[ Doug Cowie even said in his email reply to my offer that the proposal had merit." Then asked whether he would ever umpire again, Hair said: "Let's address one thing at a time."
While it has been Hair’s future making the headlines, there is now an increasing focus on Cowie, and his initial response to the emails when he said: “Your offer may have merit and is acknowledged and under discussions with the ICC management. Your timeframes seemed impractical at first glance even if agreement were achieved on the suggestion. Will discuss this further tomorrow.”
Speed admitted that Cowie now regretted the content of his reply to Hair and the suggestion that ICC would consider it. “That was Doug Cowie’s response and I think if he could play it again he would play it differently. When it came to me I saw that not for one second could we contemplate it. At no time did I ever consider paying Darrell any amount.”
Speed said it was up to the ICC adjudicator to decide whether Hair’s actions affected the charges against Inzamam-ul-Haq of ball-tampering and bringing the game into disrepute, brought up following the team’s sit-in at The Oval.
Inzamam refused to bring his team out after the tea interval after Hair and his colleague Billy Doctrove’s decision to penalise them five runs for ball-tampering.
Speed said: “The ball-tampering issue and the subsequent charge are very simple cricketing issues about what happened on the field. Whether it impacts on Darrell Hair’s credit I don’t know, that’s a matter for Pakistan’s lawyers whether to raise that, and then for the adjudicator to decide whether he takes that into account.”
Shahrayar Khan, the PCB chairman, has insisted that Hair should not umpire another match involving Pakistan, but Speed refused to go that far. “It was said he could never umpire Sri Lanka again after 1996 but he has. Time will tell if water needs to flow under the bridge. I don’t know what his future is but I hope we can find a way for him to continue.”
Speed confirmed the ball-tampering charge had been made by both Hair and Doctrove, and that he was not aware the England players had made any complaint.](“http://img.cricinfo.com/spacer.gif”)
The point is they believe that he cannot shake off this controversy, which means he does not have a proof. Case done, closed...umpire messed it up...no need to bring Pakistan and Inzamam in this issue anymore. Game over...Darrel guilty and now not only fire his ass but also have a committee at ICC that looks over umpires and their shortcomings in future series so that no racist umpire would take hostage a game like Hair.
I think that this stamement is indeed last nail in coffin of Hair. In the context of Inzimam's hearing being delayed agian till end of september, I wont be surprized if charges against him are altogether dropped.
Here is what English Professional Cricketers’ Association has to say “…Darrell Hair has no credibility left. I can’t see him being welcomed at county games. I’m not sure other umpires would be happy standing with him. I expect he’ll become a celebrity umpire, trundled out to officiate in benefit matches and find the fielding side guilty of ball tampering…” (source)](http://cricketnext.com/news1/next/ptinewsAug06/ptinews156.htm)
im not familiar with the laws behind ball tampering much, but a question that keeps coming up, is how is it possible to 'charge' Inzi of ball tampering if he doesnt bowl to begin with? i mean normally you charge 'the' bowler who is responsible no?...im not asking about evidence (im sure there wasnt), but would like to know from the experts here ... for the ICC to charge Inzi, is the 'charge' technically legit?
they say as a captain Inzi is resposible fot the actions of his team (which is a far call) … yet this again proves they don’t know which player of the onfield 11 did something so they pick the Skipper to have atleast a scapegoat to put the blame on … imagine Hair would say “yes they tempered with the ball but i don’t who did it” … now that’s something ICC got the real headache about
If Hair quits cricket with his offer accepted, then players must also be allowed to quit on their own terms.
"I will quit cricket for Rs. 15m", SR Tendulkar
"Want a place in national team??? Pay me $500,000 for it", McGrath and Warne
"I was offered Rs 10m by PCB to quit cricket.", Akhter
The price tag put on or by a player can be used in ICC players' ranking as well. For example, 10% points will be calculated based on this pricetag.
Akhter can have an injury that can shorten his career.
Tendulkar might get over-age in a few decades.
Inzy could wish to quit on weight issues.
Warne might develop his interest in an academy and could wish a switch.
....
....
....
After serving the game for so many years like Hair, all the players must also get some cash on their will if umpires could ever be entitled to some (on will). After all, they are all part of the game.
Actually its a wrong example:snooty:
Mods (not Ehsan bhai) are responsible if they fail to take control of any mess created by a member and if that happens mods will be answerable to Ehsan bhai.
^ It all seems to fit together now;
Hair as the oppourchunist he has turned out to be, set Oval as his project launching pad.
Pakistan was chosen as guniea pigs for his project. (because they don’t make too much noise and are a patient bunch)
Like any other crime story this one’s also ending on a positive note “crime does not pay” “good guy always gets his gal” " denise the menace always does Mr. Wilson a good deed by his mischieve’
All in all a great cover story that went wrong!
now I sense something else cooking!