tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33518081.post116280724483859727..comments2023-10-11T21:31:46.384+11:00Comments on The Match Referee: 5 Jobs That Darryl Hair Should Not Apply ForAyush Trivedihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09172484355139580612noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33518081.post-1163042237208132702006-11-09T14:17:00.000+11:002006-11-09T14:17:00.000+11:00Whether you agree with his action or not, Murali h...Whether you agree with his action or not, Murali has been found to have a legitimate action by an independent organisation, time and again.<BR/><BR/>Hair seemed to be the only person convinced that tampering had occurred. Everyone that testified at the hearing, including Boycott and Hughes, did not believe tampering had occurred. <BR/><BR/>To officiate in a cricket match should not be akin to running a Kangaroo Court Umpiring decisions should be based on facts that are supported by conclusive evidence. The term benefit of the doubt comes to mind. <BR/><BR/>It has been plainly exposed that Hair acted on a whim and would have effectively disgraced an innocent team, had he not been pulled up at the hearing.Ayush Trivedihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09172484355139580612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33518081.post-1163012960876903992006-11-09T06:09:00.000+11:002006-11-09T06:09:00.000+11:00Hair interprets law correctly. When he called Mura...Hair interprets law correctly. When he called Murali for<BR/>chucking, he was following the 'bending the arm' definition.<BR/>That he did not "intentionally" bend it and only by 12.5' not 12.501' is a minor detail.<BR/><BR/>Reg. the England v Pakistan match: The rule: the umpire has the right<BR/>to take action if he is convinced that the ball has been tampered<BR/>with. There is an element of subjectivity right there. He does not have to prove it in a court of law when making his decision.<BR/>Disagreements should be dealt with, after end of play. The rule also says the umpire can award the match if the players are not back on the field after a certain time. He did ask Inzamam if he wanted to forfeit and got an yes in response.Ihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03806235091827397495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33518081.post-1162976731984613662006-11-08T20:05:00.000+11:002006-11-08T20:05:00.000+11:00I can't quite deduce the exact angle you are comin...I can't quite deduce the exact angle you are coming from. The hearing after The Oval fiasco found that there was not a shred of evidence to prove the incident that Hair alleged to have occurred. The very incident that he used as reason to bring the most insulting and humiliating charge against an innocent man and team. Hardly an act that indicates that he "interprets the law correctly". <BR/><BR/>Its obvious that you have grouse against the third world, thats your prerogative. However, even reasonable humans from "lawless" countries are bound to be outraged if their integrity is unfairly and publicly questioned and public humiliation results.Ayush Trivedihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09172484355139580612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33518081.post-1162969618081659022006-11-08T18:06:00.000+11:002006-11-08T18:06:00.000+11:00Well. Hair interprets law correctly. If that pisse...Well. Hair interprets law correctly. If that pisses the lawless Third World off, it's only natural.Ihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03806235091827397495noreply@blogger.com