Print

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

[Sahir]

Hair sacked from ICC panel: reports

Reports from India say Australian cricket umpire Darrell Hair has been sacked from the sport's elite umpiring panel.

The decision was apparently taken on the opening day of the two-day executive board meeting of the International Cricket Council in the Indian city of Mumbai.

A formal announcement is expected later today.

"It has been decided to remove Hair from the elite panel," a highly-placed ICC source said.

"The Asian bloc comprising India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh tabled a motion at the meeting that Hair be taken off the panel.

"The motion was put to vote and was passed by a seven to three majority - the four Asian nations plus South Africa, Zimbabwe and the West Indies voted against Hair [but] England, Australia and New Zealand wanted him to continue."

In August, Hair became the first umpire to award a forfeit in the history of Test cricket, after Pakistan refused to take the field in the wake of ball-tampering accusations.

An ICC inquiry conducted by chief match referee Ranjan Madugalle of Sri Lanka on September 28 cleared Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq of ball-tampering.

But the inquiry found Inzamam guilty of bringing the game into disrepute for forfeiting the Test, and banned him for four one-day internationals.

The ICC revealed Hair had offered to quit the panel after the Oval Test fiasco if he were paid a sum of $500,000, an offer the governing body refused to entertain.

The ICC also did not include Hair in the panel for the ongoing Champions Trophy tournament in India, saying it was doing this for "safety and security reasons".

Hair, a 56-year-old veteran of 76 Tests, courted controversy earlier in his career when he no-balled Sri Lankan spinner Muttiah Muralitharan for throwing during a tour of Australia in 1995-96.

The umpire angered Sri Lankan cricket administrators by terming Muralitharan's bowling action "diabolical" in his autobiography.

http://www.abc.net.au/sport/content/200611/s1781121.htm

[suraj]

Good riddance!!!

[sgusa]

Hair yesterday, gone today!

[Sahir]

"The motion was put to vote and was passed by a seven to three majority - the four Asian nations plus South Africa, Zimbabwe and the West Indies voted against Hair [but] England, Australia and New Zealand wanted him to continue."

They say race plays no part in the cricket world, but just pay attention to how voting always turns out.  This was the exact same voting pattern in deciding whether the 2011 WC will be hosted in the subcontinent or in Oceania.

[sudzz]

This is sad for cricket...a umpire with balls who took the right calls has been sacked and the criminals have been allowed to go scot free.

We have now see that the Pak cricketers are not loathe to break rules to excel so pray why does everyone believe that they wouldnt have scuffed up the ball.

This will have bigger ramifications on the sport...already good ump's are in short supply and on top of it they have sacked one of the best...well one more reason why cricket's becoming like the "Bold and the Beautiful"

[suraj]

Board have 'lost confidence' in Hair

Hair banned from officiating in internationals

Siddhartha Vaidyanathan in Mumbai

November 4, 2006


 
Hair's fate has been confirmed © Getty Images
 
 

Darrell Hair, the Australian umpire who accused Pakistan of ball tampering during the Oval Test in August against England this summer, has been banned from umpiring in internationals. The announcement was made by Percy Sonn, the ICC president, at a press conference in Mumbai at the end of a two-day ICC meeting.

"The board has discussed this matter with great sincerity," said Sonn, "and gave lots of attention to it and they've come to the conclusion that they've lost confidence in Mr. Hair. They've given instructions to the management to discuss Mr Hair's future with him. In think I we owe Mr Hair the courtesy of allowing his future to be discussed by him with our management before we go anywhere further in the matter. He shall not be allowed to officiate in any future international games until the end of this contract."

However, both Malcom Speed, the CEO of the ICC, and Sonn made it clear that there was "no issue" about the result of The Oval Test. "With regard to compensation, there is a claim by the ECB against the PCB. That is unresolved. It may end up being referred to the ICC disputes resolution committee but at this stage there's been no request for that to happen."

Both also confirmed that the future of Billy Doctrove, the other umpire involved the Oval drama, was secure adding, "The executive board didn't discuss Doctrove".

It was widely rumoured yesterday that Hair's future was in doubt, when a reliable source at the ICC leaked the news to a TV station in India. "The Asian bloc comprising India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh tabled a motion at the meeting that Hair be taken off the panel," the source said. "The motion was put to vote and was passed by a 7-3 majority. The four Asian nations plus South Africa, Zimbabwe and the West Indies voted against Hair. England, Australia and New Zealand wanted him to continue."

Pressure from the four-nation Asian bloc has seemingly forced the ICC's hand and Hair will no longer be permitted to officiate in internationals involving any full member side. Speed revealed that he's spoken to Hair last night, after the decision was taken and added that they will make an effort the protect Hair's interests. "I've said it a number of times that I hope we can find a way for Darrell to umpire," he said. "The board has resolved that they don't wish Darrell Hair is appointed to umpire international matches. I spoke to Darrell yesterday after the decision was made. I told him about it and he was very disappointed. David Richardson, who is the ICC General Manager of Cricket, and myself will speak to Darrell over the next few days and talk about what it means to him.

"ICC has a number of lawyers on staff, who're well aware of our legal position," he continued when asked if the ICC had considered the legal recourse that Hair might consider. "It's correct that Hair is contracted till March 2008. But we need a little time to discuss the matter with him, to protect whatever interests he has."

Speed also made it clear that this wasn't a decision taken at the spur of the moment, confirming that the board had considered the issue in detail. "The ICC board - which consists of 13 representatives from the member countries - was presented with a very detailed paper that rain into 15-20 page. The board certainly had lot of information before it when it started procedure yesterday. They had two hours of discussion on the issue. As it was reported the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) had lodged a formal charge under the ICC code of conduct. That was also considered by the board. This was no knee-jerk reaction. The board had a good deal of information in front of it as is the case of any decision on the board."

[avinashgodkhindi]

The arrogant SOB deserves it

[prfsr]

This is sad for cricket...a umpire with balls who took the right calls has been sacked and the criminals have been allowed to go scot free.

We have now see that the Pak cricketers are not loathe to break rules to excel so pray why does everyone believe that they wouldnt have scuffed up the ball.

This will have bigger ramifications on the sport...already good ump's are in short supply and on top of it they have sacked one of the best...well one more reason why cricket's becoming like the "Bold and the Beautiful"

Agreed completely. Where was the trial that determined that Hair was guilty rather than mistaken? Surely he deserved a different trial where he could present his case? As far as I can remember the previous trial just said that the ball did not have enough signs to convict the Pak side. Very different from saying Hair did something grossly wrong.

A very sad day for the sport.

-P

[Sahir]

This is sad for cricket...a umpire with balls who took the right calls has been sacked and the criminals have been allowed to go scot free.

We have now see that the Pak cricketers are not loathe to break rules to excel so pray why does everyone believe that they wouldnt have scuffed up the ball.

This will have bigger ramifications on the sport...already good ump's are in short supply and on top of it they have sacked one of the best...well one more reason why cricket's becoming like the "Bold and the Beautiful"

Agreed completely. Where was the trial that determined that Hair was guilty rather than mistaken? Surely he deserved a different trial where he could present his case? As far as I can remember the previous trial just said that the ball did not have enough signs to convict the Pak side. Very different from saying Hair did something grossly wrong.

A very sad day for the sport.

-P

Well, it is the right decision, if you ask me.  First, you are right in your assessment of the conclusion that the hearing came to, however, it is also important to note that his contract has not been terminated.  He is still going to make his base salary.  The appointment of the number of matches you umpire is at the sole discretion of the ICC based on how good your performance as an umpire is deemed to be, a subjective decision.  Therefore, while Simon Taufel can be awarded the most games to umpire based on his performance being deemed the best, so too can Hair be appointed none.  If the ICC were to not pay the remainder of his contract, then it would be unfair without a separate hearing.

Furthermore, what cannot be ignored is the fact that Hair offered the ICC an under the table opportunity to bribe him and the situation away.  This was completely unethical behavior from an umpire and doing such a thing alone is grounds for termination of contract, IMO.  Lucky for Hair, the ICC have let him off the hook for this one.

[Sahir]

This is sad for cricket...a umpire with balls who took the right calls has been sacked and the criminals have been allowed to go scot free.

We have now see that the Pak cricketers are not loathe to break rules to excel so pray why does everyone believe that they wouldnt have scuffed up the ball.

This will have bigger ramifications on the sport...already good ump's are in short supply and on top of it they have sacked one of the best...well one more reason why cricket's becoming like the "Bold and the Beautiful"

What?  Just because a couple of Pakistani players tested positive for performance enhancing drugs or tampered withe the ball in the past means they are always guilty even if there is not even the slightest video evidence, let alone conslusive evidence, no other expert at the hearing  willing to agree with the conclusion, and contrarily some experts disagreeing.

If tomorrow, an umpire decides to take away a reverse swinging ball from India and there is no evidence of it, would it be fair to assume guilt because Rahul Dravid and Sachin Tendulkar have tampered with the ball in the recent past?  Just as prior decisions of Hair should not be considered in determining how justifiable the current one is, neither should prior incidents determine guilt or innocence in a current situation.

And if you ask me, the criminal here is Hair for trying to get the ICC to underhandedly buy him out for $500,000.

[Aloo Kashmiri Ul Haq]

yeah tomorrow i ban australia for excessive farting and causing conditions not favorable for a clean cricket contest
and i should be given a fair trial for no one else noticed it but my dog like nose caught the trick

[sudzz]

This is sad for cricket...a umpire with balls who took the right calls has been sacked and the criminals have been allowed to go scot free.

We have now see that the Pak cricketers are not loathe to break rules to excel so pray why does everyone believe that they wouldnt have scuffed up the ball.

This will have bigger ramifications on the sport...already good ump's are in short supply and on top of it they have sacked one of the best...well one more reason why cricket's becoming like the "Bold and the Beautiful"

What?  Just because a couple of Pakistani players tested positive for performance enhancing drugs or tampered withe the ball in the past means they are always guilty even if there is not even the slightest video evidence, let alone conslusive evidence, no other expert at the hearing  willing to agree with the conclusion, and contrarily some experts disagreeing.

If tomorrow, an umpire decides to take away a reverse swinging ball from India and there is no evidence of it, would it be fair to assume guilt because Rahul Dravid and Sachin Tendulkar have tampered with the ball in the recent past?  Just as prior decisions of Hair should not be considered in determining how justifiable the current one is, neither should prior incidents determine guilt or innocence in a current situation.

And if you ask me, the criminal here is Hair for trying to get the ICC to underhandedly buy him out for $500,000.

Sahir,

First off no Pak crickters are not always guilty but whether you like it or not they find themselves in the middle of one once every so often, be it Qasim Omar carrying dope in his glovesin the mid 80's, or Miandad and his alleged links, Salim Malik and fixing, Rashid Latif and his shenanigans, Wasim Akram,Waqar,etc and ball tampering and Imran no less admitting that yes they did so....

You yourself mentioned the other day in case of Shoaib and Asif how the burden of proof shifted to the accused. Well Iam afraid though Iam not a legal man but the burden of proof should be on the Pakis.

That apart, Hair was not a bad umpire, he applied the law's of the game as he deemed fit. The hearing or whatever the farce was did not conclusively say that the ball was not tampered with in fact even the paki spin doctors never every once unequivocally state that they are innocent. They went on and on about pride, knowledge of English or the lack of it etc.

Finally Hair was what cricket needed, a fearless umpire who was determined to take the right calls, you may and will disagree with me but for me cricket has gone soft and has become one the most corrupt sports. The longer this continues the worse the sport becomes.

[Sahir]

You yourself mentioned the other day in case of Shoaib and Asif how the burden of proof shifted to the accused. Well Iam afraid though Iam not a legal man but the burden of proof should be on the Pakis.

No, this is completely different.  The burden of proof in the performance enhancing drugs case shifts once there has been a positive test in that case.  A prior positive test would not shift the burden of proof.  The burden of proof does not shift based on who the defendant is or how many prior convictions he/she has.  It shifts under special circumstances in a particular type of case that would make it nearly impossible for the prosecution to meet its burden (how could you prove someone took steroids intentionally?  The person would always say he did not know what the substance was).  Therefore, that argument does not work in this case.

BTW, as far as being caught in the middle of controversies, just about every team has had there fair share of them.  India has had mutiple incidents of ball tampering (Sidhu and Jadeja also additionally recently admitted to ball tampering) and has also been involved in match fixing.  The Australians have been involved in match fixing, steroid usage, and ball tampering.  South Africa has been involved in ball tampering, match fixing, recreational drugs, and pitch doctoring.  Basically, this sort of thing goes on all around the world. 

Your basic theory goes against very fundamental legal principles, while somehow basing Hair's claim to unfair dismissal on legal grounds.  It is very accepted legal theory that the son cannot pay for the sins of that father.  Therefore, whatever Imran, Waqar, and Malik did is irrelevant to any specific case today.  Similarly, you have to be tried on the individual merits and facts of a case.  The bottom line is that there was no evidence, forget conclusive evidence, no physical evidence at all other than a penny sized scratch on the ball (and at no time is there any visual confirmation of any wrongdoing with the ball).  If the umpires can take away a ball for a penny sized scratch and nothing else, there would be ball tampering penalties in almost every game.

That apart, Hair was not a bad umpire, he applied the law's of the game as he deemed fit. The hearing or whatever the farce was did not conclusively say that the ball was not tampered with in fact even the paki spin doctors never every once unequivocally state that they are innocent. They went on and on about pride, knowledge of English or the lack of it etc.

The Pakistanis said over and over again that they were innocent and that they did not do anything to the ball.  I heard the interviews live right after the game with Inzi (this was in Urdu), Woolmer, Waqar, and Shahryar all strongly denying that any of the players tampered with the ball.  Therefore, that part of your argument is just plain wrong.  They did "unequivocally state that they are innocent." 

The hearing was a farce-- why?  You wanted them to convict Inzi of ball tampering even though there was no visual evidence or any other cricketing experts willing to testify the ball was tampered with.  On the contrary, you had expert testimony explicitly saying there was nothing wrong with the ball.  The decision is a complete no-brainer for any adjudicator.  Furthermore, Inzi was rightly banned for the disrepute charge because the protest has to be viewed as a separate action to the ball tampering charge

[Sahir]

Finally Hair was what cricket needed, a fearless umpire who was determined to take the right calls, you may and will disagree with me but for me cricket has gone soft and has become one the most corrupt sports. The longer this continues the worse the sport becomes.

The ICC needs tough umpires, sure, and it needs not to be soft, sure, but it does not need uncrupulous umpires like Hair.  Any person that can send this e-mail should never be an umpire:

I am prepared to retire/stand down/relinquish my position on the elite panel to take effect from 31st August 2006 on the following terms:

1. A one-off payment to compensate the loss of future earnings and retain a payment over the next four years which I believe would have been the best years I have to offer ICC and world umpiring.

This payment is be the sum of US $500,000 - details of which must be kept confidential by both parties. This sum to be paid directly into my account by 31st August 2006.

So. Hair wants a secret payment made for half a million dollars into his account, huh?

2. ICC may announce the retirement in any way they wish, but I would prefer a simple 'lifestyle choice' as this was the very reason I moved from Australia to settle in the UK three years ago.

Ah, how to announce the "retirement"-- of course, after having been paid off.

3. No public comment to be made by me as to possible reasons for the decision.

Oh, we do not want the public to know anything-- of course, it might make Hair look bad.

4. This offer in no way precludes me taking legal action and/or instigating libel suits against various sections of the electronic and print media for comments made either previously or in the future.

5. This in no way precludes me taking civil action (and exercising my rights as a resident of the UK in any court of law and by any other avenue open to me) against any organisation or persons currently part of ICC and in particular, members of the Pakistan cricket team and the Pakistan Cricket Board.

But of course, $500,000 is not enough-- allow me to retain my rights to sue for more.

I reiterate this is a once only offer and if I fail to obtain your agreement I shall continue to be available under the terms of my current contract till March 31 2008 to fulfil umpiring appointments as and when ICC sees fit in any country at any time in any series or matches involving any affiliated teams.

Even Hair here realizes the appointment during matches is at the sole discretion of the ICC, separate from termination of his contract.

I would also insist that my ongoing contracted employment continue in its current form until such time as an ICC performance assessment deems me to be no longer able to perform the duties to the high class expected of an international umpire.

OH-- HOW ABOUT THIS!!!  The guy must be a prophet-- as they say, be careful what you wish for.  The ICC carried out its performace assessment and "deem[ed] [him] to be no longer able to perform the duties to the high class expected of an international umpire."  He wanted the $500,000, wanted it to be kept hush-hush, preferred his "retirment" be termed a "lifestyle choice" and then just let his contract run with the ICC eventually doing exactly what it has done-- not terminate his contract, but deem him unfit to perform his duties as an umpire.

Would you please let me know at your earliest convenience of your acceptance or otherwise of this offer.

Sincerely, Darrell Hair.

Basically, whether his decision-making on the field is good or not, once such an e-mail has become public, it would be foolish to assume that he has not completely lost the respect of many players worldwide.  Once that happens, he simply cannot go on being an effective umpire.  Even leaving that aside, the pure content of the e-mail and the heinous nature of it is actually grounds enough for termination, if you ask me.  What this tantamounts to is nothing short of an offer to be bribed and I cannot think of any worse quality in an umpire-- one that is for sale.  Mark him down as the worst umpire ever in cricket, for mine, after this offer.

[prfsr]

Sahir,
It seems like you feel very strongly about the leaked email. I do not. For all I know, this was prompted by the ICC. There were initial reports quoting Hair to this effect, IIRC.

I will concede that as a lawyer he should have done better than put in writing a response to an unrecorded phone conversation.

However, I still do not see how it is gravely unethical. He correctly foresaw a big media furore and a concerted effort by the Asian countries to get rid of him. He understood as well as anyone that ICC would be under pressure and perhaps bow to Asian money. So he was partly guarding his future financial interests and partly giving the ICC a way to appear decisive. If you know that you are likely to be fired, without a proper trial perhaps, would you not try to guard your financial interests? So, I would NOT call it a solicitation for a bribe.

You also point out that ICC is within its rights to fire him. That is true and I do not think anybody called his firing illegal. I would call it arbitrary ans the setting of a bad (terrible) precedent.

-P

[Libran]

Asian bloc gets what it wants

Melbourne: The Australian and the British media cried foul over the unprecedented sacking of International Cricket Council Elite Panel umpire Darrell Hair, accusing the Asian bloc of getting what it wanted through its financial clout.


"We have been whispering it for years but now it's official - the Asian nations run cricket," cricket writer Robert Craddock started his article thus in The Sunday Mail.


"Whether it be chasing the rights to host a World Cup, getting officials in important positions or getting rid of an umpire, the Asia bloc gets what it wants," he wrote.


"England and Australia officials may luxuriate in holding the oldest and most famous series, but when it comes to holding power they are no longer the kings."



Hair, who was involved in a string of controversies with sub-continent cricketers -- the latest being Pakistan skipper Inzamam-ul Haq during the Oval Test fiasco -- was on Saturday banned from officiating in the international matches after he was voted out at an ICC Executive Board meeting in Mumbai.


Craddock rued that ICC had left Hair's future in the hands of its member boards than its own staff, including the umpires' boss Doug Cowie.


"The demise of Darrell Hair as an umpire is a classic example of this and it's sad for all sorts of reasons. Firstly it shows how dangerous it is when a sport is governed by its own participants. It should never have been up to the Asian nations to decide Hair's fate."


"That decision should have been made by ICC staff, such as cricket operations boss Dave Richardson in consultation with umpires boss Doug Cowie," he said.


"As it turns out, the opinions of Cowie, Richardson and even ICC Chief Executive Malcolm Speed meant nothing compared to the views and voting power of officials from featherweight nations such as Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, who, knowing what's good for their future, fell into line," Craddock added.

[toney]

Well Craddock, Zim and Bangladesh know what is good for their future. England and Australia better realize what is good for them too.

[Libran]

'Asian bloc gets what it wants'..cont'd....

The paper also said henceforth umpires might think twice before offending players from the sub-continent.

"Hair's axing sets a chilling precedent, as other umpires will now be running scared of offending any or all of the four subcontinental nations - India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh - who might, at times, loathe each other, but invariably vote together on important issues."

The Daily Telegraph of London screamed: "Asian bloc flex their muscles to remove Hair."

British scribe Scyld Berry also echoed the views of Craddock and said the sacking had set an 'unfortunate' precedent.

"A most unfortunate precedent, however, has now been established. Any umpire who in future makes a decision which angers one of the Asian Test-playing countries India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh can expect the wrath of the Asian bloc to descend upon his head. Such is the financial clout of India that they can usually carry South Africa, Zimbabwe and West Indies with them to achieve a 7-3 majority," Berry wrote.

"On this occasion, the power of the Asian bloc was even more overwhelming. It is understood that both Australia and New Zealand stood aside, leaving England as the only country to speak in favour of Hair being allowed to continue as an international umpire albeit with the proviso that he could be limited to matches not involving Asian countries."

[Libran]

A most unfortunate precedent, however, has now been established. Any umpire who in future makes a decision which angers one of the Asian Test-playing countries India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh can expect the wrath of the Asian bloc to descend upon his head

It is a two way traffic out there...an umpire can also ruin a player's career if he wants to by doling out atrocious decisions...

But,can we delve a little more into why have umpires like Simon Taufel and Benso not been spoken about in the same breath as a Darell Hair...he may claim otherwise, but he has shown racist tendencies and deserves what he has got

[justforkix]

"A most unfortunate precedent, however, has now been established. Any umpire who in future makes a decision which angers one of the Asian Test-playing countries India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh can expect the wrath of the Asian bloc to descend upon his head. Such is the financial clout of India that they can usually carry South Africa, Zimbabwe and West Indies with them to achieve a 7-3 majority," Berry wrote.

"On this occasion, the power of the Asian bloc was even more overwhelming. It is understood that both Australia and New Zealand stood aside, leaving England as the only country to speak in favour of Hair being allowed to continue as an international umpire albeit with the proviso that he could be limited to matches not involving Asian countries."

SA, WI, Zim will also not want Hair to officiate in matches involving them and Hair can't officiate in Aussie matches. So, that leaves Hair to officiate in Eng vs NZ games. Eng play NZ once in WC07 (worst case twice) and then a series in Feb-Mar 2008 

[Libran]

Cricket Australia stands up for Hair

Press Trust Of India

Posted Nov 06, 2006 at 13:11

Melbourne: Cricket Australia (CA) on Monday asked the International Cricket Council to explain the sacking of Darrell Hair as a member of the ICC Elite Panel.

CA believed Hair was still one of the best umpires in the world and appropriate processes must be followed should there be performance concerns about umpires, said Chief Executive Officer James Sutherland.


"We don't agree with the ICC's decision and are concerned about the implications which could see international umpires concerned about off field consequences of calling decisions as they see them," Sutherland said in a statement.


"World cricket needs champion cricketers, but it also needs world-class umpires who are equivalently skilled at what they do. "To aspire to these heights, those umpires need to have confidence in the system - that they are supported by best-practice administration and processes."



Public confidence in the objectivity of umpiring, and in the ability of umpires to make professional decisions without fear or favour, was one of the key issues underpinning cricket's ambition to become a credible world sport, he said.


CA spokesman Peter Young had on Sunday said it was ready to welcome Hair with open arms any time. However, CA was awaiting clarification from ICC over whether Hair would be allowed to officiate in Pura Cup and other domestic matches in Australia.

http://www.cricketnext.com/news/cricket-australia-stands-up-for-hair/21551-13.html

[sudzz]

Cricket Australia stands up for Hair

Press Trust Of India

Posted Nov 06, 2006 at 13:11

Melbourne: Cricket Australia (CA) on Monday asked the International Cricket Council to explain the sacking of Darrell Hair as a member of the ICC Elite Panel.

CA believed Hair was still one of the best umpires in the world and appropriate processes must be followed should there be performance concerns about umpires, said Chief Executive Officer James Sutherland.


"We don't agree with the ICC's decision and are concerned about the implications which could see international umpires concerned about off field consequences of calling decisions as they see them," Sutherland said in a statement.


"World cricket needs champion cricketers, but it also needs world-class umpires who are equivalently skilled at what they do. "To aspire to these heights, those umpires need to have confidence in the system - that they are supported by best-practice administration and processes."



Public confidence in the objectivity of umpiring, and in the ability of umpires to make professional decisions without fear or favour, was one of the key issues underpinning cricket's ambition to become a credible world sport, he said.


CA spokesman Peter Young had on Sunday said it was ready to welcome Hair with open arms any time. However, CA was awaiting clarification from ICC over whether Hair would be allowed to officiate in Pura Cup and other domestic matches in Australia.

http://www.cricketnext.com/news/cricket-australia-stands-up-for-hair/21551-13.html

If this had happened during the Packer era-this might have triggered the formation of a new cricketing overlord.

As it is Eng+Aus+NZ are increasingly getting sidelined when it comes to making major decisions at ICC and thats a concern for them.

The more they get alienated the more will be a clamour from them on issues such as this.

If CA really want to back Hair, they could also take a tough stance and say Hair will stand in all games played in Aus as a neutral umpire (ie during triangular serieses etc) also he can be the second umpire in all ODI's where only one neutral ump is required.

I do hope they do so, it will teach the ICC a lesson in management of issues.

Whether or not Hair was guilty or not is a matter for legal eagles but from a pure issue management point of view, Tampergate has not been handled well at all by ICC with so many contradicting statements and a farce hearing...why did Ranjan Madugalle not state clearly that "he absolves the Pakistani team of ball tampering charges" He only stated that the team has not tampered the ball in the period that Hair claims it was and that the damage "could" have occurred in someother manner. Please clarify what manner.