Re: Umpiring (part two)
- From: "subi...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <subirwa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 04:38:54 -0800 (PST)
On 26 Nov, 10:23, Mike Holmans <m...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:25:46 +0900, Ærchie <archiv...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
The curfew had been lifted and the gamblin' wheel shut down, Anyone with
any sense had already left town. Yet subi...@xxxxxxxxxxx was standin' in
the doorway saying:
i find it amazing that you still think poor darrell hair was only
doing his job. he accused a team of cheating and did not produce the
evidence, and in his hearing his so called supporters did not turn up.
<atropos attack on tripe>
It is not necessary to read any more of your distressing and rather foolish
rewriting of the facts!
Indeed. Hair's supporters may not have turned up, but Sir John
Anderson, giving evidence on behalf of ICC, was absolutely clear that
Hair had acted according to the Laws and that what ICC objected to was
thew fact that he hadn't bent the Laws. There was no argument at
Hair's hearing that he had not acted as the Laws dictate.
So it was stated by ICC's head honchos in a court that they expect
umpires not to follow the Laws or be suspended, if to follow the Laws
would upset an Asian board whose players are cheating. Quite why this
is supposed to make umpires more enthusiastic about doing their jobs
properly is anybody's guess, but no doubt the racists with their
anti-Hair agenda can think of some pathetic justification for their
cretinism.
Cheers,
Mike
--
ha ha ha, very funny, 'the racists with their anti-hair agenda'. this
is like saying 'the racists with the anti-martin amis agenda'. but
good to see liberal democrats have not lost their sense of humour in
the post-ming period.
and now for an interview with some f-c english umpire saying they
wdn't join the elite panel because of the 'racists anti-hair agenda'.
umpires are not bigger than the game, and if they take drastic action
they bloody well owe it to the teams and to the viewing public to
supply firm evidence. otherwise it is their supporters who appear
pathetic, unjust and cretinous.
.
- References:
- Umpiring (part two)
- From: driz
- Re: Umpiring (part two)
- From: Mike Holmans
- Re: Umpiring (part two)
- From: arahim
- Re: Umpiring (part two)
- From: Mike Holmans
- Re: Umpiring (part two)
- From: arahim
- Re: Umpiring (part two)
- From: Mike Holmans
- Re: Umpiring (part two)
- From: subi...@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Umpiring (part two)
- From: Ærchie
- Re: Umpiring (part two)
- From: Mike Holmans
- Umpiring (part two)
- Prev by Date: Re: Umpiring (part two)
- Next by Date: Re: Shoaib Akhtar chucking big time and Harbhajan too at times
- Previous by thread: Re: Umpiring (part two)
- Next by thread: Re: Umpiring (part two)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|