Was Hair a complete a racist and an idiot or a victim of 'political correctness'?

Question

In this cricketing saga is Hair a victim or a instigator?

Answer 1

Throughout his 14 years umpiring career, Darrell Hair has attracted controversy with wrong decisions which he stubbornly upheld. It has been that way from his very first match, between Australia and India at Adelaide in January 1992 which was "marred by controversy over lbw decisions. Eight times Indians were given out, while all but two of their own appeals were rejected". But that was only the start of things; in 1995 Hair became embroiled in the row that made him a household name in Sri Lanka.

On the first day of the second Test between Australia and Sri Lanka at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, Hair no-balled Muttiah Muralitharan seven times in three overs for chucking. This was despite the fact that Hair was at the bowler's end, rather than at square leg, from where an umpire would ordinarily study a bowler's action.

Sri Lanka captain Arjuna Ranatunga was so incensed by Hair's actions that he took his team off the pitch, although - unlike Pakistan on Sunday - they returned shortly afterwards. The other umpire that day, New Zealander Steve Dunne, had no problem with Murali's action when he was brought on from his end. Dunne also pointed out that the rules stated that any suspect action should be reported to the match referee rather being called immediately, and that it was governing body the ICC - not the umpires - who should rule a bowler's action legitimate or not. Hair refused to back down, despite the rules and went on to describe Murali's bowling action as "diabolical".

Prior to the Murali mayhem in Melbourne in January 1993 at Adelaide, Hair was heavily criticised for his wrong decision to give Craig McDermott out caught behind as Australia were denied a record-breaking win over the West Indies. At the same ground a year later, South Africa's Peter Kirsten was incensed by a series of wrong lbw decisions from Hair, eventually prompting an outburst which cost Kirsten 65% of his match fee.

Again in another incident Pakistan team were angered by Hair's decision to refer a run-out call involving captain Inzy to the third umpire, despite the skipper only being out of his ground because he was taking evasive action. In the same Test, Hair warned opener Salman Butt for running down the middle of the pitch, sent him back to the striker's end and gave him out lbw next ball.

When he was appointed for the third and fourth Tests in England this summer, the Pakistan management privately expressed their disappointment and was promptly punished by Hair on the first morning of the third Test when he refused to give Kevin Pietersen out when he appeared to have clearly edge a Shahid Nazir delivery to the wicketkeeper.

Hair has been guilty - at best - of stubborn intransigence, and at worst of bias against Asian players due to his superiority complex perticularly over the non-whites. Ranatunga after Sunday's fiasco at the Oval said, "Hair is a misfit in today's cricket because he acts in a high-handed manner whenever he officiates, his body language says everything." He should be removed immediately from the elite panel of Umpires.

Every cricket lover believes that an elite umpire is one who records the least mistakes on the field and one who has the confidence of both the teams of being fair for the greater interest of the game. Hair falls far short of this criteria.

If Pakistan did not cheat I think it was perfectly reasonable for them to refuse to continue playing a match that had been unfairly and unreasonably brought to dispute by just one unreasonable man who is ready to let the spirit of cricket go to dogs for a mere $ 50,000.00.

Answer 2

Flemming! in which world do you live. Its not that simple as you have put it. For you its only a matter of changing ball and giving 5 runs. But for Pakistani team its a matter of pride. Flemin! if someone calls you a Cheat without providing any evidence...how would you feel.

Daryl Hair ruined the game of Cricket. Cricket ought to be spreading peace and friendship instead of generating hatred and racism (courtesy Daryl Hair). Had Hair not made the decision of changing the ball and awarding 5 extra runs, the game of Cricket would not have been brought to disrepute. He should have at the most given a warning or referred the third umpire or match referee for possible evidence before making such a big decision. Hair should not go away like this...spreading mud on Pakistani team...He must apologise...He has now realized that he was wrong

Answer 3

I think neither. This whole thing is blown way out of proportion. First of all, he did what he thought he was suposed to. The ICC has sent a directive to umpires to stamp out ball tampering of any kind. Hair is known to be one of the strictest interpretors of the laws. He sees his job as a policeman, not a mediator.
He had a suspiscion the something untoward was going on, and that Pakistan MAY have been gaining an advantage of un-natural wear on the ball. He didn't actually ever accuse Pakistan of cheating or tampering. He merely offered the English batsemen a new ball, as he is entitled to do.
However, the Pakistan team interpreted this as an accusation of cheating. They staged a very juvenile protest during the game. When the correct time to level their concerns was through the official channels AFTER the match. As a result, they forfeited a game they were still in a position to win.
The thing with the money afterwards I also understand. I think considering he still has many years as a top ICC umpire, he was setting his own price for retirement, believing it would appease the Pakistan administration. In reality, if he was sacked and sued them, he would be awarded for loss of earnings, personal suffering, and loss of reputation, which would probably add up to more than $A500,000, so he was being fair to the ICC. He did the wrong thing in setting his own figure though. He should have offered to resign, and let the ICC come up with a compensation figure.

Answer 4

Let me reply to Mr. Fleming's wrong informations: Darrel did accused pakistan for Ball tempering by rewarding 5 extra run and giving option to england batesman to choose ball. although he was not sure that either pakistan tempered the ball or it was something during 56 overs old ball problem. then he did misbehave inzi not do discuss him anything nor do replying for inzi quries? if Darrel di thought that there was something wrong with Ball he may simply inform Inzi that he is going to change ball because he is not satisfied with ball condition. and he has the right to do so.
other thing few months ago in an interview Darel did said that he will no more do empiring after worldcup 2007, and now in email he is saying that he is demanding compensation for the next four years. although his contract will finish in March 2008.
so all this he is a stubborn personlaity and just want to impose his decision on cricket world.
he must be sacked. ther remain very good and sensible empires WI ,England etc.....

Answer 5

The Pakistan team should have returned to the field regardless of whether the umpire had made a good or bad decision. If they felt agreived then they should take the matter up after the match.
Acusing someone of racism just beacause they made a decision you didnt like is disgusting. It really weakens arguments against real racism

Answer 6

Darell hare always wanted to get fame, he did the ssame in 1996 against Sirilanka and then after getting so much fame he published a book named "The Decision", the bok got good bussiness and hare was rich now he is planning to do the same, he wants to get the fame and release another book and get alot of money. This decision is definetly a reason to get fame.
on the other side darell hare has always been against the Asians and thios is another example of this.

Answer 7

I don't normally have a lot of time for Aussie's 'cos they tend to be overly arrogant, but in this case it was the Pakistani's who were out of order - the first (perhaps unwritten) rule of Cricket is "don't fight with the umpire".
Hair's resignation offer should be interpreted as an offer to "fall on his own sword" in the greater interests of the game internationally, with some attempt to safeguard his financial future. He figured that he had five years left to "work" and asked for about £50k a year in lieu of going quietly - this is less than your gp, mp or bank manager earn - it's not unreasonable. The ICC were stupid to publish his letter.

Answer 8

Hair is an idiot.And the ICC are even bigger ones for appointing him as an umpire for this series with his background.I personally don't think he is a racist just a little man with an overblown sense of importance.

Answer 9

He seems to be a racist and had divided the world into whites and non-whites. The whites are supporting him while the non-whites are cursing him. The Pakistan issue, which could easily be tackled, got complicated by this man. Power makes a man corrupt and the absolute power corrupts the man absolutely. If he was right, why he offered his resignation for money.

Answer 10

The whole thing has got unfortunate, I think largely Hair has acted reasonably honourably and was trying (however misguidedly) to offer the ICC a way out by paying him a sum in order to buy out his contract (he actually asked for about 500k USD - his salary is about 110 UKP, so that's about 2.5 years pay.... reasonable buy out....)