OK, i have gone thro' all the points written by members here... I must admit before writing my opinion here, that my reply is going to be totally different to what has been talked here in this thread!!!😆
To begin with, let me admit here that i am a big big fan of Cricket.... 😳
Now, I would say that Darrel Hair was not wrong at all, in what he did..... He went by the rules, by the book... So what is wrong in it? He abided to whatever is written in the Rules of Cricket...
The rule says that whenever a team does not come back to the playing area after a break in the stipulated time, they will not be pardoned... So what different did Hair do? He waited for the Paki team , till the time he could wait according to the rules... When he did not see the team coming out, he took it as "Match Forfetied". Is this not the rule Cricket has? So why do we base this issue as an Asia Vs English/Australian controversy? Why do we think about the past and compare things?
It was plain simple. The ball looked as though it was tampered to Hair... So being the umpire, he has every right to take the decision he needed to take... Now, the umpires know very well when the ball is tampered and when the ball is discolioured or lost its shape due to the hit against the rough surfaces... Its very easy for us to talk about rules, very easy for us to say that the umpire cannot know when the ball is tampered... But the fact remains that they have a clear knowldege of everything, only then they are umpires at the highest level...
I agree that its been Asian teams who have been accused of ball tampering in the past... So does it mean that other nations are deliberately framing Asia with this issue always?
If Pakistani team were talking to the officials about the alleged tampering of the ball in the break, did they not have to come otu once the break time ended? Was it fair on their part to make the umpires and the Englad batsman to come, wait there in the middle, with no signs of them coming out? Is this justified? If they had to talk about this issue, they could have talked about it after the match ended. Afterall, the match was surely in their favour. Or they could have left the talking to be done by their sneior officials , as they resumed duty in the field... Was it good on part of Oakistanis to have restrained from entering the playing area even after the stipulated tea break? Is this a good sign for cricket? If yes, then why do we need rules for a certain game? We can as well play the game without any rules, as and how each player or team wants.... My opinion in this is, whatever be the case, Pakistanis were at fault for not entering the playing area after the break... They surely needed the punishment to this, as per the rule book. This is what Hair gave them, fair enough.....
Vijay here, talks about umpires being in the Pre independence era. What do u exactly mean by this? Do u think we should alter the rules of the game as and when the players want it? Do we not have a set of rules for every game? If you follow tennis, there is a rule there, like this... When a player does not get back to playing within the stipulated break, which is taken after every 2 games, he is penalised for it... So what do you have to say to this? I am giving this example here just bcos,as players, every team needs to abide to certain rules... Whatever be the situation, the team needs to follow that. So to me, the pakis were wrong when they moved out of the rule book by staying in the pavilion even after the breaktime....
I know many might not agree to me, but i have openly voiced my opnion here... To me, Darrel Hair is one of the bravest umpires we have today... He did not care about what media and people will say about his decision. He knows his work, he knows his job, he knows what he did, he knows he went by the book.... At the end of the day, that is what it matters... Cricket is to be placed higher, this is what he did... He was fair to the game of cricket.... 😳
comment:
p_commentcount