He is Back..
raghu.sa...@gmail.com
So he is back. The infamous Darrel Hair.
It was not clear why he was allowed back into officiating? Is there an
acute shortage of umpires at the international level? If so can't the
ICC invest some money and resource into training umpires and have them
from all the top cricket playing nations at least. More importantly
can't they come up with a scheme to relegate and retire out umpires..
This whole affair of getting Hair back stinks of mis-management at
ICC. Its like a babysitter gets accused of child molestation but
somehow escapes conviction. I sure would not want that babysitter
anywhere near my kids :)
I sure hope BCCI keeps a sh**list of the so called elite ICC umpires
and get them removed before a series starts!
http://uk.reuters.com/article/cricketNews/idUKL1805565420080318
Raghu
Geico Caveman
Except for a few controversial dismissals here and there (nothing like
B(F)ucknor's pattern of bad decisions against India), I do not think Darrel
Hair has been a problem for us.
We need to stop trying to make Pakistan and Sri Lanka's umpiring problems
our own.
arahim
Apparently a unanimous decision.
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engvpak/engine/match/225258.html
So if there was a deal what is it?
What happened to Pakistan's case (supported by England) for
overturning the Oval result?
First he was done then we found out that he has the contract until
2008 but then it was actually 2009 so now he is supposed to leave in
2009:) with supposedly no renewal.
> Raghu
raghu.sa...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm sorry but thats a very parochial attitude. I think it will be best
in the collective interest of cricket if ICC can improve the umpiring
standards. BCCI should take a leader role here as it wields the money
clout.
Raghu
Andrew Dunford
<raghu.sa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ebbb4efc-1aa1-45f2...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
The BCCI best approach to taking a "leader role" would be to improve
standards by producing some Indian umpires worthy of joining the Elite
Panel. In the meantime, they voted for Hair's reinstatement.
Andrew
StraightDrive
"Geico Caveman" <spammer...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:frp1da$knq$1...@aioe.org...
How come you only blame "black" umpire Steve Bucknor while ignoring
the incompetent white umpires Mark Benson, Koertzen and even Simon
Tooawful in the last England vs India series ?
Geico Caveman
Parochial or not, fact remains that Hair is a better umpire than Mark
Bensons, Rudi Koertzens and yes, Steve B(F)ucknors of this world. So, to
deny him a place on the panel just because he has been undiplomatic in his
dealings with Pakistan and Sri Lanka is stupid.
If Hair had been the umpire in the Sydney Test instead of B(F)ucknor, we
would have won.
StraightDrive
"Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifax.net> wrote in message
news:64alqpF...@mid.individual.net...
Lack of choice perhaps ??
raghu.sa...@gmail.com
The issue is bigger than what you are looking at as! BCCI should not
just have let Hair slip back in as they will not have a face when they
stand up against the inclusion of Bucknor, Benson or Rudi. They should
have just said that all elite panel umpires need to be re-evaluated
and must have pushed ICC to dump all 4 of them!
> If Hair had been the umpire in the Sydney Test instead of B(F)ucknor, we
> would have won.
That is pure conjecture.
raghu.sa...@gmail.com
> <raghu.saklesh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
BCCI should be pushing ICC to start an umpire training academy. Only
those passing out with distinction should be allowed to umpire for
international games. The current system of choosing old, blind, biased
umpires is costing the game of cricket.
Raghu
Geico Caveman
>
> The issue is bigger than what you are looking at as! BCCI should not
The issue is having good umpires on the panel.
> just have let Hair slip back in as they will not have a face when they
> stand up against the inclusion of Bucknor, Benson or Rudi. They should
If they let Hair back in, that case would be strengthened. Its easier to
push out an underperforming umpire (take Rudi) if he is the sixth best and
not the fifth best. Hair's inclusion pushes these three umpires down a
notch each, making our job easier.
> have just said that all elite panel umpires need to be re-evaluated
> and must have pushed ICC to dump all 4 of them!
I see no reason to dump a good umpire with three bad ones.
>
>
>> If Hair had been the umpire in the Sydney Test instead of B(F)ucknor, we
>> would have won.
>
> That is pure conjecture.
Take Symonds non-dismissal out and it will cease to remain so pure.
dechucka
<raghu.sa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a4812574-df87-4666...@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
So you are happy with no Indian umpires on the panel?
dechucka
"Geico Caveman" <spammer...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
no you lost because you were crap and the better team won
dechucka
>>
>> That is pure conjecture.
>
> Take Symonds non-dismissal out and it will cease to remain so pure.
and and and if my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle
Macjoubert
Wipe your mouth while you're at it, your drooling.
Okay so you fancy your uncle, you'll live.
HVS
> The issue is bigger than what you are looking at as!
Yes, it is: BCCI should be raising the level of Indian umpiring to
world-class level, and not just waiting for ICC to do it all for
them.
> BCCI should
> not just have let Hair slip back in as they will not have a face
> when they stand up against the inclusion of Bucknor, Benson or
> Rudi. They should have just said that all elite panel umpires
> need to be re-evaluated and must have pushed ICC to dump all 4
> of them!
BCCI is rich, and they should put some of their immense wealth into
raising Indian umpires to elite panel level.
That would solve your problem, and the ball is in BCCI's court -- not
in the ICC's.
dechucka
"Macjoubert" <macjo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:563a568a-c3a0-40b4...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
weird comment even for you
Macjoubert
> "Macjoubert" <macjoub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Pertinent, in your case.
dechucka
Erudite for u
raghu.sa...@gmail.com
I will be happy as long as we don't have the wrong people on the panel
posing as "elite umpires" as we have now!
Raghu
prakmel
ROFL.
You are confused.
OR
Seems that you are trying to make us forget that an Indian umpire will
not be chosen to officiate when India is participating in the Test
match.
prakmel
Exactly. The majority of the present lot should be removed due to
their incompetence and/or blindness and/or bias.
In fact, we would be better off by having the absolutely neutral and
competent technology take over as many of these decisions as possible.
Mad Hamish
wrote:
are you aware that under the statistics kept of correct decisions Hair
has been in the top 2 umpires for years?
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au
dechucka
"prakmel" <prakm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:21f419df-1835-4072...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
so no Indian umpires?
raghu.sa...@gmail.com
> "prakmel" <prakmel2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Why this much concern for Indian umpires form you? Is it surprising to
you that many Indians are not as jingoistic and openly biased
bordering on cheating as some Aussies are?
Raghu
Mike Holmans
<crapa...@yahoo.com.au> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>On Mar 19, 6:24 am, raghu.saklesh...@gmail.com wrote:
>> So he is back. The infamous Darrel Hair.
>> It was not clear why he was allowed back into officiating? Is there an
>> acute shortage of umpires at the international level? If so can't the
>> ICC invest some money and resource into training umpires and have them
>> from all the top cricket playing nations at least. More importantly
>> can't they come up with a scheme to relegate and retire out umpires..
>>
>> This whole affair of getting Hair back stinks of mis-management at
>> ICC. Its like a babysitter gets accused of child molestation but
>> somehow escapes conviction. I sure would not want that babysitter
>> anywhere near my kids :)
>>
>> I sure hope BCCI keeps a sh**list of the so called elite ICC umpires
>> and get them removed before a series starts!
>>
>> http://uk.reuters.com/article/cricketNews/idUKL1805565420080318
>
>Can you please explain why you have an issue with Hair? Statistically
>Hair is one of the best (if not best) umpire over the last 10 years.
>There have been two incidents that Hair has been judged on and both
>involved sub-continent teams. The first was his no-balling
>Muralicheat, which subsequently was proven to be the correct call on
>Hair's part. The second involved Pakistan and ball tampering which in
>hindsight could have been handled better by both parties.
The issue with Hair is that he isn't biased towards Asian teams. Raghu
regards any decision given in favour of a team containing white
players as an example of racism.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Bob Dubery
> So he is back. The infamous Darrel Hair.
> It was not clear why he was allowed back into officiating? Is there an
> acute shortage of umpires at the international level?
There have been a lot of concerns about accuracy of decision making.
Hair might not be the world's greatest people person, but one thing
that was beyond dispute (and born out by ICC's performance evaluation
of elite panel umpires) is that his error rate when making decisions
is very low.
>If so can't the
> ICC invest some money and resource into training umpires and have them
> from all the top cricket playing nations at least.
Hair is Australian, lives in England, has a low error rate. He meets
all your criteria.
> This whole affair of getting Hair back stinks of mis-management at
> ICC. Its like a babysitter gets accused of child molestation but
> somehow escapes conviction. I sure would not want that babysitter
> anywhere near my kids :)
Oh crap. It's nothing like that at all. I have still yet to see any
evidence that the decisions that Hair took in the now infamous Test
match were not technically correct, or that there was an alternative
procedure that he could have followed.
I might characterise this as more like a grumpy but technically
correct kindergarten teacher being let back into a play pen full of
spoiled brats.
Mike Holmans
<mega...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>On Mar 18, 7:24 pm, raghu.saklesh...@gmail.com wrote:
>> So he is back. The infamous Darrel Hair.
>> It was not clear why he was allowed back into officiating? Is there an
>> acute shortage of umpires at the international level?
>
>There have been a lot of concerns about accuracy of decision making.
>Hair might not be the world's greatest people person, but one thing
>that was beyond dispute (and born out by ICC's performance evaluation
>of elite panel umpires) is that his error rate when making decisions
>is very low.
Rubbish. From the point of view of the Hair-haters, his error rate is
enormous. He has given Asian batsmen out, and he has denied appeals
made by Asian bowlers. Whether those decisions were correct by the
Laws of Cricket is neither here nor there; all that matters to the
whingeing cretins is that their team didn't benefit.
Cheers,
Mike
--
subi...@notmail.com
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:51:34 -0700 (PDT), Bob Dubery
yeah, his handling of the oval test was testament to his maturity and
judgement, the best ever in the history of the game, according to some
other whingeing cretins.
Geico Caveman
> Can you please explain why you have an issue with Hair? Statistically
> Hair is one of the best (if not best) umpire over the last 10 years.
> There have been two incidents that Hair has been judged on and both
> involved sub-continent teams. The first was his no-balling
> Muralicheat, which subsequently was proven to be the correct call on
> Hair's part. The second involved Pakistan and ball tampering which in
> hindsight could have been handled better by both parties.
It makes no sense. Too many RSC Indians get caught up in Pakistan and Sri
Lanka's issues with Hair, and make this problem our own.
Given the shockers we had to accept in Sydney, I would take Hair over
B(F)ucknor and Benson any day, even if (rather especially if) playing
Australia.
Spaceman Spiff
[snip]
>>
>> BCCI should be pushing ICC to start an umpire training academy. Only
>> those passing out with distinction should be allowed to umpire for
>> international games. The current system of choosing old, blind,
>> biased umpires is costing the game of cricket.
>
>
> So you are happy with no Indian umpires on the panel?
how does it benefit the indian team if there are indian umpires on the
panel?
anyway they can't officiate in matches involving india.
in fact it's in the bcci's interest to make sure that the other icc
countries are supplying top-class umpires.
--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff
The pig go. Go is to the fountain. The pig put foot. Grunt. Foot in
what? ketchup. The dove fly. Fly is in sky. The dove drop something.
The something on the pig. The pig disgusting. The pig rattle. Rattle
with dove. The dove angry. The pig leave. The dove produce. Produce is
chicken wing. With wing bark. No Quack.
http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/No,_We_Need_a_Neural_Network.aspx
Geico Caveman
> Oh crap. It's nothing like that at all. I have still yet to see any
> evidence that the decisions that Hair took in the now infamous Test
> match were not technically correct, or that there was an alternative
> procedure that he could have followed.
>
Precisely. I said so at the time. Hair was right but undiplomatic. By
throwing him under the bus, the ICC sent out the signal to all umpires that
they could afford to be wrong but not rub any teams the wrong way.
An injustice has been corrected by reinstating him. Had we had Hair
officiating in the recent Sydney Test instead of B(F)ucknor, India would
have won that Test.
I just do not get this but far too many RSC Indians would rather put up with
bad umpires who would screw the Indian team than an brash but mostly right
umpire who rubs Pakistan and Sri Lanka up the wrong way. If this isn't
sacrificing our interests for the sake of other countries, I do not know
what is.
raghu.sa...@gmail.com
wrote:
> I just do not get this but far too many RSC Indians would rather put up with
> bad umpires who would screw the Indian team than an brash but mostly right
> umpire who rubs Pakistan and Sri Lanka up the wrong way. If this isn't
> sacrificing our interests for the sake of other countries, I do not know
> what is.
You are getting it wrong on some of the RSC Indians. I'd rather see
the so called elite umpire list purged of terrible/bad umpires. You
seem to think that if he has not done bad to India when umpiring he
doesn't have to go. I think that is plain wrong and he is just another
huge bomb like Bucknor or Benson that is just ticking away to blow up
any time. I'd rather not see India loose another important series
because of poor and biased umpiring!
Raghu
raghu.sa...@gmail.com
> On Mar 18, 7:24 pm, raghu.saklesh...@gmail.com wrote:
<SNIP><SNIP>
>
> >If so can't the
> > ICC invest some money and resource into training umpires and have them
> > from all the top cricket playing nations at least.
>
> Hair is Australian, lives in England, has a low error rate. He meets
> all your criteria.
>
Are you serious? Just because he is an Australian and lives in England
he qualifies to be an elite umpire? Is that what you are implying
here!
> > This whole affair of getting Hair back stinks of mis-management at
> > ICC. Its like a babysitter gets accused of child molestation but
> > somehow escapes conviction. I sure would not want that babysitter
> > anywhere near my kids :)
>
> Oh crap. It's nothing like that at all. I have still yet to see any
> evidence that the decisions that Hair took in the now infamous Test
> match were not technically correct, or that there was an alternative
> procedure that he could have followed.
>
> I might characterise this as more like a grumpy but technically
> correct kindergarten teacher being let back into a play pen full of
> spoiled brats.
Depends on which side you look his decisions from. If you are an
Australian or an English you may end up not seeing any errors in his
calls and as you may call him just a grumpy old man. However He has
plenty of history being openly biased with the Sub continent teams. To
us he is like a kindergarten child molester :)
Raghu
Rodney Ulyate
And I'd rather not see you ever again. Begone, bigot!
<plonk>
--
Rodney Ulyate
"He was effectively 40* before he faced a ball, so thoroughly did he
demoralise the fielding side simply by his swagger to the wicket."
Holmanculus on IVAR
Macjoubert
wrote:
Yes Pakistan and Sri Lanka should fight their own fights and not lump
their grief with India.
Some Aussie morons went so far as to throw accolades on the SL team
for their behavior (which was certainly laudable) but just so that
they [Aussies] can contrast with their inability to handle the
Indians.
The moment Jayawardene whispers in disagreement watch how they'll
sharpen their knives again.
raghu.sa...@gmail.com
wrote:
> > Oh crap. It's nothing like that at all. I have still yet to see any
> > evidence that the decisions that Hair took in the now infamous Test
> > match were not technically correct, or that there was an alternative
> > procedure that he could have followed.
>
> Precisely. I said so at the time. Hair was right but undiplomatic. By
> throwing him under the bus, the ICC sent out the signal to all umpires that
> they could afford to be wrong but not rub any teams the wrong way.
>
> An injustice has been corrected by reinstating him. Had we had Hair
> officiating in the recent Sydney Test instead of B(F)ucknor, India would
> have won that Test.
You seem to have forgotten Hair's umpiring blunders against India in
the India-Eng test series.
Here is an article that may remind you some issues from the past:
http://in.rediff.com/cricket/2006/jan/12hair.htm
Raghu
raghu.sa...@gmail.com
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:37:33 -0700 (PDT), "Crapats (TM)"
>
>
>
> >On Mar 19, 6:24 am, raghu.saklesh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> So he is back. The infamous Darrel Hair.
> >> It was not clear why he was allowed back into officiating? Is there an
> >> acute shortage of umpires at the international level? If so can't the
> >> ICC invest some money and resource into training umpires and have them
> >> from all the top cricket playing nations at least. More importantly
> >> can't they come up with a scheme to relegate and retire out umpires..
>
> >> This whole affair of getting Hair back stinks of mis-management at
> >> ICC. Its like a babysitter gets accused of child molestation but
> >> somehow escapes conviction. I sure would not want that babysitter
> >> anywhere near my kids :)
>
> >> I sure hope BCCI keeps a sh**list of the so called elite ICC umpires
> >> and get them removed before a series starts!
>
> >>http://uk.reuters.com/article/cricketNews/idUKL1805565420080318
>
> >Can you please explain why you have an issue with Hair? Statistically
> >Hair is one of the best (if not best) umpire over the last 10 years.
> >There have been two incidents that Hair has been judged on and both
> >involved sub-continent teams. The first was his no-balling
> >Muralicheat, which subsequently was proven to be the correct call on
> >Hair's part. The second involved Pakistan and ball tampering which in
> >hindsight could have been handled better by both parties.
>
> The issue with Hair is that he isn't biased towards Asian teams.
So you are implying that he is a good umpire as long as he is biased
towards a non Asian teams? If he is considered an elite umpire, he
should not be biased towards any country, period
>Raghu
> regards any decision given in favour of a team containing white
> players as an example of racism.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
> --
Here is a link to some of the egregious offenses committed by the so
called elite umpires..
Hopefully, it will tell you the other side of the story..
http://in.rediff.com/cricket/2006/jan/12hair.htm
Raghu
Paul Robson
Interesting that when Hair makes a decision, the Cretindians appear to
demand he absolutely prove himself innocent ; but when it is one of their
own (e.g. Havetabung Singh) then absolute proof of his guilt is required.
Geico Caveman
Extracts from your link (with my comments) :
"The 53-year-old Australian who will be one of the umpires for the first
Test at Lahore is -� to put it mildly -- not a favourite on the Indian
subcontinent."
Not in Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
"He is the man who called ace Sri Lankan off-spinner Muttiah Muralitharan
a 'chucker' in 1995."
Irrelevant to us. In any case, Murali WAS chucking. They redefined the rules
later for him.
"A year later, Indians felt crucial decisions from Hair went against them in
the two Test matches he officiated in the England series."
This is relevant. So, he has been bad to us in two Tests (even if we take
this at face value). You expect to compare that to years of abuse we have
taken from B(F)ucknor ?
Benson also screwed up in this last series. I do not see you treating his
continued presence on the panel with the same vitriol as you doing with
Hair.
"In 1999, then Indian coach Kapil Dev got into a war of words with Hair. It
began with the former North Sydney fast bowler walking up to Ajit Agarkar
when the Mumbai medium pacer expressed disappointment at a decision.
Then, when a television replay showed Hair's colleague was wrong with
another decision, the burly Australian reportedly warned then Indian
captain Sourav Ganguly: 'You are not supposed to watch replays and make
gestures. The Pakistanis did it and now if you do it you will get into
trouble.' Ganguly's explanation fell on deaf ears."
Hair was dead right on that one. Players are not supposed to express
on-field dissent even if the umpire did get it wrong on that occasion. If
an umpire becomes hopeless and / or develops a pattern of wrong decisions,
then you get him chucked out of the panel. Like we should ultimately do
with B(F)ucknor. Koertzen is another such character but he is more of an
equal opportunity offender in that he screws everyone.
"The racism word was raised in the post-match verbal duel that followed
between the Indians and the umpire. Who raised the word first is still
debatable."
In other words, we do not know what happened.
"It is thought that the subcontinent's complaints played a big role in the
Australian umpire being left out of the International Cricket
Council's 'elite panel' of umpires when it was first constituted in 2002."
Is there a team called the "subcontinent" or a country named thus ?
Our spats with him have been few and far between. We have had similar issues
(as have other teams) with almost every umpire on the panel.
"Pakistan wanted Hair out of this series with India after the official
adjudged Inzamam-ul Haq run out and warned openers Salman Butt and
leg-spinner Danish Kaneria for running on the pitch in the last
Autralia-Pakistan series.""
Irrelevant. Pakistan's problems are theirs, not ours.
Andrew Dunford
"Geico Caveman" <spammer...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:frrgtf$mu4$1...@aioe.org...
<snip>
> An injustice has been corrected by reinstating him. Had we had Hair
> officiating in the recent Sydney Test instead of B(F)ucknor, India would
> have won that Test.
I do wish you'd stop repeating this baseless assertion.
<snip>
Andrew
Andrew Dunford
"Spaceman Spiff" <spacema...@nospammail.com> wrote in message
news:onbEj.3377$bN3.1817@trnddc03...
> dechucka <dech...@vomithotmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>>>
>>> BCCI should be pushing ICC to start an umpire training academy. Only
>>> those passing out with distinction should be allowed to umpire for
>>> international games. The current system of choosing old, blind,
>>> biased umpires is costing the game of cricket.
>>
>>
>> So you are happy with no Indian umpires on the panel?
>
> how does it benefit the indian team if there are indian umpires on the
> panel?
> anyway they can't officiate in matches involving india.
> in fact it's in the bcci's interest to make sure that the other icc
> countries are supplying top-class umpires.
If the BCCI manages to train Indian umpires to exceed the standard of the
worst of the current Elite Panel, the latter will be bumped off the list and
the overall standard will rise. Which will be to the alleged benefit of the
Indian team, although I can't imagine many of the so-called fans frequenting
rsc ever being happy.
Andrew
Andrew
Andrew Dunford
<raghu.sa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a4812574-df87-4666...@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> BCCI should be pushing ICC to start an umpire training academy. Only
> those passing out with distinction should be allowed to umpire for
> international games. The current system of choosing old, blind, biased
> umpires is costing the game of cricket.
Prakash
Things would be less confusing if you posted under just the one name.
Andrew
Rodney Ulyate
Sorry.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"Knowing that which isn't true will always defeat the small minded."
Wog George
alvey
Minimally Interested of Brisbane writes:
I could be bothered checking. How do you know it's Prakash?
alvey
Jayen
> "Spaceman Spiff" <spaceman_sp...@nospammail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:onbEj.3377$bN3.1817@trnddc03...
>
>
>
>
>
> > dechucka <dechu...@vomithotmail.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
>
> >>> BCCI should be pushing ICC to start an umpire training academy. Only
> >>> those passing out with distinction should be allowed to umpire for
> >>> international games. The current system of choosing old, blind,
> >>> biased umpires is costing the game of cricket.
>
> >> So you are happy with no Indian umpires on the panel?
>
> > how does it benefit the indian team if there are indian umpires on the
> > panel?
> > anyway they can't officiate in matches involving india.
> > in fact it's in the bcci's interest to make sure that the other icc
> > countries are supplying top-class umpires.
>
> If the BCCI manages to train Indian umpires to exceed the standard of the
> worst of the current Elite Panel, the latter will be bumped off the list and
> the overall standard will rise. Which will be to the alleged benefit of the
> Indian team,
So you do agree that the worst of the current lot, the ones who would
be the first to get bumped off if competent Indian umpires qualify for
the Elite panel, are allotted to Indian matches. At long last, a
confession.
Now we know how India rose so high in the ICC ranking.
Regards,
Jayen
<snip>
Geico Caveman
If you had followed the match, you would know there is nothing baseless
about it.
Spaceman Spiff
nope, it would be better for bcci to train umpires of other nationalities to
exceed the standard of the worst of the current elite panel.
that way, not only would we be rid of the bottom-listers, but a higher
quality of umpire would be available to stand in matches involving india.
alvey
I followed the match. You're dreaming.
alvey
Andrew Dunford
> Andrew Dunford <adun...@artifax.net> wrote:
>> "Spaceman Spiff" <spacema...@nospammail.com> wrote in message
>> news:onbEj.3377$bN3.1817@trnddc03...
>>> dechucka <dech...@vomithotmail.com> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>> BCCI should be pushing ICC to start an umpire training academy.
>>>>> Only those passing out with distinction should be allowed to
>>>>> umpire for international games. The current system of choosing
>>>>> old, blind, biased umpires is costing the game of cricket.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you are happy with no Indian umpires on the panel?
>>>
>>> how does it benefit the indian team if there are indian umpires on
>>> the panel?
>>> anyway they can't officiate in matches involving india.
>>> in fact it's in the bcci's interest to make sure that the other icc
>>> countries are supplying top-class umpires.
>>
>> If the BCCI manages to train Indian umpires to exceed the standard of
>> the worst of the current Elite Panel, the latter will be bumped off
>> the list and the overall standard will rise. Which will be to the
>> alleged benefit of the Indian team, although I can't imagine many of
>> the so-called fans frequenting rsc ever being happy.
>>
>
> nope, it would be better for bcci to train umpires of other nationalities
> to exceed the standard of the worst of the current elite panel.
> that way, not only would we be rid of the bottom-listers, but a higher
> quality of umpire would be available to stand in matches involving india.
But it wouldn't do any good. People would just whinge about having nothing
to whinge about.
Andrew
prakmel
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:30:31 +1300, Andrew Dunford wrote:
> >news:a4812574-df87-4666...@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> BCCI should be pushing ICC to start an umpire training academy. Only
> >> those passing out with distinction should be allowed to umpire for
> >> international games. The current system of choosing old, blind, biased
> >> umpires is costing the game of cricket.
>
> > Prakash
>
> > Things would be less confusing if you posted under just the one name.
>
> Minimally Interested of Brisbane writes:
>
> I could be bothered checking. How do you know it's Prakash?
>
> alvey
ROFL Alvey at how spot on you are.
But I guess the main problem is that you are to the west of a yet-
again erroneous God aka Andrew Dunford :-)
prakmel
> raghu.saklesh...@gmail.com ululated:
ROFL as Colin Kynoch re-enters RSC under his assumed name of Rodney
Ulyate.
Not surprised at all my dear friend as I was expecting this to happen
since you would want to post your anti-India rubbish seeing that your
Australia came off so very much second best oh so recently.
And you would very much want SA to do better than your Australia such
that you will post under this SA name :-).
Rodney Ulyate
[...]
> ROFL as Colin Kynoch re-enters RSC under his assumed name of Rodney
> Ulyate.
> Not surprised at all my dear friend as I was expecting this to happen
> since you would want to post your anti-India rubbish seeing that your
> Australia came off so very much second best oh so recently.
> And you would very much want SA to do better than your Australia such
> that you will post under this SA name :-).
At last I know. The solitary grounds for your assertion that I am CDK
is that I am not an Indian fan and, therefore, want to be in opposition
to that nation whenever I can. Odd, that, because I mentioned that I
would be taking my recent leave long before the Australian lapse that
you claim as its cause. Here I am on 6 October last year, telling Alvey
that, from February, I shall be "completely gone" from RSC:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/9091a4f8e36e25c7
Doubtless, though, you have a ready explanation for that. Perhaps Mr
Kynoch is a vaticinator?
--
Rodney Ulyate
PS: The reason for my not being "completely gone" from RSC is that my
first semester at Rhodes is at an end, and I at home.
prakmel
wrote:
> Andrew Dunford wrote:
>
> > "Geico Caveman" <spammers-beg...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:frrgtf$mu4$1...@aioe.org...
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> An injustice has been corrected by reinstating him. Had we had Hair
> >> officiating in the recent Sydney Test instead of B(F)ucknor, India would
> >> have won that Test.
>
> > I do wish you'd stop repeating this baseless assertion.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > Andrew
>
> If you had followed the match, you would know there is nothing baseless
> about it.
Certain Aussies and Kiwis will try to delude others (not themselves) -
and fail gloriously) - that Australia would NOT have lost if there had
been two umpires who were only little biased in favour of the
Auscheatralians instead of the duo who performed daylight robbery.
Let them continue to pretend to live in their ignorance :-)
alvey
Prakash, in these days of globalisation, outsourcing & technological
wonders, have you considered offering your services internationally? You've
got enough of what it takes to represent thousands of villages.
alvey
in Briz, offering to be your manager. Under the usual 90/10 arrangement.
Andrew Dunford
"alvey" <alvey_u...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ruscn78sczda$.1qcg8h3cebhfc.dlg@40tude.net...
Different poster, same chip on the shoulder.
Andrew