[Ventil]

Does Bracken get unleashed....?
I would've thought it's more like unwrapped, dusted down and then wheeled into position.

[retired_musiclova31]

oi!

i'll brook NO bracken dissing tyvm.

the fact that he really is qfb means you look foolish for it anyway.

[Ventil]

He's a poor man's Shane Watson.

:p

[retired_musiclova31]

i'm not even going to dignify that with a response

[Ventil]

Originally posted by Scatter:
i'm not even going to dignify that with a response

It takes a brave man to admit the truth!

[retired_slk55]

I'd say he's more like a poor man's ryan sidebottom. except not poor but rich instead

[retired_musiclova31]

ICC exec says Hair 'a law unto himself'
October 6, 2007

LONDON: Australian cricket umpire Darrell Hair was a law unto himself, one of the men responsible for his sacking told an employment tribunal on Thursday. International Cricket Council executive board member Sir John Anderson told the London tribunal he blamed Hair for "the most appalling decision I've ever seen in my life".

He was referring to the abandonment of the fourth Test between England and Pakistan in August last year.

"We have an umpire here who is a law unto himself, totally resistant to seeing the realities of the situation," Anderson said. The New Zealand Cricket chairman said he had no issue with anything Hair did on the field, but alleged the Australian did not make certain the Pakistan team intended to stay off the field before taking the "draconian" decision to abandon play.

"I believe that in taking the way he did, Darrell put himself before the game of cricket," Anderson said. On the fourth day of the match, Hair and West Indian umpire Billy Doctrove awarded victory to the home side after the Pakistan team failed to return to the field in protest at being penalised five runs for suspected ball tampering. In November last year, the ICC sacked Hair from umpiring matches involving Test-playing nations.

Hair, 55, is suing the ICC for racial discrimination, alleging that the sport's governing body bowed to pressure from an Asian bloc led by Pakistan and India in standing him down. Anderson told the tribunal Hair's race had nothing to do with the decision.

Hair also claims he has been treated differently to Doctrove, who is black, despite the fact they jointly decided to impose the run penalty and declare the match over. Doctrove has continued to umpire at the highest level. But the ICC argues Hair was the senior umpire because he had more experience. In his evidence, Anderson admitted there was no rule stating that one umpire is more senior than another.

He said Hair had acted in accordance with the laws of cricket, but criticised him for not taking into account other factors, such as the financial consequences of an abandoned match. Meanwhile, Doctrove failed to appear at the tribunal on Thursday for personal reasons. He had been due to give evidence but did not board a plane as planned from his home in the Caribbean island of Dominica to London.

Hair's lawyer, Stephen Whale, said: "He told the instructing solicitor he was not getting on the plane. This is for personal reasons that are too confidential to explain." Hair's solicitors were unsure whether Doctrove would appear at a later date. Doubt also remains over whether the then Pakistan captain, Inzamam-ul-Haq, will appear. Inzamam was cleared of ball tampering but was banned for four one-day matches for bringing the game into disrepute by leading the Pakistan protest. He has been summonsed to appear as a witness, but Whale said Inzamam had "raised difficulties" which may prevent him from attending the hearing. They included the possibility of being selected in the Pakistan team, which is hosting a Test series against South Africa, and observance of Ramadan.

The hearing continues.

ICC in being totally inept shocker. no love for hair at all, but the icc's handling of this whole affair has been woeful. basically admitting they are wrong to treat hair differently to doctrove and that technically hair did nothing contrary to the rules means that hair's case is probably fairly strong...

[retired_itsthewitchinme]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/.../10/04/schair104.xml

Hair conceded he did all the talking when it came to Pakistan's refusal to play, and admitted he had not explored the reason 'why' in accordance with the law 21.3.

[retired_musiclova31]

doesn't really change the fact that doctrove had equal decision making rights on the day - the fact that he didn't speak up could be argued as complicit agreement with the decision. an angle i'd guess hair's lawyers will try and take?

[retired_itsthewitchinme]

I'm missing Inzi already