Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[kban1]

In the course of the current Darrell Hair trail, the following information has come to light:

Earlier, Hair had described a phone call in which Rudi Koertzen, the South African umpire, had referred to the Pakistan team as cheats.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/313505.html

If Koertzen indeed believes so, does this not compromise his standing as a fair judge in matters involving Pakistan ?

Based on this information, should not the ICC launch its internal fact finding wrt Koertzen ?

And if the statement proferred by Hair with regards to Koertzen's dispoitions are found to be true, shouldn't certain remedial actions be taken ?


PS: The point of this thread is to only discuss this issue. Please do not mix up the Hair issue here -- comments on the Hair case should be posted on this thread:

http://www.cricketvoice.com/cricketforum2/index.php?topic=12966.0

[WicketView]

In the course of the current Darrell Hair trail, the following information has come to light:

Earlier, Hair had described a phone call in which Rudi Koertzen, the South African umpire, had referred to the Pakistan team as cheats.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/313505.html

If Koertzen indeed believes so, does this not compromise his standing as a fair judge in matters involving Pakistan ?

Based on this information, should not the ICC launch its internal fact finding wrt Koertzen ?

And if the statement proferred by Hair with regards to Koertzen's dispoitions are found to be true, shouldn't certain remedial actions be taken ?


PS: The point of this thread is to only discuss this issue. Please do not mix up the Hair issue here -- comments on the Hair case should be posted on this thread:

http://www.cricketvoice.com/cricketforum2/index.php?topic=12966.0

Actually, I don't think this is a big problem. In any case, umpires are expected to judge on the basis of cricketing laws and not their beliefs about the players or teams. It is natural to have opinions on teams, then there is the troublesome area of    not allowing those opinions to cloud your judgment as a professional. How do you know that other umpires do not hold some opinion?

[feverpitch]

And what happens to our own Suresh Shastri, the Piloo Reporter of the 21st century [going by the last few matches]?

[WicketView]

 

[inoc]

In the course of the current Darrell Hair trail, the following information has come to light:

Earlier, Hair had described a phone call in which Rudi Koertzen, the South African umpire, had referred to the Pakistan team as cheats.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/313505.html

If Koertzen indeed believes so, does this not compromise his standing as a fair judge in matters involving Pakistan ?

Based on this information, should not the ICC launch its internal fact finding wrt Koertzen ?

And if the statement proferred by Hair with regards to Koertzen's dispoitions are found to be true, shouldn't certain remedial actions be taken ?


PS: The point of this thread is to only discuss this issue. Please do not mix up the Hair issue here -- comments on the Hair case should be posted on this thread:

http://www.cricketvoice.com/cricketforum2/index.php?topic=12966.0

Actually, I don't think this is a big problem. In any case, umpires are expected to judge on the basis of cricketing laws and not their beliefs about the players or teams. It is natural to have opinions on teams, then there is the troublesome area of    not allowing those opinions to cloud your judgment as a professional. How do you know that other umpires do not hold some opinion?

umpires can have beliefs but i dont think they came come up with statements like 'players from this country are cheats'. of course it is debatable whether he said so or not along with the context in which he did so, but if he actually meant what he said then he should also not be an international umpire.

i missed this bit of news and am appalled that rudi hasnt been criticised or a retraction sought. how can he get away by saying this. amazing.

[WicketView]

In the course of the current Darrell Hair trail, the following information has come to light:

Earlier, Hair had described a phone call in which Rudi Koertzen, the South African umpire, had referred to the Pakistan team as cheats.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/313505.html

If Koertzen indeed believes so, does this not compromise his standing as a fair judge in matters involving Pakistan ?

Based on this information, should not the ICC launch its internal fact finding wrt Koertzen ?

And if the statement proferred by Hair with regards to Koertzen's dispoitions are found to be true, shouldn't certain remedial actions be taken ?


PS: The point of this thread is to only discuss this issue. Please do not mix up the Hair issue here -- comments on the Hair case should be posted on this thread:

http://www.cricketvoice.com/cricketforum2/index.php?topic=12966.0

Actually, I don't think this is a big problem. In any case, umpires are expected to judge on the basis of cricketing laws and not their beliefs about the players or teams. It is natural to have opinions on teams, then there is the troublesome area of    not allowing those opinions to cloud your judgment as a professional. How do you know that other umpires do not hold some opinion?

umpires can have beliefs but i dont think they came come up with statements like 'players from this country are cheats'. of course it is debatable whether he said so or not along with the context in which he did so, but if he actually meant what he said then he should also not be an international umpire.

He definitely should not come up with a public statement of that kind. Private statements to personal friends (as in this case) are OK, I believe. If the friend chooses to snitch on him, he can always deny it .... kind of what happened (see below).

i missed this bit of news and am appalled that rudi hasnt been criticised or a retraction sought. how can he get away by saying this. amazing.

In any case, as it turns out Rudi has been unable to recall saying this to Hair. Unless, Hair is able to prove his allegations  and I have not heard of anything close to that, I don't think this deserves any attention.

[inoc]

WV

Thanks for the update. if Hair cannot substantiate his claims then this is OK. since we dont actually know whether rudi came up with the statement.
adds to my displeasure of hair though.

[kban1]

WV:

In any case, as it turns out Rudi has been unable to recall saying this to Hair

Where did you find this from ?

[WicketView]

WV

Thanks for the update. if Hair cannot substantiate his claims then this is OK. since we dont actually know whether rudi came up with the statement.
adds to my displeasure of hair though.

Since, a lot of people have accused Hair of racism over the years, he is now trying to absolve himself by demonstrating that he is an out and out villain, whose malice transcends the superfluous bounds of race.

[WicketView]

WV:

In any case, as it turns out Rudi has been unable to recall saying this to Hair

Where did you find this from ?

I think it was in this article from the Australian, posted on the DG (by Cernunnos ?)

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22526973-2722,00.html

The relevant part:

Koertzen yesterday told The Australian that he had no memory of making the withering comment disclosed by Hair, which could now threaten the South African's career by angering Pakistan and other Asian cricketing nations.

And the part I liked best :

...(Hair)  insisting he had only revealed Koertzen's comments because he felt a duty to reveal such "an unsolicited phone call".

[kban1]

thanks WV

Full article follows:

Rudi shocked by Hair's spray

Peter Wilson, European correspondent

October 04, 2007

SOUTH AFRICAN cricket umpire Rudi Koertzen was stunned to find himself dragged into Darrell Hair's battle with Pakistan and the International Cricket Council.

Koertzen entered the fray when Hair revealed to a London employment tribunal that the South African had privately called the Pakistanis cheats.

Koertzen yesterday told The Australian that he had no memory of making the withering comment disclosed by Hair, which could now threaten the South African's career by angering Pakistan and other Asian cricketing nations. Hair has launched a racial discrimination claim against the ICC claiming his career was destroyed after a confrontation with Pakistan players and officials last year and it was during a hearing in that case on Tuesday that he named Koertzen as a fierce critic of the side.

Hair was banned from umpiring top-flight matches after his showdown with Pakistan during The Oval Test in England and he told the hearing that he was driving his car in Sydney in March when he heard on radio that Ireland had knocked Pakistan out of the World Cup.

He had then received on his mobile phone a call from ICC umpires manager Doug Cowie at the World Cup, and Cowie passed the phone to Koertzen, who was umpiring in the tournament.

"After exchanging pleasantries Koertzen said, 'that's great news, those cheats can now go home'," Hair said. "I answered that I was not necessarily happy one way or the other with the result."

Contacted at his hotel in Sri Lanka yesterday, where he had a day off before umpiring today's one-dayer between Sri Lanka and England, Koertzen said he had had no idea that he was going to be mentioned in the case.

He confirmed he had spoken to Hair by telephone during the World Cup but said he could not recall saying what Hair claimed.

"I won't comment until I speak to the ICC guys," said Koertzen, the world's most experienced one-day international umpire.

Koertzen, 58, did not officiate at any of Pakistan's games at the World Cup.

Malcolm Speed, the Australian chief executive of the ICC, was also the subject of embarrassing disclosures of private exchanges by Hair, who is alleging that the ICC board operates along racial lines with "the Asian bloc" of cricketing nations combining to "wrest control" of the game.

Hair says the proof of the racial discrimination against him was that he was the only umpire punished by the ICC over The Oval Test match, even though he and the black West Indian umpire Billy Doctrove had acted jointly in charging the Pakistan players with ball tampering and later awarding the match to England when the Pakistanis protested by refusing to take the field.

In his testimony on Tuesday, Hair recalled that Speed had told him last October "that we had something in common -- the ICC board wants to sack both of us".

Speed had also told Hair that he had arranged for another official to put to the board a submission defending Hair because "if I had presented the paper it would not have done you any favours".

"This was because my (Speed's) relationship with the board was so bad and India would have voted against my proposal," Speed allegedly told Hair.

Hair said Speed's comments confirmed his own belief that the ICC board "was controlled along racial lines and he was afraid that his recommendation would not succeed because of those racial prejudices".

During an occasionally heated cross-examination, the ICC's lawyer, Michael Beloff, QC, suggested that it was Hair's own blinkered view of race matters that prevented him from seeing that any ill-feeling against him from the Pakistan and Sri Lankan teams might have been prompted by his behaviour rather than the fact he was a white Australian.

Beloff last night (AEST) accused Hair of "sheer mud slinging" by raising the Koertzen allegation.

"What you are hoping to do is cause maximum embarrassment to the ICC" in a bid to force a financial offer, Beloff told Hair.

"In the criminal venacular, 'you've got form at this'."

Hair denied any such intent, insisting he had only revealed Koertzen's comments because he felt a duty to reveal such "an unsolicited phone call".

"I was absolutely stunned to get a call of that nature. To me there seemed to be an inference other people in the ICC might have believed that the Pakistanis were cheats," Hair said.

Beloff said Hair's "wild" claims of racial discrimination were entirely based on his own perceptions and suspicions rather than any evidence.

The hearing continues.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22526973-2722,00.html