also incredibly pedantic to call off the oval test in such a manner without even trying to make an concerted effort to explain his actions to pakistan team shows a real lack of respect for not only the players but also the fans.

    The fact that 3 neutral experts and a myriad of cameras shows that the pakistan team did not tamper the ball also shows that MR HAIR decision was ultimately wrong.

    The issue of racism that mr hair has against the pcb is completely unfounded. The pakistan team have no problems with simon taufel and darrel harper. The problem is with mr hair because of his consistent poor decision making.

    Umpiring has been very poor for the last 2 years and the ICC really should look at the role of the 3rd umpire. Let him look out for no balls and use him for lbw decision because too many lbw decisions have been wrong. One major culprit is asad rauf.

    Hair i will not be looking foward to your next auto biography aptly titled The enforcer part 2

  • Spaceman! on February 10, 2007, 16:25 GMT

    Surely 'self-righteous' is a phrase best used to describe the PCB? Their actions at the Oval were self-rightious. Their actions over the drugs cheats was self-rightious. Whatever Hair did - and i believe that he could have handled the situation better - he did in strict accordance with the rules. This man has been hounded out of his job for following the laws of the game. That cannot possibly be right, no-matter what way you twist it. Where does it stop? Refusing to play on because of a dodgy LBW decision? Meanwhile, the PCB have let off 2 drugs cheats, which shows the level of respect they have for the laws and spirit of the game; none.

  • paul on February 10, 2007, 14:48 GMT

    $500k is chickenfeed compared to what this could cost the ICC. It's hard to see how they have a leg to stand on.

  • Tony on February 10, 2007, 14:38 GMT

    It is, perhaps understandably, tempting to call Darrell Hair a racist. It is also deeply stupid to do so and quite incorrect. For the purposes of bringing the facts in this matter, rather than hysterical opinion, back into focus, it is important to remind ourselves that... 1. Under the Laws of Cricket it is the UMPIRES who are the SOLE judges of fair and unfair play - NOT the Pakistan Cricket Board, the ICC, the people making money out of selling tickets, the ice-cream vendor round the back of the pavilion - nor even, dare I say it, the spectators - whether they be at the ground or watching on TV. 2. Under the Laws of Cricket BOTH of the umpires MUST agree to certain courses of action. If one of them disagrees then the status quo ante prevsails or - if you want that in English - the match goes on as before. That the match did not continue as before therefore means that both umpires were indeed in agreement. 3. The Laws of Cricket make no mention anywhere of one umpire being 'senior' to the other. Nor do umpires themselves, as it happens. 4. Sometimes the Laws of Cricket are augmented by special Playing Conditions agreed by both sides to apply to a match or a series. One such applied in the England-Pakistan Test at the Oval in 2006. The Playing Condition was that, if the umpires had to change the ball because someone had 'changed its condition' (i.e. 'tampered' with it or, to put it bluntly, cheated), then the choice of which ball to use would be given to the batsmen. This was done. Everyone who knows the slightest thing about the Laws knows that umpires Hair and Doctrove acted strictly and completely within the Laws of the game. That is what they are there to do, and it is what they did. Whether you, I, the players or that ice-cream vendor behind the pavilion agree with their decision is, rightly, neither here nor there, or should that be hair nor there! So why is one umpire singled out for 'punishment' when his crime has been to do they job he is paid to do, which is to administer the Laws? Why is the other umpire not singled out for punishment for doing the (same) job he is also paid to do? Some might call that racism. Can you not see what this appalling action by the ICC will do to cricket? If the umpire's decision is no longer final, then it becomes open season for anyone to dispute anything that goes against them or doesn't suit their team's chances. It is the road to anarchy and the ultimate destruction of the finest game of all, to be replaced by some hideous money-obsessed cricket version of all-in professional wrestling. If that's what you want, keep complaining about Darrell Hair. Oh, by the way, as to Darrell Hair being a 'rascist', well, you ought to spend some time talking to the man. That would soon put you straight. I know this because I have done just that.

  • Waqar Younis on February 10, 2007, 9:58 GMT

    What Ever ,,,,Hair is blind for money,,,he wants any possible way to get money,,,,,,,,started with his sale price $500,000,,found no doughnuts,,,continues with sueing,,,what a cheap way to get fame nd money...

  • paul on February 10, 2007, 8:26 GMT

    Nature Boy, it is not a defence against discrimination that other persons of similar status were not discriminated against. For example, you don't have to have discriminated against all persons of a certain race to discriminate against one. This should be fairly obvious to just about anyone.

    Hair appears to have been sacked not for incompetence, as he appears to have followed the laws of cricket to the very letter, but for upsetting the powerful. The grounds for his removal from the elite panel appear spurious, to say the least. It is my opinion that he has a case for compensation against the ICC, and the courts will decide. I'm not sure how he has a case against the PCB though.

  • Jack Knowles on February 10, 2007, 7:26 GMT

    So much has been said about the man's character. I agree that he upheld the cricketing law by judging the match forfeited when a team refused to take the field. That's a positive.

    However, - He didn't back up or exlpain his ball tampering charge, negative - He virtually black-mailed the ICC for half a million dollars, another negative - The ICC actually did him a favour by not finig or life-banning him. He's now taking the ICC to court for racial discrimination, a preposterous negative!

    Many more negatives than positives. There are other white/australian/english umpires with whom none of the asian teams have issues, hence, they cannot be called racist.

  • Wombat on February 10, 2007, 7:24 GMT

    Posted by: nature boy at February 9, 2007 9:03 AM

    lets face it even in the remotest possibility that Hair creature was unbiased i think it is only prudent to remove him because such a large cummunity of cricketer feel uncomfortable with him. so his getting the kick was either fair or atleast wise on the icc side and unforunate (ohh i am crying for him)for hair. either way it was the right decision to make,

    Right Nature boy, so you're saying everytime an involved and therefore never possibly unbiased stakeholder group is upset with the actions of an individual, that means the individual must be wrong, and therefore without any examination of the possible facts we remove and blame the individual. What a ridiculous load of tripe of a decision making process. Honestly, if you believe that, not only do you show no understanding of law, but none of common logic either. If that be so, please refrain from commenting on the topic again. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but better that than you show your inability to contribute to a serious topic with such tripe.

    Really people need to stop being biased, PARANOID ABOUT PEOPLE SUPPOSEDLY BEING RACIST AGAINST THEM and making suggestions for action against Hair more akin to a radical logicless mob rather than intelligent adults. As John makes the point, Hair has at least some grounds on which to take legal action, and if not, certainly the right, as do the PCB and the ICC the right to defend his assertions with presented facts, in court, not paranoid ideas, and completely illogical and illegal punishment suggestions. Therefore let's hope the PCB and ICC prepare logical and appropriate defences to be heard in the appropriate forum, and don't listen to the rantings of most of you. As I said the first time, the process will take it's course, and we should all get over it.

  • calgary highlander on February 10, 2007, 3:41 GMT

    Guys, did we see any proof that pakistan had tampered with the ball? NO!!!!!!! At first Doctrove wasn't sure wether he should go with Hair's decision. Hair being the senior umpire drew him in. Thats why i'M GONNA LEAVE bILLY OUTTA THIS. Darrel Hair acted on suspicion not on proof.Pakistan to look good in the public eye did not take action against him. No its biting them in the back.

    As for the comments written by Charlie

    I highly doubt that Kamran would decide to offer to quit for half a million dollars. Oh and as for enforcing the rules, Pakistan did come back out on to the field but He had already said they had forfeited the match.

  • john vane on February 9, 2007, 19:58 GMT

    Kamran, You mentioned in your article that you asked Hair a question that he ignored. Under what circumstances did that occur? Did he look straight at you, mention you by name, listen to your question and then tell you he wasn't answering it or was there a great mass of journalists yelling out questions or had you already asked a question and were trying to get a second one in thereby taking up another journalists time or something similar? It seems inconceivable to me that you can say that Hair, a big white man, should be hung for following the rules as he saw fit (and remember it wasn't him that refused to return to the field despite repeated warnings - in all other cases of threatened forfiets the captains have been wise enough to return to the field in time and/or their manages or representatives of their boards have ordered them to return to the field)yet Doctrove, a small dark skinned man should be dusted off, told 'no problems the big white man was pushing you around' and sent back out to umpire. Let's get real here, that is an even more sickening concept than the idea of Hair being a racist. I'm sure Doctrove doesn't consider himself to be a good little boy just doing what the big daryl wants yet you paint him like that. Hair has a good point - what was he actually sacked for? Enforcing the rules? He followed them to the letter. It's fine for Tom, Dick and Harry to come and look at a game ball weeks after the event and disagree with an umpire's opinion about tampering but something made them suspicious just like something should have made the umpires suspicious in the 2005 Ashes series when reverse swing started happening in the 20th over for the first time in history. Frankly I believe Hair has an excellent case for wrongful dismissal because he has been sacked for following the laws as they stand while he was one of the top 3 umpires in the game and the only reason appears to be his race. As for your article itself, I think you would be a better writer if you grew up, stopped sucking your thumb and throwing your dummy away every time someone upset you. In case you are wondering I am Australian by birth but my father was a half Nigerian and my mother is half Aboriginal so I have a reasonable understanding of discrimination

  • A.R.Zaidi on February 9, 2007, 18:58 GMT

    Ohhhhhhhh He is back again and on our nerves. Can anyone stop him? A proved spoiler of the game, Mr Hair should not only be sued by Pakistan Board but India, Srilanka, Bangladesh and SriLanks should join hands too. Mr Malcolm Speed is showing favour to Hair. Once he is banned, why does he want to raise the controversey again? Cheap popularity? A wolf trying to prove innocent or as Sarfraz Nawaz said today he wants to write a book so is looking for material. Plz Mr Hair, stop doing this, u have been found gulity so dont dig out the matter again. I m sure in my heart that no court is going to give a verdict in ur favour so it would be in the interest of the game if u close this chapter otherwise more mud would come towards face.

  • Mohsin Malik - San Francisco Bay Area on February 9, 2007, 18:12 GMT

    Pak Spin - Best Blog Site

    Kamran Abbasi is doing a wonderful job by initiating coverage here of a wide ranging subjects that matter and relate to the sport of cricket, we all follow so fervently and are passionate about.

    The fact of the matter remains that we continue to see opinions in all hues and colors from both ends of the scale and this speaks volumes for the popularity Pak Spin has gained as one of the top notch blog sites pertaining to the game of cricket.

    As far as some specific blogs concerning putting the house of PCB in order are concerned, Kamran Abbasi indeed reflects our thoughts and wish list to see this popular sport prosper further in the homeland.

    There is nothing wrong in that.

    Please continue to pour in your thoughts and comments. Good to see a host of South Africans, Indians and others pitching in with their mindset and sharing views here (uncensored - that's a good policy matter, of course) and makes Pak Spin an authentic blog site.

    Thats the way forward!

    Keep it up, Mr. Abbasi and do not be distracted. You have the needed support here as the big numbers reveal for themselves.

    Thanks!

    Mohsin Malik

  • pete on February 9, 2007, 17:28 GMT

    Umair Muzaffar : "As a side note Ricky Ponting in his post match comments has repeatedly blamed umpires for erroneous decisions but he has never faced any disciplinary actions."

    Name one example of this. And while your at it, are you saying people should be disciplined for blaming the umpire? I can't remember the Aussies doing it, even after the 2005 Ashes, but Inzy and co has kicked up a fuss or two over controversial dismissals in his time, last season's Harmison runout and his obstruction of the field.

  • Charlie on February 9, 2007, 16:50 GMT

    Mr Abbasi,

    if you had been repeatedly accused of racism, driven out of your job and hung out to dry by your employers, all because you enforced the rules they set down, I think you might 'create a fuss' as well. I'm just suprised it has taken so long for Mr Hair to try to fight his corner.

  • usman zia hidayat on February 9, 2007, 16:46 GMT

    mr.hair needs to be careful in what he is going to say or take any actions against pakistan talking racism hair saheb should look at his record once again against asian countries espacialy against pakistan during the resent pakistan english series before percceding,so that he doesnt have to pull his hair's

  • riyas on February 9, 2007, 9:39 GMT

    Hi i am really bemused by the continued claim that hair is the best umpire around by the british and austrailians like james above. I live in england and i from first hand experience know how much cricket is shown in british TV and how much coverage is given in the papers. the british cricket fan is only interested if england plays but people from the subcontinent will wake up in 4am in the morning to watch austrlia play south africa in a test match. i know i certainly did. and it all free to air for us. we are exposed to much more cricket and we have certainly seen hairs bias. as usual the ICC does not see any error in his "mistakes" however much he continues to make them.

    the ICC's double standads ahev come to the fore again with the afridi insident. i havent seen the footage persoanlly but the reports are thet he "brandished" a bat at a spectator and although no one repotrted him Malcom speed saw it fit ot over rule procedure and have him investigated.

    not long ago i remember watching clearly on tv andrew symonds using his bat to shove away a spectator who was trying to pat him on the back. but that was due to the "pressure" of cricket so its was ok.

    the ICC may not be racist in the strict definition of the word. but it is certainly very biased.

  • nature boy on February 9, 2007, 9:03 GMT

    lets face it even in the remotest possibility that Hair creature was unbiased i think it is only prudent to remove him because such a large cummunity of cricketer feel uncomfortable with him. so his getting the kick was either fair or atleast wise on the icc side and unforunate (ohh i am crying for him)for hair. either way it was the right decision to make, now to the rasict part does the Asian block have something against all white umpires in general ? Noo. so the hair creature doesnt stand a chance in this... well billy doctrove was just tagging along with this Hair creature so the most he should have been penalized for was for not commenting his objective views on the situation. Sorry Hair but its time we shave you off for good cause you always had probs with Asain players wheather it be their bowling or their balls (pun intended)

  • Nuruddin Lakhani on February 9, 2007, 7:54 GMT

    You must have heard the famous saying: NEVER TAMPER WITH YOUR BALLS IN PUBLIC WITH HAIR AROUND!!!

    Let's face the facts. There were ball tampering allegations during the England tours of 1992 and 1996 when the English batting was demoralized by the two great W's. Imran Khan successfully took Ian Botham to the court for the wrongful accusations. For the first time in this series of 2006 when Pakistani bowlers dominated, few eyebrows were raised and probably Hair was given a tip. As righteous an umpire should be, he suspected the possible ball tampering and when he was convinced, he made his decision. I believe that the decision was made in a haste . . . and had nothing to do with racial discrimination. Later, an emotional decision was made by the Pakistan team captain Inzi with poor management support that rightfully made him guilty of bringing the game into bad reputation.

    What happened next? Hair lost his credibility after the post incident scandal involving half a million dollars. Inzi returned to play for Pakistan, ICC lost faith in Hair to officiate in Tests but kept him in the panel to officiate 'other' matches. Life went on . . . until now. We don't know where this legal issues will take us, but one thing is for sure. Mr. Hair will now be unemployed whereas ICC, PCB and the players will continue with their respective jobs, duties and game. I feel sorry for this guy who has done nothing but to make things difficult for himself.

  • Umair Muzaffar on February 9, 2007, 7:47 GMT

    To: Nath;

    I stand corrected about Lillee; if that is the case.

    The reality is that Mr. Hair's demeanor throughout the Oval test was demeaning towards the Pakistani players. I saw the entire game ball to ball and everything in between (minus any breaks for biological needs).

    I may actually be wrong about Mike Gatting when was cursing at Shakoor Rana but he remained the Captain for the series. However Mike Gatting did apologize --- but the Cricketing authorities did not penalize Mike Gatting. I remember Shakoor Rana called Gatting for moving the field while bowler was in his stride to bowl --- there was evidence of that offence --- on top of that Gatting cursed at the Umpire but he escaped the entire incident without any action against him. How do you explain that Mr. Nath?

    In Darrel Hair's case it seems that umpiring was not his cup of tea --- his personality is at odds with that required for an umpire. He never seemed happy to be out there in the middle --- it always seemed that he was not at ease with his job requirements.

    I am sure that if Asad Rauf had done the same to Australian team then he would have been worst off. As it is Ricky Ponting does not hold his words if Asad Rauf (or any other non Australian umpire) makes a mistake. God knows what he would have had to face had he had called them cheats. As a side note Ricky Ponting in his post match comments has repeatedly blamed umpires for erroneous decisions but he has never faced any disciplinary actions. I am sure if Inzy had at any point mentioned anything about the umpiring decisions, and they have been pivotal on many occasions, then he would have a little less money to his name and a few less international caps.

    I agree that this is my biased view and I did mention it at the end of my previous posting. What clouds your mind Mr. Nath when you generalize by saying “Many people from the sub continent attribute everything to racism. Every negative thing that happens to them is somehow an example of racism, in their minds?”

  • Nature Boy on February 9, 2007, 7:41 GMT

    Guys chill out, look at the obvious, there is this Asain block all of whom have think he is biased right ? and they they complain about any other white umpire NO!!! so either there is something inherently wrong with the way Hair creature umpires or the whole Asian block have a bone to pick with him either way. if such a large cummunity of cricketers think his officiating is not fair and are uncomfortable with him around then him being kicked out is the only wise thing to do, no matter what, if he sticks out then remove him and thats what they did. well 'Hair is not Fair' period

  • Wombat on February 9, 2007, 5:32 GMT

    While i don't agree with Hair's decision to sue, I agree even less with the ridiculous outlandish reaction of the majority of people on here. In your attempts to label Hair everything under the sun and call for every illogical and illegal punishment against him under the sun, you prove yourselves to be the fools, and the only ones in this saga who are truly irrational and dangerous. Like Nick said, sadly sub continental cricket fans are morbidly paranoid about supposed racism against them. Stay away from your mindset and your paranoia and stick to facts. The facts are that Hair has a right to sue, the other parties have the right to defend themselves, and the legal process will deal with the matter from here. You should let it. Get over it.

  • Azam Ali on February 9, 2007, 4:40 GMT

    Dear Paul or whoever is advocating for Hair!

    You must understand giving wrong out/not out is part of the game no one has right to argue or fight with umps on this.

    But accusing someone for outright cheating is different thing at all.

    No one with shred of self respect would take this kind of allegations lying low in the name of sporting sprit. When someone would attack on my character and integrity I would never allow the person to get away Scot free. That’s what Inzi and Pakistan done.

    He could have changed the ball if feels not fit for play (if he does not have enough evidence of ball tempering).

    Mind you this guy is lawyer by profession and understands legal requirements better then everyone.

    Had he a lay man in term of legal issues, I might give him benefit of doubt, but how can a lawyer accuse someone does not know requirement of prove in open hearing?

    I hope you understand racist or not, he has some sort of prejudice against Pakistan, and acted in hast without considering or (may be never expected that Pakistan would fight back).

    His mistakes are not as innocent as you want to make it. Why all Asian countries are problem with him?

    Why he has such a reputation with "Blacks and Browns" only?

    He may be a good umpire but unfortunately with some inherence biases against Asian countries, so acted in impulsive manner.

    I believe the sports does not need peoples with kind of mind set.

    On other side why not instead of discussing idea of is guilt or innocence, we should discuss idea of some sort of rehabilitation.

    Is there possibility instead of banning a good umpire for good, ICC could give him time to think over and change his way?

    When apartheid South Africa can rehabilitated, Gibbs could fined and banned for two matches and considered rehabilitated. Why not he also have chance to mend his ways?

    Umpires are sacred in cricketed there not enough procedures available to correct them if the found wrong, that is why either then or in or out of elite panel base on their performance. Why not we try to save their career by making them subject to same level of scrutiny as player, so they could be banned for few matches for mistakes rather then kicked out all together?

    Just a food of thought.

  • Abdul Waheed on February 9, 2007, 3:29 GMT

    Assalamalaikum Mr. Kamran

    Right from the beginning of this controversy at the Oval, I strongly felt that someone should sue Mr. Hair. It can be carried either: 1- By the members of the Pakistan team as they were wrongly accused of cheating. 2- PCB, on behalf of Pakistan Cricket team and Pakistani Nation as a whole. 3- Colored cricket playing countries especially from the subcontinent.

    I understand and am with you Kamran when you say, “Mr. Hair's obnoxious attitude towards me didn't bother me in the slightest, by contrast it was highly revealing.” At the same time he and people like him must be made to realize that there are rules for on and off the field both. This man has gotten away with this whole saga too cheaply. Therefore, he thinks he can have his own way outside the Cricket ground as well. Definitely, that’s why he is trying to add insult to injury. I have followed cricket like many other keen followers around the globe. What once was called a gentleman’s sport and regretfully is not the case anymore. Mr. Hair has always had this cunning/authoritative/arrogant looks that comes out pouring of his face when dealing with colored players especially from the subcontinent. The look couples again with his body actions and body language when dealing with colored sportsmen especially from the subcontinent. This can be missed only by someone who is blind at heart. Mr. Hair simply wants to say I hate you and I do not consider you an equal human to myself. It sure reminds me of the stories how a typical Gora sahib treated the locals in pre partitioned India.

    Going through the mind of people like Mr. Hair, it is also understandable why people like Mr. Hair act the way they do. Yes, one can not be made to love someone but in today’s world there is no place for this kind of open bigotry. Therefore, I would strongly urge any or all of the above mentioned THREE groups to take strong actions and take Mr. Hair to the court. This is not only good for the game but should serve a warning to Mr. Hair and like minded people that if there are rules for on and off the field, they must be followed equally by everyone, REGARDLESS OF COLOR OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR NONSENSE BIAS.

    Sincerely

    Abdul Waheed

  • JAVED A. KHAN, MONTREAL, CANADA on February 9, 2007, 2:51 GMT

    That Grumpy Old Hairless, Gutless, Spineless, lump of lard has the audacity and the cheekiness to say that he will sue PCB? He should actually be banned for life. It is ICC's dual policy and hypocrisy towards him by allowing him to stand as an umpire in Kenya that has prompted him to come up with this statement. ICC has always been hypocritical in dealing with umpires and players from white and non-white countries differently and they have two different set of rules for each of them. This is nothing but breeding racism in cricket and ICC is at its best.

    First, it is PCB and their officials inability and passiveness that lead Hair off the hook and PCB's humble Dr. Peter Ashraf has not taken any action against Hair when it was needed and now he is saying: "It is crass for him to say a black West Indian was let off [whereas] he was a white man and therefore he was charged. Mr Hair was the senior umpire and he literally took over that Oval cricket match. I (Ashraf) was present there." So what if you were present there then? Did you take any action? NO.

    What is the point of crying over the split milk now? You are supposed to strike when the iron was hot or bang a last nail on his coffin, at that time you showed your generosity and your humility and pardoned him. Even Inzamam said, "being a Muslim I will forgive and pardon him...and blady blah." When you are dealing with crooks like Hair or bunch of hypocrites from ICC you should not show any sympathy or generosity because, they never spare a moment to damage you or tarnish your reputation. I believe that you hit back with a stone if someone hits you with a brick, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." Call a spade a spade and be blunt when dealing with the evil mongers who never hesitate to call you evil at any given opportunity for no reason. If you show your humility and your generosity and pardon them, they consider it as your weakness and take advantage of you. And this is what exactly is happening in Hair's case now. Inzamam should have NEVER accepted a ban and PCB should have taken Hair to the court for defamation and for the loss of revenue etc.

    Whatever Hair may be thinking now, or it is just a ploy to draw attention it will only be another ploy in which he won't succed. Although, he already has a lot sympathy from ACB and the whole of Australia is behind him, he would like to gain more sympathies by trying to make people believe that PCB "unlawfully induced" the ICC to engage in discriminatory acts when it lobbied for his ban before a November meeting. Percy Sonn, ICC president, announced after the meeting: " His comments are so childish, as if ICC is a 2 year old kid and PCB offered them a lollypop to induce them unlawfully against Hair! What a load of cow manure! He has NO CASE and he can go to Helsinki.

    This one is for "bemused." February 8, 2007 6:07 PM

    You may call it a one eyed journalism or get more bewildered, the fact is Hair is a racist and so is ICC. And you will always be bemused and confused because you adapt ostrich policy and go into denial. Reality sucks, right?

  • Andrew G on February 9, 2007, 2:07 GMT

    Hi Kamran,

    Interesting thread. I was left wondering if their had been any other prior history between you and Mr Hair. Anyways here are my views; 1. Hair is not racist - but could be prejudicial. I think because it was Pakistan - a team known to have tampered with the ball in the PAST, Hair assumed whatever annomoly that had occured to the ball was caused by Pakistan who had history. Might not be the correct way to deal with the issue - I would assume there should be the benefit of doubt applied by Hair. It wasn't the rest is history. I believe Hair should of been 100% sure that the ball was tampered with before awarding the 5 run penalty - probably should of consulted the match referee. 2. Hair was right to no-ball Murali because his action was/is terrible. Murali has been cleared since but the truth of the matter was that no-one really knew whether it was legal - the rules have been re-drafted to make it legal. I still have doubts about his Doosra though. 3. The ICC could have problems as Hair has been rated by the ICC as being the best of the elite panel - now he is not even worthy of officiating in the World Cup. Most countries in the world have unfair dismissal laws guarding the employees rights from unjust decision makers from employers. How can one match make Hair go from the Best of the Elite to crap? That is going to be very hard to defend. 4. The forfeit was not entirely Hairs fault. My understanding was that Pakistan refused to take the field. I have said before that whilst I think is a good human being, (if he drank beer I would love to have a beer with him and bet on the horses at a local pub), I think he is a poor captain, Inzy should NOT have kept his players off the field at the interval. He should of gotten management to lodge a complaint or personally tried to sort the issue out with an the other Match Officials after the days play. I will say that maybe Hair should of explained in detail what the refusal to play on time could result in. I know the Pakistan were indignant about the 5 run penalty but a sulky protest was not the answer. 6. Pakistan Board are racist? I think Hair has a snowflakes chance in hell of getting that one across the line. I think its an interesting case where a white man is accusing an Asian/Brown organisation of racism. But Hair has a point sort of maybe! White man being taken to task, Black man (Doctrove), unpunished.

    I don't personally take the comments in this article as being racist - but prejudicial. The Warne v Qadir debate was predominately parochial - but Aussies were often labeled as yobos - which would be like me branding muslims as terrorist sympathisers - its not true. Yet it was common to see that arguement used against the Australian view. I am Australian - I don't think Hair is racist, I believe he probably didn't apply the rules of cricket appropriately. He didn't deserve to be sacked. I believe the worst decision he ever made as an umpire was an LBW decision against a White South African!

    To me the problem that exists here is ignorance on both sides of the fence, (assuming there is only one fence!). People need to understand other cultures better before brandishing the easy option of he is biased or racist. Maybe inconsiderate or ignorant are better descriptions.

    Comments?

    ps: top 4 at the World Cup (in order) 1. Australia 2. South Africa 3. India 4. Pakistan

  • Shiner on February 9, 2007, 1:15 GMT

    Nick, What Al-Haq did, was a contradiction of his name, true. But for you to make such sweeping comments as’ As for Pakistan - look back at the team's record of cheating, ball-tampering, and now drug-taking.’ Is to forget most of the above by the previous blogger. Everyone cheats, no one should. Everyone is racist, no one should be. Pakistan does not have a flawless recent record, but who does? NZ? Who play in the spirit of the game vs. SL and Zim? We’re not that clean ourselves. Clearly we did not tamper in Ashes 2005 (oh the long forgotten glory!) but Pakistan do every time they visit us. We both swung it like Beckham - are our bowlers that superior? Considering 90% of the staff I work with take drugs, I cannot see how England players do not - I don’t know of the ‘culture’ of other nations. It’s so normal to…

  • Rascal on February 9, 2007, 1:14 GMT

    James, I’m ashamed to share a nationality and passion with you. Your bias shows through in this blog like none other. Pakistan has problems, as does Sri Lanka, India, Kenya, and Zimbabwe. I can’t recall the last black player for England where before they were everywhere. I can’t understand why Owais Shah is not picked - he’s no Lara/Ponting, but he deserves his chance instead of some of the Muppets we’ve tried. Do Aborigines or Maori’s not play cricket? I don’t feel you are in fact ‘sad’ in respect of Pakistan’s taint with suspicion, rather a part of it. Yes their domestic cricket needs improving, but they have moved a long way, 20:20 competitions are helping! I recall Gooch digging his thumb into the ball; I’ve personally seen Botham doing it (late 70’s Taunton) and Pringle’s said everyone did it! (Err, Athers, anyone???) M Waugh, Warne et al, Cronje, Jadeja, Samuels are not Pakistani, but when a person like you mentions match fixing, Pakistan is likely to be mentioned in your sentence. Drugs, Asif, Warne, Giddins, Akhtar (Rusedski). Only 2 count, right? I chatted to Asif in the summer during the warm downs. Not much English, but he seemed a really decent bloke. He is the innocent one in this list.

  • Freddie on February 9, 2007, 1:12 GMT

    To ‘Paul’

    I think some of you guys are getting carried away here. ->I agree. Stick to Cricket, not issues around it. Though sound might argue that point of Hair!

    I think Hair genuinely believed there had been ball tampering, and from all accounts the umpire at the other end agreed with him. Trouble was it couldn't be proven. That was his mistake. -> Hardly a minor one as you seem to feel, 1st forfeit in 129 years. Not one cricketing International or specialist saw any evidence of tampering, ‘Caucasian’ ones too, I really wonder if ‘Billy’ did.

    It seems to me the ICC dropped him in haste. -> Precipitated by his ½ million bribe offer would you not say?

    And being Australian he wouldn't have umpired Warne would he? ->It took the ICC a few years to make it official, so Hair has umpired Warne in Tests (IE Test 1184) - and ODI’s do not require neutrals anyhow and Hair umpired in match 1941 with Warne still spinning his way out of ODI’s. Incidentally, I recall Imran Khan being one of the loudest voices calling for neutral umpires, with Pakistan and India hosting the first series with such umpires. Sure Asif Ahmed’s gone a bit far mentioning that type of analysis (no offence Asif - and I’d love to sit on the ‘board that did this!!) and stats like this lead to nothing as everyone else could shout Shakoor Rana, Shakeel Ahmed or Lloyd Barker, etc

  • Syed........USA on February 9, 2007, 1:06 GMT

    I just want to take this opportunity to address another matter related to ICC.Mr.Speed on his own bringing charges against Afridi.I am in no way encouraging Afridi's behavior or lack of self control(who knows what was said to him).But how many times did the ICC ever come up with their own charges in match situations without being action initiated by match referee???? where was this ICC when Hair was calling all the shots and acted like an spoiled defiant 6 yr old boy,Could they have taken matters in their hand and started the match after replacing the umpire??? where was this ICC when Ponting(Captain)of the team was abusing and insulting the English umpire in Malaysia??? I think Mr.Speed did'nt get that particular video!!!!!!These are just a few recent incidents. I personaly think ,be it's emotional or foolish PCB,ITS ABOUT TIME,stand up and fight this legally.To...with this nice guy,I forget and forgive u attitude. I am dumbfounded that if the match referee did'nt feel the need to persue it further why in the world Mr.Speed felt the urgency and importance to lay the charges.Was'nt that necessary for SA staff to escort all players to and from the ground to avoid such mishaps? I feel Pakistan should not let ICC to dictate this and be quiet with match bans,in bigger scheme of things,inconsistencies on part of ICC, addressing this issue now will help everybody in the long run,I just wish if Imran Khan was still the captain or the head of the PCB. PCB.......Dr.Ashraf and Co. "WAKE UP NOW".

    Thanks,

    SYED.........USA.

  • Harris on February 9, 2007, 1:04 GMT

    I am sick of hearing his name. Poor guy wants to make a name for himself in cricket but had no talent to do it using a piece of willow or a leather ball so this is his chance to leave a legacy and make a couple of bucks writing books about it. He may be a good umpire but that also depends on who you ask. I am sure Danish Kineria and Murali would beg to disagree. As for his knowledge of cricket laws, wasn't he the same umpire who called for a third umpire on Inzi's dismissal when he was taking an evasive action? Leave the little media hog alone and he will disappear into the darkness.

  • Azam Ali on February 9, 2007, 0:34 GMT

    He deciede to sue on racial descrimination, has proved how his mind works "white against brown" that is another evedence of racisist mindset.

    Mind you he is a lawyer by profession, he would have better case if sue ICC for loss of earning from international mathces he suppose to officiate had not been banned.

    At other end he is still employed by ICC so there is no case about unfair dismissal.

    Since now he went to that extent, i do feels that he is helping ICC to build a water tight case to dismiss him.

  • Nath on February 8, 2007, 23:31 GMT

    Many people from the sub continent attribute everything to racism. Every negative thing that happens to them is somehow an example of racism, in their minds.

    Yet when a white person engages in the same behaviour, the bleating starts and everyone acts horrified.

    Why is that? Do pakistanis truly believe that they are the only ones who can suffer from racism? Hair's claims of racism against him have as much validity as the claims that he is a racist.

    The calling of murali for chucking is the incident that seems to have sparked the concept that Hair is a racist. I wonder whether the people who believe that he is racist ever stopped to consider that maybe, just maybe, Hair made the call because he believed murali's action is terrible and illegal, and had nothing to do with murali's race? No, such people are too closed minded to even consider the issue from both sides. You only have to look at the comments from people like Umair Muzaffar, who wrote that no disciplinary action was taken against Lillee after Miandad attempted to assault him. That is just not true, Lillee was suspended and fined, but this is an example of people believing what suits them, irrespective of the facts.

    Regardless that Hair was the lead umpire in the forfieted test, the bottom line is that there were two umpires involved in the decision. One black, one white. The black umpire has escaped scot free, the white umpire has been figuratively crucified. I can only imagine the uproar had a pakistani umpire been treated in the manner that Hair has been.

  • Haider on February 8, 2007, 23:24 GMT

    AHAHA Sue him Kamran. Sue him. Hell I would.

  • Nick on February 8, 2007, 23:24 GMT

    Faisal, we do not know what Hair had or did not have. The relevant evidence was never made public - but, for the record, Billy Doctrove went along with Hair. Regardless of whether Hair was right or wrong, there was, and is, no doubt that Pakistan behaved abominably, and less than honestly in the Test match in question. They chose to refuse to play - and did so, despite being warned what would happen. Hair did not force them to take that action - they could have made a formal complaint at the end of the match, as they should have done. Hair has never made any comment which could be construed as racist, and attempting to apply the laws of a game is not a racist act. The racism comes from commentators wanting to play to a home audience in the case of Pakistan, or else trying to avoid being labeled racist by the Pakistan commentators or press. You may not like the fact that Pakistan have a bad record in many areas - but if the Pakistan Board are too corrupt and lazy to put their house in order, they can hardly blame other nations or people. Do you care about cricket - ro will you just follow the easy approach of attacking anyone who points out the numerous problems that Pakistan has faced? If you are going to condemn anyone who criticizes Pakistan or the PCB, you might want to avoid reading Pakspin, or any major newspaper.

  • Faisal (London) on February 8, 2007, 21:21 GMT

    Answer to mr Nick's rude comments against Pakistan. Hair was a professional, if he really was then he should not judge Pakistan by their past record, remember that he didnt have anything that prooves ball tampering. There was two resons behind this, either he was a recist (that he still is) or he wanted to answer Pakistan's appeal against him to the ICC that he should'nt be umpiring in matches involving Pakistan.

  • pete on February 8, 2007, 20:33 GMT

    I think you will find the BCCI dwarfes Cricket Australia in influence, Masuud. It is widely acknowledged that Asian bloc pressure forced Hair out, rightly or wrongly.

    On the note of being unpopular with the players, Kamran's personal biases seem to shine through here. http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/5562.html Read the Cricinfo profile, it states he was popular.

    I was a Hair supporter untill he brought this legal action about. I think the legal action is warranted, he was dealt with unfairly. But Racism? Come off it, that is not what he has suffered, and he belittles the crime by claiming that he has.

  • Masuud on February 8, 2007, 20:18 GMT

    Its a pity that Darrell Hair comes from Australia, for a change not from the land of make-up controversies and mentally challenged biased cricket men! To make matters worse, he has Cricket Australia on his back, the cricket board with the most strong voice in ICC and on the field itself. The less his mental illness against the Asian cricket teams, Pakistan in general, be discussed, the better. I just wish him hard luck with his future attempts to put slots in the umpiring world of ICC.

  • Manzar Masud on February 8, 2007, 20:13 GMT

    If Mr Hair wants to sue the PCB should he not file the lawsuit in Pakistan? I am not sure what jurisdiction the British courts have over an organization in another country. Old umpires never die they just get run out.

  • Bilal Tanweer on February 8, 2007, 20:09 GMT

    All I want to say is Mr. Hair how it feels when you get the taste of your medicine, even though it is not about racism this time.

    Mr. Hair can’t even talk about Racism. He is the one who always bring racism in the game. May be he still thinks that he can get away with $5,000,000 to plan his retirement. ha !

  • Maqsood Rehman on February 8, 2007, 20:03 GMT

    I thinnk Mr. Hair is a cheap man who asked for money in the begining. Now he does not know how to impress others so he is again playing the game of being innocent. ICC should completely take him out of the international cricket and file a case against him for using his powers without understading the spirit of the game.

  • Dhump on February 8, 2007, 19:30 GMT

    I think he needs to quit ICC before he can sue them? You don't sue your current employers and still work for them?. Right Brian? I wonder if he would have apologized even once to PCB and ICC for his conduct, I'm sure Pakistanis with big hearts would forgive him and let him umpire even in International games with full members. Mr Hair I'm afraid you are taking the wrong approach here...I don't see him umpiring anywhere besides Kenya - Scotland games!!

  • Mat on February 8, 2007, 19:28 GMT

    After Pakistan team was cleared of ball tempering, they had a chance to sue the hairless mr Hair but they wanted to close the chapter. Pakistanis always suffer for being nice. They have let him off hook many times in the past. Its not always a good idea to show the other cheek when slapped on one. I hope PCB sue Hair now for trying to damage pakistan's image around the world by this action and all others in the past.. I heard he is a lawyer himself. How can he expect to win this case on racial grounds. Pakitan never refused his appointment because he is white or Australian. Pakistan always have good relations with other white and australian officials. No wonder he is an umpire rather then praciticing lawyer .

  • Akshay on February 8, 2007, 19:19 GMT

    With all due respects i sincerly believe this article is more targetted towards settling personal issues than Hair's antics.

    Even though i am not greatest fan of Hair in the world i beleive Journalism and Cicket reporting is too professional job in the world to be used for settling personal vendettas.

    Sorry Mate, you have got it wrong this time!

  • Taenpatas on February 8, 2007, 19:15 GMT

    Agreed, not well worth discusiing, the motive is money, he can go to hell , lets get back to CRICKETING topics

  • Nick on February 8, 2007, 19:10 GMT

    Hmmm.. and you don't think that your writing reveals a touch of personal hatred on this subject? Kamran, you should examine yourself before denouncing others. Hair has had problems - but many of them began with a clearly racist attack by Sri Lanka's cricketers, who manipulated public sympathy to save Murali (at the time, their only wicket-taking bowler). As for Pakistan - look back at the team's record of cheating, ball-tampering, and now drug-taking. Hair may not have been tactful - but what he did was within the laws of cricket. Pakistan behaved like spoilt children in the forfeited Test in England, and should have been punished more severely. Face the facts honestly, before you write this sort of hateful and biased column.

  • Amyn Habib on February 8, 2007, 18:27 GMT

    Many of us, from time to time, have been tempted to sue the PCB! In this case, however, PCB’s opposition to Hair was justified. It was an act of colossal arrogance to declare an end to the Oval match when the players were willing to play. And it resulted in a loss of revenue—which is probably what really led to his removal. Even prior to that incident Hair was a bit of an abomination and his sacking was richly deserved. Hair clearly has a lot of sympathy among fans of certain countries—where some see him as the tough guy standing up for what is right and taking no nonsense from the Asian countries-- and it would be reasonable for him to spend the rest of his days umpiring first class matches in some Caucasian land… But we enjoy a bit of drama and look forward to his complete expulsion from the ICC.

  • Faisal (London) on February 8, 2007, 18:21 GMT

    I think he's the person who wants to be debated.Just leave him, he cant do anything instead of making new stories.

  • bemused on February 8, 2007, 18:07 GMT

    Quoting Mr Abbasi: "Perhaps I should sue Mr Hair for racism?"

    Apparently, being a victim of racism himself, I'm not in the least suprised by Mr. Abbasi attitude towards Hair, Warne et al and the bias in all his writings. His obvious inferiority complex and anti-white stance are all too apparent in his blogs where he unashamedly champions the cause of Pak cricketers without any perspective or regard to the interests of cricket at large. One-eyed journalism at its worst - what else can one say?

  • Saadat on February 8, 2007, 18:02 GMT

    Hard to beleive, is'nt it. No mater how good an umpire you are, if your common sense does not allow you to look at the big picture, you do not deserve to umpire any cricket, let alone an international cricket match. Does he not know that his bread and butter comes form the game of cricket. Did he even think about what he was doing to the game when every body wanted to continue playing but Mr. Hair "ego" just could not be overcome. ICC still gave him a chance to go and umpire in ICL mathches. But no!!!! Mr Hair is bigger than the game.

    My suggestion is that this man should be banned from all kind of cricket, he should not be allowed to watch, play or write about it at all, let alone umpire a match.

  • Umair Muzaffar on February 8, 2007, 17:28 GMT

    Let me be the devils advocate here!! --- Well sort of.

    In recent times both the ICC and the founding members of the game have criticized the power that the Indian board carries today. Time and again India has stood up to the ICC and the so-called founding members of the game to demand justice for the newly independent nations who until half a century ago were their subjects.

    That wailing of power by the Indian board has certainly irked a few remnants of colonialist views --- of which I am pretty sure that Mr. Hair is a torch bearing member. From where I stand it seems that Mr. Hair actually got the brunt of the injustices of all time that have faced the Asian cricketing nations --- from being called “flat track bullies” to “I would send my mother in law there” to Mike Gatting cursing at Shakoor Rana to Dennis Lilly obstructing the running path of Javed Miandad – that was all ignored by the Cricketing authorities.

    There was never disciplinary action against those actions and thus there was never a justice seen by the peoples of Asian nations.

    Now with the turn of the tide and the money power with the Indian board --- Mr. Hair could not pull one off --- and the Asian nations made sure that such extreme actions by Mr. Hair do not slip by --- and used their power of vote and mind you power of logic to --- take some action against Mr. Hair.

    This for sure has irked the nerves of the colonial remnants and they put Mr. Hair on a pedestal as someone who has been wronged by the Asian cricketing countries.

    If you are still of colonial mindset then this is an out right atrocity --- how dare these people who were our subjects until recently --- tell us how to play this game and to demand justice. We are Justice.

    This mindset is prevalent in the voting records of ECB and CA to not support any disciplinary actions against Mr. Hair --- although they have come a long way and do agree, to some extent, that Mr. Hair erred at the Oval.

    Now we come to Mr. Hair’s decision to sue the ICC and the PCB --- it is certainly clear that he would have made some money had he been allowed to officiate in the international matches. This actually seems right to him to sue people who have, sort of, taken his lively hood --- and if we were living in the times of our forefathers then it would not only be considered a rightful stance by everybody including the Asian nations --- although after swallowing a bitter pill --- it will also stand in the court of law.

    Today, is a different story --- although I believe that what happened to Mr. Hair is well deserved --- yet I can understand that since he was the first one to go through it --- he just can’t seem to appreciate the change of wind and, yes, the existence of rights of the people who were subjects until recently. He actually still believes that his status as an Umpire and on top of that an Australian umpire makes him immune to the recent advances in equal status of the others and thus he can still treat Cricket with the sign “No dogs and Indians allowed”.

    It is clear that Mr. Hair is actually not able to understand the gravity of his actions and that is why it is so important for him to stay out of the game.

    I know, my extremely biased 2-paisas.

  • Razi Ahmed on February 8, 2007, 17:19 GMT

    In my humble opinion he has been treated very lightly in ball tempering issue. Even PCB should be charging Hair for his match forfeiture decision and challenging the pakistani team creditability. We all know PCB has been managed by a bunch of unprofessional opportunistic so-called expatriates[Salim Altaf, Dr. Nasim Ashraf]and they dont have guts to go against their masters. Imagine how Maclcolm Speed has taken initiative to make the score even against pakistan by charging Afridi. Nobody is saying that Afridi did the right thing but we were expecting something from match referee or umpire not from ICC boss. We need a leadership and management change in all these offices to take care of our national integrity and spend money on protecting it not on taking care of these so-called .....

  • James on February 8, 2007, 17:13 GMT

    Interesting to see, judging from the names on display, how Hair seems to polarise people to an extent based on their own ethnic background. Perhaps there is simply a fundamental cultural - not racial - difference in attitudes to how people should behave with respect to interpretation of rules. I, and many other English people, feel a deal of sympathy toward Darryl Hair because though heavy handed he has applied the laws of cricket correctly. Many of the comments on him being a poor umpire are simply incorrect if we judge him by the ICC's own assessments. Because he is an 'enforcer' type he has made high-profile errors, but in actual fact there is no evidence of bias in these against one particular team/racial group. Asian teams have tended to make more of a fuss though, probably because understandably given white colonial history the spectre of racism is never far from some people's thoughts and of course the Murali incident where it took changes in the laws AND advances in biomechanical understanding before the issue was resolved to general satisfaction. Furthermore, for the PCB to cry foul seems very much a case of pot, kettle, black. Hair's biggest mistake has probably been to cross an undoubtedly political, almost certainly corrupt organisation. The real problem facing Pakistani cricket is not Mr Hair, it is internal corruption and a lack of infrastructure providing adequate education and coaching support for young Pakistani cricketers. Where Sri Lankan cricketers have earned worldwide admiration for their positive political and practical influence (see tsumani), Pakistan cricket achievements are sadly frequently tainted with suspicion.

  • Imran on February 8, 2007, 17:03 GMT

    After this he won't even be umpiring in the ICC member matches. Just old age. His lawyer must be very intelligent that he is making money out of this old fool.

  • sorrid on February 8, 2007, 16:35 GMT

    I have to agree that his claims of racism are a bit rich, but claims that he is racist are just as specious. I still think he is one of the better umpires out there and he cops a lot of flak for calling people with suspect actions. Even if he has been wrong, he is calling it as he sees it and there is no point having a rule if it won't be enforced for fear of hurting people's feelings. The real villain of the Oval test is certainly Inzi. Sure, Pakistan got ping 5 runs, perhaps unjustly, but if teams refused to play every time a bad decision is made, the average game would be forfeited before the second session is over.

  • Imran Iqbal on February 8, 2007, 16:30 GMT

    Latest move of so-called righteous confirms he is all about money, by hook or by crook, and not about cricket. He seems to be good about law in criminal way. Must be banned from all kind of cricket and sued by people affected. As simple as this!

  • Euceph Ahmed on February 8, 2007, 16:24 GMT

    Hair's actions are more a result of PCB's passive attitude and inaction after the Oval test hearings than anything else. They heaved a huge sigh of relief after the verdict thinking that the Pakistan team stood vindicated whereas more work had to be done. True, you can forgive and forget, but what about the unfinished business? The following three things still need to be proactively pursued by the PCB:

    1- A worldwide injunction (stay-order) must be sought against Mr. Hair to stop him from profiteering in any way, shape, or form from the controversies he created on the cricket field throughout his career. This is necessary because his ultimate objective seems to be making money from all of this.

    2- The ball tampering law which was at the core of the Oval dispute still stands as it did in the rule books. The PCB must proactively seek to get that rule ammended so it can never be applied in the manner it was applied at the Oval.

    3- The PCB must proactively seek to get the status of the Oval test changed from "forfeited" to "stopped by the umpire" or some other appropriate conclusion. I believe that this is very very important because the "forfeited" status implies that Hair's action were somehow appropriate and Pakistan was at fault.

  • Rashid Siddiqui on February 8, 2007, 16:18 GMT

    Bravo! very rightly said. There is a saying in our Subcontinent "ulta chor kotwaal ko daatay" meaning "Contrary to common belief a thief is yelling at the judge" This man and the people in Australia, England, New Zealand who support him should be ashamed of themselves. I hope PCB and ICC file a counter suit against him and win.

  • paul on February 8, 2007, 16:14 GMT

    I think some of you guys are getting carried away here. I think Hair genuinely believed there had been ball tampering, and from all accounts the umpire at the other end agreed with him. Trouble was it couldn't be proven. That was his mistake. Hair has always acted fearlessly, his decisions based on what he thought was right, and for that he was sacked from his position. I don't know if he has a case against the ICC or anyone else but it's his money paying for it. It seems to me the ICC dropped him in haste. And being Australian he wouldn't have umpired Warne would he?

  • Arif on February 8, 2007, 16:04 GMT

    As hard as restraint is, one of the worst punishments you can give to a self-righteous narcissist... is to completely ignore him.

  • Bilal Shah on February 8, 2007, 16:02 GMT

    I totally agree with BRIAN, if there is anobodu to be sued, Hair is teh guy PCB should sue to get the economical damages clear for the "Oval test". i mean what is wrong with that mentally sick guy? he is never been a good, (maybe good is a big word) even oridnary umpire, when i say that, i think of SL, PK, suffering from his disability or simply the hate for the asian teams. It is about time that he should be locked and thrown away for good.

  • Aftab Amin on February 8, 2007, 15:49 GMT

    Hair should drop the whole issue as it has passed, bringing it up again just shows that somewhere in his heart he is still bitter and does not wish to make a point but wishes to get as much cash as he can under his belt. He should act his age and stop trying to boss teams managers and the ICC around. No one is interested in the matter anymore so he should suck it in and grow up.

  • Brian on February 8, 2007, 15:44 GMT

    Hello cricket fans, Kamran, you make an interesting point. I would like to elaborate on this by saying that he is still employed by the ICC. You typically sue for damages. If he is still employed by the ICC, where are the damages? Instead he should be sued instead by the Pakistani cricket team for forfeiting the Oval test to England when he charged the Pak team of ball tampering incorrectly. He should be sued by the Cricket authorities for damaging Cricket in general by his arrogant and ruthless manner in forfeiting that match when all parties agreed to continue.The ECB should also sue him, instead of the PCB for losses incurred by not playing the 5th day at the Oval. Even though Mr. Hair may have been good umpire, but the damages he has created for cricket is unprecedented, and instead of considering himself lucky that he not being sued himself. He should just retire in oblivion, out of the limelight or be counter-sued for millions.

  • Aijaz Ali on February 8, 2007, 15:35 GMT

    It seems to me a joke when a person with proven record of racism against Asian countries is suing ICC and PCB for the same charges. It simply means that he like to discriminate others but does not like anything against him self.

  • Mian Gul Muhammed on February 8, 2007, 15:25 GMT

    You are very right Mr. Abbasi, i think he should consider himself very lucky that he got away with what ever he did at Oval. The good Nature of Inzmam and PCB contributed to that. Had it been Indian team I bet you, not he had been sued but also the result of the match been reversed, and the punishment that Inzi recieved for forfeiting the test wopuld also have been lifted. Now he wants to sue PCB by al means he can do that as it was not PCB that removed him from umprinig the matches, it was seven other cricket playing nations. That clearly indicate how popular he is among cricket playing nations. I think PCB should let him do whatever he does, once he is satisfied and tired both Inzi and PCb should sue him for damaging the reputation.

    Good luk mr Hair, you have already lost your hair.

  • Asif Ahmed on February 8, 2007, 15:24 GMT

    I was not aware of the way that he ignored your question. That stinks of the arrogance that he displayed so openly towards us on the cricket field. If he really wants to play the racism card, someone should go back and look at all of his decisions over the last 5 yrs in test matches; using hawkeye or a blinded objective panel of umpires, they should calculate how many decisions were wrong, and then later see how many of those were against Pakistan. The number will be disproportionately high. For even more clarification, all one needs to do is look at the lbw appeals he has rejected from Kaneria and then compare that to the ones that he has upheld from Warne, and then calculate how many of them were nearly identical--once again, the results will be revealing. If he really wants to play racism, then let's play racism. As they say, Mr. Hair, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

    I can think of a better word to describe the attitude of Hair, one that was used on cricinfo once before: Hubris.

  • Issam Ahmed on February 8, 2007, 15:21 GMT

    Well said.

  • Hussain on February 8, 2007, 15:20 GMT

    It would be interesting to find out his background,brought up and other experiences in life to see why he is the way he is. He probably might have been a part of KKK had he been born 50 years earlier.

  • Danish Khan on February 8, 2007, 15:15 GMT

    Needs to go to a shrink.

  • BH Syed on February 8, 2007, 15:14 GMT

    Very right, Kamran. Accusing others of the very crime that brought you infamy. Ironic, isn't it? It's like Saddam Hussain putting Kuwait on trial for invasion...

  • Aftab Qureshi on February 8, 2007, 14:57 GMT

    I dont agree that Hair comes across as self-righteous....he is simply acting as a hungry pig. I have a feeling that behind all the fuss, it has all along been his intention to be famous--even if infamous, so he could cash in on his notriety to make more money. Next we may hear he is writing a book. Surely, his published pack of lies will fetch him a few times more than the 500,000 dollars he had demanded of ICC to quit voluntarily!

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Aftab Qureshi on February 8, 2007, 14:57 GMT

    I dont agree that Hair comes across as self-righteous....he is simply acting as a hungry pig. I have a feeling that behind all the fuss, it has all along been his intention to be famous--even if infamous, so he could cash in on his notriety to make more money. Next we may hear he is writing a book. Surely, his published pack of lies will fetch him a few times more than the 500,000 dollars he had demanded of ICC to quit voluntarily!

  • BH Syed on February 8, 2007, 15:14 GMT

    Very right, Kamran. Accusing others of the very crime that brought you infamy. Ironic, isn't it? It's like Saddam Hussain putting Kuwait on trial for invasion...

  • Danish Khan on February 8, 2007, 15:15 GMT

    Needs to go to a shrink.

  • Hussain on February 8, 2007, 15:20 GMT

    It would be interesting to find out his background,brought up and other experiences in life to see why he is the way he is. He probably might have been a part of KKK had he been born 50 years earlier.

  • Issam Ahmed on February 8, 2007, 15:21 GMT

    Well said.

  • Asif Ahmed on February 8, 2007, 15:24 GMT

    I was not aware of the way that he ignored your question. That stinks of the arrogance that he displayed so openly towards us on the cricket field. If he really wants to play the racism card, someone should go back and look at all of his decisions over the last 5 yrs in test matches; using hawkeye or a blinded objective panel of umpires, they should calculate how many decisions were wrong, and then later see how many of those were against Pakistan. The number will be disproportionately high. For even more clarification, all one needs to do is look at the lbw appeals he has rejected from Kaneria and then compare that to the ones that he has upheld from Warne, and then calculate how many of them were nearly identical--once again, the results will be revealing. If he really wants to play racism, then let's play racism. As they say, Mr. Hair, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

    I can think of a better word to describe the attitude of Hair, one that was used on cricinfo once before: Hubris.

  • Mian Gul Muhammed on February 8, 2007, 15:25 GMT

    You are very right Mr. Abbasi, i think he should consider himself very lucky that he got away with what ever he did at Oval. The good Nature of Inzmam and PCB contributed to that. Had it been Indian team I bet you, not he had been sued but also the result of the match been reversed, and the punishment that Inzi recieved for forfeiting the test wopuld also have been lifted. Now he wants to sue PCB by al means he can do that as it was not PCB that removed him from umprinig the matches, it was seven other cricket playing nations. That clearly indicate how popular he is among cricket playing nations. I think PCB should let him do whatever he does, once he is satisfied and tired both Inzi and PCb should sue him for damaging the reputation.

    Good luk mr Hair, you have already lost your hair.

  • Aijaz Ali on February 8, 2007, 15:35 GMT

    It seems to me a joke when a person with proven record of racism against Asian countries is suing ICC and PCB for the same charges. It simply means that he like to discriminate others but does not like anything against him self.

  • Brian on February 8, 2007, 15:44 GMT

    Hello cricket fans, Kamran, you make an interesting point. I would like to elaborate on this by saying that he is still employed by the ICC. You typically sue for damages. If he is still employed by the ICC, where are the damages? Instead he should be sued instead by the Pakistani cricket team for forfeiting the Oval test to England when he charged the Pak team of ball tampering incorrectly. He should be sued by the Cricket authorities for damaging Cricket in general by his arrogant and ruthless manner in forfeiting that match when all parties agreed to continue.The ECB should also sue him, instead of the PCB for losses incurred by not playing the 5th day at the Oval. Even though Mr. Hair may have been good umpire, but the damages he has created for cricket is unprecedented, and instead of considering himself lucky that he not being sued himself. He should just retire in oblivion, out of the limelight or be counter-sued for millions.

  • Aftab Amin on February 8, 2007, 15:49 GMT

    Hair should drop the whole issue as it has passed, bringing it up again just shows that somewhere in his heart he is still bitter and does not wish to make a point but wishes to get as much cash as he can under his belt. He should act his age and stop trying to boss teams managers and the ICC around. No one is interested in the matter anymore so he should suck it in and grow up.