Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:52, 24 August 2006

August 2006 ball tampering incident

I have added to

This article documents a current sporting event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. Initial news reports, scores, or statistics may be unreliable. The last updates to this article may not reflect the most current information. Please feel free to improve this article (but note that updates without valid and reliable references will be removed) or discuss changes on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

tag. This guy is getting a lot of attention! Feel free to revert its not a case of life or death Mrpizersheep 13:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we wait until the ball-tampering issue has actually been resolved before we update this article? Misplaced Pages is not a news service, and especially not an up-to-the-second gossip service. — sjorford++ 16:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You beat me to it. But the longer this goes on, the more it looks like this page will need some sort of protection - 88.105.68.243 16:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we'll probably be in a position to update the page some time this evening or early tomorrow. It's just the constant updating every few minutes that's dumb. — sjorford++ 17:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually surpised there hasn't been any vandalism (that I've seen) yet; perhaps I'm looking at the wrong pages? This evening should be a good time for an update - 88.105.68.243 17:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just removed a hastily-written "Controversy" section from Billy Doctrove for the same reasons set out above. Loganberry (Talk) 17:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto, for the Pakistani cricket team article. This is not good for the game .... - 88.105.68.243 17:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The one place where the controversy might be reasonably mentioned right now is on the Pakistani cricket team in England in 2006 article, as that already includes an up-to-date scorecard. — sjorford++ 17:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree completely. I've just updated a page with a record of the events so far. None of what I've written can possibly later be regarded as false. Misplaced Pages should always document current events as they happen, if that's possible without speculating unduly. That's the purpose of the {{current}} tag. SteveRwanda 17:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you have not "just updated the page with a record of events so far". Your statements:

"Hair was again involved in controversy when he awarded five penalty runs to England and offered them a replacement ball, effectively accusing the Pakistani team of tampering. Play continued until the Tea break, but the Pakistani players refused to take the field thereafter, prompting Hair to remove the bails and apparently declare England winners by forfeiture. The Pakistani team did take to the field shortly after this, but by then it was Hair himself who refused to continue the game."

are incorrect. It was THE UMPIRES who took these actions together and in consultation - not Hair alone as you suggest. He may even have initiated the process, but did not complete the actions alone as you describe. It might indeed be better to wait until the dust has settled until the article is updated with such minute-by-minute events that still have some way to go before being resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.84.100.93 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

OK I've changed it... though my impression was that Hair was the prime motivator, so it still belongs under his own controversies section. In my opinion if people come to this page and don't find any detail on this event they'll think we're slacking and behind the times. One advantage of Misplaced Pages over traditional encyclopaedias is that it can be constantly updated and I don't see why that shouldn't happen even as the event progresses. SteveRwanda 18:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just taken out a sentence that said his decisions 'prove' he is biased against Asian teams. Pure speculation. Ericatom 19:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the whole bit out again. We don't even know if the test has been abandoned yet, as there are still reports that there could be play tomorrow. What is wrong with just keeping this news on Pakistani cricket team in England in 2006 until it is clearer??? — sjorford++ 21:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason not to include it, just because the details are not yet clear (they seem to be clearer now) as long as the article accurately reports on the situation. There are plenty of people willing to keep it up to date as the situation eveolves, and any considerations on these lines would surely also apply to the Pakistani cricket team in England in 2006 article, wouldn't they? I think it's obvious that this incident will prove to be a major event in the lives of the two umpires and so I cannot see any reason not to include it. --Cherry blossom tree 00:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Bias against Asians

Should there be a section on this~? - there is certainly plenty of evidence. Catchpole 09:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It depends what you mean. There certainly shouldn't be a section saying that he is biased against Asians. That would contravene either WP:NOR or WP:NPOV, depending on how it was done. It would probably be acceptable to discuss (within the controversy section) the fact that many Asian individuals feel he is biased against them and to look at the reaction of the rest of the cricketing world. --Cherry blossom tree 10:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph attempting to give the controversy section some context, including the feelings of some Asian fans. If anyone feels they can improve it then please do, particularly if there are any more references available for it - it relies mostly on the two cited articles.--Cherry blossom tree 22:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The point everyone is missing in this whole farce is that Mr Darrel Hair is an individual who belives he is bigger than the game. He has demonstrated this so aptly in the past. He is incompetent as an umpire on the field, and a failure as a cricketing authority off it. One is almost led to believe he is compensating for something that is lacking. His petulance and childish behaviour would not be tolerated of were he not from Australia, and that's the sad fact.Pubuman 14:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"Incompetant as an umpire on the field"? Inzy even said they had no problem with his umpiring and that he is a very good umpire, so on what do you base this comment (A side note is that I agree with Inzy and I am not saying that Mr Hair did the correct thing. I would just like to point out the inaccuracies of this comment)? 86.142.103.206 22:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"The point everyone is missing in this whole farce is that Mr Darrel Hair is an individual who belives he is bigger than the game. He has demonstrated this so aptly in the past." - How so? What proof do you have of that? 138.25.13.246

I’m a keen Aussie who loves his cricket and I think a lot of what Pubuman says is absolutely correct. I believe Hair IS incompetent as an umpire, and should have been relieved of his Test duties a long time ago.

He was incompetent when he called Murali for throwing several times in 1995. An umpire standing at the bowler’s end (as Hair was) should be watching the bowler’s feet, not his bowling arm (very basic stuff). It’s physically impossible to watch both at the same time. Bradman himself said ‘I found umpire Darrell Hair’s calling of Murali so distasteful. It was technically impossible of umpire Hair to call Murali from the bowler's end, even once!’ Bradman added `For me, this was the worst example of umpiring that I have witnessed, and against everything the game stands for.’ I couldn’t agree more.

Hair referred a run out call against Imzamam to the third umpire in 2005 when Inzamam was trying to avoid injury from the ball, not attempting a run. Under the laws of the game, a batsman shouldn’t be given out under those circumstances.

I won’t go on, but I seriously believe Hair’s incompetence at the top level and his heavy-handed attitude have done the game of cricket no favours. GregP1 09:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Darrell Hair has, of course, made mistakes, just as there are many mistakes in the comments above. Whether Inzamam was attempting a run is spelt out as irrelevant in the laws of the game - the only question is whether he was out of his ground because he was avoiding the ball. I could go on, but this really isn't the place to discuss what we think of Darrell Hair. JPD (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Darrell Hair can make mistakes like many other umpires, but what he did to Muralitharan smacked of a personal vendetta. He was not the umpire supposed to call Muralitharan , as he was umpiring from the other end. He seemsed to have determined to make sure that Muralitharan was excluded from cricket. I think that everyone will agree that Don Bradman was one of the greatest cricketeers ever and he has passed his judgement about Darrell Hairs actions. Ruchiraw 13:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As I already said, this is not the place to pass judgment on Darrell Hair. You, I and Donald Bradman are all entitled to make that judgment ourselves, but that is not what this page is for. I am disturbed, however, at the number of factual errors that are being made here, both to do with the run out law and the issue of who should call chuckers. The laws at the time of the Murali incident simply said either umpire could call an unfair delivery. The 2000 version of the laws explicitly states that it is the primary responsibility of the striker's end umpire, but either umpire can call it. There is no reason at the time to say it has to be the square leg umpire, and there was even less at the time. JPD (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Law 38 (2) states: ‘a batsman is not out Run out if (a) he has been within his ground and has subsequently left it to avoid injury, when the wicket is put down’

The fact that Inzamam was not attempting a run meant that he had ‘been within his ground’, as the first part of the law requires. To say that the only question is ‘whether he was out of his ground because he was avoiding the ball’ is inaccurate. The batsman had to have, one way or another, been in his ground before he left it to avoid the ball. Another scenario would be that a batsman could indeed be attempting a run, made his ground, then jumped to try to avoid the ball. That would also fulfil the law.

The laws of the game do not preclude the umpire at the bowler’s end from calling a no-ball for throwing. However, it IS the sole responsibility of the umpire at the bowler’s end to call a no-ball based on the positioning of the bowler’s feet. Imagine the outcry if Murali had taken a wicket from a ball on which replays showed he’d stepped well over the line - but hadn’t been called. GregP1 23:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

My statement was completely accurate. He needs to have left his ground to avoid injury. If he left his ground while playing a stroke, then subsection 2(a) of the law doesn't apply. Note that I am commenting on the Inzamam decision, partly because I don't remember having seen footage of the incident, but simply on your explanation of the law. I agree with your point about the no balls, but don't agree that this makes it as simple as you seem to suggest, even though I don't think Murali should have been called. JPD (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversies

This is how the section "Controversies" begin :

Throughout his umpiring career, Hair has been a controversial figure. Some of the most prominent incidents have involved Asian nations, leading to fans of those teams accusing him of bias. He has also been involved in controversies with other teams and was criticised for his decision to give Craig McDermott in 1993 out as Australia lost by just one run. In 1994 Peter Kirsten reacted angrily to a series of LBW decisons given by Hair and was docked 65% of his match fee.

The first lines talks about "bias against Asian teams". Next two talk about a wrong decision against his own country and another against a non-Asian team. Very logical :-D Tintin (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable. It mentions the "Asian incidents" resulting in accusations of bias, and then points out that there have been other controversies as well, using the word "also". It shows up the sort of logic being used. JPD (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If he has made major errors against everybody, it contradicts it that he is biased against certain teams. Tintin (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, but we don't say that he is biased, we say that some have accused him of bias. Given that, it is good that we point out immediately that the controversies haven't been restricted to Asian teams, providing the evidence to the contrary. It is up to the reader to form their own opinion. The alternative is not to mention accusations of bias at all, but I think they are high profile enough to need to be mentioned. JPD (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me an instance where he has accused non-Asian team of ball tampering or chucking. He can make controversial mistakes as every umpire does, but he seems to be the only umpire determined tp paint Asian teams as cheats. Can you tell me a controversial decision he has made in favor of an Asian team whcih was playing against a white team. If an Asian umpire discriminated non-Asian teams like Darrell Hair treats Asian teams, I cannot imagine the uproar which would have occurredRuchiraw 13:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Only three bowlers have been called for chucking in Tests in the last 20 years - Olonga, Murali and Grant Flower. Unfortunately for your conspiracy theories Grant Flower - who is white and not an Asian - was called by a certain DB Hair See http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2000-01/NZ_IN_ZIM/SCORECARDS/NZ_ZIM_T1_12-16SEP2000.html.

Could you please tell me the names of all the Asian bowlers, other than a certain Sri Lankan, who this man has called for chucking. Tintin (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That was the point it was trying to make - although he has been accused of bias against Asian players he has also been involved in other controversies not involving those teams. If you can make that point clearer then please do. In reply to the previous comment, he also called Grant Flower in Bulawayo.--Cherry blossom tree 13:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)