Its Chaos At Icc, Hair exposed and so is Malcolm Speed Options

[tracknest]

Shame , Shame , Shame. As expected Inzy is innocent and the wreckless Hair is being exposed. Malcolm Speed is gone berserk when he says its fine for the wretched hair to be back.

Daryl Hair is the one who has brought disrepute to the game and must be penalised strongly.

Lets analyse logically:

If Inzy is innocent then Hair is the culprit and hence he must be sacked without pay and never allowed to umpire a game again. Inzy has being given a ban for few matches and nothing is being done about the monster Hair.

What in the world is happenning here???????????????????

Any views please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mandrake]

Hair is a white. He can't be punished. Got it?

call me a racist. I don't care. In cricket, whites rarely get punished. Non-whites get 4-match bans for being proved innocent.

If Inzy was innocent, he had every right to protest. If he stayed in the dressing room for too long, both Hair AND Procter should have warned him of the possible forfeiture.
But because they are whites, their deliberate blunders are overlooked.

Call me a racist. I don't give a damn. Whites won't get punished in cricket. :stomp:

[tracknest]

Hair is a white. He can't be punished. Got it?

call me a racist. I don't care. In cricket, whites rarely get punished. Non-whites get 4-match bans for being proved innocent.

If Inzy was innocent, he had every right to protest. If he stayed in the dressing room for too long, both Hair AND Procter should have warned him of the possible forfeiture.
But because they are whites, their deliberate blunders are overlooked.

Call me a racist. I don't give a damn. Whites won't get punished in cricket. :stomp:

I dont want to call you a racist and I dont think one are one. You have a point, something which is ghastly but yet true.

[Mandrake]

Thanks Tracknest, I am a keen observer of the game, and have seen far too many instances when whites get away with murder.
Off the top of my mind comes this:
1. Michael Slater gesticulating wildly and going berserk when his catch off (was it rahul dravid?) was disallowed. - Unpunished.
2. Glenn Macgrath needling the opponents endlessly and not even being warned. Take the infamous Sarwan incident when Macgrath asked him a sick, anatomical question, and Sarwan shot back 'ask your wife'. Macgrath showered choicest abuse. - Unpunished.
3. Ganguly was given lbw, and in a reflex raised his bat to indicate that the ball had touched it. - Fined 50% match fees.
4. Dravid hits boundaries off Allan Donald. Donald goes ballistic in front of two dozen cameras and half the world. - Unpunished.
5. Brett Lee, Ponting and just about any australian can show dissent openly. - Never punished.
6. Stephen Fleming gives a mouthful to Graeme Smith in full view of the world. - Unpunished.
7. Jonty Rhodes takes a catch off Tendulkar. Hands are cupped behind the ball, so as the catch is completed, the ball is in the grass, and Jonty's hands are on top. Tendulkar out. Commentator Gavaskar quickly points out the truth, and all replays confirm the fact. - Nothing.
8. Hansie Cronje roughs up the ball by stepping on it with spikes. Footage with closeups available. But only used when they couldn't save Cronje any longer.

I could go on and on...

[Anil4]

Track & Suhas

Read the views of a New Zealand Cricket Writer. I am in complete agreement with him.

Defiant Inzi's done cricket a great service

By Richard Boock


It's time to accept that Pakistan captain Inzamam ul-Haq was not only right in refusing to continue at the Oval last month, but that he's also done cricket a great service.

Exonerated on the ball-tampering charge, Inzamam was suspended for four ODIs as a result of the fourth test sit-in but remains defiant, reasoning at the weekend that he was right to steer the course he did.

This might not sit well with the "umpires are always right" brigade but if you consider the evidence in Inzi's favour during last week's Code of Conduct hearings, it's becoming increasingly difficult to disagree.

After all, chief match referee Ranjan Madugalle did find, following a bevy of expert testimonies from all parties, that there had been no breach of the ball-tampering law and that the Pakistan skipper had been wrongly accused.

He also went on the record as saying that he was mystified why the umpires hadn't taken a more moderate line on the issue, given the seriousness of a ball tampering charge - "it is an allegation of cheating".

Translated? It means umpires Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove applied the law recklessly, in fact so recklessly it persuaded Pakistan to consider a response that would accurately reflect the extent of their concern.

Inzamam claimed at the weekend that his stopwork decision - which allowed England to win the series 3-0 - helped concentrate minds on the issue and forced the cricketing world to examine the charge more closely.

"If we had just carried on with the game, the world would not have sat up and taken notice of how we had been accused of something we were not guilty of," he told internet site Bigstarcricket.com

"We felt we had to stand up and protest. Ultimately, I understand the ICC's decision to ban me. I did what I felt was right - and so did they.

"Although I regret the public were deprived of watching cricket, I don't regret making the decision to stay off the field - because there are certain things more important than winning and losing, or the rule book."

There are those who continue to waffle about the game being weakened by Inzamam's actions; about the umpires being hung out to dry, about them being stripped of their credibility, but from this viewpoint just the opposite has happened.

For a start, world cricket has identified an elite umpire who, through his ******-mindedness and lack of tact, can be considered more an enemy of the game than a servant of it.

It's now a matter of record that Hair brings more problems to the table than he solves and last week's Code of Conduct hearings have gone a long way towards emphasising that.

The game is better off for the information.

Inzamam's actions are also forcing the ICC to reconsider its laws regarding umpiring protocols, particularly in regard to accusations of ball-tampering and the decisions involving forfeitures.

That too can only be good news.

There's also a suggestion that Hair's fall from grace might persuade other, similarly gung-ho type umpires who might have been thinking of taking the same action in similar circumstances, to think again. Hope springs eternal.

But more than anything else, Inzamam showed that despite all the opposition and outrage, there is still a place in sport for protest.

It might not be allowed in law but decent protests seldom are.

As Inzamam suggests, sometimes causes are worth fighting for, whether the law is with you or not

[Mandrake]

Yes Anil, nicely worded, but a bit too tame...
Let's see it this way:
Pakistan was mis-accused. They rightly walked off. Not a SHRED of evidence was EVER found against them.
So Hair & Co had bungled because Hair in particular - was biased. Anti-Asian. Let's call it like it is.
Then, ICC takes a stupidly, insanely, maddeningly long time to even start the trial. The convention has always been that these things are sorted out at the end of the same day.
If madugalle was busy with his personal problems, WAS THERE NO ONE ELSE COMPETENT AND TRUSTWORTHY?
So ICC sits on its backside, and waits. Meanwhile, Hair compounds the matter by demanding his pound/dollar of flesh for walking away.
ICC immediately hang him out to dry.
Then the trial begins, and Inzy is found innocent on the first count. Since the first charge was false, the second charge should have automatically become null and void. But no. He's punished.

And what becomes of Hair? SCOT FREE. Plus, Speed says, he's hopeful that Hair will soon be back to officiating matches.

Gimme a break!!!