Pakistan have a bad Hair day
Yep, the hair puns have been flowing fast and thick ever since Pakistan forfeited the 4th Test against England after Daryl Hair called them for ball tampering. The whole nation of Pakistan is in an uproar over the incident. Schoolchildren are burning effigies of Hair. In fact, I haven't seen so much burnt Hair since Michael Jackson filmed a Pepsi commercial (sorry, couldn't resist another Hair pun). I have to say I'm outraged too. England were losing that Test, the last Test before the Ashes. I was looking forward to posting a gloating article after they lost the match - this whole debacle has taken that opportunity away from me.
As for who is the guilty party here, I think there's plenty of blame to go around. Imran Khan has a point when he says Hair becomes a mini-Hitler when he puts on the white coat. Adherence to the rules does allow some flexibility but Hair almost seems to embrace the controversy that comes with his zero compromise approach. Similarly, Pakistan spat the dummy as only they can (okay, that's not fair - Australia have been known to have the odd dummy spit too) and their refusal to take the field was an overreaction. They eventually came out onto the field so it's apparent their initial boycott was a bluff. Hair called their bluff and forfeited the game. So Pakistan didn't really want to boycott - they were just protesting out of principle. If Hair had shown the least bit of diplomacy and sensitivity, the game would never have been called off and I still may have got my English defeat. And the latest twist in the tale is that Duncan Fletcher has been accused of starting the row by seeing referree Mike Proctor that morning. It wouldn't surprise me - I always thought that Fletcher was a shifty, manipulative kind of guy (I still haven't forgiven him for winking at Ricky Ponting over the substitute fielder incident).
| Posted by JC on Tue 22 Aug |  13 comments |
DEAR SIR
IF YOU COULD PRINT THE FOLLOWING IN THE PAPER IT WOULD BE A GREAT SERVICE TO CRICKET...
REVERSE SWING CONTROVERSY
HERE WE GO AGAIN
Before I may say anything let me assure you that I am an ardent fan of Cricket and I love this game so whatever I say is not due to partialism.
I am going to be straight forward in what I want to say....no diplomatic ways of narration...because I have had enough of whining and worst spotsmanship by the English....
Today we have had another drama about Reverse Swing......Last year when Jones,Flintoff and Hoggard were reverse swinging ,never was the ball shown to be examined by umpires and it was taken to be just a case of an art being put in practice....!! The English Trio was hailed as MASTERS OF REVERSE SWING...!!!! No one found anything wrong....
Now I want to take you back almost 15 years in the past....1990-91.... West Indies Captain D.Haynes and New zealand Captain M.Crowe "ACCUSED" Pakistan for doing "something " to the ball....In fact it was just because they were whiners who could not take defeats fairly......Similarly in 1992 English media,newspapers,Players and dare I say even children and housewives went up in unison that PAKISTAN is tempering with ball....!!! Fact was that ENGLISH were totally oblivious with regards to this art...They did not know about it altogether...
Hence each English player thought "if I don't know how to do it then it must be something illegal ...so why NOT accuse the other party and hide my embarrasment of defeat through these allegations..."
Plainly I can say that if Person A does not know how to solve mathematical equations but person B does ...then if A accuses B to be proponent of witch craft...then it will be a sad case of accusation due to one's own less-learned approach...!!! That is exactly what has been happening till last year when finally England learned to reverse swing....
It is on record that once I.Botham said ..."THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS REVERSE SWING...IT IS ALL BUT PURE CHEATING" and now he is seen saying "ENGLAND BOWLERS ARE THE MASTERS OF REVERSE SWING...."
HMMMM ...How quickly one can change one's words and thoughts......I even read in in English newspapers last year that reverse swing is as old as 1930's and has been in practice in England...since then....how amazing....!!!!
Now today when England thought they were going to lose fairly and squarely....an old "ally" came to their rescue..in the form of ever controversial, highly inept DARREL HAIR...Who seems to plagued with different "HUMAN ERRORS OF JUDGEMENT" whenever he is adjudicating on an appeal raised by Indian, Pakistani,Srilankan player.....He might not hear a big nick from 22 yards though it might be heard by a sparrow sitting 75 yards away on boundary..!!!
He can ask for banning players for "over appealing" , he can warn bowlers and even batsmen for tempering with wicket...by running on it (only Asians have been accused by him..be it TENDULKAR,SALMAN BUT OR KANERIA...)...
Then he can call a bowler a chucker...be it Murali,Afridi, Akhtar,Shabbir or Hafeez....
Still he is on elite panel....Pakistan team have lodged official complaints about this HIGHLY PARTIAL umpire at least 3 times in 5 years...but still he is seen officiating no other match but those involving Pakistan,,....
Fact of the matter is that with the passage of time this man has been growing wild with respect to Asian countries...and now he has started going really berserk....What happened today is totally INCOMPREHENSIBLE.....
When after each over the ball is examined then how on earth the ball was deemed to be tempered so suddenly.......
It is a fact that HAIR must be congratulated that in Cricket History ...he is only the second umpire after T.Robinson from Zimbabwe ..who actually tempered with the ball....yes T.Robinson actually soaked a ball in water after he saw it reversing for Pakistan during a match in 1998....
Today, I am sure that it was HAIR who scratched the ball with blades during some break....WHY DO WE ALWAYS ACCUSE TEAMS...IF ROBINSON DID IT IN 1998 why can't Hair do it in 2006....
I think we should look this matter from other PERSPECTIVE.....Justice can only be met if impartialty is met with....
Because when umpires are always checking ball how can it be tempered...if and only if they are BLIND or if they are tempering with it themselves....
Nowadays cameras are there...millions are watching on TV and scores of officials on ground are there....nowadays ball can not be scratched so easily by players ...unless an umpire DOES it himself ...YES an umpire can temper with the ball legally ...on the pretext of setting the seem of ball right by plucking with blades.........!!!!!!
So before getting on to any conclusion I think looking at track record of this HIGHLY PARTIAL and dare I say very very rude umpire ....if justice is to be maintained then he should also be probed.....and what to say about his fellow umpire BILLY DOCTROVE....Who dileberately did not give Jimmy Adams caught behind against Pakistan in 2000 and Pakistan lost....later on he went into Pakistan dressing room...and officially apologized for partial umpiring...!!! wow...and still he is on elite panel and officiating in allaince with D.HAIR...
I think if fast bowlers can hunt in pairs then shrewd and dishonest umpires can also hunt as well as hurt in pairs....!!!!!
I think umpires are not beyond the game...they are part of it and they are human too...so they can resort to vindictism and wrong doing...so why not probe them too.........
CASE CLOSED......
A VERY VERY DISAPPOINTED FAN OF GAME OF GENTLEMEN...!!!!
Posted by Cricket Crazy Girl.....Tasmeen on 2006-08-22 08:32:18
IF YOU COULD PRINT THE FOLLOWING IN THE PAPER IT WOULD BE A GREAT SERVICE TO CRICKET...
REVERSE SWING CONTROVERSY
HERE WE GO AGAIN
Before I may say anything let me assure you that I am an ardent fan of Cricket and I love this game so whatever I say is not due to partialism.
I am going to be straight forward in what I want to say....no diplomatic ways of narration...because I have had enough of whining and worst spotsmanship by the English....
Today we have had another drama about Reverse Swing......Last year when Jones,Flintoff and Hoggard were reverse swinging ,never was the ball shown to be examined by umpires and it was taken to be just a case of an art being put in practice....!! The English Trio was hailed as MASTERS OF REVERSE SWING...!!!! No one found anything wrong....
Now I want to take you back almost 15 years in the past....1990-91.... West Indies Captain D.Haynes and New zealand Captain M.Crowe "ACCUSED" Pakistan for doing "something " to the ball....In fact it was just because they were whiners who could not take defeats fairly......Similarly in 1992 English media,newspapers,Players and dare I say even children and housewives went up in unison that PAKISTAN is tempering with ball....!!! Fact was that ENGLISH were totally oblivious with regards to this art...They did not know about it altogether...
Hence each English player thought "if I don't know how to do it then it must be something illegal ...so why NOT accuse the other party and hide my embarrasment of defeat through these allegations..."
Plainly I can say that if Person A does not know how to solve mathematical equations but person B does ...then if A accuses B to be proponent of witch craft...then it will be a sad case of accusation due to one's own less-learned approach...!!! That is exactly what has been happening till last year when finally England learned to reverse swing....
It is on record that once I.Botham said ..."THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS REVERSE SWING...IT IS ALL BUT PURE CHEATING" and now he is seen saying "ENGLAND BOWLERS ARE THE MASTERS OF REVERSE SWING...."
HMMMM ...How quickly one can change one's words and thoughts......I even read in in English newspapers last year that reverse swing is as old as 1930's and has been in practice in England...since then....how amazing....!!!!
Now today when England thought they were going to lose fairly and squarely....an old "ally" came to their rescue..in the form of ever controversial, highly inept DARREL HAIR...Who seems to plagued with different "HUMAN ERRORS OF JUDGEMENT" whenever he is adjudicating on an appeal raised by Indian, Pakistani,Srilankan player.....He might not hear a big nick from 22 yards though it might be heard by a sparrow sitting 75 yards away on boundary..!!!
He can ask for banning players for "over appealing" , he can warn bowlers and even batsmen for tempering with wicket...by running on it (only Asians have been accused by him..be it TENDULKAR,SALMAN BUT OR KANERIA...)...
Then he can call a bowler a chucker...be it Murali,Afridi, Akhtar,Shabbir or Hafeez....
Still he is on elite panel....Pakistan team have lodged official complaints about this HIGHLY PARTIAL umpire at least 3 times in 5 years...but still he is seen officiating no other match but those involving Pakistan,,....
Fact of the matter is that with the passage of time this man has been growing wild with respect to Asian countries...and now he has started going really berserk....What happened today is totally INCOMPREHENSIBLE.....
When after each over the ball is examined then how on earth the ball was deemed to be tempered so suddenly.......
It is a fact that HAIR must be congratulated that in Cricket History ...he is only the second umpire after T.Robinson from Zimbabwe ..who actually tempered with the ball....yes T.Robinson actually soaked a ball in water after he saw it reversing for Pakistan during a match in 1998....
Today, I am sure that it was HAIR who scratched the ball with blades during some break....WHY DO WE ALWAYS ACCUSE TEAMS...IF ROBINSON DID IT IN 1998 why can't Hair do it in 2006....
I think we should look this matter from other PERSPECTIVE.....Justice can only be met if impartialty is met with....
Because when umpires are always checking ball how can it be tempered...if and only if they are BLIND or if they are tempering with it themselves....
Nowadays cameras are there...millions are watching on TV and scores of officials on ground are there....nowadays ball can not be scratched so easily by players ...unless an umpire DOES it himself ...YES an umpire can temper with the ball legally ...on the pretext of setting the seem of ball right by plucking with blades.........!!!!!!
So before getting on to any conclusion I think looking at track record of this HIGHLY PARTIAL and dare I say very very rude umpire ....if justice is to be maintained then he should also be probed.....and what to say about his fellow umpire BILLY DOCTROVE....Who dileberately did not give Jimmy Adams caught behind against Pakistan in 2000 and Pakistan lost....later on he went into Pakistan dressing room...and officially apologized for partial umpiring...!!! wow...and still he is on elite panel and officiating in allaince with D.HAIR...
I think if fast bowlers can hunt in pairs then shrewd and dishonest umpires can also hunt as well as hurt in pairs....!!!!!
I think umpires are not beyond the game...they are part of it and they are human too...so they can resort to vindictism and wrong doing...so why not probe them too.........
CASE CLOSED......
A VERY VERY DISAPPOINTED FAN OF GAME OF GENTLEMEN...!!!!
Posted by Cricket Crazy Girl.....Tasmeen on 2006-08-22 08:32:18
t seems inconceivable that the umpires suddenly spotted a tampered ball at the Oval and acted upon it without warning. Either they, the match referee, England or an outside agent must have been monitoring the situation and seen something that broke the camel's back. Sky's television cameras - about 25 of them - detected nothing. The ball had been in the hands of the umpires after the fall of Alastair Cook's wicket, just 15 minutes before they ordered it to be replaced. How come it was fine then and altered to the state of cheating so soon?
There must be something beneath the surface we don't know. If not, the umpires are guilty of an appalling misjudgment on the spur of a highly emotive moment and extraordinary inflexibility after it. Let's face it, if you accuse Pakistan's cricketers of cheating, you are lighting a fuse. They must be sick to the back teeth of it, which is not to say they are innocent, and they might be, only that they are singled out.
Posted by Hair The Hitler on 2006-08-22 14:43:03
There must be something beneath the surface we don't know. If not, the umpires are guilty of an appalling misjudgment on the spur of a highly emotive moment and extraordinary inflexibility after it. Let's face it, if you accuse Pakistan's cricketers of cheating, you are lighting a fuse. They must be sick to the back teeth of it, which is not to say they are innocent, and they might be, only that they are singled out.
Posted by Hair The Hitler on 2006-08-22 14:43:03
Hair over-reacted. His behaviour was inflammatory, and the fact that he has a history of it made it more so. And as the laws of physics almost state, to every over-reaction there is liable to be an equal and opposite over-reaction.
At first, Pakistan didn't over-react - they just got on with it, quite rightly, and were rewarded with the wicket they most wanted, Kevin Pietersen. But then, over tea, they did over-react. They were entitled to protest but, as many commentators have observed, not taking the field was the wrong way to go about it. It was forgetting what they are there for. It was taking it out on the fans. To read Inzamam's interview with Andrew Miller yesterday was to feel much sympathy for a likeable man, but it was noticeable that he didn't once mention the fans.
The officials went by the law but is the law an ass? © Getty Images
The Pakistanis' main line of defence was that Hair's accusation of ball-tampering was an insult. But they have often been accused of this. Waqar Younis was found guilty of it in 2000, and he is now their bowling coach. They have also been accused of worse - of match-fixing. Inzamam himself did not emerge spotless from the Qayyum inquiry. But he coped with the implied insult and carried on batting as serenely as before, showing the thick skin that an international sportsman needs. At The Oval, his skin mysteriously turned out to be the only part of him that was thin.
Hair, in turn, over-reacted to Pakistan's over-reaction. He was too quick to whip off the bails, inflaming matters when he should have been defusing them. Pakistan are not the first team to stage a sit-in, and they won't be the last. Officialdom should have the tact and flexibility to cope.
Several components of the game were found wanting at the Oval. The elite umpiring panel behaved like its amateurish forefathers at their worst. The match referee failed in his most central duty, to let the game take place. The ICC put the letter of the law before the interests of the fans. And the ECB, which began the saga as an innocent bystander, soon committed the cardinal modern sin of terrible public relations. It wasn't cricket's darkest day, as some have suggested. But it was a lot more than a bad Hair day.
Posted by The Bad the Worse the Ugly HAI on 2006-08-22 14:46:40
At first, Pakistan didn't over-react - they just got on with it, quite rightly, and were rewarded with the wicket they most wanted, Kevin Pietersen. But then, over tea, they did over-react. They were entitled to protest but, as many commentators have observed, not taking the field was the wrong way to go about it. It was forgetting what they are there for. It was taking it out on the fans. To read Inzamam's interview with Andrew Miller yesterday was to feel much sympathy for a likeable man, but it was noticeable that he didn't once mention the fans.
The officials went by the law but is the law an ass? © Getty Images
The Pakistanis' main line of defence was that Hair's accusation of ball-tampering was an insult. But they have often been accused of this. Waqar Younis was found guilty of it in 2000, and he is now their bowling coach. They have also been accused of worse - of match-fixing. Inzamam himself did not emerge spotless from the Qayyum inquiry. But he coped with the implied insult and carried on batting as serenely as before, showing the thick skin that an international sportsman needs. At The Oval, his skin mysteriously turned out to be the only part of him that was thin.
Hair, in turn, over-reacted to Pakistan's over-reaction. He was too quick to whip off the bails, inflaming matters when he should have been defusing them. Pakistan are not the first team to stage a sit-in, and they won't be the last. Officialdom should have the tact and flexibility to cope.
Several components of the game were found wanting at the Oval. The elite umpiring panel behaved like its amateurish forefathers at their worst. The match referee failed in his most central duty, to let the game take place. The ICC put the letter of the law before the interests of the fans. And the ECB, which began the saga as an innocent bystander, soon committed the cardinal modern sin of terrible public relations. It wasn't cricket's darkest day, as some have suggested. But it was a lot more than a bad Hair day.
Posted by The Bad the Worse the Ugly HAI on 2006-08-22 14:46:40
Yesterday should have been the final day of a richly-entertaining series - but instead, three months before the first Ashes Test, the unanimous concensus was that we've all been screwed by an Aussie already.
Posted by HAIR Remover on 2006-08-22 15:18:41
Posted by HAIR Remover on 2006-08-22 15:18:41
A bad HAIR day in 2000
Hair raises a dust storm
EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SYDNEY, JANUARY 3: The Indian cricket team, already miffed at the umpiring standards here were today in for another shock. No, not the shock of seeing very close shouts going against them -- they are used to that now -- but umpire Darell Hair's refusal to allow Indian captain Sachin Tendulkar's request for sawdust to be sprinkled at the spot where wicket-keeper MSK Prasad was standing.
According to Tendulkar, ``Prasad was finding the spot where he was standing very slippery and I requested Mr Hair for saw-dust to be sprinkled in that area.'' The request was denied on the plea that it is against the rules. No where do the rules say that sawdust should not be sprinkled on areas which are slippery.
On the contrary, it is a normal practice to sprinkle sand or sawdust on the wet and slippery parts of the ground, so that the players are not in a danger to slipping. What does the Indian team make of this `no' for something which in now way goes against the laws, neither against its spirits.
It is being saidthat the request was denied because at the start of the play that area was not wet. One wonders why should the Indian team have lied and what unfair advantage they would have derived from it. This incident is another reminder of the dismissive way towards the Indians of the Australian umpires, be it reacting to legitimate appeals or on such a trivial matter as this.
Posted by Cricket on 2006-08-24 16:18:35
Hair raises a dust storm
EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SYDNEY, JANUARY 3: The Indian cricket team, already miffed at the umpiring standards here were today in for another shock. No, not the shock of seeing very close shouts going against them -- they are used to that now -- but umpire Darell Hair's refusal to allow Indian captain Sachin Tendulkar's request for sawdust to be sprinkled at the spot where wicket-keeper MSK Prasad was standing.
According to Tendulkar, ``Prasad was finding the spot where he was standing very slippery and I requested Mr Hair for saw-dust to be sprinkled in that area.'' The request was denied on the plea that it is against the rules. No where do the rules say that sawdust should not be sprinkled on areas which are slippery.
On the contrary, it is a normal practice to sprinkle sand or sawdust on the wet and slippery parts of the ground, so that the players are not in a danger to slipping. What does the Indian team make of this `no' for something which in now way goes against the laws, neither against its spirits.
It is being saidthat the request was denied because at the start of the play that area was not wet. One wonders why should the Indian team have lied and what unfair advantage they would have derived from it. This incident is another reminder of the dismissive way towards the Indians of the Australian umpires, be it reacting to legitimate appeals or on such a trivial matter as this.
Posted by Cricket on 2006-08-24 16:18:35
Pakistani's simply acted stupid.
The had the match for the taking and they let the opportunity go by.
If they would have won then the whole thing would have swept under the carpet
Posted by Tarun on 2006-08-25 04:12:41
The had the match for the taking and they let the opportunity go by.
If they would have won then the whole thing would have swept under the carpet
Posted by Tarun on 2006-08-25 04:12:41
Mr. Peter
Do not blindly defend a person becuase you feel you have to..!!!
Face the music..face the reality...Darrel is no more than a mere mortal...let him be what he is...
he has fallen for money and his urge to be in news has always been with him......and to achieve this glory he does different things on different times....
1) Ignoring countless LBW appeals raised by pakistani and other asians...
2) Murali getting called a chucker
3) Accusing Murali again in a book written just for fame
4) Calling Shoaib Akhtar aa chucker in 2000.
5) Calling Shabbir a chucker...
6) Stopping Kaneria from bowling in the whole inings without giving a proper warning.....against WI
7) Warning Salman Butt for running on pitch although he wasn't...(ENG V PAK )
8) Asking for third umpire even though INZI was just taking evasive action to save himslef from getting hit by a mindless throw from HARMISON last year..
9) Countless edges and snicks from bat coming from rival batsmen on balls delivered by PAKISTANI Bowlers during the last 10 years..even if the snick is as loud as a drum beat....
10) now calling a 56 over old ball as tempered even though the ball was smashed hard,fell on concrete and hit hoarding boards...
11) there at least a dozen more stories of his inept and biased umpiring but..........PETER I think you as well as many others will find the truth difficult to digest...
Lastly congratulations...A MONEY MINDED MAN HAS GIVEN THE TRUE MOTIVE BEHIND THIS CONCOCTED STORYLINE....HAIR JUST WANTED MONEY AND FAME.....
BYE BYE...SWEAT DREAMS....
Posted by HAIR THE HITLER AT FIRST ...NO on 2006-08-25 12:45:55
Do not blindly defend a person becuase you feel you have to..!!!
Face the music..face the reality...Darrel is no more than a mere mortal...let him be what he is...
he has fallen for money and his urge to be in news has always been with him......and to achieve this glory he does different things on different times....
1) Ignoring countless LBW appeals raised by pakistani and other asians...
2) Murali getting called a chucker
3) Accusing Murali again in a book written just for fame
4) Calling Shoaib Akhtar aa chucker in 2000.
5) Calling Shabbir a chucker...
6) Stopping Kaneria from bowling in the whole inings without giving a proper warning.....against WI
7) Warning Salman Butt for running on pitch although he wasn't...(ENG V PAK )
8) Asking for third umpire even though INZI was just taking evasive action to save himslef from getting hit by a mindless throw from HARMISON last year..
9) Countless edges and snicks from bat coming from rival batsmen on balls delivered by PAKISTANI Bowlers during the last 10 years..even if the snick is as loud as a drum beat....
10) now calling a 56 over old ball as tempered even though the ball was smashed hard,fell on concrete and hit hoarding boards...
11) there at least a dozen more stories of his inept and biased umpiring but..........PETER I think you as well as many others will find the truth difficult to digest...
Lastly congratulations...A MONEY MINDED MAN HAS GIVEN THE TRUE MOTIVE BEHIND THIS CONCOCTED STORYLINE....HAIR JUST WANTED MONEY AND FAME.....
BYE BYE...SWEAT DREAMS....
Posted by HAIR THE HITLER AT FIRST ...NO on 2006-08-25 12:45:55
I can't speak for whether Hair is racist against Pakistan or not. I'm sure every country has a list of bad decisions Hair made against them (except us cause he never does Aussie Tests... lucky us!) But what is obvious is Hair handled the situation badly regardless of his personal prejudices and that's what annoys me about this situation. He could've handled it subtly, diplomatically, in the interest of cricket, and kept the match running smoothly. Instead, he was a stickler for rules and seemed to eagerly embrace a controversial situation. Regardless of his motives, this is inexcusable. I personally believe it's more a case of him being a jerk, not a racist.
Posted by JC on 2006-08-25 18:00:00
Posted by JC on 2006-08-25 18:00:00
i had a bed hair day a skool and everyone laugh at me not know that i was just wearing my p.j's too i was so embarassed i ran away from skool in my house i lye there died
Posted by steph on 2007-03-19 18:11:21
Posted by steph on 2007-03-19 18:11:21
Post New Comment
You need to be logged in to post a comment. If you're new, register here. Existing users, login via the right margin.
