Your not stupid enough to believe that are you?HKRed said:
Umpire Hair
- Thread starter Plechazunga
- Start date
Sky released a statement that their camera picked up nothing.
In his match report Hair did not single out any player or pointed to any incident he witnessed. The fact Captain was charged instead of a player means he doesn't even know who tampered it. So that rules out the possibilty of him actually seeing it.
Basically he saw the condition of the ball and since it was Pakistan team with their dodgy past, he decided to label them cheats.
In his match report Hair did not single out any player or pointed to any incident he witnessed. The fact Captain was charged instead of a player means he doesn't even know who tampered it. So that rules out the possibilty of him actually seeing it.
Basically he saw the condition of the ball and since it was Pakistan team with their dodgy past, he decided to label them cheats.
He is a scouse moaning twat.HKRed said:
HKRed said:
You f*cking arsehole. I live in this country and I pay higher end taxes since the first week of leaving university. My dad before me paid all his taxes and we both have kept our paperwork up to date so this country/government doesn't suffer due to our being here for the past 30 years.
You f*cking bigotted arsehole.
Going back to the cricket, are you deliberately ignoring that cut and pasted article on here? Maybe if you took your f*cking bigotted arsehole glasses off you might see it.
Now, where's that 'ignore-the-bigotted-idiot' fuction on here?
crappycraperson said:He is a scouse moaning twat.
That's only in the football forum.
Wibble said:
Only in the Current Events forum.
Dumpstar said:You f*cking arsehole. I live in this country and I pay higher end taxes since the first week of leaving university. My dad before me paid all his taxes and we both have kept our paperwork up to date so this country/government doesn't suffer due to our being here for the past 30 years.
You f*cking bigotted arsehole.
Going back to the cricket, are you deliberately ignoring that cut and pasted article on here? Maybe if you took your f*cking bigotted arsehole glasses off you might see it.
Now, where's that 'ignore-the-bigotted-idiot' fuction on here?
So your family have been in Britain for 30 years, you were born there and you're still a Pakistani eh?
Call whatever you want but listen to this comment from Imran Khan, who says pretty much the same as me. If the umpire was wrong, take it up with the relevant authorities after the game instead of looking like a bunch of spoilt brats throwing their toys out of the pram. Hair is not a racist as his track record proves. He is consistent with every team he officiates and he calls it as he sees it end of.
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=all&edition=i&q=imran+khan
heffa said:
Erm sorry to tell you this but you are a wee bit slow Heffa
heffa said:
What was supposed to happen was that Hair called for the ball to be changed, nothing is done till the end of play, and then in the evening Hair has to issue a statement telling all. Why the feck did he not say anything, i mean if he came out and said Mr X did this at this time, we would all know.
And by the icc coming out and just calling Inzi, they either think he did it or Hair doesnt know who did exactly and is holding the captain responsible.
So obviously its not that simple!
How about answering the points raised in the thread though:HKRed said:
Starting with calling Murali for chucking when the other umpire in the match revealed that it was decided player would be reported after the series not called during the match.
Telling Indian players, they are cheats just like Pakistan.
His bitter relationships with all the asian teams but no that is they cheating asiana fault...
Now not till this date, mentioned one incident or player who himself witness tampering the ball...
It can never be proven he is a racist, but to rule out that possibilty is idiotic.
I see you were being sarcastic but there is no way anybody who isn't racist would believe that. I can't fecking believe the Pakistani officials said it was a slur on Pakistan as a whole it is nothing more than an accusation of cheating from one player. It is like saying accusing Landis of taking drugs is a slur on every American it is just bullshit.HKRed said:Erm sorry to tell you this but you are a wee bit slow Heffa
Inzi is responsible for the condition of the ball due to ICC rules it does not matter if it was AFridi, Yousuf, the 12th man or nafeez Inzi is still held resposible.
In the press conference going on the moment, they've just said that Hair offered to resign in exchange for $500,000!
What the feck is going on here?
What the feck is going on here?
This is the most interesting thing ever to happen to Cricket
Which says a lot about how interesting cricket is
Which says a lot about how interesting cricket is
Wants to retire.mojo said:
yeah, if u dont like cricket this is interesting, if u do, this is unbelievable!
heffa said:
OK, so retire. What's the $500,000 about? His silence? What?
Heffa, what did i say? This shit is much deeper
malcolm31337 said:
That'll be the inevitable reaction.
'Hair created the whole debacle with the ball-tampering and then offers the ICC a get out by offering to resign for $500,000.'
One for the conspiracy theorists definitely.
By creating do u mean he meant to start all this, or did he feck up and thought it was best to retire? hmmmmm
That's where the doubt now lies and what the conspiracy lovers will point to.
mojo said:
Holding ICC to ransom ? bribery?
Hair has effectively gone.
Cricket should end because of this, imo
Sultan said:
I don't think it was either of those things. I think he was under immense pressure and was not thinking clearly. He in fact withdrew the contents of the letter a couple of days later. But his career is over.
What's not clear is what will happen re Inzaman's charge of ball-tampering. Remember, Hair was not the only official involved. Umpire Doctrove (sp) must have known of Hair suspicions (whether those were well- or ill-founded) and supported Hair's decisions on the field.
noodlehair said:
Or maybe life as we know it?
mojo said:
Its pretty hard not to jump to conclusions here, even his employers took a very dim view of the contents of the letter - Like his umpiring form, Hair has opened another can of worms here.
ICC have not ruled out any future legal implications against Hair.
Just cricket would be finemojo said:
crappycraperson said:
There is nothing to respond to. It changes nothing, Hair calls it as he sees it and he is ne of the most experienced umpires of all time. If has made a mistake, which of course is possible, then the protest should come at the appropriate time and to the appropriate authorities. If he is then proven to be wrong, then they should take action.
I repeat, spitting the dummy is not the way to get the right result and Pakistan were rightly adjudged to have forfeited the game.
Calling him a racist as a reason for his decisions is typical of the mentality of people who look for an excuse to justify their behaviour when it is seen to be inappropriate.
Now if you can't understand that, then don't waste any effort in replying.
it isn't hard to see that hair's harshest decisions have come against asian sides but that really doesn't prove him to be a racist. i'll still be happy when he's gone. it's fecking scary when he umpires against india.
From: Darrell Hair
Sent: Tuesday 22nd August 2006
To: Doug Cowie
Subject: The way forward
Doug, just to firm up what we discussed earlier this evening. I appreciate the ICC may be put in a untenable position with regards to future appointments and having taken considerable time and advice, I make this one-off, non-negotiable offer.
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.
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.
3. No public comment to be made by me as to possible reasons for the decision.
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.
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.
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.
Would you please let me know at your earliest convenience of your acceptance or otherwise of this offer.
Sincerely, Darrell Hair.
From: Doug Cowie
To: Darrell Hair
CC: David Richardson
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Subject: Re: The way forward.
Darrell, Your offer may have merit and is acknowledged and under discussions with ICC management.
Your timeframes seemed impractical at first glance even if agreement were achieved on the suggestion.
Will discuss this further tomorrow,
Doug
From: Darrell Hair
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006
To: Doug Cowie
Subject: Re: The way forward
Doug, Phones have been ringing off the hook (or out of the mobile charger anyway!) since early this morning - ICC are not the only ones marshalling legal counsel.
It appears from overnight developments that the issue of racism has arisen and from advice I have just received, the sum indicated in my release offer is being revised.
Therefore the offer is withdrawn until I have had the chance to take further advice. Hope to get back to you within the next 24 hours.
Cheers,
Darrell.
From: Malcolm Speed
To: Darrell Hair
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Subject: Letters
Dear Darrell, I have been given copies of letters that you have forwarded to Doug Cowie today concerning the current issue.
The matters raised by you concerning your future employment are entirely inappropriate. There is a clear process that is to be followed and it is in place. I will call you tomorrow to advise as to progress.
Yours sincerely,
Malcolm
From: Darrell Hair
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006
To: Malcolm Speed
Subject: Re: Letters
Thanks Malcolm, I have revoked the email.
As you say it is inappropriate and we will see how things unfold over the next few days. It would appear that life will go on regardless.
I have just sent Doug another message with you and David (Richardson) copied in about events under my control and some others that are not!
Cheers,
Darrell.
Sent: Tuesday 22nd August 2006
To: Doug Cowie
Subject: The way forward
Doug, just to firm up what we discussed earlier this evening. I appreciate the ICC may be put in a untenable position with regards to future appointments and having taken considerable time and advice, I make this one-off, non-negotiable offer.
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.
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.
3. No public comment to be made by me as to possible reasons for the decision.
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.
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.
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.
Would you please let me know at your earliest convenience of your acceptance or otherwise of this offer.
Sincerely, Darrell Hair.
From: Doug Cowie
To: Darrell Hair
CC: David Richardson
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Subject: Re: The way forward.
Darrell, Your offer may have merit and is acknowledged and under discussions with ICC management.
Your timeframes seemed impractical at first glance even if agreement were achieved on the suggestion.
Will discuss this further tomorrow,
Doug
From: Darrell Hair
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006
To: Doug Cowie
Subject: Re: The way forward
Doug, Phones have been ringing off the hook (or out of the mobile charger anyway!) since early this morning - ICC are not the only ones marshalling legal counsel.
It appears from overnight developments that the issue of racism has arisen and from advice I have just received, the sum indicated in my release offer is being revised.
Therefore the offer is withdrawn until I have had the chance to take further advice. Hope to get back to you within the next 24 hours.
Cheers,
Darrell.
From: Malcolm Speed
To: Darrell Hair
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Subject: Letters
Dear Darrell, I have been given copies of letters that you have forwarded to Doug Cowie today concerning the current issue.
The matters raised by you concerning your future employment are entirely inappropriate. There is a clear process that is to be followed and it is in place. I will call you tomorrow to advise as to progress.
Yours sincerely,
Malcolm
From: Darrell Hair
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006
To: Malcolm Speed
Subject: Re: Letters
Thanks Malcolm, I have revoked the email.
As you say it is inappropriate and we will see how things unfold over the next few days. It would appear that life will go on regardless.
I have just sent Doug another message with you and David (Richardson) copied in about events under my control and some others that are not!
Cheers,
Darrell.
Match-fixing scandal involving Cronje?noodlehair said:
Yeah that was preety shocking too...
Pretty shocking you meant twice as bad.malcolm31337 said:
Sultan said:
Don't pay him, don't sack him, I reckon the best solution is to send him to officiate all future tests in Pakistan.
Not going to happen it is more likely that he will never officiate in a Pakistan test again.Sultan said:
heffa said:
It wasn't meant to be a serious post - he will never officiate another test match, full stop.
Fair enough.Sultan said:
mehro said:
I seem to remember controversial calls against South Africa and Australia from hair. Or is that irrelevant because he can't be called a racist in those situations?
heffa said:
I think they sell clues at the marketI am laughing at the Pakistan Cricket Board saying that this vindicates them. How exactly?
They sound like schoolkids in the playground, the lot of them, ICC and all.
They sound like schoolkids in the playground, the lot of them, ICC and all.
Copied from another forum
"I quote"
Will the real Darrell Hair please stand up?
We all thought we knew Darrell Hair or at least the version of himself that Umpire Hair likes to portray to the world. His autobiography was titled the ‘Decision Maker’ and he’s built his reputation on making controversial decisions and sticking by them no matter what the consequences are. Love him or loath him, Darrell Hair is man who sticks by his version of principle and never backs down from it. Whilst the majority of the world blamed Umpire Hair for the recent fiasco, there were some who defended him. His mainly Australian backers continually reiterated that Hair was a man of principle, integrity and someone who stood firm to his decisions. By all accounts Hair was never one to back down, even when he was wrong noted his detractors.
But eyebrows were raised over revelations about Hair during yesterday’s ICC press conference. The picture painted was of a shy, retiring and stressed man who wanted to put the whole thing behind him. We could be forgiven for wondering whether this new Hair was in fact an impostor, was this someone impersonating the great principled but unmoveable man?
A closer look at the wording of the letters confirmed that this was the same uncompromising, non-negotiating and bullish man. He demanded $500,000 to be paid clandestinely into his bank account within 10 days and that an untrue cover story be circulated. The man of principle even stated that he didn’t care what story was circulated as long as he got his money and reserved the right to sue anyone he wished! This was clearly the same Darrell Hair but now we were exposed to his seedier side, he was willing to sell his principles if the price was right!
Hair actually wants to be paid for backing away from a dispute resulting from his own uncompromising application of the laws of cricket. Now if he was in the right, why would he want to retire so secretively? And if he was retiring because he was in the wrong then why should the ICC pay him anything for having to give up his job due his own incompetence?
There is something that just doesn’t add up here, this whole fracas seems to be deeper than just a simple case of a dispute between an umpire and a team. Even stranger is the fact that the ICC continues to back him by making up excuses that don’t stand up to any scrutiny. Malcolm Speed defended Hair by saying that he was stressed when he wrote ‘that e-mail’ but in the e-mail itself Hair states that he has taken considerable time and advice to formulate this e-mail.
Both Hair and Speed are qualified lawyers so they know exactly what they are doing, why does the head of the ICC need to make up excuses for Hair which are rebutted by the very e-mail that Speed is defending? The following question also needs to be asked, why is the supposedly impartial Speed intent on crucifying Pakistan but refusing to even criticise Hair?
Perhaps the most pertinent question in this latest saga revolves around the nature of the demand for money. Hair demanded a sum including a speculative period of 30 months which vastly exceeds the remainder of his actual contract, which is only 18 months. Hair indicated that the sum must be in his account within 10 days and that no one should be told of this arrangement. This doesn’t sound anything like a negotiated settlement for severance pay, Hair makes it clear there is no scope for negotiation. Well that is until in a subsequent e-mail he himself decides he wants more money but that’s another matter for now.
The question at hand is why would Darrell Hair think that the ICC would accede so readily to his demand? Is Hair aware of past instances when such shady transactions have taken place? Is it possible that a similar deal was struck with Hair during the Murali controversy? Does the ICC make a habit out of illicitly paying disproportionate sums in this manner? Why would Hair risk everything with such a demand if he wasn’t convinced that the ICC would entertain his offer.
In fact the ICC did entertain Hair’s offer because they wrote back saying that the offer had merit and was being considered!! Why was the ICC considering this offer? Surely Hair’s resignation would mean the ICC and the laws of cricket would be the real losers. After all the hoopla created by the ICC about Inzamam being made to pay the consequences of bringing the game into disrepute, why were the ICC suddenly so quick to bury the matter? Why were they willing to consider paying $500,000 (the majority of it speculative) to an umpire who had no valid reason for resigning his post?
The ICC were considering the offer until the ‘paragon of integrity’ aka Darrell Hair wrote back to them intending to increase the amount of money he was demanding. This is despite the statement in his initial e-mail that he was making a one-off and non-negotiable offer. It seems that when it comes to the question of money, Hair’s principles are quite fluid. He was happy to go back on his own conditions if it meant he could squeeze more money out of the ICC! A complete about-face turn from the man who would like us to believe that he won’t budge an inch on anything!! So much so that despite both teams, their boards, the fans and the ICC wanting to restart the match; Hair wasn’t interested. But when it comes to matters involving money it’s a different story, do we really want umpires like this officiating our cricket?
So which Darrell Hair is the real Darrell Hair?
Is it the man who stands by his decisions and will budge for no man, not even for a stadium full of fans and millions more watching on tv?
Or is it the man who is adamant that he won’t budge but only until he believes he can get more money for something, after that he’s willing to do a jig but only if the price is right.
"I quote"
Will the real Darrell Hair please stand up?
We all thought we knew Darrell Hair or at least the version of himself that Umpire Hair likes to portray to the world. His autobiography was titled the ‘Decision Maker’ and he’s built his reputation on making controversial decisions and sticking by them no matter what the consequences are. Love him or loath him, Darrell Hair is man who sticks by his version of principle and never backs down from it. Whilst the majority of the world blamed Umpire Hair for the recent fiasco, there were some who defended him. His mainly Australian backers continually reiterated that Hair was a man of principle, integrity and someone who stood firm to his decisions. By all accounts Hair was never one to back down, even when he was wrong noted his detractors.
But eyebrows were raised over revelations about Hair during yesterday’s ICC press conference. The picture painted was of a shy, retiring and stressed man who wanted to put the whole thing behind him. We could be forgiven for wondering whether this new Hair was in fact an impostor, was this someone impersonating the great principled but unmoveable man?
A closer look at the wording of the letters confirmed that this was the same uncompromising, non-negotiating and bullish man. He demanded $500,000 to be paid clandestinely into his bank account within 10 days and that an untrue cover story be circulated. The man of principle even stated that he didn’t care what story was circulated as long as he got his money and reserved the right to sue anyone he wished! This was clearly the same Darrell Hair but now we were exposed to his seedier side, he was willing to sell his principles if the price was right!
Hair actually wants to be paid for backing away from a dispute resulting from his own uncompromising application of the laws of cricket. Now if he was in the right, why would he want to retire so secretively? And if he was retiring because he was in the wrong then why should the ICC pay him anything for having to give up his job due his own incompetence?
There is something that just doesn’t add up here, this whole fracas seems to be deeper than just a simple case of a dispute between an umpire and a team. Even stranger is the fact that the ICC continues to back him by making up excuses that don’t stand up to any scrutiny. Malcolm Speed defended Hair by saying that he was stressed when he wrote ‘that e-mail’ but in the e-mail itself Hair states that he has taken considerable time and advice to formulate this e-mail.
Both Hair and Speed are qualified lawyers so they know exactly what they are doing, why does the head of the ICC need to make up excuses for Hair which are rebutted by the very e-mail that Speed is defending? The following question also needs to be asked, why is the supposedly impartial Speed intent on crucifying Pakistan but refusing to even criticise Hair?
Perhaps the most pertinent question in this latest saga revolves around the nature of the demand for money. Hair demanded a sum including a speculative period of 30 months which vastly exceeds the remainder of his actual contract, which is only 18 months. Hair indicated that the sum must be in his account within 10 days and that no one should be told of this arrangement. This doesn’t sound anything like a negotiated settlement for severance pay, Hair makes it clear there is no scope for negotiation. Well that is until in a subsequent e-mail he himself decides he wants more money but that’s another matter for now.
The question at hand is why would Darrell Hair think that the ICC would accede so readily to his demand? Is Hair aware of past instances when such shady transactions have taken place? Is it possible that a similar deal was struck with Hair during the Murali controversy? Does the ICC make a habit out of illicitly paying disproportionate sums in this manner? Why would Hair risk everything with such a demand if he wasn’t convinced that the ICC would entertain his offer.
In fact the ICC did entertain Hair’s offer because they wrote back saying that the offer had merit and was being considered!! Why was the ICC considering this offer? Surely Hair’s resignation would mean the ICC and the laws of cricket would be the real losers. After all the hoopla created by the ICC about Inzamam being made to pay the consequences of bringing the game into disrepute, why were the ICC suddenly so quick to bury the matter? Why were they willing to consider paying $500,000 (the majority of it speculative) to an umpire who had no valid reason for resigning his post?
The ICC were considering the offer until the ‘paragon of integrity’ aka Darrell Hair wrote back to them intending to increase the amount of money he was demanding. This is despite the statement in his initial e-mail that he was making a one-off and non-negotiable offer. It seems that when it comes to the question of money, Hair’s principles are quite fluid. He was happy to go back on his own conditions if it meant he could squeeze more money out of the ICC! A complete about-face turn from the man who would like us to believe that he won’t budge an inch on anything!! So much so that despite both teams, their boards, the fans and the ICC wanting to restart the match; Hair wasn’t interested. But when it comes to matters involving money it’s a different story, do we really want umpires like this officiating our cricket?
So which Darrell Hair is the real Darrell Hair?
Is it the man who stands by his decisions and will budge for no man, not even for a stadium full of fans and millions more watching on tv?
Or is it the man who is adamant that he won’t budge but only until he believes he can get more money for something, after that he’s willing to do a jig but only if the price is right.