• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Hair Removed from Elite Panel


An Tarbh

Darrel Hair has been removed from the elite panel in the wake of the controversy surrounding the 4th test at the Oval between England and Pakistan.

Originally posted by BBC Sport
Hair barred from internationals
The International Cricket Council has confirmed Darrell Hair will not umpire in any further international matches.
Hair's position had been the subject of debate since he penalised Pakistan for ball-tampering in the controversial Oval Test against England in August.

The Australian's contract as an elite umpire runs until March 2008, but he will not be offered a new one.

And between now and then, the ICC will not ask him to officiate in any matches between Test-playing nations.

"I am afraid we have lost confidence in Hair," ICC president Percy Sonn told reporters.

"He will not be appointed to officiate in any further international games."

On 20 August, Pakistan were in the field against England on the fourth day of the final Test of the series.

Hair, who was already regarded as a controversial figure - particularly in the subcontinent - awarded England a five-run penalty because he believed the ball had been interfered with.

The Pakistan team refused to resume play after the tea interval in protest against the decision leading to the first fofeiture in 129 years of Test cricket.

ICC adjudicator Ranjan Madugalle later cleared Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq of ball-tampering charges.

At a news conference in Mumbai, ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed said: "I had hoped we could find a way for Darrell to continue umpiring at the top level."

"I spoke to Darrell on Friday after the decision was made, and he was very disappointed.

"We will speak to him in the next few days when he has decided what this means for him."

Hair offered his resignation to the ICC in exchange for US$500,000 in the wake of the Oval match.

And the first indication that his days as a Test umpire might be over came when he was removed from the panel for October's Champions Trophy in India on security grounds.

His fellow umpire at The Oval, West Indian Billy Doctrove, has always maintained a lower profile.

I think it's only right, especially when he asked for the money to resign, he certainly didn't do his cause any favours with that one even if he did eventually withdraw it the damage had already been done.
I saw the first two words of this thread and immdiately thought it was another Gavin Henson thread:"Hair Removed."
Hair voted Umpire of the Year

November 16, 2006

In the same week that a leaked ICC report revealed that Darrell Hair was rated as their second-best umpire comes the news that he has been voted Umpire of the Season in poll carried out by The Wisden Cricketer.

Hair received more than a third of all votes (34%) in the magazine's annual poll, a decision which appears to contradict the views of his employers at the ICC, who admit to having "lost confidence" in him.

Is he hero or anti-hero? It's hard to be sure though Hair says he has received huge support from the British (if not Pakistani) public. One reader referred to him as "the only one with courage" and Hair also received votes in the Performance of the Season category with citations such as "ensuring the umpire's decision is final" and "finally exposing the cheats".

"I suppose it is a bit of a shock," Hair told the magazine. "But if free-thinking people want to vote that way and they do believe I've done the job as well as anybody or even better I can accept that fact. It's a great vote of confidence."

Umpire of the Year

1 Darrell Hair (Aus) 34%
2 Simon Taufel (Aus) 16%
3 Billy Bowden (NZ) 10%
4 Steve Bucknor (WI) 7%
5 Aleem Dar (Pak) 5%
well it's not surprising he was the umpire who awarded that final test to England.
he went by the rules though pakistan should have taken the field after their initial protest, im not saying he was right on the ball tampering issue but both umpires were right to award the test to england
Hair gets discussed all the time, but the ball tampering itself was never covered one way or the other. The evidence that lead to his decision was never publicly discussed and there was outrage at his decision.

I would've liked to have seen more on the actual issue and less of it being made personal.

Hair may have had nothing and that would've been a better way to expose him. IF he was wrong.

We are talking about a cricket nation which clears drug cheats.

Latest posts