Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The consensus on the cricket board I read appears to be divided between those who think Hair is a knob, and those who think Hair is a knob but still like him better than Bowden.

No real concerns about his decision here, though.

Hair balls

Ian Chappell was on the raydyo yesterday saying umpires need cultural awareness training if they are going to officiate in matches involving other countries.

I thought cheating was cheating regardless of who was doing it. The only culture they need to be aware of is The Laws of Cricket.

More developments at www.theroundoffice.com

Wonder if Chappelli underwent cultural awareness training before playing against India, Pakistan and the Windies.

If my surname were Hair (which it is not) I would spell it Hare. I think that everytime I see it written somewhere.

That rhymes.

In Vic there are 100 Hares, but only 90 Hairs. I think that is significant.

A quick DNA test on any suspect gouges will sort things out. The press, of course, will refer to any such action as obtaining a Hair sample.

Heh heh.


Hair Hair.

England were 20/1 with the bookies at tea - totally missed out. I thought the Paks would have the sense to make some sort of formal protest and then do the decent.

The ball was doing nothing, then suddenly Gul had Cook with a vicious bit of swing.

After Afridi's dance on the wicket last year -during a bomb scare! - I'd give them f*ck all benefit of the doubt.

I wouldn't worry about the English journos - mainly pricks, especially Marqusee who is a real clown. He seems to think test cricket is part of the war on terror.

Given Pakistan's cricketing, cultural and national history, anyone with a memory and a conscience would think twice before accusing the Pakis of honesty. But even if Hair was wrong on the ball-tampering, 5 lousy runs is a pitiful penalty comapred with say, giving a specialised batsmen out lbw to a huge inside edge snick or to a bouncer pitching way outside the leg stump. And unlike giving a batsmen out unfairly, a 5 run penalty can be easily reversed on appeal in the unlikely event that the match was really that close. The Pakis were well on top in this match, so their dummy spit would only be logical if their advantage in this match had come purely from ball-tampering.

And why don't Hair's critics make the same whine about Doctrove, who agreed with all the decisions? I can only think it must be the content of his character.

yeah..The only thing that I can add is the ump has the advantage of being able to take the ball at the end of each over and look at it...I would like to know how many times he did this and how many runs were scored in say the 6 overs prior...I suspect the Paki's are guilty...

Love the blog mate...love the name....cheers

Wicky: Better call CSI. (Cricket Scene Investigation)

Woody: The bookies here paid out as soon as the result was called. But given Pakistan's talent for collapsing, England might have been worth a flutter, anyway. I mean, had England got more than 100 ahead with Mighty Montster tweaking them sideways on a 5th day pitch, England could well have got up.

Clem: That's one thing that struck me - 5 runs! It hardly seems worth it. Interesting to see, too, that India are being careful about what's what. It's only Pakistan making with the effigies and placards.

Yeah Les, that's why it's important for all concerned to wait for the outcome of the inquiry and not go spouting off.

And thanks for that last part.

Am I right in hearing that Fletcher went to Proctor before the furore to tell him about his concerns with the Paki bowlers? Proctor tells Hair and Pedro to keep a watch out.

Watched the replay on Fox Sports tonight, and it was a done deal by the Poms as far as I'm concerned. Of course there was editing but strangely enough when they called for the new ball, Gower and Willis went straight for the ball tampering allegations. Not "oh the ball must be out of shape for them to want to change it" but "I've got a sneaking suspicion that the ball has been damaged here"

No doubt at all that theres been some backroom chat between the Poms and Proctor/Hair/Doctrove. They knew Hair was not going to be gutless and let it go, but I doubt they thought that the reaction would be like this.

Yer a better man than I am Tony. I couldn't have resisted the temptation to title this post "Hair Raising".

Ah Pakistan. The country that gave us enlightened thinkers such as Wasim Akram, Shakoor Rana, and Imran Khan. I think their main problem with DH (how appropriate?) is that he wears a white coat, has greying (almost white hair, in places) hair, and that they saw the whites of his eyes when he gave them his decision, which was, after all, quite white.

"Mike Coward would have an opinion but he must be too busy writing about sunsets over Bangalore." Spot on, T.

If he could in some way also include a reference to the "ittle Master", the importance of the Border-Gavaskar Trophy and the flourishing blade of Laxman then you've just about covered 98% of Coward's work.

Coward once said he'd never forgive Hair for "setting up" Murali in 1995. Wonder what Indian Mike thought about the four-feeted test match.

Nabs, they've gone totally overboard with the hair-puns. Hair raising, Hair trigger, Bad Hair day, et al. Naturally, the Pommy Sun had the best one when Imran called Hair a mini Hitler: Hair Darrell.

Spot on as usual, Tony. Dazza calling the game off was absolutely the right thing to do, whether or not he and Billy were right about the ball-tampering; he had no choice, it's the rules!

Saw Bob Woolmer interviewed last night on the Beeb about it. He very conveniently suggested that the biggest issue as far as the disciplinary hearing is concerned was the ball-tampering charge. Apparently refusing to play, causing the first match in 1814 tests to be forfeited, depriving spectators and television-viewers around the globe of what they wanted to see, costing Surrey County Cricket Club God knows what in takings, and in short blatantly BRINGING THE GAME INTO DISREPUTE is not a big deal. And funnily enough, it'll be that one that will attract the biggest penalty, and that which will cause the biggest furore; cue the hysterical racism claims and afore-mentioned burning effigies. I have a feeling that the ball-tampering issue might prove to be inconclusive and that it'll cost Big Daz, but Inzamam and his mates will get hauled over the coals in a big way for being a bunch of petulant idiots. And so they bloody should!

Thought it a very shrewd move of someone in the ICC to postpone the disciplinary hearing until after everyone had calmed down, but it turns out that they're going to go ahead with it anyway. That surprised me. Once they'd come up with the ill sister story I thought they'd stick to it until at least the one-dayers were finished.

Good to see cricket back in the general consciousness after a fairly forgettable English summer though.

Hiya, Carrot. I'm with you "that the ball-tampering issue might prove to be inconclusive".

Less than conclusive, anyway.

Patrick Smith, in particular, was solid in his conviction that all Hair needed to do was identify unnatural wear-and-tear, not spot a culprit giving the ball any GBH. Sure, the rules back that up; the umpy doesn't have to see anyone roughing the ball. But it would certainly help the umpy's case if the cameras had picked up any misbehaviour.

Think the Piranha Brothers:

Interviewer: I've been told Inzi cut the ball in half with a chainsaw.

Bob Woolmer: No. Never. He is a smashing bloke. He buys his mother flowers and that. He is like a brother to me.

Interviewer: But the ICC have film of Inzi actually cutting the ball in half.

Bob Woolmer: (pause) Oh yeah, he did that.

Without an overt Pakistani culprit, there'll be lots of residual ill-feeling. Mind you, at the moment it looks like the ICC are solid behind the umps.

Interestingly, Barry Jarman has come out today revealing how Bob Woolmer's players have previously been sprung for ball-tampering. See here.

Hello Tony,

Congratulations on your coverage for resisting the bullcrap about how wonderful, wonnnerful, wonful, things were for Cricket in the good old days before the "subcontinent" (roll eyes) took over - all that shite from Malcolm Conn and otherwise sensible people. Good on ya, mate etc.
Turns out your Darell "Winston Churchill" Hair might be an ornery extortion artist, besides being an affirmative action ump *** ! Sad story, very sad, schadenfroooood, chuckle , chuckle ...

FWIW - The paki's were stupid to do what they did, and Hair did do the right thing, for the most part. I hope his career is not damaged.

*** The dude has trouble reading the rule books but is apparently better than Dickie Bird with unquestionable laser vision judgement that beats 27, 00, 000 cameras no questions asked ?? I wish i had his job with numerous dupes behind me.

The comments to this entry are closed.