But was he "singled out" based on his race or that he was Darrell Hair and all the previous baggage?

You also assume that this incident was the only incident upon which his fate was sealed and not the possibility that this incident was the straw that broke the camel's back.

But, the issue that he was unfairly treated per se is not the basis of his case.

Hair is claiming that he has been unfairly treated (and by default, Doctrove has been favourably treated) on the basis of their respective ethnicities.

Even if it were conceded that he was unfairly treated, that might just be because those who voted against him don't like him, had a eprsonal agenda against him or just felt it was time they finally did something about an umpire they no longer felt comfortable with, with Doctrove not raising those concerns.

The teams that voted 7-3 against him were doing so in a democratic motion saying that they had lost confidence HIM.

He's not bringing a case for general unfair treatment, he's saying he was racially discriminated against.

There's a difference and it is much harder to prove.

I apologise Zainub and am guilty of not really reading the article. I now see the irony.

I think Hair is crazy to go down the racial discrimination route. Is not the ICC also made up of European nations too? The ICC failed him in their duty of care and he has the right to claim damages for loss of income. But i don't think he can prove their actions were racist.

The sooner the whole Asian bloc situation ends the better. India are a nation on the ascendancy (not just in cricket) and i believe India are currently forcing Aus/Eng to acknowledge this fact. I just hope that India realize that they need Eng/Aus as much as Eng/Aus need India. India have now made their point - but they must be careful not to go too far.

I think Hair was an excellent umpire, but if he was standing in the way of a perception of equality and mutual respect, then perhaps his removal is all for the best. But the manner in which this happened is almost as bad as the percieved slights Hair made against Asians

Cricket needs to transcend race religion and politics. It should be an avenue of bringing nations together, not driving a further wedge between us.

__________________

I dont post very often, generally i have to be a bit annoyed to post, like i am now. The thought of Hair getting even a penny in compensation makes me furious. Last year i went to two sporting events, my dad and i paid quite a lot of money for a day out at Edgbaston for the Sri Lanka Test. We were lucky, i got the dates wrong, we had meant to book up for the saturday but got friday instead, saw KP go from about 38no overnight to a 140odd including a memorable reverse sweeped six off murali. We drank beer, held up our 4's and 6's, hada good day. A month before i went to Belfast to see two WWE Wrestling shows, i had a great time, i saw The Game Triple H, the heartbreak kid shawn michaels, the nature boy ric flair, the worlds largest athlete the Big Show, the legend killer Randy Orton...some people say wrestling isnt a real sport, but they certainly made me feel welcome, made me feel like they really valued and appreciated all the wrestling fans who had paid to come and see the show. Once after a show Ric Flair said that though sometimes heel wrestlers are paid to treat us guys bad, every single one of them is glad that we came along and bought a ticket and enjoyed the show. Fast forward to the Oval Test, me and some mates think it would be a good idea to maybe see if we could get along to the last days play have some beers have a good day out at the cricket, but is that an option? I think not. At the end of the day the real issue here is how cricket treats its fans...the punters who come through the gates and buy a ticket, and if i may say so they treat their fans like s***. So, maybe the Pakistan team shouldnt have protested the way they did, maybe an Australian team would have just got on with the game and taken their anger out on their opponents, but at the end of the day i dont blame Pakistan for having a protest about being called cheats. After their protest they were perfectly willing to play on, so were the England team, so it seems was everyone except a certain umpire who felt that once the bails had been taken off then that was it.,...well hey Hair heres a radical thought...why dont we stop acting like children and put the bails back on again and have a full days cricket the next day ? The real issue here is how cricket treats its fans....and i for one will never ever spend any of my money on cricket again, i may go to more wrestling shows, a 'sport' that appreciates its fans...i would love to one day actually see Muse live since i seem to miss them every time they are over and would have loved to seen the Wembley show with MCR, but i wont be spending money on cricket again .. Thank you Mr Hair.

Wrestling is not a sport, it's a careful stage managed piece of theatre that exploits fans by charging them rip off prices for merchandise and the like. But anyway, that's a different thread...

Whilst I believe Pakistan were valid in registering some sort of protest at being called cheats, the manner in which they went about it was totally unacceptable. They should have waited until the end of play to lodge a complaint, instead of hiding in their dressing room refusing to budge. THEY were the ones that let the paying fans down.
Hair followed the law which stated that because Pakistan refused to play, they should forfeit the test. He was backed up that night by the board!

I loathe the compensation culture so have no interest in whether he gets his payout.

__________________
Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi

True. That said... some (perhaps many) seem to think cricket should go down the same road. They elevate those who support the circus by paying obscene ticket prices above those who regard the circus as an excrescence... and then expect players, selectors, grounds, boards and the ICC to bendover backwards to provide "entertainment" (demanding that the game is organised for THEIR benefit rather than - as it should be - so that the best players/teams can go head to head in the sternest of tests).

Sadly, they are getting their way: truer pitches, bigger bats, shorter boundries... to say nothing of ODI innovations like powerplays, replacing the ball at 35 overs and Twenty20... continuously minimise the gulf seperating front foot sloggers with an eye for the ball from classy back-foot batting maestros and make it harder for quality swing, seam and spin bowling to hold its place unless it is "extreme" (in pace or turn).

The era of the cricket circus being something better than the wrestling circus would appear to be numbered.First up, sport is for players / teams, not spectators... and second up... once the bails have been taken off (as they rightfuly were) the game IS over! I mean this as no defense of Hair... who could have handled the initial situation (concerns about the ball) rather better (and less formally)... but let's be quite clear that once he'd imposed the penalty for scuffing up the ball... he never put a foot wrong... and that he was quite happy for that to be that (the end of the matter) and for the game to proceed, uninterupted, to the conclusion of the match.

The real ****-up was in the drawing up of the rules: someone should have considered the possibility that announcing suspicion of ball tampering (all the laws require) might be regarded as a pretty big deal by some... as something that could not simply be noted with as much equanimity as a bad LBW decision - but it's not the position of the umpire to compensate for the failings of the rule-makers.

First up, sport is for players / teams, not spectators...

fair enough, but if the players and teams played to completely empty arenas all the time... would they not have a bit of a problem ? at the end of the day any sport needs paying punters...and it needs to treat them well. cricket at the end of the day is never going to compete with the Premier League, but it had a chance to move forward after all the interest of the 2005 ashes, but we have a summer of 2006 that started with a test match that ended with two old men standing out in the middle with light meters (eng- sri l test at lords 2006) yes there is so much money to be made in that, viewers will pick up the remote and find something more interesting.....and ended with a test match being sabotaged by an arrogant umpire who cares nothing for the paying public..

TT - the light meters are for players' safety. Have you ever tried standing in the middle of the park with some homicidal maniac buzzing hard balls around your ears when you can't see them coming? Really, we can't criticise umpires for offering batsmen the light. If we go down that road, we'll wind up with people being stretchered off direct to the morgue with their heads caved in. Not something most of us would want to see, I'm sure.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

fair enough

but i prefer Flair to Hair...at least the nature boy respects the fans and entertains them, scripted it may be...appreciates its fans it does...cricket ? i think not

I've a DEGREE of symathy here... in that some (perhaps many) of those who promote the game all but encourage a view of international cricket as a circus for paying punters... and even the most reluctant administrators operate in a sporting climate that treats paying punters as the goose that lays the golden egg - leading to extortionate ticket prices and encouraging inflated expectations.

I'm also not indifferent to the argument that the County Championship is only able to be the global finishing school because of the cash brought in... necessitating SOME concern for the punters. My reservations on that front are merely to do with the strategies and scale.

What irritates is the lack of backbone on display: the instant recourse to dumbing down in the belief that the only punter worth getting is the ignorant **** who has more time for giving a raucus reception to some muscle-bound freak with a ludicrous modern bat swiping balls over the (drawn in) rope with shots through the line than he has for quiet contemplation of a genuine contest between bat and ball in which nothing explosive happens for entire spells.

The punters most worth targetting are those with the most time for supporting the administrators in their efforts to develop the game: folk who turn up without worrying whether they are "entertained"... who pay in order to help the club run their academy and invest in grassroots cricket rather than in order to get something OUT of the day. They do exist... but let's get one thing straight: they ain't going to be that attracted by the current marketing of many international venues!!

I am going off cricket in a big way.