The Cricket Society Watch

This discussion is closed.
Tonight Matthew
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3061
Report 12 years ago
#3061
(Original post by biggie-n)
Once again, you assume your opinion should be universally accepted, despite the fact that various cricketing experts and columnists would disagree. they, unlike you, know a hell of a lot about cricket, not only in England but across the world, including the subcontinent. i'm more inclined to trust their judgement and thoughts.
Thanks for introducing the concept of opinions to me - I wasn't aware they existed before. And don't try and pull some terrible 'they're cricket experts and columnists, and they say this, therefore it must be true' line, because there are various cricket experts and columnists who have supported Hair and condemned Inzy and the Pakistani team.

(Original post by biggie-n)
clearly you did care, judging by your numerous posts on this thread, the majority of which were aimed to instigate. so **** it, i'm done here.
:bawling:

Here's hoping for a decent length ban for Inzy so that the cricketing world acknowledges that holding a match hostage is not acceptable.
0
Tonight Matthew
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3062
Report 12 years ago
#3062
(Original post by alkaeda)
to show some integrity and have some pride in himself by accepting that he made a mistake and retire from cricket instead of leeching more money from it. Because cricket is a better place without officials like Darrel Hair,
But this is the point, he doesn't think he made a mistake, nor do many other people. You are taking it as some sort of fact that he made a mistake - not the case.

So basically, your entire point is dependent upon a large assumption - good work.
0
CorpusNinja
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3063
Report 12 years ago
#3063
(Original post by alkaeda)
to show some integrity and have some pride in himself by accepting that he made a mistake and retire from cricket instead of leeching more money from it. Because cricket is a better place without officials like Darrel Hair,
ditto.
and i don't agree with his claim that the next few years would have been his best either. most ppl can only see a future of more controversy if he continues his behaviour.
0
CorpusNinja
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3064
Report 12 years ago
#3064
"I am dumbfounded. I cannot believe what has transpired but I guess he realises the consequences now."
A Pakistan camp insider

"It's hard to see how Darrell Hair can umpire at any future international match. They have made his position untenable now. To imagine he can umpire down the line in international matches is hard to see. It seems extraordinary when you consider that Inzamam-ul-Haq has been charged on two counts - one of ball-tampering, for which nobody can find any evidence, and secondly for bringing the game into disrepute on the back of the first charge. So poor old Inzy finds himself under two charges, but Darrell Hair, after these extraordinary letters, finds himself under no charge whatsoever "
Former England captain and Sky Sports commentator Mike Atherton

"Darrell Hair was probably advised to do what he has done. He was under a huge amount of pressure. It didn't help when he had the Pakistan team saying they wouldn't have Darrell Hair as an umpire again and Bangladesh following suit. It's not the sort of thing you need."
Former England captain Mike Gatting

"It will be very hard for Darrell Hair to umpire at not just international level but also first-class level."
Former England batsman Allan Lamb

"He does what he thinks is right regardless of the consequences. My immediate reaction was 'typical Darrell'."
ICC general manager cricket Dave Richardson

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engv...ry/257623.html - Law 42.3 is an ass!
0
Andronicus Comnenus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3065
Report 12 years ago
#3065
If Hair didn't think he was in the right, why would he demand 500,000 when his employers would have compromising evidence they could use to sack him?

also, the ICC are a bunch of ******s. Considering that the umpires are unable to comment on the match/tour, its a bit unfair to release a confidential email like this. I wouldn't be surprised if they've broken their own code of conduct.
0
CorpusNinja
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3066
Report 12 years ago
#3066
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engv...ry/257791.html

It appears after all that Mr Hair has decided he doesn't want his ransom. remarkable. so he's going to fight the case i assume. this just gets better and better...
0
Andronicus Comnenus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3067
Report 12 years ago
#3067
Ransom? I don't think so. Its pretty obvious that Hair's been stitched up by the ICC. Look at how he begins the letter in question:

Doug,

Just to firm up what we discussed earlier this evening. I appreciate the ICC may be put in a untenable position with regards to future appointments and having taken considerable time and advice, I make this one-off, non-negotiable offer.
So by the looks of things, Hair does his job and enforces the laws of cricket. Pakistan and Bangladesh throw a strop and threaten to boycott games he umpires. The ICC explain to Hair that they're in an embarrassing situation and, rather than stick up for their umpire, need him to retire in order to appease the teams in question. In return for this favour, Hair requests a handsome lump some as a return gesture and to cover loss of earnings. Icc then announce this to the world, missing out key events in this chain in order to destory the umpire's credability. Hair is unable to talk about these events, nor the events of the game in public or he'll be torn apart because he'll be in breach of the Umpire's code of conduct.

Basically, even if Pakistan cheated, the ICC come out of this looking worse. How can they stand up to anyone and run the game properly if they haven't got a spine?

As for Hair, this was always about umpiring in the future. Even if he'd retired, i'm sure he'd still be present to give evidence ant Inzi's hearing - has there been any indication otherwise?
0
CorpusNinja
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3068
Report 12 years ago
#3068
i don't always agree with Geoff Boycott, but he's one of many to launch another scathing attack on Mr Hair after his letter: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mai...6/scboyc26.xml

As for the ICC following procedure, they say they had to release the letter because it would have compromised the hearing if it later emerged that this letter had existed: "Speed handed them a copy of Hair's letter and told them that the advice they had received from David Pannick, the QC, was that if they had kept the letter secret and it had later emerged that it had existed then this would have jeopardised the hearings against Inzamam-ul-Haq."
So the ICC was only safeguarding the hearing which Hair had brought forward, at the expense of his image, which no matter what his intentions, is now tarnished because it looks like he's trying to get an easy get out clause.
0
CorpusNinja
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3069
Report 12 years ago
#3069
(Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
If Hair didn't think he was in the right, why would he demand 500,000 when his employers would have compromising evidence they could use to sack him?

also, the ICC are a bunch of ******s. Considering that the umpires are unable to comment on the match/tour, its a bit unfair to release a confidential email like this. I wouldn't be surprised if they've broken their own code of conduct.
If Hair did think he was right then why didnt he wait for the case to be heard, come out unscathed and resume his umpiring career. the money demands sound like he thinks he might lose.

also if he did want to resign, why not just do so under normal procedure and claim future earnings at that point rather than setting an unreasonable ransom deadline?
0
Andronicus Comnenus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3070
Report 12 years ago
#3070
(Original post by biggie-n)
If Hair did think he was right then why didnt he wait for the case to be heard, come out unscathed and resume his umpiring career. the money demands sound like he thinks he might lose.
read the emails:

"Doug,

Just to firm up what we discussed earlier this evening. I appreciate the ICC may be put in a untenable position with regards to future appointments and having taken considerable time and advice, I make this one-off, non-negotiable offer."

Now, considering that this comes in the context of Pakistan and others threatening to boycott matches which Hair umpires, what do you think this 'untenable position' is? Basically, its evident that the ICC are total cowards. Rather than back their own officials, they opted to appease the trouble makers by trying to force Hair to resign. In reply to this, Hair demanded a handsome payment as compensation for having to give up his career. NOt entirely unreasonable, hmm? The fact is the ICC's story doesn't hold up. Speed claimed that he passed the letters on to the media in order to prevent them being leaked. How does that work, exactly? isn't that a bit like stabbing yourself 20 times in the chest to prevent yourself from being murdered?

If Hair talks about this kind of thing, he'll be in breach of the umpires code of conduct. Yet they think its fine to leak all of this without providing any context (which there has to be. What were they 'discussing earlier'?). The authority of umpires has been dramatically reduced by the ICC's inability to act with backbone.
0
Tonight Matthew
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3071
Report 12 years ago
#3071
(Original post by biggie-n)
If Hair did think he was right then why didnt he wait for the case to be heard, come out unscathed and resume his umpiring career.
ARGH! This is a huge part of it!

He couldn't just come out unscathed and resume his umpiring career, because of the possibility of Asian teams refusing to play with him, despite the ICC saying that they would continue to send him to umpire in said matches.

PS. http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engv...ry/257827.html - Woolmer's past is apparently not entirely clean.
0
CorpusNinja
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3072
Report 12 years ago
#3072
(Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
read the emails:

"Doug,

Just to firm up what we discussed earlier this evening. I appreciate the ICC may be put in a untenable position with regards to future appointments and having taken considerable time and advice, I make this one-off, non-negotiable offer."

Now, considering that this comes in the context of Pakistan and others threatening to boycott matches which Hair umpires, what do you think this 'untenable position' is? Basically, its evident that the ICC are total cowards. Rather than back their own officials, they opted to appease the trouble makers by trying to force Hair to resign. In reply to this, Hair demanded a handsome payment as compensation for having to give up his career. NOt entirely unreasonable, hmm? The fact is the ICC's story doesn't hold up. Speed claimed that he passed the letters on to the media in order to prevent them being leaked. How does that work, exactly? isn't that a bit like stabbing yourself 20 times in the chest to prevent yourself from being murdered?

If Hair talks about this kind of thing, he'll be in breach of the umpires code of conduct. Yet they think its fine to leak all of this without providing any context (which there has to be. What were they 'discussing earlier'?). The authority of umpires has been dramatically reduced by the ICC's inability to act with backbone.
err..the ICC were backing Hair from the outset of this, it was just waiting for the hearing to commence but then Hair took it into his own hands and decided to give them an ultimatum before the hearing date itself, so you can see why Speed would dismiss it as a 'silly letter'.
0
Andronicus Comnenus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3073
Report 12 years ago
#3073
(Original post by biggie-n)
err..the ICC were backing Hair from the outset of this, it was just waiting for the hearing to commence but then Hair took it into his own hands and decided to give them an ultimatum before the hearing date itself, so you can see why Speed would dismiss it as a 'silly letter'.
comprehension....much?

lets try again shall we.

Just to firm up what we discussed earlier this evening.
Hair wasn't issuing an ultimatum, it was an offer based on a discussion he had with the ICC. Why haven't the details of this earlier discussion been made known? Why did the ICC leak the letters in order to prevent a leak? this whole episode has been about the chicken-**** ICC appeasing the PCB and trying to destory Hair's credability.

Does that make it easier?
0
CorpusNinja
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3074
Report 12 years ago
#3074
well you writing it in huge font doesn't making your point any stronger! i just chose to ignore that coz it made no sense. what do you think they would have talked about? its clearly to do with Hair's future. 'Just to firm up' means he's making a direct, concrete offer as opposed to vague discussions previously, I'm guessing (and that's all we can do). what's your point about previous discussions - what do you think could emerge from these discussions that could help Hair's case?

also, as for Hair's future being over anyway, the BCCI (India, just to make it clear) said it wouldn't seek to omit Hair from its matches, so his career wouldn't have been over - WI, England, SA and India is quite a few international Tests and ODIs to umpire (excluding Zim here). the only danger to his career would have been the entire Asian bloc requesting his removal from their matches. so no, he wasn't forced into this.
0
Socrates
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#3075
Report 12 years ago
#3075
There is no doubt that Hair was in the wrong. Why else would he want $500,000?
0
Socrates
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#3076
Report 12 years ago
#3076
"It's hard to see how Darrell Hair can umpire at any future international match. They have made his position untenable now. To imagine he can umpire down the line in international matches is hard to see. It seems extraordinary when you consider that Inzamam-ul-Haq has been charged on two counts - one of ball-tampering, for which nobody can find any evidence, and secondly for bringing the game into disrepute on the back of the first charge. So poor old Inzy finds himself under two charges, but Darrell Hair, after these extraordinary letters, finds himself under no charge whatsoever "
Former England captain and Sky Sports commentator Mike Atherton

Spot on Athers...
0
CorpusNinja
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3077
Report 12 years ago
#3077
(Original post by Socrates)
There is no doubt that Hair was in the wrong. Why else would he want $500,000?
$500,000 in secret btw. which explains Speed's reaction: "Somehow I'd have to find $500,000, conspire to keep it secret, mislead the public and lie. Why would we want to do that? It just wouldn't work"

so i suppose despite legal advice, Speed should have kept this under wraps huh?:cool:

shady character that Hair...
0
tis_me_lord
Badges: 14
#3078
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#3078
This debate is getting pretty old I reckon, but carry on if you must.

I'll just post about cricket now - well done to Sussex with a good win in a low scoring game against Lancashire. The south wins. :cool:
CorpusNinja
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3079
Report 12 years ago
#3079
its big issue - that's why. 'bigger than the bodyline controversy' as dickie bird put it. anyway there's not much to be done on that front but waiting for the hearing and/or the ICC's decision on Hair.
0
Socrates
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#3080
Report 12 years ago
#3080
(Original post by tis_me_lord)
This debate is getting pretty old I reckon, but carry on if you must.

I'll just post about cricket now - well done to Sussex with a good win in a low scoring game against Lancashire. The south wins. :cool:
Well done Sussex

Yasir Arafat top scored with 37 :cool:
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (586)
80.27%
Leave (144)
19.73%

Watched Threads

View All