Talk:Darrell Hair

message: 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)
thread_title: Subjective Article

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

text: 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  tag. SteveRwanda 17:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: August 2006 ball tampering incident

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of Vague Statements 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reaction quotes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Consistency in the formatting for Citations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "security issues" 

message: 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)
replies: text: How is it not reliable?--HamedogTalk|@ 09:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have no issue with it.--HamedogTalk|@ 10:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reliable source? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: (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)

text: (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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Article might as well be called Darrell Hair - an Indian Perspective

message: Its strange he was voted number 1 by wisden readers given the sentiments in this article. 
He was also voted number 2 in the world just before the oval test 
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Here we are , more food for thought on this whole sorry saga.Crx2gen 05:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voted number 1 by wisden readers 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Inzamam run out  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent additions 

message: Substituted at 12:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment