British, Aussie media point fingers to India's clout for Hair ban

London, Nov 5 (UNI) British and Australian media today pointed accusing fingers to India saying that its enormous financial clout had played a major role in controversial Aussie umpire Darrell Hair's sacking by the ICC.

With the headline 'Asian bloc flex muscle to remove Hair', a report by the Sunday Telegraph said a precedent has now been established that any umpire who in future makes a decision against the Asian Test-playing countries can expect their wrath to descend upon his head.

''Such is the financial clout of India that they can usually carry South Africa, Zimbabwe and West Indies with them to achieve a 7-3 majority,'' the newspaper said, alluding to the reported 7-3 voting by the ICC executive board on Friday in Mumbai to sack Hair from international umpiring.

The report also took potshods at Indian Board's attempt to buy the broadcasting rights for ICC events over the next eight years, which BCCI withdrew during the executive board meeting.

''The implications would have been enormous if the Indian board had overturned the existing rule which restricts bidding to broadcasters and agencies: the Indian board would have in effect run the next two World Cups and all intervening ICC events,'' it said.

''Half of the Test-playing countries made their opposition to the Indian board so apparent that they backed down when they realised they were not going to achieve the 7-3 majority needed to change the existing rule,'' the report added.

The Australian media echoed their British counterparts, holding that the Asian bloc usually got away with whatever they like.

Robert Craddock writes in Sunday Courier Mail under the headline 'Chilling rule of Asian overlords' that the Asian nations run world cricket now.

''Whether it be chasing the rights to host a World Cup, getting officials in important positions or getting rid of an umpire, the Asian bloc gets what it wants,'' Craddock wrote.

''The demise of Darrell Hair as an umpire is a classic example of this and sad for all sorts of reasons. It should never have been up to the Asian nations to decide Hair's fate. That decision should have been made by International Cricket Council officials.

''As it turns out, the opinions of ICC officials meant nothing compared to the views and voting power of officials from featherweight nations such as Zimbabwe and Bangladesh which fell dutifully into line with the new cricket kings on the block.

''Hair's axing sets a chilling precedent for other umpires.

They will now be running scared of offending any or all of the four subcontintent nations -- India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.'' UNI XC PDS ht1430