PDA

View Full Version : Hair expected to officiate in Champions Trophy


Hatebreed
September 19, 2006, 08:13 PM
Hair set for swift umpiring return
Cricinfo staff
September 20, 2006

Darrell Hair expects to officiate in the Champions Trophy next month despite the unresolved issues from his decisions at The Oval Test.

Hair told The Courier-Mail he was planning to stand in the tournament and an ICC source confirmed to the Sydney Morning Herald it was a "safe bet" Hair would be in India.

"Yes, I am down to umpire in the Champions Trophy and I expect to fulfill that appointment," Hair told The Courier-Mail from the Newmarket races in England.

"I'm not sure what matches I'll be doing but I'm looking forward to it."'

Hair's future has been under threat since he docked Pakistan five runs for ball tampering last month, a decision which resulted in the abandonment of The Oval Test when Inzamam-ul-Haq's team refused to return to the field.

Inzamam will face charges of ball tampering and bringing the game into disrepute in London during a two-day hearing starting on September 27.

The ICC will unveil its officials for the Champions Trophy this week and an ICC source told the Herald Hair was "still regarded as one of our best umpires". "It's a safe bet that he'll be there [for the Champions Trophy]."

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/australia/content/current/story/260022.html

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,20443967-23212,00.html


So hair we go again! Does anyone think he'll officiate matches for the Asian teams, particularly Pak and SL? :D

baisab
September 19, 2006, 09:06 PM
Whatever Happens, i dont want this idiot officiating in any of our games.

Rabz
September 19, 2006, 10:52 PM
Hmmm, now thats interesting.

Although everyone has the right to be innocent until proven guilty, does that mean ICC is indicating that he would be safe and cleared from the hearing on the 27th, as he was qouted as a safe bet? If so, then the hearing would be nothing but a mockery.

But if not, ICC might have to change its umpire panels before the CT, and that wont look good on thier behalf. They should have waited till the hearing is over.

nobody
September 19, 2006, 11:39 PM
Shanto is also expecting to play cricket for Bangladesh again. There is no fault in day dreaming.:D

Sovik
September 22, 2006, 08:55 PM
but he won't be umpiring any matches that involves pakistan

SMHasan
September 23, 2006, 10:39 AM
The ICC is just a bunch of idiots, to be honest its a sada bhaider addakhana. Its just amazing how he offered the money and gets away with that. Its a sort of bribe, he thought if he resigns then it was gonna solve the ongoing crisis with Pakistan so he offered the money in secret. And what ICC did? They just disclosed it to the media, sat on the chair and talked a lot.

Fazal
September 26, 2006, 08:55 AM
Not so fast....don't book your flight yet, Mr. Hairy Face...

When the Cricket's commercial powerhouse speaks, every body listens, even the ICC ...

Indian board opposes Hair (http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/iccct2006/content/current/story/260620.html)

Hatebreed
September 26, 2006, 10:35 PM
At last BCCI is doing something right!

Tigers_eye
September 28, 2006, 11:30 AM
Best thing that can happen is for Hair to apply his best days of service to county cricket parmanently.

Hair will not be in India at the CT.
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/iccct2006/content/current/story/260794.html

I loved what Mr. Williamson said at the end:
"One is that this throws into doubt about the safety of all the particpants, but that is not really plausible as the country and the board has hosted many high-profile events without incident. The other is that this is just a face-saving excuse. That looks more likely, especially given that a week ago the ICC was on the verge of naming the appointments for the tournament only to suddenly go quiet. No mention has been made of possible security issues until today."

orzoon
November 3, 2006, 03:52 PM
the END of Darell Hair.:)

Hair 'unlikely to officiate' in internationals (http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/266825.html)
November 3, 2006

A formal announcement about Hair's future is expected on Saturday © Getty Images

It is being reported that the ICC executive board has decided to remove Darrell Hair from the panel of elite umpires.
Several Indian TV stations have carried reports quoting a source at the meeting in Mumbai. "It has been decided to remove Hair from the elite panel," the source said, adding that a formal announcement will be made on Saturday. "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 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."
Hair has been in the spotlight since he accused Pakistan of ball tampering during the Oval Test in August against England. Pakistan have blamed Hair for triggering the course of events which led to the abandonment of the Test which was forfeited and awarded to England - the first forfeit in cricket history.

Tigers_eye
November 3, 2006, 05:21 PM
I can understand Australia and England voting for Hair. For England, they would have an english umpire as a neutral umpire in test and ODIs (since he a resident of England). For Australia, they don't want to lose an aussie umpire from the elite panel. But what makes NZ vote for Hair? After searching hard I can't find any reason. They must support him because of his color. There is no other explanation. Obviously they would never support an Aussie would they? Don't they have a complexity problem with them?

If people still think he is a man of integrity then I am not sure if they have followed the hearings or not.

Fazal
November 3, 2006, 05:29 PM
Obviously they would never support an Aussie would they? Don't they have a complexity problem with them?


I don't know how much about NZ and AUS and their relationship. But I thought, its natural that they would vote with the AUS block than voting as a independent identity.

When it becomes WESTERN vs EASTERN or WHITE vs ASIAN countries, those local bi-national politics doesn't count. Just see India and Pakistan. Their voting pattern is ususally same for different issues.