Print

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

[kban1]

http://cricket.indiatimes.com/Hair_was_ranked_second_best_umpire/articleshow/402252.cms

ICC ranked Hair 2nd-best umpire before sacking: Report

AFP


SYDNEY, Nov 11: The International Cricket Council rated Australian Darrell Hair the second-best umpire in the world before it sacked him for alleged incompetence, reports here said on Saturday, citing secret documents.

Sydney's 'Daily Telegraph' newspaper said it had uncovered a copy of the last annual personal performance appraisal that Hair received before the ICC's board of directors sacked him with a 7-3 vote last weekend.

The ICC's decision came after Pakistan lodged a complaint against Hair for his role in the historic forfeited Oval Test against England in August and demanded an inquiry into his conduct.

Under the headline 'Ultimate Betrayal', the daily said the confidential files, prepared by ICC's umpiring chiefs, revealed Hair was ranked equal-second on the ICC's elite umpiring panel with Australian Simon Taufel believed to be number one.

In pure decision-making, Hair was ranked top of the panel, making 253 of 263 correct decisions last year - a success rate of 95.5 per cent compared with 94.8 per cent for all umpires, the 'Daily Telegraph' said.

Each decision that an umpire of the panel makes throughout the year is assessed on video.

[LosingNow]

HA HA HA!!

[sudzz]

http://cricket.indiatimes.com/Hair_was_ranked_second_best_umpire/articleshow/402252.cms

ICC ranked Hair 2nd-best umpire before sacking: Report

AFP


SYDNEY, Nov 11: The International Cricket Council rated Australian Darrell Hair the second-best umpire in the world before it sacked him for alleged incompetence, reports here said on Saturday, citing secret documents.

Sydney's 'Daily Telegraph' newspaper said it had uncovered a copy of the last annual personal performance appraisal that Hair received before the ICC's board of directors sacked him with a 7-3 vote last weekend.

The ICC's decision came after Pakistan lodged a complaint against Hair for his role in the historic forfeited Oval Test against England in August and demanded an inquiry into his conduct.

Under the headline 'Ultimate Betrayal', the daily said the confidential files, prepared by ICC's umpiring chiefs, revealed Hair was ranked equal-second on the ICC's elite umpiring panel with Australian Simon Taufel believed to be number one.

In pure decision-making, Hair was ranked top of the panel, making 253 of 263 correct decisions last year - a success rate of 95.5 per cent compared with 94.8 per cent for all umpires, the 'Daily Telegraph' said.

Each decision that an umpire of the panel makes throughout the year is assessed on video.

Who has he been replaced with ?...I assume Asoka D'Silva...the man who manages to get 95.5% decisions wrong 

[dhruvdeepak]

yeah and asoka has been at it already, giving gayle out lbw to a very very poor decision (when gayle was on 34 off 28 balls) yesterday, and IMO a shady decision just now against M Hafeez.

[sudzz]

yeah and asoka has been at it already, giving gayle out lbw to a very very poor decision (when gayle was on 34 off 28 balls) yesterday, and IMO a shady decision just now against M Hafeez.

This actually raises two questions..

1. Where are the priorities of ICC-providing good governance for the game or to poke fun at members? (seems to be the latter)?

2. Is too much money in wrong hands a bad thing for the game? -We in the sub continent are emotionally high strung people and dont always take very pragmatic decisions with money flowing in and increasing clout such stupidities as sacking one of the best umpire's in the game are going to be prepretrated with more impunity than ever before.

We have seen examples of this before-Bangladesh getting full test status-thanks to JMD, Kenya getting included and invited to the previous version of ICCCT etc etc..

I do hope that Sonn+Speed+Modi does not equal doom for cricket as we know it.

[Rocky]

yeah and asoka has been at it already, giving gayle out lbw to a very very poor decision (when gayle was on 34 off 28 balls) yesterday, and IMO a shady decision just now against M Hafeez.

This actually raises two questions..

1. Where are the priorities of ICC-providing good governance for the game or to poke fun at members? (seems to be the latter)?

The ICC is doing a fair job of managing the madness of cricket with the few numbers of countries involved and the limited resources.
Except for the handling of Zimbabwe of course.

2. Is too much money in wrong hands a bad thing for the game? -We in the sub continent are emotionally high strung people and dont always take very pragmatic decisions with money flowing in and increasing clout such stupidities as sacking one of the best umpire's in the game are going to be prepretrated with more impunity than ever before.

We subcontinent people, like it or not, are poor rule followers. We think rules are meant to get around somehow. Once we are caught, we create such a ruckus that the whites get embarassed at the to-do and back out.
So we have no business administering anything.
However we are good at managing and augmenting finances so we should stick to this.

We have seen examples of this before-Bangladesh getting full test status-thanks to JMD, Kenya getting included and invited to the previous version of ICCCT etc etc..

The idea was sound but the execution faulty.
Unless cricket is played by more countries than the fingers of both hands, it remains just a meaningless sport in the world context.
The problem is how to spread it.

I do hope that Sonn+Speed+Modi does not equal doom for cricket as we know it.

Only politicians like Pawar who do not and do not want to know about anything to do with cricket can doom cricket.

[pieterSAN]

The ICC may rate Hair highly but he has been problematic for several reasons. For instance, Hair has demonstrated a complete lack of flair dealing with two teams of players, his countryman Taufel is one of the most respected in the game. I don't think that Hair's performance as decision-maker alone should justify his inclusion as a Test umpire. Rapport with the players is, in my opinion, one of the other qualities that a good umpire has.

On the other hand, I am not so sure it was agreeable for the Asian bloc to throw their weight around and get rid of Hair. Bucknor is another individual who has been deemed as a unfavorable umpire by many Indians. The truth lies somewhere in between. The ICC for so long has protected its own and and struggled to make any meaningful contribution to the growth of cricket while find several ways to undermine the sport. It has gotten to stage where some people feel that ICC cannot see reason and has to be forced to make sound decisions.

[dextrous]

The ICC may rate Hair highly but he has been problematic for several reasons. For instance, Hair has demonstrated a complete lack of flair dealing with two teams of players, his countryman Taufel is one of the most respected in the game. I don't think that Hair's performance as decision-maker alone should justify his inclusion as a Test umpire. Rapport with the players is, in my opinion, one of the other qualities that a good umpire has.

On the other hand, I am not so sure it was agreeable for the Asian bloc to throw their weight around and get rid of Hair. Bucknor is another individual who has been deemed as a unfavorable umpire by many Indians. The truth lies somewhere in between. The ICC for so long has protected its own and and struggled to make any meaningful contribution to the growth of cricket while find several ways to undermine the sport. It has gotten to stage where some people feel that ICC cannot see reason and has to be forced to make sound decisions.

True all that, but India can't even produce ONE single umpire of int'l quality...so how can we get rid of Bucknor and co. without an influx.

[inoc]

pietersan

i agree with your view that hair may have been a good umpire according to the decisions he made on whether a batsman was out or not but failed miserably to be able to conduct a match without error.

at present all countries other than eng/aus/kiwis have a problem with him officiating and that was before this voting to remove him. so in theory he would have only umpired eng/nz matches in the next two years of his contract. two or three matches at best. no point in keeping him then.

my view is that although he is a good umpire he is far too stubborn where his ego is involved and hence not suitable for the international scene. he is liable to make errors because of his stubborness to the detriment of cricket as a whole.

good riddance.

[pieterSAN]

The ICC may rate Hair highly but he has been problematic for several reasons. For instance, Hair has demonstrated a complete lack of flair dealing with two teams of players, his countryman Taufel is one of the most respected in the game. I don't think that Hair's performance as decision-maker alone should justify his inclusion as a Test umpire. Rapport with the players is, in my opinion, one of the other qualities that a good umpire has.

On the other hand, I am not so sure it was agreeable for the Asian bloc to throw their weight around and get rid of Hair. Bucknor is another individual who has been deemed as a unfavorable umpire by many Indians. The truth lies somewhere in between. The ICC for so long has protected its own and and struggled to make any meaningful contribution to the growth of cricket while find several ways to undermine the sport. It has gotten to stage where some people feel that ICC cannot see reason and has to be forced to make sound decisions.

True all that, but India can't even produce ONE single umpire of int'l quality...so how can we get rid of Bucknor and co. without an influx.

Like I said, the ICC as a responsible organization should be able to make these decision without the intervention of the Asian cricket boards. I don't agree that there needs to be an influx from India necessarily...just get someone good regardless of which country they are from.

[keep-it-cool]

I agree with pietersan that Hair's decision making skill alone should not count while taking any decision on his future. Even when a player is pulled up for disciplinary reasons, one does not evaluate whether he averages above 50 or plays all types of bowling on all wickets comfortably.

I think the issue against Hair was a disciplinary one, just as it was against Inzamam. And, in that context, I think removal was an extreme step. A ban of a few months, just as a player is banned for a few matches, would have been the ideal punishment.

[sudzz]

I agree with pietersan that Hair's decision making skill alone should not count while taking any decision on his future. Even when a player is pulled up for disciplinary reasons, one does not evaluate whether he averages above 50 or plays all types of bowling on all wickets comfortably.

I think the issue against Hair was a disciplinary one, just as it was against Inzamam. And, in that context, I think removal was an extreme step. A ban of a few months, just as a player is banned for a few matches, would have been the ideal punishment.

No unfortunately Hair cannot be equated to a player since he is not one, he is actually an administrator of the game. The same yard stick that applies to players cannot be applied to him.

Secondly the so called mis deameanours of Hair are actually his interpretation of the law and therefore his decision on the field. Well thats what he is paid for.

Thirdly there is an on field umpire, there is the square leg umpire, the TV umpire, the fourth umpire and finally the match referee. Any decision taken by a on field umpire can be rectified (we have see numerous instances of the TV ump supplying unsolicited info on number of balls in a over or even boundaries etc) by one of these people. So to lay blame entirely on Hair for either the tampering charge or for calling Murali etc is inappropirate.

Finally, if we were to treat it in the context of a corporation, there are many a abrasive, uncouth bosses who are rude, prejudiced and poor man managers yet they manage to deliver time and time again and these people are generally rewarded with fat bonuses most times. So Hair in that context was just a poor man/image manager not really a bad professional.

This decision to sack Hair has basically conveyed to umpires world wide that to take a bad decision is ok but to take a unpopular stance is strictly not ok. If you think a guy chucks-talk about it in a interview not on the field, if you think a team of dopeheads tampers the ball keep quite and write about it in your memoirs.

Well then you will have Asoka D'silva, Billy Bowden and the rest and the game shall get into a further mess.

[keep-it-cool]

No unfortunately Hair cannot be equated to a player since he is not one, he is actually an administrator of the game. The same yard stick that applies to players cannot be applied to him.

Why not? He is one of the many participants in the game "out in the middle". He is not an administrator, whose work is generally behind the scenes. So, players get fined and banned for every small transgression, while an umpire who may do the same in full public view gets off scot free?? Just as players have to not only display their skills but also maintain some decorum, umpires should also have the same yardsticks applied to them

Secondly the so called mis deameanours of Hair are actually his interpretation of the law and therefore his decision on the field. Well thats what he is paid for.

It is not levying the ball tampering charge that Hair is guilty of. It is levying the same without adequate evidence (note: even Doctrove who was the other umpire in the match suggested that they wait for a few more overs so that they may figure out who the culprit was). Independent witnesses (Simon Hughes and Geoff Boycott) also gave evidence that there is no indication that the ball has been unfairly or deliberately tampered with. This is not a mere interpretation or misinterpretation of the law. It shows that Hair perhaps is prone to jump the gun in certain cases without any adequate thought about the ramifications of his actions.

I have no argument with his decision to forfeit the test match and stick to his guns. Although I do believe that some flexibility could have been demonstrated here, once both captains and everyone else concerned wanted to get on with the game. But that is his call and he is entitled to it.

Thirdly there is an on field umpire, there is the square leg umpire, the TV umpire, the fourth umpire and finally the match referee. Any decision taken by a on field umpire can be rectified (we have see numerous instances of the TV ump supplying unsolicited info on number of balls in a over or even boundaries etc) by one of these people. So to lay blame entirely on Hair for either the tampering charge or for calling Murali etc is inappropirate.

This is precisely what Doctrove tried to do by suggesting that they wait a few more overs to find out what the real reason could be. And, Hair conveniently ignored the same. He also did not choose to ask the third umpire or the match refree if they had seen anything suspicious. No, he wanted to take the decision there and then - on an issue that has been highly contentious in the past as well. Again, an inability to gauge a situation and handle it appropriately.

On the Muralidharan throwing incident, calling Murali is fine but calling a no ball from the bowling end is not. It is not his brief - he better be focusing on the foot, while the square leg umpire takes a call on whether it is a throw or not. Ignoring this and superceding the square leg umpire not only shows that he was probably not doing the job he was supposed to be doing (i.e. watching the foot) but also disrespect for his colleague in the same match (i.e. the square leg umpire)

Finally, if we were to treat it in the context of a corporation, there are many a abrasive, uncouth bosses who are rude, prejudiced and poor man managers yet they manage to deliver time and time again and these people are generally rewarded with fat bonuses most times. So Hair in that context was just a poor man/image manager not really a bad professional.

First, those days are gone or on their way out. A poor man manager or one who is prejudiced has no place in most corporations nowadays. Unless a person's function is totally individualistic, his ability to maintain a cordial atmosphere is a critical element of most appraisals. If it is not the case in certain places, it is wrong. That is the way it ought to be.

Second, if that is the way we want it to be in cricket, allow players to go the entire length as well - contest decisions and be rude to the umpires. But if umpires are to be protected from things such as running towards him while appealing, players also ought to be protected from umpires who are trigger happy in nature - especially if the trigger is pulled selectively.

This decision to sack Hair has basically conveyed to umpires world wide that to take a bad decision is ok but to take a unpopular stance is strictly not ok. If you think a guy chucks-talk about it in a interview not on the field, if you think a team of dopeheads tampers the ball keep quite and write about it in your memoirs.

Well then you will have Asoka D'silva, Billy Bowden and the rest and the game shall get into a further mess.

No. It communicates to the umpires that you better have a good reason for taking any decision. And, like in any situation where one person is sitting in judgment over another, the graver the allegation the more concrete the proof ought to be. Take any decision that you feel is right, but follow the process laid down. If you feel the processes are faulty, get them changed before you go and do your own thing on the field of play in full view of the paying public.

[Rocky]

This decision to sack Hair has basically conveyed to umpires world wide that to take a bad decision is ok but to take a unpopular stance is strictly not ok. If you think a guy chucks-talk about it in a interview not on the field, if you think a team of dopeheads tampers the ball keep quite and write about it in your memoirs.

Well then you will have Asoka D'silva, Billy Bowden and the rest and the game shall get into a further mess.

What prevented Doctrove, the third umpire or the match referee from reasoning with Hair and forcing him to provide reasons for his actions? They sat tight and let Hair be the fall guy. By being silent, they were complicit.
No. The Asian bloc had it in for Hair. They got the excuse they needed.
The quality of umpiring, laws of the game or the merits of decisions taken have had nothing to do with it.
What the ICC is saying is "Be politically correct and you are safe: even if you are incompetent or worse biased."
Not that I am supporting Hair. He was an obnoxious creep.
But the ICC were just not being transparent or fair when they sacked him.

[sudzz]

This decision to sack Hair has basically conveyed to umpires world wide that to take a bad decision is ok but to take a unpopular stance is strictly not ok. If you think a guy chucks-talk about it in a interview not on the field, if you think a team of dopeheads tampers the ball keep quite and write about it in your memoirs.

Well then you will have Asoka D'silva, Billy Bowden and the rest and the game shall get into a further mess.

What prevented Doctrove, the third umpire or the match referee from reasoning with Hair and forcing him to provide reasons for his actions? They sat tight and let Hair be the fall guy. By being silent, they were complicit.
No. The Asian bloc had it in for Hair. They got the excuse they needed.
The quality of umpiring, laws of the game or the merits of decisions taken have had nothing to do with it.
What the ICC is saying is "Be politically correct and you are safe: even if you are incompetent or worse biased."
Not that I am supporting Hair. He was an obnoxious creep.
But the ICC were just not being transparent or fair when they sacked him.

Penlax you are right, they basically told ump's take decisions that we like else you are out. We dont care if you get 95.5% wrong, just be brown, show up and smile for the camera the rest will be taken care of by us.

[gouravk]

Sudzz
You think ICC is being biased in favor of brown umpires ?

[sudzz]

Sudzz
You think ICC is being biased in favor of brown umpires ?

No they are not, I just meant now that they got their way of getting rid of the Aussie and replacing him with Asoka D'Silva.

Now they will target Taufel if he takes a tough call (Bowden will not cause he does not know if he is coming or going)

[caught and bowled]

To sum up, I think everyone came out second best in the Oval episode. Hair for his high handedness - he should have listened first and then had a dialogue with the parities involved - instead he seemed to be convinced that  only he knew the best. Still sacking him was a step too far. He could have been docked for his remuneration for the day or for the entire match to show the world that he was penalised for not handling this particular issue properly. And that should have been that.

What did Doctrove (the idiot) do? Its takes two to tango. If Hair was hell bent on forfeiture and awarding the match to England, Doctrove should have put his foot down and told Hair that he would have none of it. Ditto for the third umpire and especially the match referee.

Inzy and Pakistan were equally at fault in making this out to be such a prestige issue that it was "Pakistan ki izzat ka sawaal". They could have just carried on graciously and made it a huge issue in the press and complained to ICC for the unfair treatment. By the time good sense prevailed and they came out, it was too late. Hair had already pulled the trigger. Forfeiting the match was absolutely ludicrous. Like I said, everyone came out second best...

[gouravk]

Yes, the return of Asoka Desilva is indeed tragic news.

[keep-it-cool]

This decision to sack Hair has basically conveyed to umpires world wide that to take a bad decision is ok but to take a unpopular stance is strictly not ok. If you think a guy chucks-talk about it in a interview not on the field, if you think a team of dopeheads tampers the ball keep quite and write about it in your memoirs.

Well then you will have Asoka D'silva, Billy Bowden and the rest and the game shall get into a further mess.

What prevented Doctrove, the third umpire or the match referee from reasoning with Hair and forcing him to provide reasons for his actions? They sat tight and let Hair be the fall guy. By being silent, they were complicit.
No. The Asian bloc had it in for Hair. They got the excuse they needed.
The quality of umpiring, laws of the game or the merits of decisions taken have had nothing to do with it.
What the ICC is saying is "Be politically correct and you are safe: even if you are incompetent or worse biased."
Not that I am supporting Hair. He was an obnoxious creep.
But the ICC were just not being transparent or fair when they sacked him.

Penlax, I am not saying that Doctrove is free of fault. But, he did try to reason with Hair to wait for actual evidence before levying a penalty or the ball tampering charge. If, despite that, Hair chose to do his own thing, dont you think it is a problem? Here is someone who just wants to do things the way he sees fit.

On the forfeiture, I do not think there is anything major to really fault Hair or Doctrove on. They could have been a bit flexible, but that is fine. It is their call.

In sum, I agree a life ban is excessive. But some penalty was definitely called for. And, whether Hair is the only good umpire around or not is not a factor that should come into the decision making at all.

[Rocky]

But, he did try to reason with Hair to wait for actual evidence before levying a penalty or the ball tampering charge. If, despite that, Hair chose to do his own thing, dont you think it is a problem?

Within the laws of cricket one umpire CANNOT decide on these matters. BOTH the umpires have to concur.
If Doctrove was against Hair's actions, he only had to say so and register his dissent.
Hair could never have gone ahead on his own by the laws.
So if you sack Hair, sack Doctrove.
But, the Oval test was not the problem and therefore Hair was sacked for "non-cricketing" reasons.

[keep-it-cool]

But, he did try to reason with Hair to wait for actual evidence before levying a penalty or the ball tampering charge. If, despite that, Hair chose to do his own thing, dont you think it is a problem?

Within the laws of cricket one umpire CANNOT decide on these matters. BOTH the umpires have to concur.
If Doctrove was against Hair's actions, he only had to say so and register his dissent.
Hair could never have gone ahead on his own by the laws.
So if you sack Hair, sack Doctrove.
But, the Oval test was not the problem and therefore Hair was sacked for "non-cricketing" reasons.

I am not sure penlax. On the forfeiture, perhaps, both umpires have to concur. But on decisions taken on the field - I think the umpire at the bowlers end takes some decisions i.e. no balls, leg before, caught behind etc, while the square leg umpire rules on things such as run outs, waist high no balls or head high wides, or stumpings. Even where it is something such as running on the wicket, it is the bowler's end umpire that gives the warning .. similarly, chucking was earlier supposed to be called by the square leg umpire. So, umpires do not have to concur on everything before making a call.

Maybe they have to on a ball tampering charge. Maybe they dont. I am not sure. In any case, Doctrove did mention in the hearing that he was against imposing a penalty with the evidence at hand. Hair did not agree with him and went ahead and imposed a penalty WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. This latter fact was proven during the hearing - not just because there was no television evidence but also because two experts categorically stated that there is nothing abnormally wrong with the ball.

I guess Doctrove got off because he had wanted to approach the issue differently .. that he gave in to Hair does not reflect well on him, I agree. Hair's sacking was not "non cricketing". It was due to his inability to deal with a delicate situation in the appropriate manner. If you are levying a serious charge, you better have evidence to back it up. Given the statements made by the expert witnesses, it does not even appear to be a marginal case.

To sum, I still think Hair should not have been banned for life. He should have been penalised with something similar to a four or six match ban that a captain gets and / or a fine. Doctrove should not have gone scot free, but he should have received a lower sentence ... because, at least he tried to get the right thing done

[ruchir]

I am not sure penlax. On the forfeiture, perhaps, both umpires have to concur. But on decisions taken on the field - I think the umpire at the bowlers end takes some decisions i.e. no balls, leg before, caught behind etc, while the square leg umpire rules on things such as run outs, waist high no balls or head high wides, or stumpings. Even where it is something such as running on the wicket, it is the bowler's end umpire that gives the warning .. similarly, chucking was earlier supposed to be called by the square leg umpire. So, umpires do not have to concur on everything before making a call.

Maybe they have to on a ball tampering charge. Maybe they dont. I am not sure.

Here is the pertinent Law of Cricket related of changing ball condition: Law 42.3

http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-42-fair-and-unfair-play,68,AR.html

Pertinent excerpt:
42.3
(d) In the event of any fielder changing the condition of the ball unfairly, as set out in (b) above, the umpires after consultation shall
(i) change the ball forthwith. It shall be for the umpires to decide on the replacement ball, which shall, in their opinion, have had wear comparable with that which the previous ball had received immediately prior to the contravention.
(ii) inform the batsmen that the ball has been changed.
(iii) award 5 penalty runs to the batting side. See 17 below.
(iv) inform the captain of the fielding side that the reason for the action was the unfair interference with the ball.
(v) inform the captain of the batting side as soon as practicable of what has occurred.
(vi) report the occurrence as soon as possible to the Executive of the fielding side and any Governing Body responsible for the match, who shall take such action as is considered appropriate against the captain and team concerned.

As you can see, ICC uses the word CONSULTATION and more specifically it uses UMPIRES in plural sense, meaning it is refering to both umpires.

However, in the language of the rule, ICC does not clearly say that both umpires have to reach a unanimous verdict before changing the ball or declaring delibrate alteration of the ball. It just says that umpires have to consult.

I think this language leaves the rule open to different interpretations. Some may say that it means umpires have to consult and reach a unanimous verdit and other may say that unanimous verdict is not a requirement. I think this loose language of the law is what saved Doctrove. He might have argued that he wanted Hair to wait some more and get a concrete feedback from 3rd, 4th umpire via video replay and video monitoring. Hair did not want to wait for that.

That's my opinion.

[Rocky]

I am not sure penlax. On the forfeiture, perhaps, both umpires have to concur. But on decisions taken on the field - I think the umpire at the bowlers end takes some decisions i.e. no balls, leg before, caught behind etc, while the square leg umpire rules on things such as run outs, waist high no balls or head high wides, or stumpings. Even where it is something such as running on the wicket, it is the bowler's end umpire that gives the warning .. similarly, chucking was earlier supposed to be called by the square leg umpire. So, umpires do not have to concur on everything before making a call.

Maybe they have to on a ball tampering charge. Maybe they dont. I am not sure.

Here is the pertinent Law of Cricket related of changing ball condition: Law 42.3

http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-42-fair-and-unfair-play,68,AR.html

Pertinent excerpt:
42.3
(d) In the event of any fielder changing the condition of the ball unfairly, as set out in (b) above, the umpires after consultation shall
(i) change the ball forthwith. It shall be for the umpires to decide on the replacement ball, which shall, in their opinion, have had wear comparable with that which the previous ball had received immediately prior to the contravention.
(ii) inform the batsmen that the ball has been changed.
(iii) award 5 penalty runs to the batting side. See 17 below.
(iv) inform the captain of the fielding side that the reason for the action was the unfair interference with the ball.
(v) inform the captain of the batting side as soon as practicable of what has occurred.
(vi) report the occurrence as soon as possible to the Executive of the fielding side and any Governing Body responsible for the match, who shall take such action as is considered appropriate against the captain and team concerned.

As you can see, ICC uses the word CONSULTATION and more specifically it uses UMPIRES in plural sense, meaning it is refering to both umpires.

However, in the language of the rule, ICC does not clearly say that both umpires have to reach a unanimous verdict before changing the ball or declaring delibrate alteration of the ball. It just says that umpires have to consult.

I think this language leaves the rule open to different interpretations. Some may say that it means umpires have to consult and reach a unanimous verdit and other may say that unanimous verdict is not a requirement. I think this loose language of the law is what saved Doctrove. He might have argued that he wanted Hair to wait some more and get a concrete feedback from 3rd, 4th umpire via video replay and video monitoring. Hair did not want to wait for that.

That's my opinion.

Hmm! I read this law before and it registered as saying that both umpires together have to agree that the ball was tampered.
I see now that it is open to interpretation.
In any case, I think the law should be altered to say that all four umpires should agree for such offences.

[inoc]

what should the icc have done?

ignored the majority vote from its member countries and carried on with hair?
wouldnt that have created a much bigger furore.

icc decided to put the matter to vote and the decision was made by a clear majority. if the asian countries managed to get others to agree to their view points it is a triumph for them.

now for those arguing that hair adheres to the laws of cricket.

MM chucking issue:

the LAW

For a delivery to be fair in respect of the arm the ball must not be thrown. See 3 below.
Although it is the primary responsibility of the striker's end umpire to ensure the fairness of a delivery in this respect, there is nothing in this Law to debar the bowler's end umpire from calling and signalling No ball if he considers that the ball has been thrown.
(a) If, in the opinion of either umpire, the ball has been thrown, he shall
(i) call and signal No ball.
(ii) caution the bowler, when the ball is dead. This caution shall apply throughout the innings.
(iii) inform the other umpire, the batsmen at the wicket, the captain of the fielding side and, as soon as practicable, the captain of the batting side of what has occurred.

(b) If either umpire considers that after such caution a further delivery by the same bowler in that innings is thrown, the umpire concerned shall repeat the procedure set out in (a) above, indicating to the bowler that this is a final warning. This warning shall also apply throughout the innings.

(c) If either umpire considers that a further delivery by the same bowler in that innings is thrown,
(i) the umpire concerned shall call and signal No ball. When the ball is dead he shall inform the other umpire, the batsmen at the wicket and, as soon as practicable, the captain of the batting side of what has occurred.
(ii) the umpire at the bowler's end shall direct the captain of the fielding side to take the bowler off forthwith. The over shall be completed by another bowler, who shall neither have bowled the previous over nor be allowed to bowl the next over.
The bowler thus taken off shall not bowl again in that innings.
(iii) the umpires together shall report the occurrence as soon as possible to the Executive of the fielding side and any Governing Body responsible for the match, who shall take such action as is considered appropriate against the captain and bowler concerned.



what actually happened
the law was not followed in the following respects.

1. he actually called MM from the bowlers end - not his primary responsibilty, although allowed by the law.
2. failed to inform the other umpire/ ranatunga/ or MM. It actually took several no balls before people realised he was being called for chucking and not for his foot.
3. failed to give final warning to MM/inform AR of second offence.
4. allowed MM to bowl and called him seven times in a three over period before the matter became clear and AR took SL off the field. at no time did he follow any of the laws pertaining to this offence except take up the unusual route of calling MM from the bowlers end. clearly shouldnt have been bowling again in that innings after the third no ball.
5.DH told AR during the tea interval that he would call MM from the strikers end - which he of course did not (threatening behaviour - not carried out when things had already gone out of hand when diplomatic relations were at stake)

in addition, steve dunne the other umpire in his memoirs clearly indicated that hair came and told him that 'those' no balls were for chucking.
that to me clarifies that he did not inform him of his decision in the first instance. dunne refused to call MM (from either end) on the basis of a decision made at a conference in coventry where it was decided that any suspect action will be reported to the match referee and he will obtain films of the bowler concerned and report it to the icc. a policy that was followed in sharjah previous to the said incident and DH, dunne were in the panel of umpires and they followed procedure and reported MM's action to the match referee.

DH being party to such an event before cannot deny he was unaware of the policy. in my view not only did he not follow the laws he was guilty of not following protocol decided by the very body he was a member of.

if this is not high handed / bullish behaviour i dont know what is.

The Oval controversy.

i will not go into details of this since this is fairly recent and everybody remembers it.
as shown by ruchir he refused to take advice from his colleague on a very important issue.
he refused to carry on the match when the match referee asked him to.
never attempted to diffuse the situation which could and should have been attempted.

he comes across to me as not an upholder of laws as much as an upholder of his viewpoint with scant regard to players/ colleagues and officials around him, not to mention the paying public.
if member countries object to this man controlling the game they play they have every right to. it isnt surprising that the only countries who voted for him (apart from political affiliations) never had to face this mans brutish behaviour.

[Rocky]

what should the icc have done?

What the ICC should have done is to change the rules so that the on field umpires only have the right to take decisions on the actual play.
All other extraneous decisions should be compulsorily referred to a four member panel consisting of the 4 umpires with the Match Referee as chairman and decisions taken collectively with a cool head.
Hair undoubtedly is a good umpire when it comes to actual decisions taken on play.
So let us utilise his talents and minimise his 'b***hiness' by changing the rules.

[dhruvdeepak]

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/268527.html

The Wisden Cricketer annual poll
Hair voted Umpire of the Year
Cricinfo staff
November 16, 2006

In the same week that a leaked ICC report revealed that Darrell Hair was rated as their second-best umpire comes the news that he has been voted Umpire of the Season in poll carried out by The Wisden Cricketer.

Hair received more than a third of all votes (34%) in the magazine's annual poll, a decision which appears to contradict the views of his employers at the ICC, who admit to having "lost confidence" in him.

Is he hero or anti-hero? It's hard to be sure though Hair says he has received huge support from the British (if not Pakistani) public. One reader referred to him as "the only one with courage" and Hair also received votes in the Performance of the Season category with citations such as "ensuring the umpire's decision is final" and "finally exposing the cheats".

"I suppose it is a bit of a shock," Hair told the magazine. "But if free-thinking people want to vote that way and they do believe I've done the job as well as anybody or even better I can accept that fact. It's a great vote of confidence."

Umpire of the Year
1 Darrell Hair (Aus) 34%
2 Simon Taufel (Aus) 16%
3 Billy Bowden (NZ) 10%
4 Steve Bucknor (WI) 7%
5 Aleem Dar (Pak) 5%

The full poll appears in the December issue of The Wisden Cricketer.
Click here for further details.

[inoc]

what should the icc have done?

What the ICC should have done is to change the rules so that the on field umpires only have the right to take decisions on the actual play.
All other extraneous decisions should be compulsorily referred to a four member panel consisting of the 4 umpires with the Match Referee as chairman and decisions taken collectively with a cool head.
Hair undoubtedly is a good umpire when it comes to actual decisions taken on play.
So let us utilise his talents and minimise his 'b***hiness' by changing the rules.

my question was regarding the fact that after a vote has decided a motion what could the ICC have done?

anyway to answer your point is that the rules were changed but hair chose to ignore them. (MM chucking controversy in my last post). what makes you so sure he wouldnt have done it again?