The PCB want result changed....

[Lillian Thomson]

...............http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/pakistan/content/current/story/330349.html

 

[Richard]

Well an "abandoned draw" would more accurately reflect the outcome of the game.

If someone were to insist that Pakistan had to have a loss because they refused to play and that was more important than accurately reflecting the cricket played, that'd be fair enough in a way too I guess.

 

[silentstriker]

Not going to happen, nor should it happen.

 

[Slow Love™]

It's interesting that England are in support of the changing of the result, but it's strikes me as too much of a hornet's nest. Not many players (in the sense of anyone involved) in that fiasco have clean hands, even if Hair copped the brunt of the criticism. Although I could sympathise at the time with Pakistan's anger (and confusion, helped by some inept officials, including Mike Procter), I don't think we want to encourage that kind of brinksmanship.

Leave the result as it is, we've all made our judgements and reams have been written on it, let's move on.

 

[Richard]

It's interesting that England are in support of the changing of the result

Well, TBH it was embarrasing to be awarded a victory for that, especially in a dead Test. If it'd been a live Test I'd be a bit more hesitant to change the result, but given it was dead and our "victory" ended-up meaning absolutely nothing more than a draw would have, I honestly don't mind if the result is changed, IF it's made clear that such a thing would never happen in a live game.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Don't see any reason why it should be changed TBH. Sets a dangerous precedent.

How about next time Australia are 2-1 up going into the last Test of the Ashes series, they claim the umpires are biased, pack up and go home. Then the match is "abandoned as a draw", Australia win the Ashes. Makes no ****ing sense at all, does it? Ergo the same is true of this instance.

Pakistan are the ones who acted so stupidly, they're the ones who should have to pay the consequences of their own actions. They can consider themselves incredibly lucky to have gotten off with just a defeat, given how immature and unsportsmanlike their behaviour was.

 

[Richard]

Blimey. Strong stuff from Mr Pitt.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Blimey. Strong stuff from Mr Pitt.

Yeah, the whole incident just got on my nerves. England had to suffer because Inzamam, after so long in the game and so many Tests, didn't have the common sense to wait until after the match was over to air his grievance. I can understand being angry at the time, but any fool can see that refusing to play mid-match is going to create an incident far bigger than whatever his original grievance was.

When that match goes down in the annals of cricketing history, the first thing anyone's going to remember is that it was "the match where Pakistan refused to play". They're not going to remember it as "the match where Pakistan were accused of ball-tampering and therefore had every right to make a stand against what they saw as biased umpiring".

Refusing to play was an unprecedented step - the only reason it could possibly have been justified was in the case of an unprecedented grievance. Bad umpiring or an accusation of cheating is not unprecedented by any means.

 

[Unattainableguy]

Not going to happen, nor should it happen.

I'm not sure it will happen, but it certainly should as England obviously didn't win the match, so to credit them a win( esp when it was more like them trying to save the match ) is really stupid. It was a long time ago, and I don't care how the result even matters anymore. PAK got enough from that match already with removel of Darrel Hair.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Agreed with Barnard generally here. Not so much for the particulars of this case as 2-1, 2-0, 3-0, meh; rather the precedent it creates.

Also am I the only one who thinks the timing looks a bit crass?

 

[silentstriker]

I'm not sure it will happen, but it certainly should as England obviously didn't win the match, so to credit them a win( esp when it was more like them trying to save the match ) is really stupid. It was a long time ago, and I don't care how the result even matters anymore. PAK got enough from that match already with removel of Darrel Hair.

That's too bad. Inzamam gave up, so it should be a loss. End of story. Now if Inzamam's team had been hit my an asteroid and Pakistan couldn't continue because there was no one left, I'd be in favor of that. But they could have played, but didn't, so they could prove a point. They proved their point, but they should deal with the consequences.

 

[Engle]

Leave the result as is.
That way the embarassment of a team being handed a victory after a 331 run 1st innings deficit lingers on in perpetuity after the false and unproven allegations of a subsequently disgraced ump who thought he was bigger than the game

 

[nightprowler10]

Leave the result as is for mine.

 

[sideshowtim]

Don't see any reason why it should be changed TBH. Sets a dangerous precedent.

How about next time Australia are 2-1 up going into the last Test of the Ashes series, they claim the umpires are biased, pack up and go home. Then the match is "abandoned as a draw", Australia win the Ashes. Makes no ****ing sense at all, does it? Ergo the same is true of this instance.

Pakistan are the ones who acted so stupidly, they're the ones who should have to pay the consequences of their own actions. They can consider themselves incredibly lucky to have gotten off with just a defeat, given how immature and unsportsmanlike their behaviour was.

Very well said. Completely agree.

Everyone who knows anything about cricket will know that England didn't deserve the win anyway. But officially changing the result sets...and I've said this far too much in the last few days...a dangerous precedent.

 

[Goughy]

Leave the result as it is.

We have been through it and as has been said any change would create a loophole in the future that could be expoloited.

The only possible reason for changing the result is that the rules were not followed and an unlawful decision was made. I dont see that so there isnt an problem.

The timing of this is disturbing, umpires being removed, rules and results retrospectively changed etc. Its a headshaker for sure.

As far as Im concerned the topic is closed. If this is re-opened then in fairness to impartiality a thorough investigation should be taken into match-fixing of the result.

I doubt there was anything untoward involved, but as bookmakers paid out on an England win and it was an impossibility when the forfeit happened then not to investigate would be a dereliction of duty.

The result was changed by the decision of the Pakistan team and that profited certain people that wouldnt have if the game had been completed. I dont think anything would be found but an investigation should occur based purely on the unusual circumstances.

Id rather the whole thing be brushed under the carpet but if it is to be brought up then a balanced job should occur.

 

[Fusion]

Yeah, the whole incident just got on my nerves. England had to suffer because Inzamam, after so long in the game and so many Tests, didn't have the common sense to wait until after the match was over to air his grievance. I can understand being angry at the time, but any fool can see that refusing to play mid-match is going to create an incident far bigger than whatever his original grievance was.

When that match goes down in the annals of cricketing history, the first thing anyone's going to remember is that it was "the match where Pakistan refused to play". They're not going to remember it as "the match where Pakistan were accused of ball-tampering and therefore had every right to make a stand against what they saw as biased umpiring".

Refusing to play was an unprecedented step - the only reason it could possibly have been justified was in the case of an unprecedented grievance. Bad umpiring or an accusation of cheating is not unprecedented by any means.

Of course you realize that England support this move? What does it say about them? I don't want to get into the whole debate again, but your rant is pretty one sided to say the least. To completely blame Inzi/Pak, ignore Hair's role in it, and ignore the history and broader implications of what was taking place is ludicrous IMO.

As for this issue, I think the result should stand. I have no idea why PCB would bring this up, and the timing is equally baffling. PCB's stand was vindicated and they got what they wanted (charges of ball tempering dismissed and Hair subsequently dropped). To ask for the result of the match to be overturned is just opening up old wounds and creating unnecessary controversy.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Of course you realize that England support this move? What does it say about them? I don't want to get into the whole debate again, but your rant is pretty one sided to say the least. To completely blame Inzi/Pak, ignore Hair's role in it, and ignore the history and broader implications of what was taking place is ludicrous IMO.

As for this issue, I think the result should stand. I have no idea why PCB would bring this up, and the timing is equally baffling. PCB's stand was vindicated and they got what they wanted (charges of ball tempering dismissed and Hair subsequently dropped). To ask for the result of the match to be overturned is just opening up old wounds and creating unnecessary controversy.

Yes, my opinion is one-sided, and it doesn't bother me. Every single passionate cricket fan in the world has a one-sided opinion, its just that some hide it better than others. I feel pretty disappointed that a combination of Darrell Hair and Inzamam had to drag England into one of the biggest cricketing disgraces of modern times. I'm an England fan, I'm hardly going to support Pakistan in this.

As Richard said, I think the reason England support this is because they're probably quite embarrassed about winning that match, too. Plus it would be very petty of them to fight it given that it wouldn't affect the result of the series at all.

 

[Fusion]

Yes, my opinion is one-sided, and it doesn't bother me. Every single passionate cricket fan in the world has a one-sided opinion, its just that some hide it better than others. I feel pretty disappointed that a combination of Darrell Hair and Inzamam had to drag England into one of the biggest cricketing disgraces of modern times. I'm an England fan, I'm hardly going to support Pakistan in this.

As Richard said, I think the reason England support this is because they're probably quite embarrassed about winning that match, too. Plus it would be very petty of them to fight it given that it wouldn't affect the result of the series at all.

What does being an England fan have to do with forming a fair opinion? The question is not "who's your favorite team" or "who would you like to win" but rather "whose fault was it"? Being an England or Pakistani fan shouldn't exclusively mean that you pick one side over another. If you recall, England greats like Ian Botham, Naser Hussain, and Dickie Bird supported Pakistan during Ovalgate. Plenty of Pakistani greats had criticized Inzi's actions at the time. I don't blindly support my team's actions come what may. I would like to think you can be a passionate fan without being blind to logic or fairness.

 

[Barney Rubble]

What does being an England fan have to do with forming a fair opinion? The question is not "who's your favorite team" or "who would you like to win" but rather "whose fault was it"? Being an England or Pakistani fan shouldn't exclusively mean that you pick one side over another. If you recall, England greats like Ian Botham, Naser Hussain, and Dickie Bird supported Pakistan during Ovalgate. Plenty of Pakistani greats had criticized Inzi's actions at the time. I don't blindly support my team's actions come what may. I would like to think you can be a passionate fan without being blind to logic or fairness.

And you're trying to tell me it wasn't exclusively the fault of Darrell Hair and the Pakistan team? You're saying I shouldn't be aggravated that England had to play a part in it despite being totally innocent?

If everyone had a completely fair opinion then international sport would be boring as Hell. Sometimes being a sports fan is not about going on internet forums and trying to make out that you've got the most valuable opinion about something because you're the most fair. Sometimes if you're passionate about something, you can't help being biased.

GIMH, where are you to help me out?

 

[Fusion]

And you're trying to tell me it wasn't exclusively the fault of Darrell Hair and the Pakistan team? You're saying I shouldn't be aggravated that England had to play a part in it despite being totally innocent?

If everyone had a completely fair opinion then international sport would be boring as Hell. Sometimes being a sports fan is not about going on internet forums and trying to make out that you've got the most valuable opinion about something because you're the most fair. Sometimes if you're passionate about something, you can't help being biased.

GIMH, where are you to help me out?

Where did I say that Englad were at fault? Your original post on the topic started with a heavy rant against Pak/Inzi. I merely pointed out that it wasn't entirely their fault, that Hair was to blame as well (notice I'm blaming both parties, not just one). I see that you have now included Hair in the blame as well. Good for you, my original beef against you is now gone.

Now regarding the issue of being a passionate fan, you are completely missing the point IMO. Sure you can be passionate and one sided when it comes to supporting your team - on the field of play. However, it is still possible to be a passionate fan and criticize your team for actions they may take that are wrong. For example, an Aussie can criticize their team's behavior without taking away from the fact that he's a die-hard fan. Same goes for being a Pakistani and criticizing the team's players for taking steroids. I don't go on forums and try to have everyone like me because I'm being "fair". I post the way I do because I believe I'm being fair. I'm still a passionate supporter of my team, just not blind to their faults.