Darrell Hair tribunal, 1st day October 1, 2007

Asian bloc forced ICC's hand claims Hair QC

Cricinfo staff
58



Darrell Hair arrives at the London Central Employment Tribunal for the first day's play © Getty Images
Robert Griffiths QC, Darrell Hair's barrister, has told a tribunal in London that the ICC bowed to pressure from a bloc of Asian countries when it, in effect, sacked his client in the aftermath of the abandonment of the Oval Test last year.

Speaking on the first day of Hair's claim at the London Central Employment Tribunal that he suffered racial discrimination at the hands of the ICC, Griffiths maintained that the Indian and Pakistan boards heavily influenced the ICC.

"Darrell Hair's case is that he was treated the way he was because the ICC bowed to the racially discriminatory pressure that was brought to bear on it by the Asian bloc and ICC board member supporters," Griffiths said. "The Asian bloc is dominant in cricket sometimes it uses that dominance inappropriately. Everyone knows it, but most are afraid to say so."

Griffith asked why the ICC's three-man panel who looked into Hair's future included Pakistan board chairman Nasim Ashraf - who had earlier called for sanctions against Hair - Sir John Anderson, the New Zealand board chairman who supported action against Hair, and Zimbabwe Cricket president Peter Chingoka. "As the world knows only too well, Zimbabwe Cricket has not historically selected teams on merit," he said. "It has selected its players on the basis of their race and colour.

"An environment has been created for him that is any or all of intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive. His feelings have been most significantly injured. He has suffered both personally and financially."

He was the author of his own misfortune. In cricketing terms, Mr Hair ran himself out

Michael Beloff QC

Opening for the defence, Michael Beloff QC denied the allegations. "[Hair] was not a victim of race discrimination," he said. "He was the author of his own misfortune. In cricketing terms, Mr Hair ran himself out.

"His case on the question of discrimination has been changeable, evasive and, to a degree, reckless. He was immeasurably the more experienced and senior of the two umpires and in respect of every action during the fourth Test which has excited adverse comment, Mr Hair took the initiative and Mr [Billy] Doctrove's role was only to agree.

"Critically, it was Mr Hair who baled out of the crucial meeting when an attempt was made by all interested parties to broker a restart to the match," Beloff continued. "The fact that a majority of those who supported the so-called resolution were Black or Asian does not of itself establish or even give rise to the inference that they took their decision on grounds of Mr Hair's race as distinct from his behaviour."

When he took the stand after lunch Hair accused Anderson of brokering a secret deal to end his career during a private lunch during an ICC meeting. That conversation was not previously disclosed and Hair's lawyers maintain that crucial discussions were left out of official transcripts in what was described as a "Watergate-style cover-up".

Hair explained why he accused Pakistan of ball-tampering, claiming that he felt the rough state of the ball "had been accelerated by human intervention". He stressed he had taken joint decisions throughout the Test with Doctrove. "I was surprised by how much roughing up of the ball there had been," Hair told the tribunal. "There were quite a few scratch marks on it."

He said that at the conclusion of the game "Doctrove called time and I removed the bails at my end," indicating the decision was taken in unison. He also said that "the abuse I received from Pakistan players continued unchecked by the ICC".

Arriving at the hearing, Ray Mali, the ICC president, told reporters: "We are here today because we are an organisation that believes in fairness, justice and equality. We have come here to prove that we have been fair throughout this process. We believe racism was never an issue in this matter."

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Six_Wickets on October 3, 2007, 16:29 GMT

    The critical point is Mr. Hair took the entire set of actions based on an assumption of ball tampering. To my best knowledge this stood disproved. Whats more it seems that the allegation was not well verified during the decision. To me if that is not a case of profiling, what is?

    Some have questioned how and whether he deviated from the books. The point is not about books. But that all the actions stemed from a judgement he is allowed in his capacity. He took the most severe steps in the books possible. What is in doubt is his use of judgement and authority that is allowed to him.

    So when Mr. Hair alleges discrimination from ICC, I cant see why he fails to his own.

  • DeeQ on October 3, 2007, 4:42 GMT

    I dont know if we are actually dumb or do we act to be, i simpily dont understand the tendency of people to look at reactions and decide, where as the right way is to see the root cause!! (the actions that caused the reaction!!!) Does any one remember how the decission was given??? The question is that how would you like to be called cheats when you havnt done anything!!! Some things are suppose to be felt rather than going by the book, that is probably the difference between Administration & Finanace Departments and HR departments!!!

  • Rooboy on October 2, 2007, 23:55 GMT

    The bottom line in this affair is the precedent that has been set. Umpires, you must make decisions that players and administrators from the sub continent agree with, and if you don't, your career will be terminated. Forget about the rules and about umpires supposedly being in charge of the game, their primary role now seems to be appeasement of the Asian countries. And how can the whole affair not be deemed racist? Two umpires were involved, one black, one white. The white umpire has his career and reputation shattered, the black umpire continues on as if nothing happened. To deny that race played a role in this is to be disingenous in the extreme.

  • V-I-J-A-Y on October 2, 2007, 14:03 GMT

    Even though cricket needs 24 people 11 from 2 teams and 2 umpires, there are fans who make these events big, pay money which in return goes to playes and umpires and boards.

    It is responsibility of all above listed people to repay back to the fans.

    Hair is not only responsible to award the match without real results but also warning the Pakistan team about this if they don't take the field.

    Where will be all cricket stars, umpires and all boards including ICC if they don't have us? (Cricket fans)

    We don't care if this was a match in some once back yard. We spent time & money and wait till end to see the results of the game not some one's decision.

    In the interest of public and fans ICC and all boards should make every possible effort to get the results of the match.

  • trotter on October 2, 2007, 14:00 GMT

    To be become an international umpire and especially to be in the elite panel, it requires more than just going by rules, which Hair clearly lacks. If 'going by the rules' is the only requirement to become an elite panel umpire then the list of elite panel umpires would have been thousands, if not millions! I'm sorry, can't agree with this going by the rule theory.

  • SBirch on October 2, 2007, 13:21 GMT

    Consider the ICC official judgement exonerating the Pakistan team of ball tampering.

    All six ICC officials appointed to the game were in unanimous agreement that the ball had been altered in an illegal fashion. The Defense's three "expert" witnesses (of which none had any official standing) all said the ball was as likely tampered, as it was not. In fact the defense could not produce a single person to testify that they honestly believed the ball was not tampered. Even Mr. Mudagalle, the ICC appointed Adjudicator, had to admit the ball was as likely illegal, as it was legal.

    And yet Mr. Mudagalle somehow manages to find that the ball was not tampered. That every single ICC official appointed to the game being in unanimous agreement the laws were violated constitutes insufficient grounds to issue the Pakistan team a warning. (Under Law 42.3(e), the five run penalty is the warning.)

    Whoever it is the ICC serves, it is neither justice nor the best interests of the game.

  • JohnnyRook on October 2, 2007, 11:34 GMT

    I think before discussing 'racism' on the part of Asian Bloc or Hair, bloggers need to introspect a bit. Two themes keep coming up all the time from pro-Hair, pro-law, 'Aussie' bloc.

    First is ICC making changes to chucking rules to accomodate Murli. The fact is that all bowlers including Glenn Mcgrath were found to 'chuck' a bit according to the laws then (source : http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/story/141940.html). Second is that Hair followed the rules. I agree that he was absolutely right in awarding the Oval test to England since Pakistan had forfeited the match whatever the reasons be. However he was wrong in penalizing Pakistan for ball-tempering. It was a terrible decision without any basis whatsoever and I think its fair to fire a guy for such negligence.

    I want to write about 'pro-Asia', Anti-Hair block too but I am almost over word limit.So I guess I will put it in next comment. Comments from civil, rational people are most welcome....

  • L_Cid on October 2, 2007, 10:24 GMT

    Mr Hair is a top international umpire and respected throughout. His decisions have been fair and correct, it is only Pakistan that has to be blamed, only pakistanis refused to come out and play, what else was the umpire supposed to do? wait till until the pakistanis felt like coming out and play? No. definitly NOT!.

  • JamesC on October 2, 2007, 10:05 GMT

    I do feel for Hairs position but cannot deny that he appears to have handled the whole situation during the "calling off" of the Test in an over zealous way when a equitable solution could have been arrived at. Equally Pakistan's behaviour, rightly or wrongly accused (who will ever know for sure?), was immature and typically hotheaded - traits which effect their brilliant talent in the wider field. This is all against a backdrop of general suspicion of the Pakistan and Asian way of playing cricket...It is an open secret in most cricket cirles that ball tampering does go on - cheating if you will - but is that any worse than Shane Warne appealing for an LBW decision he absolutely knows to be not out according the laws of the game? Its a tricky and highly complex immotive issue - but the game of cricket is richer for its diversity and in many respects ball tampering, gaining incorrect decisions and dodgy bowling actions add to the rich human nature of the game and long may it continue!

  • kidsby4 on October 2, 2007, 9:45 GMT

    To all those supporting the sacking of Mr Hair by the ICC by saying he acted alone I ask you this. What are the criteria needed to be selected to the ICC Elite panel. I don't think that you are appointed if you have no high level umpiring experience. To claim the second umpire was in awe is just making excuses for a travesty. Both field umpires have to agree to the forfeit, Pakistan knew the rules yet chose to ignore them. Either both umpires were wrong and should have been sacked or they were right and both should still be working. Yes Mr hair may be a bit gruff in manner on the field but that is not a reason to sack him. People use the no-ball calls for chucking he made on Murali as justification. His action was only deemed satisfactory when the rules were changed. At the time of the call he was bowling some balls with an illegal action. The ICC is wrong in this case.

  • Six_Wickets on October 3, 2007, 16:29 GMT

    The critical point is Mr. Hair took the entire set of actions based on an assumption of ball tampering. To my best knowledge this stood disproved. Whats more it seems that the allegation was not well verified during the decision. To me if that is not a case of profiling, what is?

    Some have questioned how and whether he deviated from the books. The point is not about books. But that all the actions stemed from a judgement he is allowed in his capacity. He took the most severe steps in the books possible. What is in doubt is his use of judgement and authority that is allowed to him.

    So when Mr. Hair alleges discrimination from ICC, I cant see why he fails to his own.

  • DeeQ on October 3, 2007, 4:42 GMT

    I dont know if we are actually dumb or do we act to be, i simpily dont understand the tendency of people to look at reactions and decide, where as the right way is to see the root cause!! (the actions that caused the reaction!!!) Does any one remember how the decission was given??? The question is that how would you like to be called cheats when you havnt done anything!!! Some things are suppose to be felt rather than going by the book, that is probably the difference between Administration & Finanace Departments and HR departments!!!

  • Rooboy on October 2, 2007, 23:55 GMT

    The bottom line in this affair is the precedent that has been set. Umpires, you must make decisions that players and administrators from the sub continent agree with, and if you don't, your career will be terminated. Forget about the rules and about umpires supposedly being in charge of the game, their primary role now seems to be appeasement of the Asian countries. And how can the whole affair not be deemed racist? Two umpires were involved, one black, one white. The white umpire has his career and reputation shattered, the black umpire continues on as if nothing happened. To deny that race played a role in this is to be disingenous in the extreme.

  • V-I-J-A-Y on October 2, 2007, 14:03 GMT

    Even though cricket needs 24 people 11 from 2 teams and 2 umpires, there are fans who make these events big, pay money which in return goes to playes and umpires and boards.

    It is responsibility of all above listed people to repay back to the fans.

    Hair is not only responsible to award the match without real results but also warning the Pakistan team about this if they don't take the field.

    Where will be all cricket stars, umpires and all boards including ICC if they don't have us? (Cricket fans)

    We don't care if this was a match in some once back yard. We spent time & money and wait till end to see the results of the game not some one's decision.

    In the interest of public and fans ICC and all boards should make every possible effort to get the results of the match.

  • trotter on October 2, 2007, 14:00 GMT

    To be become an international umpire and especially to be in the elite panel, it requires more than just going by rules, which Hair clearly lacks. If 'going by the rules' is the only requirement to become an elite panel umpire then the list of elite panel umpires would have been thousands, if not millions! I'm sorry, can't agree with this going by the rule theory.

  • SBirch on October 2, 2007, 13:21 GMT

    Consider the ICC official judgement exonerating the Pakistan team of ball tampering.

    All six ICC officials appointed to the game were in unanimous agreement that the ball had been altered in an illegal fashion. The Defense's three "expert" witnesses (of which none had any official standing) all said the ball was as likely tampered, as it was not. In fact the defense could not produce a single person to testify that they honestly believed the ball was not tampered. Even Mr. Mudagalle, the ICC appointed Adjudicator, had to admit the ball was as likely illegal, as it was legal.

    And yet Mr. Mudagalle somehow manages to find that the ball was not tampered. That every single ICC official appointed to the game being in unanimous agreement the laws were violated constitutes insufficient grounds to issue the Pakistan team a warning. (Under Law 42.3(e), the five run penalty is the warning.)

    Whoever it is the ICC serves, it is neither justice nor the best interests of the game.

  • JohnnyRook on October 2, 2007, 11:34 GMT

    I think before discussing 'racism' on the part of Asian Bloc or Hair, bloggers need to introspect a bit. Two themes keep coming up all the time from pro-Hair, pro-law, 'Aussie' bloc.

    First is ICC making changes to chucking rules to accomodate Murli. The fact is that all bowlers including Glenn Mcgrath were found to 'chuck' a bit according to the laws then (source : http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/story/141940.html). Second is that Hair followed the rules. I agree that he was absolutely right in awarding the Oval test to England since Pakistan had forfeited the match whatever the reasons be. However he was wrong in penalizing Pakistan for ball-tempering. It was a terrible decision without any basis whatsoever and I think its fair to fire a guy for such negligence.

    I want to write about 'pro-Asia', Anti-Hair block too but I am almost over word limit.So I guess I will put it in next comment. Comments from civil, rational people are most welcome....

  • L_Cid on October 2, 2007, 10:24 GMT

    Mr Hair is a top international umpire and respected throughout. His decisions have been fair and correct, it is only Pakistan that has to be blamed, only pakistanis refused to come out and play, what else was the umpire supposed to do? wait till until the pakistanis felt like coming out and play? No. definitly NOT!.

  • JamesC on October 2, 2007, 10:05 GMT

    I do feel for Hairs position but cannot deny that he appears to have handled the whole situation during the "calling off" of the Test in an over zealous way when a equitable solution could have been arrived at. Equally Pakistan's behaviour, rightly or wrongly accused (who will ever know for sure?), was immature and typically hotheaded - traits which effect their brilliant talent in the wider field. This is all against a backdrop of general suspicion of the Pakistan and Asian way of playing cricket...It is an open secret in most cricket cirles that ball tampering does go on - cheating if you will - but is that any worse than Shane Warne appealing for an LBW decision he absolutely knows to be not out according the laws of the game? Its a tricky and highly complex immotive issue - but the game of cricket is richer for its diversity and in many respects ball tampering, gaining incorrect decisions and dodgy bowling actions add to the rich human nature of the game and long may it continue!

  • kidsby4 on October 2, 2007, 9:45 GMT

    To all those supporting the sacking of Mr Hair by the ICC by saying he acted alone I ask you this. What are the criteria needed to be selected to the ICC Elite panel. I don't think that you are appointed if you have no high level umpiring experience. To claim the second umpire was in awe is just making excuses for a travesty. Both field umpires have to agree to the forfeit, Pakistan knew the rules yet chose to ignore them. Either both umpires were wrong and should have been sacked or they were right and both should still be working. Yes Mr hair may be a bit gruff in manner on the field but that is not a reason to sack him. People use the no-ball calls for chucking he made on Murali as justification. His action was only deemed satisfactory when the rules were changed. At the time of the call he was bowling some balls with an illegal action. The ICC is wrong in this case.

  • Sportsmanship on October 2, 2007, 9:24 GMT

    Things have gone too far. That matter should have solved very smoothly in Oval. No one was happy with the result of the game. The captain of Pakistan had very short temper. The umpires took the case very seriously before see in the light of evidence. 'I am not happy with the state of the ball' I am calling for a new ball and a little cute smile would have changed the all things smoothly and of course without any heartfeelings. Now we have end up in a London Tribunal. Oh come on, I thought Cricket is a fantastic game.

  • Jimbo_jones on October 2, 2007, 8:32 GMT

    Just amazes me that the ICC does nothing about Zimbabwe, but hands out petty fines on sponsorship and 'feels compelled' to release confidential emails to implicate Darryl Hair.

    Hair didn't do himself any favours with that email to Malcolm Speed, nor does using race a defence. However, he called it as he saw it, and the umpires decision is final. The time to create the protest and defend the honour is after the game. As it was Pakistan were on top of that game and cost themselves a likely win.

    What does this tell us about the state of world cricket? Every time the Asian Bloc is unhappy with something, we remove the problem to suit? This would set a worrying precedent.

  • Winning11 on October 2, 2007, 8:10 GMT

    It's funny that Darrell Hair is now accusing the Asians of racism. If the Asian bloc has indeed pressured the ICC and hair feels that this is racially motivated, then perhaps we should also look into how many other umpires in the elite panel have been effectively removed in similar fashion. The answer is ofcourse none, so perhaps it is Hair who should look in the mirror.

  • Derbs on October 2, 2007, 7:42 GMT

    Darrell Hair was just doing his job and following the rules, just the same as what he did when he called Murali for throwing and look what happened then, they changed the rules of cricket to accommodate his throwing. Definitely the Asian bloc has far too much influence as a whole. Its a shame to see this sort of outcome towards an umpire that was just following the rules. Fight on, Darrell!!

  • Hardyin1980 on October 2, 2007, 7:24 GMT

    ICC should take a decision on what ever grounds they feel fit, as I feel it's only they who know the entire contents of the "Hair" fiasco. All that we want to see is that no disrepute or disgace is enflicted the the sport which we love so much.

  • Kamran_44 on October 2, 2007, 7:13 GMT

    ICC YOU ARE RIGHT!!

    ICC did right to keep Mr.Hair out of the game because he was getting far too much out of control.He did what nobody cud do ever in the history of cricket;abandoned a match,though the cricket history shows that umpires have been into much more than this.He was all wrong from the word go,it was again an attack from him on another fair proceeding.Who would want Murali out of this game with his such great spin adorning the game but Mr.Hair tried to.He behaved this way many a times and I support ICC's decision in this regard.

  • StevieB on October 2, 2007, 7:12 GMT

    It's simple - Hair has been hung out to dry by the ICC, and it is shameful the way it has been treated. While he was maybe at fault for the initial ruling of the state of the ball (he should probably just have asked for it to be changed) everything else was done by the laws of the game. Pakistan refused to take the field despite being warned that they would forfeit the game. The game was then called off by BOTH umpires. Seniority should count for nothing in instances like this. The thing I found most ironic was that for the Pakistan team, it was a matter of honour that they stood accused. A quick mention of Imran Khan and, more recently, Shahid Afridi shoots this argument right out of the water. There was also the mention made of Murali, and the fact here is that the ICC had to alter their own laws to accomodate Murali's bowling action. It's unfortunate though, that he has decided to use the issue of race as his main defence, as this is very thing he has been accused of recently

  • aussieed on October 2, 2007, 5:35 GMT

    Why the hell is everyone saying that Hair stuck by the rules? By the rules he should have had proof before announcing ball tempering had occured,not theories!He had the video cameras at his disposal. In an article by Andrew Miller (http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/engvpak/content/story/257299.html) , have a look the comment below the picture shall we. Yes thats right "The controversy unfolds, as Darrell Hair tells Inzamam-ul-Haq what he thinks was done to the ball. Curiously, none of the 26 cameras backed the claim ." Stuck to the rules you say? I beg to differ.

  • kaushiq on October 2, 2007, 5:09 GMT

    Let me tell you a incident. A test match between pakistan and Bangladesh. the matpakistan won by one wicket. In that match Rashid Latif, the Pakistani wicketkeeper atempted to catch a ball, droped it, collected it from the ground and appealed for a catch and it was given out. If anybody do not belive it, search it in youtube.com. where was ICC then? Where were the match officials? why is Hair alone facing this and not his partner who also decided to hand the win to England? Is Hair being punished or following the rules? then should all cheat like Rashid Latif?

  • Big_Jim on October 2, 2007, 4:17 GMT

    While Hair's actions may have been ill-judged, they were nevertheless according to the rules. A team which agrees to a set of rules can hardly be justified in complaining if they are required to play by them, regardless of whether or not the interpretation of them is strict - as Pakistan surely knew they would be in a game umpired by Hair. I agree Hair should be removed from the umpiring panel as his presence is now inflamatory, but he cannot be expected to feel that this is legally justifiable. Give him his due and say goodbye. Lessons learnt. On with the game.

  • MurtaMac on October 2, 2007, 3:49 GMT

    Hair is making accusations left, right and centre. He needs to quietly walk away and not bring his name and the name of this great sport down anymore. He was the one who all of a sudden decided he was the "judge and jury" and penalised and accused Pakistan of 'ball tampering' in a game they were winning by an innings and plenty. These stupid claims might have been given more attention had the Pakistanis done it at Old Trafford or Headingly the two tests they lost. However, Hair is still adamant he was right when ICC's appointed match referee Mr Madugalle viewed the ball and ruled it had no evidence of being tampered with whatsoever. I say Hair should be taken to court and not allowed to make such stupid accusations as the 'Asian Bloc was against me'.

  • deenja on October 2, 2007, 3:41 GMT

    I don't personnally like Darrell Hair & was at the MCG when he no balled Murali. But that is besides the point. Pakistan has a history of unusual/deceitful/unethical practises on and off the field. If he felt in conjunction with the other umpire that tampering was taking place then it his right within the rules to take the bails off. That Pakistan forfeited the match was thier choice. Hair should not have been sacked for doing his job or for Pakistan team acting like children instead of experienced professionals

  • avixjan on October 2, 2007, 2:53 GMT

    If Mr Hair thinks that there is a lobby of Asian Bloc who are trying to get him out of the ICC cricket panel based upon racial discrimination then he has surely gone insane. There are and were a lot of international umpires who are more popular than the local umpires across all Asian countries irrespective of their color or race. It is a very serious allegation made by Mr Hair on ICC and a strict action should be demanded from this arrogant jerk. To top it all did we have any instance wherein Mr Hair has taken action against any Australian player inspite of their not so acceptable behavious on the field ??? Kindly let me have any one such instance. So Mr Hair stop accusing ICC or making derogatory remarks on other cricketing boards and look at your own actions as to where it has led you to ?

  • Sniper on October 2, 2007, 2:49 GMT

    The Pakistanis behaved badly and deserved to be punished.The ICC's further action against Mr.Hair was uncalled for and the manner in which it was done seemed obviously unfair. "Money power" should not play a part in the decisions of the ICC. Mr.Hair should be reinstated and compensation paid to him for his deprived earnings.Imzam-ul-Haq should be banned from playing International Cricket.

  • Horace on October 2, 2007, 2:33 GMT

    Darrell Hair is only guilty of applying the RULES OF CRICKET in BOTH the Murli Chucking spate and Pakistan's default by refusing to play.

    Either change the rules or apply them. Was it not the ICC who pussilanimously caved in to Ranatunga/DeSilva/SL when Murli was justifiably called for chucking by one of the few (if not only umpire) umpires with GUTS to apply the rules without fear?

    Horace

  • toma on October 2, 2007, 2:33 GMT

    Thank goodness that Darryl Hair has the guts to question the decision of law makers and the balls to see that the game is played according to the laws authored by the ICC. Was not Dockdrove also the other umpire and where is it that there is a senior umpire and a junior umpire? The decision was made by the third team in that Test match - the umpires.Why punish one and not the other? or was it that one was different in appearance than the other. If the employment tribunal in England is dinkum they should find the ICC guilty and fine them heavily. I am sorry that my cricket loving Asian friends have had a reputation of too much influence in decisions on and off the field - remember the situation before independant umpires were appointed to the Test matches. Anyhow we enjoy beating you and look out for the summer here in Australia +-

  • salmanaz on October 2, 2007, 1:34 GMT

    Say you own a restaurant. You have hired a doorman to greet the customers into the restaurant. Now, you've got a specific list of customers who are regulars there. When the doorman was hired, he was obviously given a set of rules to follow. Now that doorman, might be doing his job properly but not quite good enough to please those regular customers. Therefore, they complain you to do something about the doorman. So what do YOU do? Simple. You get rid of the doorman. Is that by any means racism or discrimination? I don't think so. If the major cricket playing nations do not approve of him, the ICC will obviously have to do something about it. As most of the revenue comes from those nations, ICC cannot possibly ignore their demands.

    As for Mr. Hair, he's just trying to justify himself when a plot put in by HIM, simply backfired.

    Overall, no grudges against Mr. Hair, but no cricket team or audience would appreciate his presence on a cricketing field. They just dont want HIM!

  • apersaud on October 2, 2007, 1:33 GMT

    What are we attempting to do to Mr. Hair and to cricket now.Look, Mr. Hair did his job. He applied ICC rules.Must he be sanctioned for doing so. Pakistan refused to take the field. Do we expect the umpires to haul the players out. I feel sorry for Mr. Hair and for cricket.He must not be made the ICC scapegoat.

  • Fredfillis on October 2, 2007, 0:58 GMT

    Hair should be applauded as someone prepared to make tough calls. Geeze, when he called Murali for chucking the ICC had to change the rules to allow the action. So, was the call wrong? At the time, NO. If it were, the rules would not have been changed, now would they?

    When players refuse to return to the field, is the umpire wrong to call a forfeit?

    I guess everyone wants the technology now so umpires are just out there to hold the sweaters.

    Be careful what you wish for!

  • SanjeevDatadin on October 2, 2007, 0:55 GMT

    This is all quite alarming. I don't agree that Hair suffered as a result of any racism. I do however believe that he was indeed the architect of his own downfall. He has made himself quite controversial by being associated with decisions which have "interfered" with the game rather than take the route more likely to reduce the possibility of conflict. To be a confrontational umpire where he openly states to the media that he will take such and such action if a particular player does something or he percieves a particular even to have occured though technically his right as an umpire ignores the fact that he could have taken an equally effective route which was more likely to avoid conflict. Whilst the topic of discrimination is being raised I would like to oserve that in recent times umpiring errors seem to didproportionately affect teams such as West Indies, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Why is this so? Every team gets bad decisions; clearly some more than others. S. Datadin (Guyana)

  • Chile_Nose_Jam on October 2, 2007, 0:42 GMT

    Daryll Hair may or may not have been correct in his suspicion that a Pakistani player altered the condition of the ball in a manner not permitted by the Laws; that isn't the point. The point is the principle which is taught to every child who learns to play cricket: you should accept the umpire's decision, whether or not you agree that it is correct - you do not throw your toys out of the pram and refuse to play. Hair and Doctrove were entirely correct to rule that Pakistan had forfeited the match - and to refuse to reverse their decision later; to do otherwise would have been to imply that Inzamam was above the rules of the game, and could flout them with impunity. "Baling out of the meeting" was entirely the correct action - in fact the meeting should never have been called in the first place. Further, regardless of their relative prior experience, the two umpires are equal on the field of play so it cannot be argued that either played a role any greater than the other in the action.

  • Regata4 on October 2, 2007, 0:32 GMT

    I think its only the ACB (Australia) who probably wanted him in and the rest, 9 boards wanted him out. As far Pakintan not comming out in the field within the specified time, they lost a completly in hand match which is quite a panelty. Pakistan was cleared of ball tempering but that didn't bring the match back; neither was the result changed. Mr Hair says he "think" ball was temperd with. Well its not just thinking, he need to have proofs otherwise Srisanth or anyother bowler shall not be charged for excessive appealing becasue for each appeal, the bowler "thinks" should be given OUT. If it was the influance of the Asian lobby then mr. Hair should have been long gone but instead "Hair got himself run out"

  • karma67 on October 2, 2007, 0:18 GMT

    This situation is one of the greatest disgraces in cricket in recent times. Those who accuse Hair of targeting Asian players are way off the mark - Muralidaran attracted attention because he threw the cricket ball - and still does. I was taught to respect the Umpire's decision, whether I think it was right or wrong. Pakistan and some other teams have completely repudiated this long standing tradition. Hair did not forfeit the match, Pakistan did. Asian countries are the last people to be pointing the finger at umpires, given their history of such things. Aaratpatel's post is the most absurd fo those condemning Hair, although there are others here that are equally is spurious. I understand why you don't want Hair officiating. Without Hair, you won't have an umpire that is prepared to officiate to the Laws of the game and won't be intimidated by teams like Pakistan. Asia, you do NOT own the game of cricket but you seem intent on destroying it. I hope Hair bankrupts Pakistan cricket.

  • OK74 on October 1, 2007, 23:56 GMT

    We all know that Pakistan and India are arch rivals when it comes to Cricket. So, why would BCCI agree with PCB in asking ICC to remove Darrell Hair? The reason why BCCI also wanted Hair out is because of his attitude towards the Asian teams. I would not like to see Hair again as an umpire. He should apologize to all the players / teams that have suffered due to his attitude and lack of judgement.

  • DonTheWinner on October 1, 2007, 23:55 GMT

    It is strange to read that most of the comments are coming justifying or negating the decision hair took during the controversial test match. However the issue that hair has raised in his plea is "racial discremation" and not the actions during the test. Neither ICC has gone on record against those decisions as well as how Hair came to the conclusion that ball had actually been tempered.These issues so far are not part of his plea or ICC defense. Please post yoor comments on his plea only.

  • ysuhail on October 1, 2007, 23:54 GMT

    This forum seems to be run by an Englishman or Australian too. I posted a comment about 10 hours ago and it is still not up here even though there was no abusive language or anything in it. All it did was call out the double standards of the English and the Australians when it comes to handling these matters.

  • AliT. on October 1, 2007, 23:49 GMT

    The thing I I feel really tipped the balance against him was the letter he sent to Mr. Malcom Speed(another Australian) in which he asked for money in exchange of retiring somehow got 'leaked' to the media. Maybe Hair should sue the person who leaked that letter rather than accusing the Asian bloc for discrimination.

  • picket23 on October 1, 2007, 23:32 GMT

    The sacking of Darrel Hair sends out a terrible message to kids, that is that arguing with the umpire is the way to go. Attrocious decision by the ICC should never have happened. He was a better umpire than most and now the world will have to deal with a poorer umpire officiating in his place.

  • Vishi on October 1, 2007, 22:45 GMT

    Hair did what he thought he was right... And ICC didnt have the guts to prove him wrong because they didnt have enough proof to do so even assuming if he did. They had to either fire him with enough reasons or maintain his existing contract and they failed to do any of these. In these situations, the benefit of doubt has to go to the defendant not the ICC or the Asian bloc...

    btw, Im an asian and dont have any interest in Hair.... But the way ICC treated Hair is not fair...

  • bobmartin on October 1, 2007, 22:39 GMT

    How strange it is that none of the anti-Hair brigade quotes one valid reason to state that he was wrong in the decision that he and Doctrove took. All the opposition is supposition, emotion and /or personal opinion. The two umpires either acted in accordance with the Laws of Cricket or they didn't. That's all that matters. I defy anyone to quote me chapter and verse where he and Doctrove acted in contravention of Law 21.3

  • teknewton on October 1, 2007, 22:17 GMT

    Firstly, could it be coincidence that the majority of the anti-Hair comments seem to be made by Asian subscibers? The fact is that the Asian countries do hold massive sway in the ICC panel much to the detriment of the game. You just have to look at the allowences that the ICC instigated just to allow Muralitharan to continue playing the game to see the power the Asian countries have. Hair, took the appropriate action as deemed by his years of experience and his actions were done so with the full support of Doctrove. I was always brought up to play by the rules and I hate to see any nation adversely influence the rules of this great game for their own benefit. It is time that the ICC stood up to the standover tactics of some of the Asian nations and govern international cricket without prejudice and bias.

  • Golfer on October 1, 2007, 21:52 GMT

    Mr Hair made his bed and now he has to sleep in it and stop playing the victim. Hair was playing the tough guy role in a gentlemen game which has been played for so long in an orderly manner with mutual respect. He thought he is bigger then the game. My advice is quietly ride into the sunset you deserve this what you have got. It is long time coming to you.

  • buttsy1 on October 1, 2007, 21:06 GMT

    So what was it that Hair actually got sacked and pilloried for? Umpiring the game by its rules? Cricket is odd in that players are allowed to "cheat" (not walking when they know they are out, or appealing when they know the batsman is not out), but when accused of what can be interpreted as "cheating" (tampering with a ball, throwing rather than bowling), all hell breaks loose. Let's be fair here: all deliberate rule breaking is cheating, so let's not be too precious. Hair called the rules as he, ranked as one of the best umpires in the game, saw them. Has no one ever heard of playing by the umpire's decision?

  • Gautamiyer on October 1, 2007, 20:20 GMT

    I am official league umpire and have been for the past 5 years, and I can honestly say, without any hesitation, that the senior umpire always has more say than his less-experienced colleague. The fact is, I've umpired games with guys similar to Darrell Hair's attitude, and I am glad that he was taken out. The type of individual that willingly ignores the potential ramifications of his own actions on the basis of his own intuition when making decisions clearly outlines his own selfishness. Selfish umpires are an absolute travesty to any sport and need to be dealt with immediately.

    I hate to pull the race-card on anyone, but if anyone is guilty of racism, it is Darrell Hair, himself; not the other way around. If it's about the Asian Block community having a lot of power, then so be it. It wasn't just the Asian nations, however; The West Indies and South Africa also went against them. And it's funny how with so many umpires being white, Hair is the only one so far with this problem

  • Godwin on October 1, 2007, 20:05 GMT

    ICC has let down Hair badly. Pak did not take the field within the stipulated time offered. As by cricketing law both the umpires made the decission. ICC should keep its Law above all nations. Pak was lead by a experience Captian, Coach and Manager. They knew that Pak should play the match and then complain about Hair by the end of the day. Inspite of their knowledge they deliberatly made this gamble and they should be punished and shown an example of others that Cricketing Law is certainly above all nations. As in Murali's case, Hair was only going by the law. ICC made it easy for Murali to continue play his game with more flexibility given in favour of his action. So why blam Haire, Blame it on Cric law makers. Give umpire's to execute law freely and fairly.

  • etawalla on October 1, 2007, 19:53 GMT

    Darryl Hair did the right thing by sticking by the rules.He should be brought back.Comment about Asia Mafia are a load of crap. It is a sign of the times. So get used to it.

  • thesunvirus on October 1, 2007, 19:25 GMT

    How can it be all coincidence? Darrel Hair has a history of taking it out with Asian players. Murali is the biggest example. I do not care if he wins the lawsuit or not, or if he is guilty or not, I just do not want to see him officiating in matches where an Asian team is playing.

  • umpire on October 1, 2007, 18:32 GMT

    Sir/Madam:

    Re: The Darrel Hair Case:

    I feel a bit disappointed that Darrel Hair has been relieved from the tasks of officiating in international Test and ODI matches.

    I am not privy to all the intricacies, legalities and nuances of the dispute culminating in his fall from the top. But I do hope justice ultimately prevails and that the game and its practitioners are best served by whatever the final outcome of the lawsuit.

    Having said that, even if Mr. Hair is found to have erred in judgment, I feel that everyone, no matter what profession they may serve in, deserves a second chance.

    Respectfully,

    Ron Saywack, Canadian umpire.

  • 0NBH on October 1, 2007, 18:29 GMT

    "He was immeasurably the more experienced and senior of the two umpires and in respect of every action during the fourth Test which has excited adverse comment, Mr Hair took the initiative and Mr Doctrove's role was only to agree." That's a terrible argument - the fact that Doctrove did agree make him equally responsible, otherwise Hair might as well not have asked him. Essentially that only leaves the argument about Hair walking out of the meeting, and a quick check of the rules would show he was right, PAK had forfeited the match.

  • gtongy on October 1, 2007, 18:28 GMT

    Hair talks about Asian Block. While on the other hand he forgets that at the time of voting NewZealand and England were the only two allies of Australia against the Pakistani Team. If we talk about cricket then everybody knows that Australia and NewZealand are the big rivals and similarly England and Australia are the worst rivals in cricket.

  • aaratpatel on October 1, 2007, 18:16 GMT

    i think this Darrell hair is jst being a nuisance,. he started all this and when it all backfired, he is playing blaming game. If he think ICC is influenced by Asian Countries , damn rite it is, its Asian Countries espec (ind and Pak) generates more money than any other cricketing nation. so lets jst leave that issue aside. I think Hair should just be removed from the Elite Panel and banned from umpiring, infact ICC should be asking him to pay for the loss of earnings as they had to hire another umpire to replace him...

  • Farhan-Sg on October 1, 2007, 17:40 GMT

    As far as Asian bloc pressurising ICC is concerned: Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh want him out, his comments show a remarkable contempt for Zimbabwe cricket and even New Zealand board wanted him out.

    If the ICC accepted the demands of majority of the test playing nations - that is not racism, it is a simple common sense decision even without taking into account his absurd ego-centric antics.

  • drsyedzia on October 1, 2007, 17:36 GMT

    i have one question for all the readers.... on what basis did Hair accuse the pakistani bowlers of ball tampering without any proof whatsoever?? if he did not have any proof then he has deserved the punishment that he has received...

  • Omio on October 1, 2007, 17:00 GMT

    Hairs quit from umpiring is vrey good decision. He is very greedy. He claims money from ICC.He is always against Asian team.

  • Zubo on October 1, 2007, 16:30 GMT

    I respect the comment of Mr. Ray Mali, "We are here today because we are an organisation that believes in fairness, justice and equality. We have come here to prove that we have been fair throughout this process. We believe racism was never an issue in this matter." I have a question for Mr. Hair- What is race and what is discrimination?

  • bonaku on October 1, 2007, 15:41 GMT

    There is not new. Asian lobby always work like a bunch of Mafia. Same thing happened when they bid for 2010 world cup.

  • TheDesiDevil on October 1, 2007, 15:37 GMT

    I completely agree that the Pakistani and Indian boards must have forced the ICC leading to umpire Hair's sacking. And I want to ask ICC a question?: What did Mr. Hair do wrong? According to what I read in the articles on the web, Darrell Hair just stuck to the rule books. He did exactly what was written in the rule books. So if his actions are wrong then that means the rule books have been written incorrectly. In that case the ICC need to stop being the J*rks that they are, bring back Hair with proper dignity and compensation, and blame the Cricketing law makers if they have to but not Darrell Hair.

  • kaushiq on October 1, 2007, 14:11 GMT

    I agree totally. Asian bloc uses or rather I should say misuse its power. The ICC is controlled and influenced by them mainly because they generate a lot of cash for them. Someone should stand up to them. The ICC seems to be totally controled by that asian bloc. My full support to Mr.Hair. Fight for your right, fight for us.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • kaushiq on October 1, 2007, 14:11 GMT

    I agree totally. Asian bloc uses or rather I should say misuse its power. The ICC is controlled and influenced by them mainly because they generate a lot of cash for them. Someone should stand up to them. The ICC seems to be totally controled by that asian bloc. My full support to Mr.Hair. Fight for your right, fight for us.

  • TheDesiDevil on October 1, 2007, 15:37 GMT

    I completely agree that the Pakistani and Indian boards must have forced the ICC leading to umpire Hair's sacking. And I want to ask ICC a question?: What did Mr. Hair do wrong? According to what I read in the articles on the web, Darrell Hair just stuck to the rule books. He did exactly what was written in the rule books. So if his actions are wrong then that means the rule books have been written incorrectly. In that case the ICC need to stop being the J*rks that they are, bring back Hair with proper dignity and compensation, and blame the Cricketing law makers if they have to but not Darrell Hair.

  • bonaku on October 1, 2007, 15:41 GMT

    There is not new. Asian lobby always work like a bunch of Mafia. Same thing happened when they bid for 2010 world cup.

  • Zubo on October 1, 2007, 16:30 GMT

    I respect the comment of Mr. Ray Mali, "We are here today because we are an organisation that believes in fairness, justice and equality. We have come here to prove that we have been fair throughout this process. We believe racism was never an issue in this matter." I have a question for Mr. Hair- What is race and what is discrimination?

  • Omio on October 1, 2007, 17:00 GMT

    Hairs quit from umpiring is vrey good decision. He is very greedy. He claims money from ICC.He is always against Asian team.

  • drsyedzia on October 1, 2007, 17:36 GMT

    i have one question for all the readers.... on what basis did Hair accuse the pakistani bowlers of ball tampering without any proof whatsoever?? if he did not have any proof then he has deserved the punishment that he has received...

  • Farhan-Sg on October 1, 2007, 17:40 GMT

    As far as Asian bloc pressurising ICC is concerned: Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh want him out, his comments show a remarkable contempt for Zimbabwe cricket and even New Zealand board wanted him out.

    If the ICC accepted the demands of majority of the test playing nations - that is not racism, it is a simple common sense decision even without taking into account his absurd ego-centric antics.

  • aaratpatel on October 1, 2007, 18:16 GMT

    i think this Darrell hair is jst being a nuisance,. he started all this and when it all backfired, he is playing blaming game. If he think ICC is influenced by Asian Countries , damn rite it is, its Asian Countries espec (ind and Pak) generates more money than any other cricketing nation. so lets jst leave that issue aside. I think Hair should just be removed from the Elite Panel and banned from umpiring, infact ICC should be asking him to pay for the loss of earnings as they had to hire another umpire to replace him...

  • gtongy on October 1, 2007, 18:28 GMT

    Hair talks about Asian Block. While on the other hand he forgets that at the time of voting NewZealand and England were the only two allies of Australia against the Pakistani Team. If we talk about cricket then everybody knows that Australia and NewZealand are the big rivals and similarly England and Australia are the worst rivals in cricket.

  • 0NBH on October 1, 2007, 18:29 GMT

    "He was immeasurably the more experienced and senior of the two umpires and in respect of every action during the fourth Test which has excited adverse comment, Mr Hair took the initiative and Mr Doctrove's role was only to agree." That's a terrible argument - the fact that Doctrove did agree make him equally responsible, otherwise Hair might as well not have asked him. Essentially that only leaves the argument about Hair walking out of the meeting, and a quick check of the rules would show he was right, PAK had forfeited the match.