I think you are being a tad too harsh and uncharitable there Z, surprising for you given that its the month of being charitable After all, ICC's own report had Hair as one of the better umpires in the general 'run of the mill' stuff; its only when matches involved teams from the sub-continent that he often lost his marbles. Also, Hair was one of the few umpires who was willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the bowler more often than not; happily there is Asad Rauf on the panel now who is even more robust, but other than that, most umpires are far too batsmen-friendly.

__________________
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes
Mark Twain

That is precisely the kind of situation that I was hoping would not show its ugly head again in international cricket....dividing teams into "white" and "non-white". There are too many people holding positions in the ICC going about with chips on their shoulders and believing that the time is now right for some sort of "retribution" because they percieve the ball now to be in the other court. That does not sound very good for the future of the game for any side.

Hair has never been liked in the West Indies especially due to his very arrogant manner and also the not so wonderful way in which he officiates.

However, that aside, I see some people talking about rehabilitation.

Unless that involves giving him a complete new identity and cosmetic surgery I don't see how he can work his way back to any form of respected standing.

Any contentious or marginal decision against the teams of any of the 7 nations that voted against him, will always be viewed with suspicion.

An umpire must not only be fair in his decisions he must be believed to be fair in his reputation. Hair lost that a long time ago and as I've said, the Oval was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Secondly, what happened to being racially discriminated against?

Those who actually are racially discriminated tend to actually, even upon pain of having the veridct go against them, persevere with the case to the very end. And not many, choose to drop the case and go back to work for or with the very same people who want to get rid of you based on your ethnicity.

How many times has another White Australian been voted the best umpire in the world? 3? 4?

Thirdly, just how much professional friends does this guy have?

Doctrove refused to go to the hearing and offered no comment why. I believe he asked Jimmy Adams to attend and he did not either.

And during his testimony he offered this wonderful statement that Koertzen was supposed to have said about Pakistan on their departure from the World Cup.

Unless Koertzen sues him, then we must assume that the conversation was like or close to that.

Can Koertzen be trusted to umpire a match with Pakistan?

No.

Hair sure did drop his "friend" in it there!

But then anything to get your money, right?

Just drag someone else into it to dirty the pot!

Rudi Koertzen, who averages a shocker every match and should be fired based on that principle alone, is now in the position of revealing that he has a bias.

He thinks that Pakistan are cheats. Unless he has specific allegations of who in that team are cheats then he is making a generalisation about Pakistani players.

Not good for an umpire.

What does he think about other teams?

And lastly, the division of the teams into white and non-white was done by Hair with his claim of racial discrimination.

Until then, it was just the decision to get rid of Darrell Hair because of who Darrell Hair was perceived to be.

Though it is always nice to see the reaction of some when "others" supposedly weald power. It says a lot about them.

All the more depressing when you're West Indian and never had or never will hold that type of power.

But the single funniest thing of this tribunal to me??

Nothing to do with Hair.

Read on.....

The President of the WICB (at the time) did not know the umpire was West Indian!!!!

This is a level of dotishness far exceeding even what I am used to witnessing.

Just a small pointer as to why WI are where they are.

I don't think India will allow that to come to pass, purely because India realize that it is not in India's interests. On the cricketing front, there is a reason why Australia and India are playing each other so much these days - that's where the most money lies.

On a broader front, there are political and economic reasons as India's future lies in close ties with the west. India want the technology, secure access to resources that are crucial to their economy, continued investment to ensure they maintain their fantastic growth levels, and employment for their people via the outsourcing of work from western companies. Australia of course benefit just as much - the whole deal is mutually beneficial

Australia aren't going to risk souring relations over trivialities such as the Darrell Hair issue. India aren't going to take the same risk just so they can carry a racial millstone around their neck. People think that cricket and politics don't mix, but they do more than many people realize. If it really comes to the crunch and India is forced to choose between grinding some racial axe along with their neighbors, or doing business and making money, i bet they will choose the latter with no second thoughts

Let's hope it doesn't come to that, this whole issue dies down, and we can all get along as fairly equal partners in this great game of cricket

__________________

[quote]
This query illustrates the persecution complex mindset that is going around nowadays.

I think the relevant post has more than done it.

Whether Hair did it or not, there are forces vigorously trying to complete the job.

I don't disagree Nostromo; a division of the game along racial lines would be nonsense. However, that doesn't mean it cannot exist, in fact, in some areas, it already does.

It probably has its roots in Dalmiya's antics to get the 1996 world cup from right under England's nose, and his subsequent 'take-over' of the commercial and marketing side of global cricket for some time in the 1990s.

However, that wasn't the only incident; even the very controversial award of the 2011 world cup to Asia, over Aus & NZL, was caused by voting patterns along classical ethnic/racial lines. Andy and I exchanged a few fairly detailed (and from his side, well-argued) posts on that topic a while back (here and here), so not worth repeating the same posts. Given the whole ICL/IPL issues, the Hair saga, etc, I'd have to acknowledge that Andy's views were rather more prescient that my own, and his concerns had some merit; however, nothing to get alarmed over just yet, and in many ways, a natural correction to the 'old order'. Let's see how all this unfolds over the next few months and years.

__________________
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes
Mark Twain

So England and New Zealand are "white teams". Is Monty Panesar white? Last time I looked, South Africa had mostly white players as well. This sort of labelling does no one any favours.

__________________
Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi

Moss its a fact and denying its existence would not make it go away. There were three countries, and three countries alone, who did not vote Hair off the Elite Panel, and those were the same three countries who had earlier, in previous controversies (eg award of 2011 WC) voted as a block against the BCCI.

__________________
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes
Mark Twain

That is not relevent Maranello because Hair WAS voted off the Elite Panel, the fact that three voted against does not cover up the majority that did the injustice to Darell Hair.

I say injustice because there was another umpire officiating with Hair, Doctrove who is West Indian - he was consulted by Hair so why did he not get struck of the Elite Panel also.

Again there was the third umpire - he was not diciplined also, but why I think Hair was hard done by was because the Match Referee, did nothing at the Oval as was his job if he thought something was wrong, and he got away scott free also.
I suppose it was the seven that voted against him, even if part of the seven were white, he could conclude that they sypathised with Pakistan for Race reasons, and that he was singled out from the other three officials.

I am not saying there is no racism in cricket, in fact as an Englishman I choose my words with care - I may only need to loo closer to home.

__________________
Ern

Because those voting, voted to remove Hair because they had lost confidence in HIM.

Not Doctrove.

Concerns about Hair had been expressed before the Oval incident. It was not a single incident that Hair was punished for.

Remember, it was he who foolishly gave Inzy out when he was taking evasive action and when he was selected for the fateful ENG vS PAK Tests, they (PAK) raised objections.

Hair's removal from the list was done in a proper and legal way. It was voted on by the members, he was voted off 7-3 and that was that.

Notice, he isn't suing that that action was an injustice. Heck, he was asking for money real soon after it to disappear.

Or, far more likely, they actually voted to get rid of Darrell Hair because they were not happy with Darrell Hair.

Seeing as he has uncondtionally withdrawn his case and from all that was reported offered nothing to show this alleged discrimination, I suggest as I always thought his case was flimsy at best.