Umpire Darrell Hair - Articles - Zimbio

Why the ICC should declare the Oval Test a draw (in spite of what Jonathan Agnew says)

Wed, 3 Jul 2008 10:18:17 GMT

posted by duniyah

Yesterday, the world’s media reported that the result of the controversial Oval Test between England and Pakistan in 2006 is to be changed from an English victory to a draw. The ICC is expected to make this change at its meeting in Dubai following pressure from the PCB. A Cricinfo source stated“England and Pakistan have agreed to declare the Oval Test as a draw to maintain the dignity of Pakistan in world cricket, especially after the ball-tampering charges were dropped.”

Originally the result was officially declared as ‘Match Forfeited by Pakistan’ and therefore England won the Test. On the Fourth Afternoon of the Test, Pakistan had a lead and were pushing for a win when the umpires enabled the England batsmen to change the ball and awarded them 5 penalty runs - indicating Pakistan were guilty of ball tampering. Inzamam, Pakistan’s captain, did not seem to be aware of this allegation until tea when his team did not immediately come out to play. By the time Pakistan came out, the match had been declared a forfeit and awarded to England. In subsequent hearings, Pakistan were to be found not guilty of ball-tampering and Darrell Hair was removed from the ICC Elite Panel.

The reports that the result will be changed by the ICC have been met with fierce criticism by some quarters including BBC journalist Jonathan Agnew who claimed this will open “an absolutely enormous can of worms”. The following are his comments on a BBC Radio 5 Live interview:

“The Pakistanis were accused of ball tampering and they did not come out to play. The umpires went into their room and said ‘You must come out to continue the game’, they did not and, under the laws of any sport, if you refuse to play, you lose the game.

Match abandoned, they’re saying, as a draw, - well, abandoned on what grounds? It wasn’t the weather, it wasn’t anything else, it was that Pakistan wouldn’t come out to play for whatever reason.

That game has now been classified as a draw, so if you’re losing, you sit in the dressing room, don’t come out and you can get away with a draw.”

The point I feel Agnew’s comments are missing is the same point which was missing in the officialing of the whole case itself - common sense. The first ones to open“an absolutely enormous can of worms” were Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove when they made a decision that was bound to provoke anger of a huge magnitude. I am not saying they should be scared of implementing the laws of cricket but they should have exercised them with greater wisdom. Perhaps when their suspicions increased, they could have asked the 3rd Umpire to look into the TV footage. As a result, in the coming days they were hugely embarrassed to see the 21 cameras in the ground could find no sign at all of ball tampering. In my opinion you are always putting yourself in a vulnerable situation if you accuse someone of a serious crime without strong evidence.

Although mistakes were made at that split second, they could have been amended had greater common sense been used. Perhaps the Pakistan team should have come out to play immediately after tea and then levelled their protest at the end of the day’s play. Also the umpires should have shown greater common sense after they made their ultimatum. The Pakistan team did come out to play 25 minutes after tea but by this time it was the umpires who were refusing to let the match continue. Therefore people like Jonathan Agnew cannot say the Pakistanis ‘refused to play’ - this situation is not that simple. Following this, we would have expected the match referee, Mike Proctor, to be able to negotiate some sort of compromise but he went anonymous during this time. At the time Michael Atherton said that the umpires should have had the humility to let the game go on and Nasser Hussain said he would have done exactly what Inzamam did.

When Inzamam (in effect Pakistan) was cleared of ball tampering, this should had proved that greater fault lay with the umpires that the Pakistanis. Inzamam and Pakistan’s greatest crime was to delay the match by 25 minutes which surely is not enough to lose a match. Common sense shows the match was abandoned due to the uncompromising nature of the umpires, not due to a willful decision by the Pakistan team to forfeit the match. Rather than only considering the split second when the umpires took the bails off, we should also consider who was unwilling to continue the match at 5pm, and then 6pm and then for the whole following day. Laws do not normally offer total guidelines for highly unusual situations such as this one which is why common sense should prevail. Therefore when the ICC meets, it should consider whether or not Pakistan intended to forfeit the match and that they were willing to play for all but 25 minutes of the 5 day match. It should also instruct its officials to use common sense as well as the laws in all situations to ensure correct decisions are made. To Agnew’s final comment, common sense tells us his theoretical situation is a result of one team having the total intent to not continue on with the match at all, which means the result would be a forfeit. Common sense also tells us Pakistan never shared this total intent while the umpires did and therefore Pakistan did not forfeit the match.

ShareThis

Darrell Hair on panel to guide Australian umpires

Wed, 10 Jul 2008 07:54:26 GMT

posted by vivek231

Posted by worldcricket 1 hour 17 minutes ago (http://content.cricinfo.com)
Category: Australia Cricket News

Darrell Hair has been included in Cricket Australia's four-member Umpire High Performance Panel, which will help guide and develop umpires in the country.
Bookmark this story...

Full text of Darrell Hair's email to the ICC

Thu, 29 Sep 2006 21:12:40 GMT

posted by Tony
The ICC made the full text of umpire Darrell Hair's e-mail public. Mr. Hair offered to quit the ICC in exchange for $500,00 cash.

Some believe that Hair's emails and tone are out of line. Others think that he was trying to genuinely solve media problems. Read the emails and decide for yourself.

The ICC is now has to decide what in the world to do with Darrell Hair. His umpire contract extends to March, 2008. He claims that he wants to continue his post. Yet his name is tarnished and the ICC already removed him from the Champions Trophy.

Linked from http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/5286994.stm
---

From: Darrell Hair
Sent: Tuesday 22nd August 2006
To: Doug Cowie
Subject: The way forward

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.

I am prepared to retire/stand down/relinquish my position on the elite panel to take effect from 31st August 2006 on the following terms:

1. A one-off payment to compensate the loss of future earnings and retain a payment over the next four years which I believe would have been the best years I have to offer ICC and world umpiring.

This payment is be the sum of US $500,000 - details of which must be kept confidential by both parties. This sum to be paid directly into my account by 31st August 2006.

2. ICC may announce the retirement in any way they wish, but I would prefer a simple 'lifestyle choice' as this was the very reason I moved from Australia to settle in the UK three years ago.

3. No public comment to be made by me as to possible reasons for the decision.

4. This offer in no way precludes me taking legal action and/or instigating libel suits against various sections of the electronic and print media for comments made either previously or in the future.

5. This in no way precludes me taking civil action (and exercising my rights as a resident of the UK in any court of law and by any other avenue open to me) against any organisation or persons currently part of ICC and in particular, members of the Pakistan cricket team and the Pakistan Cricket Board.

I reiterate this is a once only offer and if I fail to obtain your agreement I shall continue to be available under the terms of my current contract till March 31 2008 to fulfil umpiring appointments as and when ICC sees fit in any country at any time in any series or matches involving any affiliated teams.

I would also insist that my ongoing contracted employment continue in its current form until such time as an ICC performance assessment deems me to be no longer able to perform the duties to the high class expected of an international umpire.

Would you please let me know at your earliest convenience of your acceptance or otherwise of this offer.

Sincerely, Darrell Hair.

From: Doug Cowie
To: Darrell Hair
CC: David Richardson
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Subject: Re: The way forward.

Darrell, Your offer may have merit and is acknowledged and under discussions with ICC management.

Your timeframes seemed impractical at first glance even if agreement were achieved on the suggestion.

Will discuss this further tomorrow,
Doug

From: Darrell Hair
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006
To: Doug Cowie
Subject: Re: The way forward

Doug, Phones have been ringing off the hook (or out of the mobile charger anyway!) since early this morning - ICC are not the only ones marshalling legal counsel.

It appears from overnight developments that the issue of racism has arisen and from advice I have just received, the sum indicated in my release offer is being revised.

Therefore the offer is withdrawn until I have had the chance to take further advice. Hope to get back to you within the next 24 hours.

Cheers,
Darrell.

From: Malcolm Speed
To: Darrell Hair
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Subject: Letters

Dear Darrell, I have been given copies of letters that you have forwarded to Doug Cowie today concerning the current issue.

The matters raised by you concerning your future employment are entirely inappropriate. There is a clear process that is to be followed and it is in place. I will call you tomorrow to advise as to progress.

Yours sincerely,
Malcolm

From: Darrell Hair
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006
To: Malcolm Speed
Subject: Re: Letters

Thanks Malcolm, I have revoked the email.

As you say it is inappropriate and we will see how things unfold over the next few days. It would appear that life will go on regardless.

I have just sent Doug another message with you and David (Richardson) copied in about events under my control and some others that are not!

Cheers,
Darrell.

Hair we go again, Darrell

Mon, 2 Oct 2007 16:33:00 GMT

posted by infomatic
It's great fun making headlines when the star of a particular news story such as Umpire Darrell Hair has a great name and although this has nothing to do with my usual posts I'll add it anyway.

Umpire Hair is suing the ICC for unfair dismissal and is claiming racist discrimination after being relieved of his umpiring duties after his role in the infamous 4th Test Match at the Oval in 2006 when declaring England the winners after the Pakistan players refused to take the pitch in protest at being accused of ball tampering.

It is alleged that there is an Asian plot against the Australian and his case rests with the fact that his co-umpire Billy Doctrove was not suspended.

He then allegedly wrote an e-mail to the cricket authorities demanding money for basically keeping quiet.

It's all come to a head and I await the decision from the court with interest. Most of the blog commentary seem to suggest that the Asians have too much influence in world cricket.

UPDATE

Well, the ICC must have bottled out because Darrell Hair dropped the case and an out of court settlement has been reached. The best opinion about the Hair story is here and it makes sensible reading.

Darrell Hair booted from the ICC Champions Trophy

Thu, 29 Sep 2006 20:49:39 GMT

posted by Tony
It’s official.

Controversial Australian umpire Darrell Hair won’t be officiating in any of the matches of the upcoming ICC Champions Trophy.

Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) secretary Niranjan Shah confirmed that Hair has been removed from consideration.