PDA

View Full Version : Umpire Hair gets the ump By JOHN ETHERIDGE


Toony™®
21st August 2006, 02:02
AN 18-stone Aussie called Darrell Hair trampled his feet all over the name of cricket with an astonishing display of pig-headedness.

Umpire Hair’s refusal to see sense or abandon his misguided pride meant England became the first team in history to win a Test match by forfeit.

Hair was the central figure in a bewildering day of controversy, anger, stubbornness and ultimately disgrace.

Everybody else — the players, the Boards, the match referee and most of all the 12,000 spectators with tickets for today — wanted the npower Fourth Test to be completed.

But Hair plonked his considerable bulk in the way as a row over ball-tampering escalated into a Test match being curtailed a day and a session early.

England’s victory gives them a 3-0 series victory, although they would probably have lost this game.

The row erupted when Hair and fellow umpire Billy Doctrove accused the Pakistan team of ball-tampering.

When Pakistan twice refused to retake the field in protest, the officials awarded the game to England.

And, even after more than three hours of talks, they refused to budge.


It was a staggering example of overbearing officials applying the letter of the law without a consideration for the wider implications.

It all added up to the biggest diplomatic incident surrounding an England match since Mike Gatting’s infamous bust-up with umpire Shakoor Rana in Faisalabad 19 years ago.

On this occasion, however, England were bemused bystanders as the farce unfolded. The problems started at 2.30pm when Hair and Doctrove decided the ball had been doctored.

The implication was clear — the umpires believed the scuffing was caused by the fingernails of one or more of Pakistan’s players rather than through general wear and tear.

It was tantamount to the umpires accusing Pakistan of cheating. The tourists were so incensed their players refused to come out at 4.45pm after a break for bad light and tea.

Hair and Doctrove were on their own out in the middle as England batsmen Paul Collingwood and Ian Bell waited at the foot of the steps and the Pakistan dressing-room door remained closed.

The umpires wandered off but, a few minutes later, tried to resume play once more. This time, Collingwood and Bell went out with them but again the Pakistanis refused to budge. Hair and Doctrove symbolically removed the bails insisting Pakistan had forfeited.

Next came 30 minutes of negotiations involving bigwigs such as ECB chairman David Morgan, chief executive David Collier and Pakistan Board chairman Shahriyar Khan and tour manager Zaheer Abbas.

Then, at 5.25pm, Inzamam-ul-Haq and his players came out to play. But there were three things missing — the England batsmen, the stumps and umpires.

If Inzy and his players demonstrated wounded pride by their refusal initially to take the field, the umpires took their principles to ludicrous levels.

Nobody doubted who was setting the agenda in the umpires’ room. Hair is no friend of Pakistan or any Asian team. In the mid-90s he first called Muttiah Muralitharan for chucking in a Test.

Pakistan made an official protest about his standing in this match after several of his decisions went against them at Headingley last week. Pakistan were not happy with some controversial Hair decisions during last winter’s series against England, either.

England had reached 230-3 yesterday — still 101 runs behind — when Hair and Doctrove decided the condition of the ball had been altered illegally.

Batsmen Kevin Pietersen and Collingwood were allowed to choose a replacement ball. Hair then signalled five penalty runs awarded to England — the first time any team has been penalised runs in a Test for ball tampering.

The offending ball was beginning to reverse swing sharply and Alastair Cook was trapped lbw by Umar Gul.

Gul was removed from the attack immediately and the replacement ball refused to swing at all.

The crowd was kept disgracefully ill-informed throughout the fiasco.

Oh, you want to know about the cricket? Andrew Strauss scored 54 (confidently), Cook 83 (luckily) and Pietersen 96 (aggressively) as England cut their deficit to 33 with six wickets standing.

umpire bashing!

Hash
21st August 2006, 02:07
Good article

source?

feather
21st August 2006, 02:07
We do need more of this!!

Toony™®
21st August 2006, 02:13
Good article

source?

tabloid. - the sun.... but Journo is respectable. I think.

rayhan
21st August 2006, 02:27
tabloid. - the sun.... but Journo is respectable. I think.

:O :O I would have never expected The Sun to in effect support Pakistan and have printed this.

garbage_can2003
21st August 2006, 02:47
found this old news item on the web

ICC Referee dismisses Pakistan's charge

ADELAIDE, JAN. 26. The International Cricket Council (ICC) Match Referee Mr. Cammie Smith on Tuesday threw out Pakistan's charges, including a ball tampering accusation against India captain Sachin Tendulkar in the Carlton & United Series at the Oval.

Pakistan used the procedure for dealing with disciplinary matters and accused the Indians on four counts. At a hearing after the India-Pakistan match, Mr. Smith dismissed three charges for lack of proper evidence and warned Debasish Mohanty.

The charges Pakistan listed were: 1. Venkatesh Pradsad called Azhar Mahmood nasty names; 2. Venkatesh Prasad swore at Yousuf Youhana; 3. Abdur Razzaq saw the Indian captain Sachin Tendulkar tampering with the ball 4. Debasish Mohanty was deliberately standing outside the 30 yard fielding circle, contrary to match conditions.

Mr. Smith dismissed the first two for lack of proper evidence. With regard to the ball tampering allegation the umpires Messrs. Darrel Hair and Stephen Davis told the match referee that they had no problem with the condition of the ball. Mr. Smith dismissed the charge saying it was ``frivolous and without foundation.'' Mohanty was warned to be more carefull in the future.

W63L35
21st August 2006, 03:00
:O :O I would have never expected The Sun to in effect support Pakistan and have printed this.

They had to choose between the lesser evil between an Aussie and Pakistanis.......they went with Pakistanis!!! :)

Oxy
21st August 2006, 03:05
Online headlines from the tabloid swill significantly differ from the headlines they use in the ACTUAL tabloids.

I expect them to be scathing - and in particular digging out the likes of Allan Lamb and Tom Graveney (if hes still alive).

We will get innocuous photos of Gul & Asif holding the ball, or shining the ball against their trousers - and inflammatory headlines like 'Whats going on here' *nudge nudge, wink wink*

We will get experts on reverse-swing and 3-D models on how England mastered it last year!

Throw into the mix a 30 year old quote from Imran Khan; and a picture of the 2 W's in their whites.

Seen it all before.

The gutter press will be out in force.

Rudi hater
21st August 2006, 10:39
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,3-2006380566_1,00.html
He really went after Hair here.

Zeenix
21st August 2006, 10:51
btw Rudi Hater how about a change of Nick Now.

Muyazzim Khan
21st August 2006, 10:59
:O :O I would have never expected The Sun to in effect support Pakistan and have printed this.

No its papers like the so-called lefties from the Mirror who will side with Hair. I speak from the Mirrors acusation of cheating in 1992.

Rudi hater
21st August 2006, 11:01
I would not even consider my nick name to be associated with such name. It truely disgust me..so may be not.

Easa
21st August 2006, 11:09
Good article. :19:

TAK
21st August 2006, 11:26
1) Pak players rubbing the ball on their zippers - Hair

2) Keith Fletcher asked umpires to keep any eye on teh ball - Rameez

3) Piterson requested ball change - Abbassi

4) please add any i have missed

any credibilty to these?

i'm dubious about 1 and 3 but 2 seems a possibilty?

Billy
21st August 2006, 11:30
Well the first one sounds dodgy.

I'm not sure about the other two, certainly the KP one. I don't think things would be so cordial between the ECB and the PCB if that was the case. Would they?

Zeenix
21st August 2006, 11:33
I would not even consider my nick name to be associated with such name. It truely disgust me..so may be not.

I remember a dialogue from a Movie.. "TERE NAAM KA KUTA PALOON" translated "GIVE A DOG YOUR NAME". How'z dat. provided the DOG Doesn't feel disgraced.

MIG
21st August 2006, 11:38
Thats it - If the SUN says Hair is a fool then its gotta be the truth !!

English public opinion will never be the same again!

in_cutter
21st August 2006, 11:38
I read on another board, that one of the ECB officials had told fat Hair to keep a eye on the ball...

Solid Snake
21st August 2006, 11:38
Do cricket pants even have zippers, the ones I have are string, and if I remember correctly, when Butt had that incident on the boundry rope/slide thing, his pants were string too.

MIG
21st August 2006, 11:39
The other rumor I have heard is that Pakistani bowlers were told to reverse swing the ball after 50 overs....

Sultan Yusuf
21st August 2006, 11:56
What people have to remember is that the Sun actually backed Pakistan in the 1992 series. The mirror was the one that was at the forefront of accusing Pakistan having an exclusive of Allan Lamb's comments on there.

How much of the Sun's stance has to do with support of Pakistan is ambigious. The way rival tabloids normally work is that they take a directly opposite to stance Vs their main rival. So if the Sun have come out with this, you can bet your bottom dollar that the mirror will not be so kind.