ICC contradictions?

[Naveed33]

Malcolm Speed: umpire sent the e-mails at a time of great mental turmoil

If the argument is that he under termendous stress wen't crazy and wrote this letter. It's seemed pretty calculated and thought trough if you listen to Hair:

It wasn't a spur of the moment thing. I didn't do it off the cuff

If the ICC seem to go great lenghts to argue "a symphatetic" view of Hairs action, then why didn't the ICC take a symphatetic view of Inzi? He also acted in a time of great turmoil. If they are going to maintain the charge on Inzi on bringing the game in disrepute, why not charge Hair?

One more thing:

Hair despite Pakistan registering complaints against him in the past is the second most used umpire by ICC to umpire in Pakistan test matches in the last 5 years. The list is as follows:

Bucknor: 14
Hair: 13
Koertzen: 10
Taufel: 10
Venkat: 7
Sheperd: 6
Bowden: 6
Daryl Harper: 5

Now I wan't to know why Hair is involved in 13 matches, and good umpires like Daryl Harper only has 5??? In the last 2 seasons it has been extreme Hair has been involved in almost all pakistan series. He has been following Paksitan around the world like a plague, why?

Obviously none of you can answer, but i hope you get the point :-)

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by Naveed33

If the ICC seem to go great lenghts to argue "a symphatetic" view of Hairs action, then why didn't the ICC take a symphatetic view of Inzi? He also acted in a time of great turmoil. If they are going to maintain the charge on Inzi on bringing the game in disrepute, why not charge Hair?

It is arguable whether Hair offering to resign damages the game of cricket. What isn't arguable is that it breaks any rules. That is the key difference between his action and Inzi's, looking at it from the ICC's point of view. The game's governing body have no option but to enforce the rules of the game, making it inevitable they will punish Inzi if the charge is upheld.

Originally Posted by Naveed33

Hair despite Pakistan registering complaints against him in the past is the second most used umpire by ICC to umpire in Pakistan test matches in the last 5 years ... In the last 2 seasons it has been extreme Hair has been involved in almost all pakistan series. He has been following Paksitan around the world like a plague, why?

I don't know why Hair has officiated more than other umpires in Pakistan series. However, Steve Bucknor has also officated a lot, actually more than Hair. If the Pakistan team don't want Hair to umpire in their matches, which it seems they don't, then they will have to present a very strong case, including sufficient evidence, to show that Hair is not suitable to umpire Pakistan matches. If they prove that he is unfit to stand, then the ICC would be left with no option but to sack him as being unfit to umpire international cricket.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Mongoose

The game's governing body have no option but to enforce the rules of the game, making it inevitable they will punish Inzi if the charge is upheld.

I agree with you in general M, but the game's laws have already been enforced. Pakistan broke the rules by not coming out; however, the rules also stipulate the penalty for this infraction and that was duly applied. Hence, there was no breach of the laws of cricket - the events (include the forfeit) were in accordance with the rules.

[Naveed33]

Doesn't Hairs action bring the game into disrepute?

It certanly has done.

[Maranello]

I guess that is a subjective issue; in your judgement, and that of many others I am sure (eg Atherton and a few other former English players/commenators etc), Hair's actions have certainly brought the game into disrepute.

However, others (including the ICC it seems) have a different view. And on this matter, the ICC's view is the only one that counts.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Naveed33

Doesn't Hairs action bring the game into disrepute?

It certanly has done.

What has hair done to bring the game into disrepute?.

He penalised Pakistan for what he alleged was ball tampering.

He offered to resign if he was compensated for any money he would lose by not keeping to the 4 years remaining of his contract.

The Hair e-mail ammount to nothing IMO - whats wrong with saying I've had ebough of this - pay me my wages and I will go?.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Ernest

What has hair done to bring the game into disrepute?

Put himself above the game. The umpire is there for a specific job, not to hog the limelight. Hair on the other hand has repeatedly tried to be in the limelight, and his actions, time and again, have suggested a man who appears to have very limited people skills. An umpire's key role is to build a good rapport with the players to ensure the game is played in the right spirit; Hair has completely failed to build that rapport with many teams he has officiated over. In Atherton's words, his actions were those of an officious parking meter attendant. I would not expect a sensible, mature, decent human being to act in that manner.

Originally Posted by Ernest

He offered to resign if he was compensated for any money he would lose by not keeping to the 4 years remaining of his contract.

That is incorrect. He has less than two years left on his contract.

[Naveed33]

If he has got the cricket law on his side why did he even feel the need to resign? The hearing would have cleared his name he would have enhanced his reputation what was his problem?

Isn't it correct that he wanted the money in his account before the hearing was scheduled to start?

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Naveed33

The hearing would have cleared his name

The hearing would not clear his name, or otherwise - the only one who has been charged is Inzi, hence the hearing cannot clear anyone else's name - no one else is "on trial"! :-)

[Aussie-Yank]

Naveed I do not think that if the ICC rule that Pakistan did tamper with the ball, which should clear Hair - but will not in the eyes of many Asian fans and not to mention fans who are not Asian who are not in favour of Hair.

The rulings that came out on Murali showed that under the rules Murali's deliveries where an illegal delivery and therefore should have been called for no-balls - hence clearing Hairs calls - Did it - No - he is still villified for those no-ball calls. Remenber that the no-ball rule was changed to allow Murali to continue bowling.

So why would those people who are still questioning Hair stop just because the ICC clear his name - they will not stop untill he is out of the game.