Sport Today

I think most people would agree that D.Hair gave rather a poor display
in the 1 st test between Eng and India. I just wonder if it is merely a coincidence that all the
poor decisions he took went against the Indians?
So there is something for you to think about.
I think he is a very poor and controversial umpire but the funny thing is still gets to umpire
important matches !!!!

Viji

Kent

writes

--
Paul Baldwin
I'd rather be a bear than a pear.

|>I think most people would agree that D.Hair gave rather a poor display
|>in the 1 st test between Eng and India. I just wonder if it is merely a
|>coincidence that all the
|>poor decisions he took went against the Indians?
|>So there is something for you to think about.
|>I think he is a very poor and controversial umpire but the funny thing is
|>still gets to umpire
|>important matches !!!!
|>
|>Viji
|>

    This is simply not true.  I agree that a majority of the bad decisions so
far this summer have gone against the Indians, but by no means all of them
have.  One example:  Knight's LBW in England's second innings of the first test
was probably going over the stumps (as the side camera showed).  Nobody made
a fuss about it because it didn't affect the outcome, but if Hair had made
that decision against one of the Indians everybody would be screaming about
it (I don't remember which umpire made that call).  During the one day series
there were several dodgy LBW's against England, I remember one in particular
against Hick.  
    This is all getting a bit tedious.  If India were losing these matches by
narrow margins I might agree that the umpiring is worth discussing, but India
has been batting pathetically (giving away wickets left and right), their
second-line bowling has been laughable, and even their fielding has been weak.
As a result they are losing badly.  I hope they play better in the next two
tests and make a real series out of this, but if they don't they will lose and
it won't be the umpire's fault.

Dave Wark

: >I think most people would agree that D.Hair gave rather a poor display
: >in the 1 st test between Eng and India. I just wonder if it is merely a coincidence that all the
: >poor decisions he took went against the Indians?
: >So there is something for you to think about.
: >I think he is a very poor and controversial umpire but the funny thing is still gets to umpire
: >important matches !!!!

: >Viji

: I think I've got to agree with you mate. As a proud Kiwi there have
: been some dodgy decisions made in the past that seem never to have
: gone in NZ's favour, whereas the Aussies were treated more than fairly

: Kent

  The Oz umpires are just as bad or even than the old Paki umpires. How many Aussie batsmen are given out lbw in Oz.  Any statistics on that?

The only thing he handled well was the most controversial, the
Muralitharan throwing incident.
I don't think Murali throws, or even that if he does it helps bowling.
Hair had the guts to call him, and for that he must be commended, even
if not for anything else in his career.
Many other umpires had questioned Murali's action, and brought it to the
attention of the ICC. Hair was the only one to follow the Laws of
cricket, which state that if an umpire is not totally satiafied with the
action he IS TO call no-ball.
(Not may call no-ball, but is to call no-ball.)
Given that law the question must also be asked of other umpires who have
obvioiusly not been satisfied with his action, but failed to call a
no-ball.

: writes
: >I think most people would agree that D.Hair gave rather a poor display
: >in the 1 st test between Eng and India. I just wonder if it is merely a
: >coincidence that all the
: >poor decisions he took went against the Indians?

: Hussain was born in India and he had the best of one decision. IMHO I
: don't think that there is anything in the racist argument I just think
: he is a poor umpire.

: --
: Paul Baldwin
: I'd rather be a bear than a pear.

It is difficult to say if D. Hair is incompetent, or racist, or both (but
definitely not neither). The fact is that he has been involved in bad decisions
in the past and still is on the Int. panel. Wonder whether there is something
more to it. A once-upon-a-time decent umpire like Steve Randall made some
very poor decisions against the Sri Lankans. Watching the games live on
ESPN, one couldn't help but feel that if "all bad" decisions are against
one side only, maybe it is a good idea to change the umpire (both umpires
in this particular case).

But we don't expect the Aussies to change anything since the umpires
are probably just doing their job.

With the technology of a third umpire available, the extra time in making
decisions is better than giving a wrong decision. The idea should not be
to limit the third umpire to a pre-defined role only.

Haresh

Personally I'd be keen to find out from players if they have
confidence in Mr Hair given his reputation.

As I understand it, the neutral umpires are assigned matches by the
ICC but the members of that panel are nominated by their home
authorities, so if the ACB reckon that Hair is best or second best in
Oz then he's on the panel and the ICC will make use of him.

Which makes me wonder who SAs new member on the panel - after Karl
Liebenberg's retirement - will be...

Bob Dubery
Johannesburg
RSA

--
"You're entering a non-existent universe.
Consider the consequences"

Clifford Stoll.
Silicon Snake Oil

This is simply not true.  I agree that a majority of the bad decisions so

This is simply not true.  I agree that a majority of the bad decisions so

Australian pitches bounce more than most pitches in other countries.
This is widely recognised. As a result fewer LBW decisions are given to
pace and swing bowlers overall.
In recent years a lot LBWs have been given to Warne (as I said no stats,
merely surmising, but I believe that this would be true).

The question must be asked why Warne would get more LBW decisions than
other spinners.
Answer: His flipper.

The ball continues on nearly straight, giving the umpire ample
opportunity to see the direction of the ball and decrease any doubt in
his mind.

As a sidelight, I don't think Australia can claim to be World Champions
until they beat the West Indies in conditions that suit the West Indies
best. For the West Indies the best conditions are Australian due to the
bounce in the pitches and the nature of the West Indian bowling.

Tim Fountain.

Adam