Who's fault ? hair or inzi?

Question

If 26 camera not to capture ball tampering , how umpire knows?
Why hair shows adement against asian cric team.Even a day left, why umpire takes urgent decision, Why ICC always against asian captains. can they take such decision against australia or england?

Answer 1

i feel it is inzy's fault. it's nothing to do with icc. but with 20% can be hair's fault too. might be when pieterson was hitting in the stands the ball got tempered.

let's see.
THERE IS no doubting that in an earth divided, Australian umpire Darrell Hair does his bit, time and again, to unite warring factions, even if temporarily. Every now and then he does something that makes Indians forget they are not supposed to support Pakistan, makes Pakistanis look beyond India and take note of what's on in Sri Lanka and sympathise, or brings forth outpourings of righteous indignation from all corners of a subcontinent that is suddenly, a region sans boundaries.

A top Indian player recounts that during the 1999-2000 tour of Australia, Hair was markedly unfriendly to the Indians, and referred to them as "cheats" during a tour game in Sydney. There were heated exchanges and the umpires reported the Indians for dissent.During the game, stand-in skipper Sourav Ganguly was seen being ticked off by Hair on more than one occasion. At that time, Indian coach Kapil Dev told reporters that Ganguly said Hair told him, 'First the Pakistanis did this. Now why are you Indians doing this?' The incident caused a lot of bitterness in the Indian camp.

Nothing perhaps brought the Asian nations more together than the Muralitharan episode on Boxing Day in 1995, when the Lankan was no-balled seven times by Hair on Day One of the second Test against Australia. Lankan skipper Ranatunga subsequently switched Murali's ends. Apparently, in his book Decision-Maker, Hair said at tea that he would no-ball Murali whichever end he bowled from. That didn't happen but it was a statement smacking of arrogance. Ten years on, in the spring of 2005, Hair, this time in tandem with Steve Bucknor (who many say is not as vilified as Hair simply because he is black) called Harbhajan during the second Pak Test. In between and since, there have been many more such incidents involving Hair, most of which, intriguingly, seem to revolve around players who just so happen to be non-white.

Unsurprisingly, in these times of political correctness, though Hair himself seems an anachronism, most players did not want to come on record about what they thought of the polemical Aussie. But each made clear that they thought him unfit to umpire in matches involving Asia. Hair though, has been careful. He has always adhered to the black and white text of the law, even as people have questioned the spirit behind his decisions. Like now. Yet, in a colourful world where the men in white coats are oft forgotten, Hair has made sure he will have his place in history, which, depending on which side of the White-Black divide you're on, will either be in cricket's Hall of Fame, or Hall of Shame.

Over the years, he has been variously described. Brave, foolhardy, cussed, a bully, even dastardly. He has been dubbed dictatorial, insensitive and rude. And right through, most Asians (and others) have dubbed him racist. Perhaps the most charitable remark about Hair came from one of India's current seniormost players. Asked about Hair on Monday, he said, "I don't want to pass judgement but from whatever I've seen, he comes across as very unfriendly, someone with poor man-management skills." He then added, "The ICC should have looked into it. You can't have an umpire who cannot maintain relations with players as umpire."

True. You cannot. And unfortunately, everyone seems to have realised that except for cricket's governing body. Sunday could have been handled more sensitively. In the final analysis, whatever happens next, a game already brought into disrepute on innumerable occasions for reasons that have nothing to do with sport, has been terribly soiled again. Where does it all end?

Answer 2

obviuosly Inzi. Players has to respect umpires. Why did pakistan team come out play after tea even the england players and umpires were in feild for 20 minutes.

Is there any rule that ball tampering should be caught even if we use 26 cameras.

Pakistan would have been won this match. giving 5 runs is nothing when compared to pakistan's team total. So its all happend because of Inzi only.

Answer 3

something is wrong and everthing is wrong, may b it was my fault to answer about this question on fault and may b it was ur fault to have asked this.
but i believe inzy should not have resisted the umpires. umpires should b clear before taking such controversial decisions. nowadays umpires are given much authority. the players may b taken under investigation by ICC rather than giving them a match lose which they deserved a win.
Believe me i don't like pak. cricketers but still am answerin in favour of them because these things spoils the spirit of the game.........

Answer 4

hair is at fault. as u say if 26 cameras couldnt find anyone capturing ball tampering then when did this happen? this will take about 2-3 minutes, so how can hair stand his ground without any evidence. hair has always been biased against the asian teams, especially those from the subcontinent. racism has started showing its true colours in cricket also. this is very bad and can only be prevented if all cricketing nations stand together.

Answer 5

I THINK INZY IS RIGHT There were 26 cameras covering the action. None of them caught any Pakistan player doing anything untoward. If Hair did spot anything amiss, he should have brought it to the notice of Inzy and the Match Referee. I THINK MR HAIR SHOULD BE PUNISHED FOR THIS. This is not the matter of only pakistan every asian country facing these kind of problem with umpire and match refree. Indian team also faced the problem in West Indies (Dhoni's Case)

Answer 6

They should have changed the ball finished the match and then sorted out any allergations after the match had ended,bringing in the balls,captains,cameras and whoever else wanted to jump on the gravy train.The only losers here are the money paying fans of the sport who paid there hard earned money to watch a match not a farce....

Answer 7

Why do they spend no time turning this into a racist story? Cricket ball is so small, you can just grip them with both your hands and no camera can catch whatever you are doing with it. Players will try to gain advantage all the time, in any sports regardless of race, nationality, it is up to the referee to catch it.
Just show us the allegedly "tampered" ball and let the public decide. But turning it into a racism story, just show no class.

Answer 8

It's not InziMamu's fault!
It is the fault of Pakistan Board members, who were discussing the matter with inzi & taken his lot of time, which resulted in LATE appearence of Pak Team.
Secondly, surely ICC's fault. They are responsible for conduting Match, not the Boards of teams which are playing.
Umpires just did their job & i don't think it's their fault.

Answer 9

Its the captains fault.Why would you want to become the first captain in129 years to forfeit a test.Like em or lump em the umpireS [note plural] are the adjudicators of the game and their rule is law.The only way to appeal this decision is through the match referree who i believe was a west indian. So sir,and i luse that term loosely, do NOT try and turn "ANSWERS" into your personal racist forum

Answer 10

Hair