Darrell Hair said that the decision, which he later withdrew, was not spontaneous, or a spur of the moment thing. He said, "This correspondence (regarding $ 50,000.00 for early retirement) was composed at a very difficult time and was revoked by me after a period of serious consideration.” Could Hair not have revoked his decision similar to this one "after a period of serious consideration” and taken to the field for the greater interest of the game of cricket which he advocates so vehemently to be an exponent of ?
2006-08-27 08:24:42 · 16 answers · asked by mahmood 1 in Sports ➔ Cricket
Apart from Asker's pertinent comments, shouldn't the Pakistani team and Inzi in particular have been given time to consider the charges against them.
They ought also to have been allowed to reconsider their own protest. They were taken quit unawares. Hair had obviously been plotting for months how he could derive his sadistic pleasure if the Pakistanis emerged from their losing streak.
2006-08-27 08:58:37 · answer #1 · answered by RebelBlood 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely not on purely cricketing terms. The decision to award the match against Pakistan was concrete and set in stone under the fundamental rules of cricket. Once made, it was not his to revoke. His decision to revoke his offer to resign is an entirely different one and governed by no such rules whatsoever. The parallel here would be if (for example) Pakistan had not thrown their toys out of the pram and played on. At the end of the England innings Daryl Hair thinks 'actually, after serious consideration, Strauss was NOT out lbw' and invites Strauss back to resume his innings. Would that ever have happened? No. So neither could he revoke the decision to award the game to England. The greater interests of the game would certainly NOT have been served by this as it would have been a clear indication that the rules can be bent or broken in order to satisfy the expedition of some nebulous PR/political motive.
And Vaivagabundo - are you assuming that guy is English? If he's Australian then the answer would be 3-1 in their favour LOL.
2006-08-28 11:59:06 · answer #2 · answered by eriverpipe 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Darrel Hair, should definitely, have allowed the game to continue. The Captains, the Conducting Officials and the ICC, should always, act for the game of Cricket and its watching public. They are, the first & foremost. By demanding money, Darrel Hair has shown, his interest. One wonders, why, he may not be involved in match fixing, if the interest is money.
2006-08-28 12:32:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The cricketing authorities have found their way out of more difficult situations than this.
I suspect that Hair could not revoke his decision because of his psychological makeup, although one cannot be definite about this without personal knowledge of the man. From what has appeared in the media I am glad not to have such knowledge.
2006-08-29 12:04:43 · answer #4 · answered by Philosophical Fred 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As for the letter - it is a curiosity, but if you consider that he was offering to cut his career short, it actually worked out to be fair compensation for the rest of his salary if he continued to work.
re the Game, Pakistan were in breach of fair play law 42.9 relating to time wasting, and he warned them with 5 penalty runs, giving them the option to return. When they did not, he waited until a further 15 minutes elapsed, and then decided Pakistan had decided to forfeit the game, and thus awarded it to England. I am sorry but Pakistan chose that outcome themselves, whether you agree with the ball tampering thing or not. If they wanted to protest, they should have finished the game, and THEN taken action.
As for the poster above who said: "Australian's are all arrogant and never admit they are wrong..." perhaps you should meet some. Believe it or not, despite your massive generalisation, there is more than one personality type in Australia........
2006-08-28 03:51:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
the greatest interest of any game is served by players abiding by the rules.wether the pakistanis tampered with the ball or not the current laws of the game that empower the umpires are agreed by all playing nations Pakistan and the sub-continent included and they should abide by them at all times and not try to change them in play...ie they should not have reacted like a spoilt child and refused to take the pitch.the subsequent matter of an umpire being hounded out by certain sections of the test playing world aside the facts remain and inzaman will be judged one way or another
2006-08-28 07:14:17 · answer #6 · answered by noseyparker 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Firstly, Bill Freddy2 who answered above me is a jerk off.
To answer your question, Hair is obviously not interested in cricket but only in money, he invented the whole scenario with a view to firstly blackmailing the ICC and then writing a book. Greedy, racist, corrupt and a bungling incompetent.
PS Pakistan do not need to cheat to beat England. How many World Cups have you won? LOL Hahahahahaha.....
2006-08-27 16:25:32 · answer #7 · answered by vaivagabundo 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes
2006-08-27 15:26:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
yeah i think he should have, but the way Pakistan handled it was bad as well they should have carried on playing and after the match complained
but you could argue that hair could have done the same, spoke of the incident after the game
2006-08-27 16:10:12 · answer #9 · answered by imran h 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, Australian's never admit they are wrong. Darrel Hair is an arrogrant prat who thinks he is bigger than the game. I hope he never umpries again.
2006-08-27 21:15:54 · answer #10 · answered by spuds_a_genius 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋