Why Hair took quick decsions on the 4th day of test match without even consultations with match referee?

Question

Hair should clear the mud and slur he has brought to the game of cricket. Those who think that he has done everything according to the rules are absolutely wrong. Study the rules of forfeiture of cricket matches, you will come to know where he devaited from rules.

Answer 1

Hair was in a rush because he had fixed the match and put the bet that "England Will Win". As the chances of Pakistan's winning the match were high people bet in Pakistan's favor. Hair was anticipating big money by awarding the match in England's favor.

If there were another Umpire like Simon Taufel, the situation would have been different. Taufel must have consulted Inzimam before calling the match Off.

The last nail in Hair's coffin is of course his asking of Half Million Dollars...which surely raised doubts about his integrity and put Malcom Speed in Dilemma on how to defend him from here.

Answer 2

Alright we can question Hair about the tampering but the forfeature of the game was probably taken by both umpires so i stongly disagree with the blaming Hair about the forfeature of the game.

As a issue of ball temering i still don't have an idea where Hair has shown proof that ball was temered through a pakistani team member.

As with the australian players and news i mean think about the umpire is autralian and its natural that the australians wouldn't find a fault in Hair.

I want proof of Hair's accusation on Pakistan team but i agree with the decision of giving match to england.

Answer 3

it wasnt quick
it was with in the rules of teh game
the pakistani manager admited they made a mistake
it wasnt Hair

Answer 4

THE world's leading umpire, Simon Taufel, has defended the stance taken by match officials Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove that led to the fourth Test between England and Pakistan ending in a farcical forfeiture - the first such result in the 129-year history of Test cricket.

Hair and Doctrove have been heavily criticised by the Pakistani team, their former captain Imran Khan and sections of the English media for calling an end to play and awarding the match to England when Pakistan refused to take the field after tea on the fourth day of the final Test.

Hair is even said to be under pressure to retain his place on the ICC's elite panel. Last night, Pakistan Cricket Board chairman Shaharyar Khan said Pakistan would refuse to play in matches involving the Australian umpire. Sri Lanka took a similar stance following Hair's no-balling of Muttiah Muralitharan during the 1995 Boxing Day Test at the MCG.

But Taufel, who umpired the first two Tests of the England-Pakistan series, said Hair and Doctrove had little choice but to "follow the letter of the law" and enforce the forfeiture, which stemmed from Pakistan's protest over a ball-tampering charge an ensuing five-run penalty.

Reuters late last night reported the ICC had subsequently charged Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul Haq with bringing the game into disrepute. ICC spokesman Jon Long said: "There are two charges brought forward by the umpires, one for changing the condition of the ball and the other for bringing the game into disrepute."

Both charges will be considered at a hearing to be conducted by ICC chief match referee Ranjan Madugalle in London on Friday.


If found guilty of either offence Inzamam could be banned for several matches and fined.


Inzamam has been charged, as captain, with a breach of Level 2.10 of the ICC Code which relates to changing the condition of the ball in breach of Law 42.3 of the Laws of Cricket.

Taufel said: "This is not a Darrell Hair issue. The umpires made the decision together. The Darrell Hair I know calls the game the way he sees it without fear or favour. He knows the laws better than anyone.

"If the fielding side refuses to take the field, there is not much the umpires can do. They can inform them that they should go onto the field, then if they still refuse, they can inform them that the match will be awarded to the opposing team. Umpires have to follow the laws … as they are written, so it's hard to fault the umpires in this case. The disappointing thing is that the spirit of cricket has taken a hit over this
*************************************************************
i know its very lengthy but ....
Waugh said the Australian official correctly awarded the fourth Test to England Sunday after Pakistan refused to come out after tea in protest at allegations of ball-tampering.

"I definitely agree with that, if they don't go back on the field the Test is over," Waugh told Sydney's Daily Telegraph newspaper on Tuesday, adding: "No one's bigger than the game."

The 168-Test veteran said Hair could be "stubborn and a bit hard-nosed" but he would not have made a serious charge of ball tampering against Pakistan without good reason.

Hair was at the centre of a storm when he no-balled Sri Lanka's Muttiah Muralitharan for chucking at the Melbourne Cricket Ground in 1995, and Waugh said the umpire would not have taken his latest actions lightly.

"He always stands by what he believes so you can't ask for much more from an umpire," he said.

Waugh's predecessor as Australian Test captain Mark Taylor rejected claims Hair was biased against South Asian teams.

"I'm sure he's just doing what he thinks is right," Taylor told Channel Nine television.

Former Australian Cricket Board chief executive Graham Halbish said the way Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq was now treated represented a "litmus test" for the International Cricket Council's (ICC) ability to govern the game.

"You have a choice to be fair and firm with your discipline, or you let things go a bit," he said. "As soon as you start letting things go a bit, licence is taken, and the game and the sport can potentially get right out of hand."

The ICC has charged Inzamam with ball tampering and bringing the game into disrepute. He faces a hearing in London Friday.

The Australian media also dismissed criticism of Hair.

Under the headline "He is the bravest man in cricket", the Telegraph's chief cricket writer Robert Craddock said the powerful bloc of Asian Test-playing nations -- Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh -- would force Hair from the game.

"It's a shame," he said. "Cricket needs no-nonsense characters like Hair who keep the game honest."

"To his great credit, Darrell Hair is prepared to poke his nose into grubby corners of the cricket world where most of his fellow umpires refuse to go."

The Australian's Patrick Smith said it was wrong to accuse Hair of racism.

"Hair has acted at all times not on the colour of a cricketer's skin but on the letter of the law," he said. "Had cricket itself followed Hair's lead, the game itself would not be so compromised."

The Sydney Morning Herald's Phil Wilkins echoed the sentiment, saying Hair was the one man on the ICC umpiring panel brave enough to take a stand.

"Hair is a man of the strictest principle; an official absolutely true to the game; an umpire of the fairest, most unswerving practices," he said.

"He has always been a man of the strongest fibre and for that he is being castigated ferociously
so u see aussies are defending their man but they are stupid and bad ppl u dont worry beczo darrel hair says that if u give me 5 lakh dollars than i will retire from umpiring i hate him he is not a umpire he is a vampire sucking good matches like blood

Answer 5

this isnt a ? but ok w.e ur the one who wasted opints on it