Monday, 6 November 2006

The implications of Hair's sacking

In the Daily Telegraph Scyld Berry sees a precedent in the sacking of Daryl Hair:

"Any umpire who in future makes a decision which angers one of the Asian Test-playing countries — India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh — can expect the wrath of the Asian bloc to descend upon his head."


Karel said...

My two cents:
I disagree. The decision Hair made during that match was one that came with huge implications..
And an inquiry held eventually dismissed the claims he had made.
This isnt a case of an umpire making a controversial call on a caught behind - Hair accused one team of outright cheating with little (if no) evidence and was judged to be wrong.

I still remember Hair's no-balling of Murali, first time around. I also remember Murali eventually finished his spell bowling leg breaks (which were shown on camera to be bowled with an orthodox straight arm) and he still no balled him for that.
He thought he was above the game. I dont pay money or sit down to spend six hours of my life to watch Darryl Hair or any other umpire for that matter.

sisyavisya said...

Scyld Berry can say that. But then everyone knows this is not a one-off incident.
It is also true that if you find fault with a particular people for no reason at all time and time again, it is bound to have its implications, interpretations and consequences. Why only Asia? It just happens to be Asians this time.
- We are all cricket maniacs