Print

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

[inoc]

*on the muralidharan chucking incident .. this one i am not entirely sure about, so would welcome anyone throwing more light ... the right course of action would have been to bring the issue to the notice of the ICC rather than a high profile no-balling .. and talking of precedents, did Murali not have enough precedents of bowling without being called in international cricket

en Hair no-balled Murali, the laws allowed Umpires to no-ball bowlers who straightened their arm. Murali's incident, Chuckter, Lee etc. forced ICC to ammend the laws and disallow Umps from no-balling bowlers for chucking suspicion.

thanx .. i read something to the effect that he had to refer in one of the posts here ...

keepitcool

the law allowed umpires to call chuckers at that time although it was done from the square leg position. DH called MM from the bowlers end and then threatened to call him from the square leg position when ranatunga changed MM end. dunne has a interesting take on this incident as in the article below. umpires in a conference had decided to refer such things to the match referee which he subsequently did. i am only posting the relevant portions of the article.

A hair-raising past

Cricinfo staff

August 21, 2006

Throughout their umpiring careers, Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove have been involved in a number of controversies. Cricinfo looks back at the moments that have put the two umpires in the limelight



Australia v Sri Lanka, December 1995
In his most infamous moment before The Oval, Hair called Muttiah Muralitharan for an illegal action seven times during the Boxing Day Test at Melbourne. Murali was brought on from the other end but was not called by Steve Dunne. At the tea interval on the second day, Hair told the Sri Lankans that he was prepared to call Murali from the striker's end. Wisden reported: "unusually, he made his judgement from the bowler's end, and several minutes passed before the crowd realised that Muralitharan's elbow, rather than his foot, was at fault".

While Hair received scathing criticism in Sri Lanka, in Australia the reactions were mixed. However, Don Bradman was quoted as saying it was "the worst example of umpiring that [he had] witnessed, and against everything the game stands for." After discussions between the Australian Cricket Board and the Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka, Hair umpired no further games involving Sri Lanka in the season and he did not umpire another Test involving Sri Lanka until their tour of the West Indies in 2003.

November 1998
Hair claimed in his autobiography, Decision Maker, that Murali's action was 'diabolical' and that he would call him again if it had not improved. Hair's remarks prompted the Sri Lanka board to ask the ICC to suspend the umpire for bringing the game into disrepute. Hair then threatened to sue the president of the Sri Lankan board for allegedly accusing him of bias.



August 2003
Steve Dunne, the New Zealand umpire who stood with Hair at Melbourne in 1995, spilled the beans about his silence during the Murali throwing controversy. In his book, Alone in the Middle: An Umpire's Story, Dunne wrote: "There were many thoughts going through my mind. What do I do? Do I support Darrell Hair because he has called Muralitharan and do I call him as well? Or do I support what I believe, which was what we had discussed and decided at a conference in Coventry earlier this year?" That conference had decided in the case of a suspect action that the matter would be reported to the match referee who would have the action filmed and sent to the International Cricket Council.

[k-slice]

ravi1010
the 1% is for those who are settle outside of australia or have changed citizenship after being born there. therefore these people have thereby been cleansed of their sins.

[inoc]

Heres another angle

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/engvpak/content/current/story/257401.html
   

England v Pakistan, 4th Test, The Oval

Did England trigger tampering row?

Cricinfo staff

August 22, 2006


   
Darrell Hair: was his action influenced by Duncan Fletcher? © Getty Images
A report in today's Daily Telegraph claims that Sunday's ball-tampering row was triggered by a visit by Duncan Fletcher, England's coach, to Mike Procter, the match referee, before the start of the fourth day's play.

An ECB spokesman confirmed that Fletcher had met with Procter on Sunday morning but denied he had made a "specific complaint about the state of the ball". However, the newspaper went on to say that sources close to the team have stated that Fletcher played a part in drawing the officials' attention to certain issues.

No officials were available for comment yesterday, and with Inzamam-ul-Haq's hearing scheduled for Friday, none would have said anything anyway. If true, however, it would explain Darrell Hair's sudden interest in the state of the ball on Sunday afternoon.

The report goes on to state that England's players were concerned on Saturday and notes that Marcus Trescothick was "spotted watching Pakistan's players through binoculars, presumably to ascertain what actions they were performing on the ball". It added that Fletcher had also made enquiries as to why Sky TV cameras were not following the ball more closely as it was passed around the Pakistan fielders during the Headingley Test.

If it turns out that Fletcher did make an approach to Procter about the ball then the good relations between the two sides, which have been maintained despite the row at The Oval, will almost certainly nosedive, adding to the possibility that the one-day series might become another casualty of the row.

© Cricinfo

[keep-it-cool]

*on the muralidharan chucking incident .. this one i am not entirely sure about, so would welcome anyone throwing more light ... the right course of action would have been to bring the issue to the notice of the ICC rather than a high profile no-balling .. and talking of precedents, did Murali not have enough precedents of bowling without being called in international cricket

en Hair no-balled Murali, the laws allowed Umpires to no-ball bowlers who straightened their arm. Murali's incident, Chuckter, Lee etc. forced ICC to ammend the laws and disallow Umps from no-balling bowlers for chucking suspicion.

thanx .. i read something to the effect that he had to refer in one of the posts here ...

keepitcool

the law allowed umpires to call chuckers at that time although it was done from the square leg position. DH called MM from the bowlers end and then threatened to call him from the square leg position when ranatunga changed MM end. dunne has a interesting take on this incident as in the article below. umpires in a conference had decided to refer such things to the match referee which he subsequently did. i am only posting the relevant portions of the article.

A hair-raising past

Cricinfo staff

August 21, 2006

Throughout their umpiring careers, Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove have been involved in a number of controversies. Cricinfo looks back at the moments that have put the two umpires in the limelight



Australia v Sri Lanka, December 1995
In his most infamous moment before The Oval, Hair called Muttiah Muralitharan for an illegal action seven times during the Boxing Day Test at Melbourne. Murali was brought on from the other end but was not called by Steve Dunne. At the tea interval on the second day, Hair told the Sri Lankans that he was prepared to call Murali from the striker's end. Wisden reported: "unusually, he made his judgement from the bowler's end, and several minutes passed before the crowd realised that Muralitharan's elbow, rather than his foot, was at fault".

While Hair received scathing criticism in Sri Lanka, in Australia the reactions were mixed. However, Don Bradman was quoted as saying it was "the worst example of umpiring that [he had] witnessed, and against everything the game stands for." After discussions between the Australian Cricket Board and the Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka, Hair umpired no further games involving Sri Lanka in the season and he did not umpire another Test involving Sri Lanka until their tour of the West Indies in 2003.

November 1998
Hair claimed in his autobiography, Decision Maker, that Murali's action was 'diabolical' and that he would call him again if it had not improved. Hair's remarks prompted the Sri Lanka board to ask the ICC to suspend the umpire for bringing the game into disrepute. Hair then threatened to sue the president of the Sri Lankan board for allegedly accusing him of bias.



August 2003
Steve Dunne, the New Zealand umpire who stood with Hair at Melbourne in 1995, spilled the beans about his silence during the Murali throwing controversy. In his book, Alone in the Middle: An Umpire's Story, Dunne wrote: "There were many thoughts going through my mind. What do I do? Do I support Darrell Hair because he has called Muralitharan and do I call him as well? Or do I support what I believe, which was what we had discussed and decided at a conference in Coventry earlier this year?" That conference had decided in the case of a suspect action that the matter would be reported to the match referee who would have the action filmed and sent to the International Cricket Council.

thanx inoc

[suraj]

Ok ... lets take each ruling separately here and figure out the options ... and let us go in reverse order

1) UMPIRES AWARDING A FORFEIT TO ENGLAND (we all seem to be blaming Hair, but Doctrove was also surely involved in this) - Fair Enough. Pakistan declined to play .. were off the field for a long time .. as per the rules, they forfeit the match. In line with rules and spirit of the game

2) REFUSING TO CONTINUE WHEN BOTH TEAMS AGREED TO PLAY - This was a pity. Okay, the match was already forfeited. But with both teams willing to play, I just fail to understand the whole issue. I understand from one of the posts above that even for a playing captain to revoke an appeal, he needs the umpire's consent. Fine. But that is the entire point - if everyone concerned want to play, if the paying public want to see a game of cricket, why is one person not so willing to continue. This is where, Hair in my opinion, came out as someone most inflexible. It may be within the rules, but clearly this was an ocassion where the so called "spirit of cricket" could have been won out. Sadly, it did not.

3) CHANGING THE BALL - again, fair enough. The umpires felt the ball was damaged. They changed the ball. Of course, one expects them to have the courtesy to explain to the fielding captain why the ball is being changed - apparently (if one were to take Inzy's word) they did not. Now, I am not sure what the rules say on this one, but clearly it is in the way they handle these softer issues that a good umpire / referee is different from more ordinary ones

4) AWARDING RUNS FOR BALL TAMPERING - this is really shocking. In all of the ball tampering cases that we have seen before this, the process that has been followed was to report events to the match referee, who then looks at the evidence and awards a penalty. Now, here we do not know whether the umpires had any evidence at all. A scuffed up or damaged ball is only evidence of the fact that the ball is damaged. It is not evidence that any Pakistani player was responsible for the act. Without any such evidence, penalising a team on the field is just not on. Again, I do not know what the exact rule says - maybe an umpire sighting an offence (even if cameras do not catch it) is enough to impose a penalty. But, this is where the umpires again erred in the way they let the issue get out of hand. Some more tact could have easily led to a completely different course for this entire issue.

I am sure, Hair being an umpire is playing by the rules. I see no way he is going to fall on the wrong side of this, if one just looks at the rules. But, he appears to be someone totally devoid of tact and an ability to handle complex situations. In fact, he just seems to add to the complexity. And this is as big a negative as imperfect knowledge of the rules, when it comes to deciding whether one deserves to be a leading umpire.

Wish Hair could think as clearly as you

[keep-it-cool]

Ok ... lets take each ruling separately here and figure out the options ... and let us go in reverse order

1) UMPIRES AWARDING A FORFEIT TO ENGLAND (we all seem to be blaming Hair, but Doctrove was also surely involved in this) - Fair Enough. Pakistan declined to play .. were off the field for a long time .. as per the rules, they forfeit the match. In line with rules and spirit of the game

2) REFUSING TO CONTINUE WHEN BOTH TEAMS AGREED TO PLAY - This was a pity. Okay, the match was already forfeited. But with both teams willing to play, I just fail to understand the whole issue. I understand from one of the posts above that even for a playing captain to revoke an appeal, he needs the umpire's consent. Fine. But that is the entire point - if everyone concerned want to play, if the paying public want to see a game of cricket, why is one person not so willing to continue. This is where, Hair in my opinion, came out as someone most inflexible. It may be within the rules, but clearly this was an ocassion where the so called "spirit of cricket" could have been won out. Sadly, it did not.

3) CHANGING THE BALL - again, fair enough. The umpires felt the ball was damaged. They changed the ball. Of course, one expects them to have the courtesy to explain to the fielding captain why the ball is being changed - apparently (if one were to take Inzy's word) they did not. Now, I am not sure what the rules say on this one, but clearly it is in the way they handle these softer issues that a good umpire / referee is different from more ordinary ones

4) AWARDING RUNS FOR BALL TAMPERING - this is really shocking. In all of the ball tampering cases that we have seen before this, the process that has been followed was to report events to the match referee, who then looks at the evidence and awards a penalty. Now, here we do not know whether the umpires had any evidence at all. A scuffed up or damaged ball is only evidence of the fact that the ball is damaged. It is not evidence that any Pakistani player was responsible for the act. Without any such evidence, penalising a team on the field is just not on. Again, I do not know what the exact rule says - maybe an umpire sighting an offence (even if cameras do not catch it) is enough to impose a penalty. But, this is where the umpires again erred in the way they let the issue get out of hand. Some more tact could have easily led to a completely different course for this entire issue.

I am sure, Hair being an umpire is playing by the rules. I see no way he is going to fall on the wrong side of this, if one just looks at the rules. But, he appears to be someone totally devoid of tact and an ability to handle complex situations. In fact, he just seems to add to the complexity. And this is as big a negative as imperfect knowledge of the rules, when it comes to deciding whether one deserves to be a leading umpire.

Wish Hair could think as clearly as you

Wouldnt mind being an umpire, myself ...