Stani Army

Well he’s back, but I guess it was only a matter of time. When the ICC sent Darrell Hair on a rehabilitation course then the only possible outcome at the end of this period was to reinstate him unless he did something drastic. In reality, they put themselves in a difficult situation by not getting rid of him when they had their chance. Surely, if I blackmailed my employers I would expect to get my marching orders right?

In an interview with Sky Sports News, ICC General Manager Dave Richardson, sitting in his nice office in Dubai, gave the most bizarre reason for why Pakistan should be more understanding and forgiving about Hair’s reinstatement and why Inzamam was wrong in saying he was “shocked and disgusted” by it.

Richardson said:

“If Pakistan had one of their best batsmen or best bowlers and he had behavioural problems, and the Pakistan board sent him on a rehabilitation course and he came back and said right, now I’m a changed man, surely you’d have to look at him and it’s only fair to look at him. Yes I can understand [Inzamam’s] feelings but I don’t think that’s fair”

Might I inform Mr Richardson that had one of Pakistan’s “best batsmen or bowlers” held the PCB to a $500,000 ransom, like Hair did with his employers the ICC, then I’m afraid that player would never be given the chance to represent his country ever again – probably at any level. Here is a man that asks for $500,000 in return for leaving quietly, and subsequently drags his employers into a tribunal but is now made out as some kind of angel. Your argument Mr Richardson is ill thought out, shallow and fundamentally flawed.

This is not the first time Darrell Hair has been involved in controversy. Another high profile instance was when he called Muttiah Muralitharan for throwing in Sri Lanka’s 1995-6 tour to Australia. The remarkable thing was that Hair was standing at the bowlers end when he called Muralitharan. How he could tell the degree of bend of Murali’s arm from behind is beyond me. Sir Don Bradman was quoted at the time as saying “This was the worst example of umpiring that I have witnessed and against everything the game stands for” “I believe Hair’s action – in one over – took the development of world cricket back by ten years.”

It is not yet clear what Darrell Hair’s “rehabilitation” involved. What the ICC should have done is sent him to the sub-continent to umpire in domestic or league cricket. This would have given him the chance to gain an understanding of a culture which he has continuously misunderstood and clashed with. He would have gained skills in how to deal with different players and it would have made him a more rounded individual (not in the physical sense obviously – that’s something he doesn’t need).

Those who argue in favour of Hair’s reinstatement say that most of the criticism that Hair receives is because of his strict application of the law and that he is unpopular because of this yet is still a good umpire. Support also came from Cricket Australia (CA) whose spokesperson told AFP “Cricket Australia has always had a view that he is, in a technical sense, an excellent umpire”. But they are missing the point. If you demand a pay-off from your employer in exchange for going quietly and unfairly accuse them of racial discrimination then you should not be employed by them any more. It should never have come to this stage as Hair should have been sacked after he made these demands and allegations.

There is also the underlying cause of why Darrell hair has always courted controversy, and that is his decision making skills. When he sent his infamous email to Doug Cowie of the ICC, the language used was quite astonishing. It gives us a clear indication that Hair was an authoritative totalitarian and someone who would not budge an inch once he had formed his opinion. This kind of confrontational attitude has no place in cricket, especially on the field where players sometimes need a calming influence in the heat of battle.

Excerpts of Hairs correspondence with Doug Cowie of the ICC, August 2006:

“I make this one-off, non-negotiable offer”
“I am prepared to retire/stand down/relinquish my position… on the following terms:”
“payment is to be the sum of US $500,000 – details of which must be kept confidential by both parties. This sum to be paid directly into my account by 31st August 2006.”
“ICC may announce the retirement in any way they wish, but I would prefer a simple ‘lifestyle choice’”
“No public comment to be made by me as to possible reasons for the decision.”
“This offer in no way precludes me taking legal action”
“I reiterate this is a once only offer”
“It appears from overnight developments that the issue of racism has arisen and from advice I have just received, the sum indicated in my release offer is being revised.”

The above comments, calling Murali for throwing from the bowler’s end and accusing Pakistan of ball tampering, are just three examples of Darrell Hair’s lack of decision making skills. It makes no difference when Hair says he will try to improve his communication – it is clear what he communicates, we just don’t need it in cricket.

Though his contract expires in 12 months, I would not be surprised if it was extended beyond this. Causing the forfeiture of the first test in history, demanding a pay-off and alleging racial discrimination against his employer, not to mention all the controversy he has caused before, the ICC are taking a bigger risk than I think they perceive in reinstating Hair. Still, they will be praying that there are no more Hairy situations to come in the future – at least for their sakes.

It’s a gentlemen’s game, let’s have gentle-men officiating it.

Be Sociable, Share!

•