Reinstating Hair has drawn diverse responses. In fact Hair himself seems to have realised that and sought to smooth ruffled feathers by announcing his intention to be more communicative,especially with teams or players unfamiliar with the English language.
Since he had been given time to think,learn and gradually ease himself to officiating/ umpiring tier 1 playing nations,reinstating him is the right thing to do.
One can't fault the 'rehabilitation process, but how does one know that he has become more understanding? How does one gauge whether he is embittered by the whole process?
Instead, the ICC has taken the easy way out by isolating him from umpiring Pakistan, India or Sri Lanka. This may prevent confrontation but it will never let us know the effectiveness of the 'rehabilitation' process.
It is for that reason I am with Ranatunga,when he says, "if Hair is eligible to umpire I think he should do all matches featuring India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, otherwise he won't be tested."
Moreover,if his attitude has changed for the better, it is unfair to deprive cricket of a good umpire? Do you agree?
No comments:
Post a Comment