Is Darrel Hair right in the ball tampering issue against Pk or was it jus to make England win?

Question

Comment on your point of view?

Answer 1

i definitely think he was right...if pk was wrong then they outta be penalized...way to go HAIR!!!

Answer 2

Yes, its very damming information. I would also like to apologise for the accusations that I made saying Pakistan must have changed the shape of the ball and therefore be cheats. Upon reflection there was not enough valid information to actually support claims that the ball was tampered with, either through scruffy the ball or being hit into the sideboards. For years Pakistan have been accused of ball tampering through the media. Swinging the ball as the ball gets older. Then other players from different countries supported the argument and the next thing you know people are saying it is possible. Yes it does seem unfair that a cricketing nation can be vilified because of this and consequently suspicions arise every time a ball tampering allegation is thrown anywhere near there direction. Did they cheat, no evidence. Was it fair to accuse them' not without any proof. Darrel Hair was wrong. Yes should he appoligise.

Answer 3

It is within the rules- and thats what the umpires adjudicate on.

Is it perhaps outside the rules that 30 mins after the descsion it sinks in and the Pks dont take the field.
( I also heard a whisper it was casue Inzamam was still finishing his tea)
What happens if a wicket falls and a previously dissmissed batsmen takes the field. Do the umpires overrule thier previous descision- no. A descision stands. You want to appeal it- take it up after the days play- it was 5 runs for goodness sake. Not worth throwing a game over- but to not take the field an hour after the descision - thats bringing the game into disrepute. What option does the umpire have. " oh ok- youre ready now- lets start play again."
I have been unhappy with the umpires descisions numerous times playing cricket- but if I dont take the field- the descision they make is not in my control.

Answer 4

It should be remembered that Hair didn't actually accuse anybody of cheating! He had a suspiscion that the ball MAY have been tampered with, and so changed it in accordance with his job requirement. He never accused anyone, didn't lodge a complaint, or report anyone. He simply changed the ball to make sure Pakistan weren't gaining an unfair advantage. Pakistan took affront to this and staged a very juvenile protest. They were more than 15 minutes late, and so, in accordance with the rules, suffered 5 penalty runs, then sitll refusing to show despite this warning, they chose to forfeit the game - foolish! Especially as, despite Cook and Pietersen batting well, they were still in a commanding position. If they had of wanted to complain about Hair's treatment of them, the correct time was AFTER the game. They cheated the fans, even if not with the ball.

Answer 5

It is not a matter of win or loss. It is usaul to change a ball when it does not remain in an appropriate condition. It would have been a different case had he just changed the ball. But changing a ball with a penalty of ball tempering is a total different issue and Inzi is right in protesting against the acusation. Hair was absolutey wrong in his dealing. When both the teams were willing to play he should have resumed the game.

Answer 6

Let him provide the X-ray pictures of pakistani tempering the ball(which never occured),as 26 sky sports cameras did't pick up anything nor did any photographer because he would be asked to do that in the court of Law(to show proof if any)
What was flethur's business to meet the math refree(who incidently played for rhodsia with fleter(english coach)...
And what was the hurry to take the bails off?
and the qestion again...



1.What did Mr.Hair say when he went to pakistani dressing room?Was it recorded?
2.Whom did he talk to?
3.Did Inzimam refuse Darrel Hair(if at all he talked to him)?Or he just assumed he has refused?(Pakistani team claims they were registering protest by "delaying"the proceedings of the game,they proved it by coming on to the field later).
4.Did he tell pakistanis if they did't come outside in two minutes he would award the match to england?
5.Did he try to make sure Pakistani team "understood"what he said or just assumed they have?(language barrier)
6.Why did england take the field instead of waiting?when they perfectly knew their chairman is out to request pakistani team to come which they did (just after umpires were leaving Inzimam came to balcony and moved his hands in frustration and surprise)
7.And last but not the least,what was the hurry?(did he wanted to end to game in favour of england as now it seems that ball tempering row was triggered by england)he could have waited or made sure whats going on.

250-1 betting odds against england winning at one stage can have some corelation with this "forfeiture"and awarding the match to england...The reason why andrew Strauss and(i think)peterson too were on the cell phone(as seen on TV)

Answer 7

Right or wrong, ICC will get a report and decide based on details furnished by him. But he is not a fool to put his job in jeopardy by acting whimisically unless he had some concrete proof, and that is my gut feeling. England did not win because of the 5 runs awarded by him. They won because Pakistan did not take to the field. So how does one say Hair made England win? Pakistan decided to concede the match and thats it. Period.

Answer 8

I strongly feel that Umpire Darrel Hair did not do any favourtism and acted what he felt was within the rule

Answer 9

ITS INZY'S PREMATURE DECISION TO SACRIFICE A WIN.

DARREL/TAMPERING ISSUE YET TO DECIDE BY ICC REFEREE.

Answer 10

No, he was'nt right .atleast he could have let them play the rest of the match(but its still OK)

Answer 11

pakestan is most disgraced nation, these people are cheater and haters they deserve to be banned from playing any kind of sports, they always fall into these contreversies and rightly so.