Talk:Darrell Hair

Subjective Article

This article is biased and subjective and finely laced with the Asian/subcontinental POV that Darrell Hair was a racist who did whatever he could to disadvantage Asian teams during his international career. This is NOT A FAIR RELFECTION of the man or the umpire and is a slight on the objectivity of Wikipedia!

I wonder what is going to happen the next time someone is RIGHTFULLY accused of cheating during a game of cricket? Or what about the the next time someone fixes a match? Or how about the next time someone “chucks” instead of bowls? Of course there will be more forfeits, more recriminations, more bad sportsmanship and more disservice to the wonderful game of cricket because of this gutless and spineless pandering of the ICC towards Asian nations, despite the facts in front of them.

Hmm, you CLEARLY have an unbiased view of events! (Sarcasm), oh and next time SIGN YOUR POSTS! 123.255.38.129 (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOC

The following is still not NPOV "The following list shows only his prominent incidents. It is important to note that his consistent and blatant mistakes (when it comes to on-field decisions such as LBWs and catches)have almost always been against the Asian teams."

BELOW IS NOT NPOV!!!!

It is important to note that the following are only the prominent incidents in a career filled with consistent and blatant 'mistakes' against Asian teams when it comes to LBWs and edges. [2] [3]

I have deleted it.

August 2006 ball tampering incident

The section 2006 The Oval under controversies is becoming too long.It is suggested to transfer the content to 2006 ball-tampering controversyShashankgupta 07:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed tag Mrpizersheep 00:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added to {{Current sport}} 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? Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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

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 Wikipedia 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.

Hair 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 performance 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)

I totally agree with those comments on the run out law. I think we’re on the same wavelength and if we sat down face-to-face we’d quickly reach consensus! GregP1 23:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well when cricketing legends like Viv Richards, Imran Khan,Kapil Dev , Wasim Akram and Arjuna Ranatunga have called him to be biased against Asia ; then there is bound to be some truth behind this as its comming from the guys who have a combined cricketing experience of over 100 years between them and not from some Arm Chair Critic --Hussain 20:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

PS- I think my comments should have been over here in the first place Hussain 15:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't agree with that Hussain. That commits the basic logical fallacy of Appeal to authority - just because the comments are made by "experts" doesn't make them correct. Any attempts to cast Hair as "bias against Asians" here is a clear, unquestionable violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.--Alexio 10:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Alexio

No body on wikipedia is asserting on wikipedia that Darrell Hair is 'racist' [Edit : Biased against races of Asian origin].We are just stating that various ex players have accused him of what he has done , while few others like Taufel have supported him. And the comments(mentioned in the article)of Ramiz and Malcolm Speed , dont even call Hair a racist , they simply state that many quarters are feeling that he actually is 'racist'. I understand your point that our job over here is to report and not to conclude..and that is what we are trying to do to report both praises and criticisms made on Hair while leaving out our personal take on the issue as much as possible ..but leaving out such power ful criticism of Hair will simply rob the article of its resource ....and make it an encomium of his praise rather than a factual article (which is the real intention behind the wiki pedia's policy).

Hussain 09:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hussain, can you please tell me where did I say "racism"? I referred to "bias against Asians", which is the topic of this particular thread. I'm merely following topic.

I don't have a problem with including balanced views about Hair; I'm just concerned about your assertion that "just beacuse those guys have played 1000 Tests means they must be right". It leaves open the question of what criteria should be used to judge whose comments are worthy of inclusion, and whose aren't.--Alexio 04:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Alexio I have edited my earlier mentioning of 'racism ' upon your pin pointing .

A cricket umpire , is an employee of ICC, collegue of other umpires and umpires the cricketers. This article contains views of the ICC (Hairs' boss institution), his fellow umpires, so whats wrong if the views of the players are also included in it , when their careers depends upon the decisions of umpires. As for your statement ....... " about your assertion that "just beacuse those guys have played 1000 Tests means they must be right". "

It wasnt just about the 1000 tests things , they were the players who have seen Hair umpiring and have the first hand experience of how his method goes. If their views arent good enough to be included in Hair's biography then whose views should be in that case.

Btw, please do tell us how do we judge the comments worthy of inclusion in the article while you are at it

Thankyou

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.[1] 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. [2] 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)

Well when cricketing legends like Viv Richards, Imran Khan,Kapil Dev , Wasim Akram and Arjuna Ranatunga have called him to be biased against Asia ; then there is bound to be some truth behind this as its comming from the guys who have a combined cricketing experience of over 100 years between them and not from some Arm Chair Critic --Hussain 20:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Vague Statements

The following statement in the " Controversies " section was quite vague and inconclusive to stand on its own

 "Despite this, however, Hair has stood in over 75 Tests, demonstrating that he has the confidence of the ICC "

for two reasons

1)- Having stood in 75 tests does not automatically mean that you have the confidence of ICC - it might be an indirect implication - but reading between the lines is not the objective of wikipedia . The statement atleast needs further expalnation to relate the confidence of ICC with 'standing in 75 tests ' thing

2)- Not all of his 75 test appointments were made by the ICC. Before his selection to the elite panel he was an Australian umpire ,and used to be appointed by Cricket Australia to officiate in its home test matches . So putting all of the 75 tests under the umbrella of ICC is unjust . Hussain 09:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That statement was referenced to a BBC article stating "In Hair's defence, the ICC clearly has a lot of faith in him. He has officiated in 76 Tests". I have restored it. --Cherry blossom tree 17:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hussain still has a point that it is not fair to use 76 tests as an example of the ICC's faith. The fact that a journalist said this may mean that we can quote him, but we can still choose to leave it out if it is dodgy. The fact that Hair was appointed to the elite panel and was regularly appointed to Tests does imply (directly) that ICC had enough confidence in him, but even if it is necessary to mention this (it's sort of obvious), using the number 76 is not right. JPD (talk) 09:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to present different opinions of Hair - we have comments from players, from another umpire so I thought it was a good idea to present the ICC's view. Ideally, of course, we would include a comment from someone within the ICC, but as I couldn't find one I thought this would do. Would you prefer "...he has the confidence of cricket authorities" or are you still not buying it? --Cherry blossom tree 10:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Apart from anything else, it's not clear that he still does have the confidence of the cricket authorities. It doesn't look like he going to umpire anything at all until this is all sorted out, and the ICC are staying quiet until the official hearings, etc. I think it is fairly clear that as long as an official is appointed to matches by an authority, they have their confidence, and Hair obviously did, but spelling that out in the article is perhaps pushing it a bit too much. JPD (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I think it may be best to leave it out at least until all the fallout is known. --Cherry blossom tree 10:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what JPD said , that being on elite panel , means that ICC has confidence in him by itself . But a single statement merely mentioning it is not good enough, andit needs to be explained a bit further to clearly relate the two together . However, mentioning 75 tests along with it ,may be a bit unfair with ICC; because ICC did nt appoint him in his assignments prior to selexction to the elite panel.Hussain 21:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Reaction quotes

There is no need to provide a quote from all the people who commented on the issue. It really should be enough to give a fwe good quotes which illustrate the reasons why people criticised or supported Hair or the umpires' decision. Nasser Hussain's comment has hardly anything to do with Hair. Imran Khan's quote says basically the same thing as Holding's, and the Wasim Akram quote demonstrates a strength of feeling concerning Hair, but without saying anything about the original issues. Atherton, Waugh and Holding should be enough. JPD (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Holding, Atherton and Waugh represent the three main approaches - criticism for the initial decision, criticism for not resuming play and support for his decisions. It might be worthwhile including more than one name for each opinion but certainly not more than one quotation. Also the introduction to the controversies section includes opinions of Hair that are mostly about the Oval. I wonder if it might be better to write something more general there now that there is a section dedicated to reaction to the Oval? --Cherry blossom tree 17:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You've got a point about including more than one name, although I generally feel that the highlighting the issues is more helpful than listing supporters/critics. My impression of the opinions at the start of the controversies section was that they while the comments referred to were made after the latest incident, they were about Hair's umpiring in general. JPD (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I take your point. All three articles talk about Darrel Hair both generally and specifically in relation to the Oval - I am just a bit wary of presenting a small slice of opinion (ie opinions expressed within a few days of the Oval test) as if it is representative. I'll consider if there's a better way of presenting it.--Cherry blossom tree 10:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Consistency in the formatting for Citations

There appears to no consistency in the manner of formatting for the citations. I have changed a few of them, so as to include the citations within the cite-news-url tags. I hope future contributors also stick to it, as this article is more pertaining to current news than that of biogrophical nature rahul regula 15:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"security issues"

Obviously the BCCI's views have a certain amount of relevance, but do we really need to say 'the BCCI asked that Hair not officiate because of the controversy and media attention' and then a paragraph or so later, 'the ICC said he wouldn't stand because of security issues, but the BCCI said their reason for objecting to Hair was the controversy and media attention'? Repeating the BCCI's reason seems to imply that the reader can't think for themselves, especially since there is no mention of anyone suggesting that the security concerns came from the BCCI. JPD (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I did consider removing it when I reworded it, but it does seem to have been quite widely reported. I think it could be used to discredit Hair by implying that the ICC decision amounted to a vote of no confidence. It possibly did, but there is no evidence for it, especially after Malcolm Speed's statement (on Cricinfo) that the security concerns came from discussions with third parties. I've tried another edit to make the whole series of events clearer. Possibly the first statement from the BCCI should be removed, since it makes more sense when discussing Hair's not standing? --Cherry blossom tree 16:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It does make more sense in the later section, but I would still rather see the BCCI's original request mentioned before the ICC announcement, than focus on the BCCI's "clarification". The current version doesn't seem to give any context to the clarification. JPD (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Is this story a reliable source. It doesn't look like it is in any way a majority opinion in order to keep it from being undue weight. If others agree that it is not a reliable source I think it should be replaced with another reference if one can be found. Ansell 02:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

How is it not reliable?--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 09:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a very nationalistic reading piece, and as such a neutral entity would possibly be able to comment on the matter in a more objective tone. That was my main query. Ansell 10:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no issue with it.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 10:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The article in question seems to be editorial than a straight piece. If the entire article was sourced from it we would have problems, but as it is it balances out all the Australian-based sources. Catchpole 11:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's clearly a biased source but since it's being used as an example of what some people think rather than to show that the opinions in it are true then I don't see a problem. --Cherry blossom tree 23:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Article might as well be called Darrell Hair - an Indian Perspective

This article is filled with bias and straight out misrepresentation of facts and deceptions such as:

"while Steve Waugh backed the decision, saying "No-one is bigger than the game. The laws are there for a reason."

Having found it unbelievable that a former Australian captain and gentleman would have called for the sacking of Darrell Hair I decided to fact check. For a start the article is titled WAUGH BACKS THE UMPIRES! And here is what he really said:

Waugh said although Hair could be "stubborn and a bit hard-nosed" no team could expect to get away with not turning up on the ground, as Pakistan did in protest over a ball-tampering penalty by Hair in the fourth Test at The Oval.

"I definitely agree with that (Pakistan forfeiting) - if they don't go back on the field the Test is over," Waugh said.

"That's quite simple. (India's) Sunil Gavaskar tried that one on the umpires in Australia (in 1981). No-one is bigger than the game.

"The laws are there for a reason."

Here is the reference: http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,20208381-23212,00.html

With such an obvious editorial deception I would have to call into question the objectivity of the entire article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.29.210 (talk • contribs) .

That is an editorial oversight. Please do try to assume good faith in editors. We are more than happy to discuss issues, and address issues such as that, particularly given the policy which governs biographies of living people. Please do not call the entire article into question over one statement. There are a number of editors who each try to obtain a truthful and neutral point of view on the article. Ansell 23:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't an editorial oversight. As well as assuming good faith, this contributor might also read more carefully. While it might not have been clear which decision was referred to in the original text ("Waugh backed the decision", that is, the decision to award the game to England), it could not in any way have referred to the sacking of Hair. It is in the part of the article dealing with the events in August, and was written at that time, well before any decision was made about Hair's future. JPD (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to suggest that it was editorial oversight that the statement had not yet been clarified in light of the new context that we are writing the article in. The statement does IMO suggest a different meaning if you are reading the article knowing the solution, and as such it was an oversight to leave it like that. (Sorry for saying the same thing twice, couldn't decide which was clearer :-) ) Ansell 02:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I still have to disagree. "The decision" cannot mean a decision that has not yet been mentioned in the article (except much earlier in the intro); it has to refer to something mentioned recently. It would be fair to say it might have referred to Inzamam's decision to protest, but to understand it as being Hair's sacking you would have to be reading the article hot-headedly only thinking of the recent events. We have to remember this is a biography, not a news report. JPD (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that article is at the least confusing and at the worst incredibly biased against Darrell Hair. In particular I wish to question the the First Test entry in the Controversies section. Wisden is referred as stating that the game was marred by controversy of lbw decisions. Having watched the game (I'm Australian btw) back in 92 the only decisions that I could recall being suspect were Tendulkars dismissals in both innings. Having read through the Match Report on cricinfo at this link; [1](submitted by an Australian email address) I identified the following statistics; India appealled for 21 LBW decisions, Australia appealed for 27. The correct decision was given 48 times, with two decisions favourable to Australia, and one to India. Tendulkar only makes up one of the 'Australian' decisions, as it is noted in the text that after seeing a video replay, his dismissal in the 2nd innings was not as questionable as first thought. Of course, this is if you believe the cricinfo document, but nonetheless it certainly does not paint the same picture as the article.

That said, I don't know which umpire gave the verdicts for the questionable three decisions - nor do I know how many successful lbws were given by either umpire. What I do know is that the Wisden article that has been referenced needs to be shown to the wikipedians interested in creating and moulding this article. As mentioned above there has been dispute over quotes being taken out of context or the whole truth not being included, I see no reason why this shouldn't be the case for the Wisden entry. If posting a scan of it would be in breach of copyright, I will endeavour to find a copy of it for myself.

For the record, I am no fan of Darrell Hair, nor am I a detractor, but I do fear for the welfare of the game. I do however find the circumstances of his sacking (or ban) to be quite sad. I find the banding together of the Asian bloc just as ironically racist as the accusations of racism/bias levelled at Hair, as it was not founded solely on the events at The Oval but rather past accusations of racism/bias. If the ICC board are to continue making decisions founded on issues other than what is in front of them, the future is not bright.Crx2gen 03:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you also find the banding together of the ACB, ECB, NZCB racist too? Because for a long time that's what was happening. This was the main cause of the "Asian bloc" banding together, each country was treated as a second class citizen by the aforementioned boards, hope you found that racist too.123.255.38.129 (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would be good to check the Wisden article, but it is a mistake to suggest that all sources need to be available online. I still say the discussion above is a case of bad reading, rather than a quote out of context, so I don't think there is much of a problem in that regard. The article at the moment does a good job of reflecting the view of the worldwide press concerning Hair. The problem is that the press on the whole is quite biased against him. (Why are there so many quotes from Hughes and Boycott saying he was "guessing", and no mention of support for the penalty from all the match officials and the umpires' co-ordinator?) The ban is of course very sad, whether he deserves it or not. Such decisions should never be made by the ICC Board, which is by its very nature a political body. JPD (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the controversies section should really only list the Muralitharan churcking incident and the Pakistan ball tampering incidents. The others are just examples of iffy decisions, without any real controversy attached. If we included a comprehensive list of even just the fairly major mistakes made by umpires then every umpire article would be a mile long. I agree that the article mostly reflects the state of opinion. A few people spoke in favour of him (I think Angus Fraser was one) but they were in a definite minority. --Cherry blossom tree 13:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree with CherryBlossomTree re. the controversies section. Tintin (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course no other umpires has been subject to so much media criticism as they haven't made the cock-ups Hair has made. The first Adelaide test helps show where the perception of Hair's bias against Asians originated. Catchpole 13:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think out of the three, the Adelaide test is the one that is closest to a controversy. I still don't think it merits its own section but (if we can find a source making the connection) it would be worth mentioning that it was where the perception of bias came from.--Cherry blossom tree 23:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

A couple of comments about the 1992-93 series(I am Indian, btw). I do think that India had the worst of umpiring errors but it was more in the way of appeals rejected when Australia was batting (Boon being the main beneficiary). But IMNSHO, it was Len King who was far worse than Hair. (In one of the later Tests the crowd came up with a banner which read 'Len King fan club'.) It was only when Tony Crafter was recalled for the final Test that there was a dramatic improvement in the quality of umpiring. Tintin (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked up the scorecards after writing the comment above. King seems to have umpired only the Melbourne (which India anyway lost by a mile and a half). My memory must be playing tricks. Tintin (talk) 14:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Re. Boycott, Hughes etc - I just read Madugalle's report for the first time [2]. This is what it says about what the witnesses said :

31 Mr Hair, Mr Doctrove, Mr Jesty, Mr Cowie, Mr Procter, and Peter Hartley (the third umpire who gave written evidence and was available for cross-examination) all told me that the marks which are visible on the ball meant that it had been interfered with by a fielder.

32 Three witnesses gave evidence on behalf of Mr ul-Haq on this point: Geoffrey Boycott, Simon Hughes and John Hampshire. They told me that the ball was in good condition, given that it had been used for more than 50 overs, especially having regard to the state of the Oval pitch. The abrasions could have been man-made, but they could also have been the result of normal contact with the pitch, for example bowling into the rough or contact with cricket equipment.

This is completely different from what the media was always trying to project, that the practically everyone was in agreement that the ball was in perfect condition. Tintin (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason why the witnesses testifying for Mr ul Haq have been given a mention over the ones who testified that the ball was tampered with , was because the hearing itself found the evidence of tampering inconclusive with the exact words of report being " I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there is sufficiently cogent evidence that the fielding team had taken action likely to interfere with the condition of the ball" "

in other words the evidence given by Mr Hair, Mr Doctrove, Mr Jesty, Mr Cowie, Mr Procter, and Peter Hartley was dismissed by the jury as inconclusive evidence thats why this article does not includes it

Hussain 15:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Let us then put it on record both the umpires on the field, the third and the fourth umpires as well as the match referee believed that the ball was tampered by a Pakistani fielder but Madugalle overruled it :P Tintin (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The point was about the press, not this article. How you have put it is not how much of the world's media presented it. This article for the most part reflects the way it was presented in the media. The remarks from the witnesses that were quoted are much stronger than those of the adjudicator (there was no jury). As for this article, it may be appropriate to let it reflect the media opinion, or it may be appropriate to add some balance. It is one thing to say that the hearing did not find the evidence sufficient. It is another to imply that Hair was alone in his opinion. JPD (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

(PS: I should not imply either that the bias in the media is always a crusade against Hair. At least some of the reason for the uneven reporting is that the quotes make sensational stories, something that the media are always looking for. JPD (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC))

I think it's possibly worth adding more details about what was said at the hearing, as long as we don't try to draw any inferences that might become original research.

Well Trintin as they say 'Devil Lies in the Details' :P , this newspiece from cricinfo http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/260592.html suggests that the umpire (doctrove and hair) disagreed over the timings of the ball .....with doctrove going further to state in his post match report " that the umpires allow play to carry on for a few more overs to help identify the cause of the change in the ball's condition" so even though the match officials at the hearing mantianed the same position , but there ius enough evidence to believe that there were quite a few disagreements between the umpires when the actual events were occuring

Hussain 13:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say about the disagreement, but it is covered fairly clearly in Madugalle's report. There is no evidence to suggest that there were "quite a few" disagreements, and none at all to say that they disagreed about whether the ball had been tampered with. The disagreement was about how to deal with this, and was sorted out between the umpires before they acted, as the laws prescribe. At any rate, we are not meant to be passing judgment ourselves on what Hair did, simply reporting it fairly. This means we need to be very careful not to draw any inferences, jsut as Cherry blossom tree said. JPD (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Voted number 1 by wisden readers

Its strange he was voted number 1 by wisden readers given the sentiments in this article. [3]

He was also voted number 2 in the world just before the oval test [4]

These two things should definitely be put in to redirect the bias against him currently. 131.181.251.66 02:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There is also a stat which shows that of all the elite panel umpires, Hair gave the correct decision more often them all of them (it was something like 95.xx%). I will search for a reference as this should also be pointed out to the reader.Crx2gen 05:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Here we are [5], more food for thought on this whole sorry saga.Crx2gen 05:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Inzamam run out

I removed the sentence about the error being the thrid umpire's for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it is not our place to say that the decision was an error. Different reports give different descriptions of the event, some of which actually suggest it may have been correct. We may be sure one way or the other from having seen footage of the incident, but that would be original research. Secondly, if it was a clear error, I don't think we have enough information to attribute blame to only one umpire. It is quite possible that both of them were in error. JPD (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

BUT, the article now implies that the decision was definitely Hair's, which was not the case. If the batsman had been out of his crease before taking evasive action then it would have been a correct run-out decision. The third umpire should have looked at whether the batsman was in his crease as the ball was thrown, not after he took evasive action, hence it could be argued that the error (assuming the batsman WAS in at the time of the throw! I don't actually know) was his, not Hair's. In fact, regardless of the reason behind Hair asking for a third umpire decision (whether or not he had accounted for the evasion), it was still up to the third umpire to interpret the laws correctly and look at the timepoint at which the ball was thrown. --JLH54 11:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think you are reading too much into the sentence that was in the article ("Hair referred a run-out decision"), but your addition does make it reasonably clear. You are completely right to say that even if Hair was wrong, the third umpire is still responsible. I will make one change, as the key point is whether the batsman was in his ground at the start of his evasive action, which in this case is probably the same as whether he was in his ground when the ball was thrown, but not necessarily always. JPD (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I also added "if that were the case", to make the distinction between the referral being justified if Hair suspected it, and the out decision being justified if it was so. JPD (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Blatant racist supported by only by racist Australians

The hard fact is that all colored cricketering countries such as Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, West Indies spoke against him. The only country that supported him was his motherland Australia which is the only cricket playing with blatant racism. The only elite umpires that supported him were other Australian umpires accused of racism such as Simon Taufel. 170.35.208.22 17:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No "countries" have supported or spoken against him - individuals make up their own mind. If you are going to suggest there are problems with Taufel, the least you could do is support your claims that he is "accused" of racism. The fact that you are reducing everything to countries, rather than individuals, suggests racism in itself, so calm down a bit. JPD (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hair was also supported by the England and New Zealand boards, and not supported by the South African board. Whilst it is obvious that there is a line between supporters and detractors that also corresponds to white/black/asian/purple/whatever, that doesn't automatically make it a racial issue. I'd be interested to hear the basis of your argument that Australia is the only nation playing with blatant racism. I won't deny that racist incidents have occurred in the past involving Australians, such as Darren Lehmann's outburst a few years ago, but in this particular instance we are not dealing with solid facts, merely the opinions of individuals, who are not averse to making controversial statements to inflate their own image.

If Australian cricket is so racist, could you possibly explain to me why we offer the opportunity to young cricketers from sub-continent and the West Indies to attend the Australian Institute of Sport Cricket Academy, universally regarding as the best in the world? If Australian cricket was racist, they would exclude, not include. Could you explain to me why our former captain Steve Waugh, glady donates his time and money to running an orphanage in Calcutta, India, caring for children of lepers? If Australia is such a racist nation, please explain to my why we donated US$1.3 billion to the victims of the Boxing Day Tsunami which particularly devestated Asian/coloured nations? If we were racist, we could easily spend that money here.

Of course no-one spoke out in support of Darrell Hair from a non Anglo-Saxon country, why would they? They have nothing to gain and a lot to lose in countries where cricket is not just a sporting pasttime, but a virtual religion. According to your misguided reasoning, if Hair was a racist, and at the same time was one of the most accurate umpires in the world, then every decision against a non-white team given by a white umpire of lessor ability must be a racist.

Hair is villified for two main controversies - Murali and The Oval. When Murali was first called, the only people who were standing up for him were his team and board, and a few scattered individuals. Now that he has been cleared, everyone is on the bandwagon, stating that it was diabolical that he was called. Diabolical? If anyone tells me the first time they saw his action and thought it was 100% legitimate, I will call them a liar. Regarding the Oval, Hair brought the fuel, but Inzamam lit the match. There will never be a point where everyone agrees to what happened, and if that is the case a charge of racism is truly unfair. My apologies to other contributors for the rant. Crx2gen 05:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually you are forgeting that the Sri Lankans were also accused of ball tampering (later dismissed) by Hair in the same series in which Murali was called. As for the only people standing up for Murali comment? That's a complete lie. David Shepard went on record with his support for Murali, as did quite a few umpires and even players. And dont forget most of the subcontinent were vocally supportive of him. Don Bradman himself thought the whole affair was pretty foul. Why are you making up all this crap about a "few scattered indviduals" ... pretty much everyone outside of NZ, England and Australia were in support of him.123.255.38.129 (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of fairness, many critics, including Bishen Singh Bedi, have denounced Murali's action. No-one is going to suggest that Bedi is a racist or hostile to subcontinent teams. The whole question of the ICC allowing 15 degrees of flexion remains controversial to many, and the article should make it clear that Hair was not the only person to question Murali's action. Whether that action was or is legitimate is not the point - we should admit that Hair was not an isolated figure in this area. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.15.124.74 (talk)

Recent additions

I removed the two additions by 71.206.220.161. The first, clarifying who was responsible for Inzamam's run out decision, would be interesting if included with a reference, but not really relevant, as the article does not touch on the issue of the third umpire's responsibility at all, focusing on the fact that Hair referred the decision. This is, after all, what is relevant to an article on Hair. The second addition, about the reaction of the Pakistani public to the Oval fiasco, seems less suitable. Apart from the fact that it makes sweeping statements that are always hard to verify, the opinions of the Pakistani public are a very small part of the story of Hair. This sort of explanation of the actions of the PCB may be appropriate (with references) in an article on the incident, but not the biographical article. JPD (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC). Can I point out that it is amazing that Darell Hair is an umpire considering that his star sign is Libra, meaning that he is supposedly bad at making decisions.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Darrell Hair/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article currently fits start class. It has a well referenced section on the controversies relating to the subject of the article, but it contains little or nothing on his personal accomplishments or other aspects. Currently not too bad in the NPOV area, although this will be a challenge given the nature of the article (ie, umpires are mostly going to be controversial)

Last edited at 08:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 12:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)