Do you think Darrell Hair should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute as his part in the oval test scandal is just as important as Inzamam's. Given his shady past and the fact that Inzamam was vindicated at his trial is it not time that Darrell Hair be made to answer for his multiple indiscretions. He has disgraced the game and created controversy (recall Sri Lanka re Murali and South African problems) and he should be removed in my opinion. What do you think ? PLEASE NO RACISM COMMENT I WILL REPORT THIS AS ABUSE. This is about his conduct not whatever his attitude may be.
2006-09-28 20:49:14 · 12 answers · asked by Lukas D 3 in Sports ➔ Cricket
wow. Stunning how uninformed yet so opionated some people are. We are not disputing wether Inzaman brought the game into disrepute. Yes he did. He admits its and is punished for it. The point is .... calling off the game was Hair's decision which was the WRONG decision for the best interest of the game and thats bringing the game into disrepute. End of the day he made this decision to support his decision that there was ball tampering which was show the be WRONG. So Inzaman is guilty of 1 wrong and is punished and Hair of 2 of not punished ?? Where is the justice in that ?
2006-09-28 22:15:04 · update #1
Since the Adjudicator has given the aware stating that there is no evidence of ball tampering, Hair also should be punished.
2006-09-29 00:45:50 · answer #1 · answered by vakayil k 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, I do not fully agree with you. He, Darrell Hair, didn't bring the game into direspute. But, he did, indeed, make a wrong call. He should have been penalized for that and thats what stuns me. Anyway, if not today then definitely one day, whenever the committee sits to elect the assess the performance of umpires, he will pay the price for that. Moreover, this hearing was not for Hair, but for Inzamam. Hair's turn will come some time later.
I think ICC, by accepting BCCI's proposal to not to appoint Hair as one of the umpires for champions trohy, has given an indication that his days are numbered.
As far as Inzamam is concern, he deserved the penalty for his conduct on field. He behaved like a child -- as we used to in our childhood- I won't play because you are a cheat. The team could have protested in a better way. They would still have been cleared of ball tampering charges.
2006-09-28 21:36:40 · answer #2 · answered by muks320 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No!
Whatever you think of Darrel Hare's checkered past. Pakistan's is no better. Ball tampering and betting scams.
Hare thought ball tampering had gone on and carried out the proper proceedure.
Now the problem starts. Pakistan and Inziman's re-action and the course they took. If they thought the umpire was wrong, they should have enterd a protest in the correct fashion, not taken the law into their own hands.
Pakistan's lawless action robbed both the English and Pakistan supporter the prospect of an exciting finish.
2006-09-28 21:18:28 · answer #3 · answered by Chelski2006 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
The ICC cannot afford to throw him out. It will cost them more money now. The fact is, that Darrell will in fact stick with his initial decision. As far as Darrell is concern that ball looked to him it was tampered. So he applied the rules by the ICC Book. That matter was up to the match ref to finalise whether the ball was actually tampered. Now it has come to light that the ball has not been tampered. so end of the matter. As an umpire what Darrell has done was correct by ICC Rules book. Therefore now the ICC Cannot throw him out.
2006-09-28 23:50:43 · answer #4 · answered by ravi07anj 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
He could be placed next to Bradman as a guy who replaced the regulations of cricket. On 2d thought - no he won't be in a position to, the reason they replaced the regulations of Bradman grow to be that the grow to be to stable taking part in interior the present regulations. Murali grow to be taking part in outdoors the present regulations, i be attentive to maximum Sri Lankans wont like this answer, notwithstanding it extremely is genuine.. the regulation grow to be first replaced to 5 tiers leniency till the doosra - it then went as much as fifteen tiers meanwhile he nonetheless bowled with an inclination arm at 40 seven tiers. regulation 24 3. Definition of honest transport - the arm A ball is quite further in know of the arm if, as quickly as the bowler's arm has reached the point of the shoulder interior the transport swing, the elbow joint isn't straightened in part or thoroughly from that element till the ball has left the hand next time you have the privledge of observing him bowl - seek for straightening of the arm. it is what that's all approximately
2016-10-01 11:59:19 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He deserved to be thrown out . Good riddance.
2006-09-28 22:34:31 · answer #6 · answered by (^_^) 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
a
2006-09-28 23:27:29 · answer #7 · answered by shriram r 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes he is a bug and should be out
2006-09-29 00:01:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
what do u wanna say?
plz make it more clear!!!
who is darell hair!
2006-09-28 20:55:59 · answer #9 · answered by aki 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
YES
2006-09-28 21:52:50 · answer #10 · answered by HOT STAR 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋