2006-08-23 07:51:08 · 22 answers · asked by wisener 7 in Sports ➔ Cricket
Of course Daryl Hair. He has been involved in a lot of controversies.
No-balling the greatest spinner in cricket for chucking i.e Murali. The tests even now show that he is well within the limits. In a book Hair says that he will always NO-BALL Murali. I don't know why is he still in cricket? He is a Racist. No-balled Murali. Gave Inzamam run out when he was protecting himself from the ball. Gave a dead ball after sulman butt reached his fifty against England(2005-2006 series), then after a single he had to return back to the striker's end(because Hair gave a dead ball) and when he got there he was out lbw the very next ball. And many other controversies. He is a disgrace to cricket. Inzamam has contributed a lot to world cricket. He should have already been gone.
2006-08-23 09:59:40 · answer #1 · answered by the.chosen.one 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Inz, Hair applies the rules of cricket, if controversy means he doesn't umpire in the sub continent, then all a cheating team ( remember Pakistan has admit ed they took bribes for decades) all has to do is play the race card cause an up roar and the next umpire wont want to get banned too so he ignores Pakistan cheating too. In all that accusations of Hair being a racist, every one seems to forget that the other umpire is BLACK, is he racist too? The only other issue is a bowls arm action which is and was suspect. His action regardless of what team you play for is very very strange, it is fair to query it.
If obeying the laws of cricket brings the game into disrepute then no laws should be obeyed we could have tackle cricket, there e is no doubt that Inzi behaved like a petulant child, all he had to is get the ball replaced (it was going to be any way) and present it to ICC for examination instead he chose to walk off.
Hairr on the other hand did what he was paid to do, When Inzi walked off Hair had no choice under the rules of cricket but to call a forfeit
2006-08-23 13:26:03 · answer #2 · answered by brinlarrr 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Every one of the people who say Hair, have to be kidding themselves. The Pakistan team and especially the captain and the management are the ones solely responsible for bringing disrepute to themselves and the game. By refusing to take the field after tea they were plainly saying that they are bigger than the rules and the game. They should have carried on with play, won the game and then fired in a complaint.
But no, they preferred to act like petulant spoiled frigging brats and take their bat and ball and go home. They should be banned from international cricket for at least 6 months. their actions were a disgrace.
Finally before anyone really starts feeling any sympathy for this team lets not forget that Pakistan wrote the book on ball tampering. They are self proclaimed cheats. So please dont expect me to believe that they are now all lilly white and innocent.
Given their antics and statements which play both the race and religion cards, I think that they protest just a bit too hard.
2006-08-23 12:59:51 · answer #3 · answered by pejon60 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The Idiot Cricket Council is the one which is causing all the problems. They have no backbone.
Hair and Inzamam are both to blame. Inzamam should have immediately left the field and protested to the ICC or to the referee. Mike Procter should have called Hair in and questioned him along with the captains and the managers and coaches of the teams. I think every official who was there is to be blamed. Children would have handled the situation much better than these stupid adults. It is quite a sad day for cricket.
2006-08-23 11:10:22 · answer #4 · answered by worldneverchanges 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Both of them...Hair by acting bigger than the game and affectively ruling Pakistan as cheats without offering any evidence to the accused party or the millions who pay to watch.
Inzy by staging a protest...even under extreme provocation by Hair.
I would give Inzy a 1 test and 2 ODI match ban and I would revoke hair's umpiring license. His crime was the far greater and had no mitigating circumstances. It's just not cricket!!
2006-08-23 14:43:21 · answer #5 · answered by aap36rob 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Inzy, of course. There is a way to show dessent, and THAT was not the way. That was simply saying "we do not accept your view, so change your views or we quit". That was kind of bullying. All this talk about TV cameras not picking the incident and Mr. Hair did, is pure rubbish. The umpires have a role to play and that is why they are there. If he has to file a report, he would do so to ICC, and not to Inzy. He simply is not answerable to any single player. What Inzy did is like someone saying "I do not accept the judgement" in a courtroom and walk away-only they wont let you walk away like that from a court room.
2006-08-23 18:04:51 · answer #6 · answered by slender 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Daryl Hair
2006-08-23 07:55:47 · answer #7 · answered by sid_avatar 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
The Pakistanis have a long track record of hampering the ball starting with Imran Kahn in the 80s and Akram then Younis. But then again i have a feeling that Hair is an ATTENTION SEEKER.
2006-08-23 16:08:41 · answer #8 · answered by BiCUBIC 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hair
2006-08-23 16:12:56 · answer #9 · answered by serene 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
of course
Daryl Hair
2006-08-23 17:39:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋