ICC agrees to change Oval forfeiture to a draw

[open365]

What? There is certainly a possibility that this will impact upon the "refusal to play" rule and make it more difficult to implement.

Not, of course, that it should EVER need to be invoked.

England didn't deserve the victory, though. Yes, Pakistan deserved the defeat (it was a worthwhile sacrifice for mine) but Pakistan deserved the defeat less than England deserved the victory.

For mine, the fairest result of that game would indeed have been a draw.

Meh, in theory yes, but didn't we all say in 06 that Pakistan refusing to play would become a precedent for something, and it turns out it never effected anything and was an isolated incident.

I echo others that it's a pretty dumb decision for all concerned, I may be wrong in this but I don't think the incident was something Pakistani cricketers or fans were ashamed off in anyway, and I don't think English fans or players felt embarassed about the game being forfeitted.

 

[Richard]

It's also a pity that such a nasty little incident has been reignited by the ICC in this way. Every time I think about it I get angry at Pakistan's behaviour, not just their refusal to play or their disingenuous and contradictory explanations afterwards, but also their howls of wounded pride at the suggestion that one of their number may have cheated, just months after Afridi pirhoutted on the pitch in one of the most despicable acts of cheating I've ever seen. (I'm not suggesting any other country is beyond reproach btw).

Even if one of your idiots among you (Afridi) has done in the past, why does that mean the rest should be tarred with the same brush?

I'd still be outraged if someone wrongly accused my team of cheating in one way or another, even if one ex-member had done so just months previously.

The contradictory explanations hardly helped matters, but the central bone of contention was always a fair one for mine - Darrell Hair had finally gone too far.

 

[Richard]

Meh, in theory yes, but didn't we all say in 06 that Pakistan refusing to play would become a precedent for something, and it turns out it never effected anything and was an isolated incident.

Huh? Less than 2 years have passed since Ovalgate '06. I don't think anyone was suggesting it'd suddenly start happening 3 times a season.

 

[open365]

The annoying thing for me was the undertones of suspected racism surrounding the hole incident, it's hard to blame the PCB for it because it was an understandably awkward situation, but it seemed clear to a lot of people that they were accusing Hair of racism(all it what you will) by doing so, yet the accusations where never fully expressed by anyone and the issue was hurriedly brushed under the carpet by the ICC (sounds fammiliar). Or at least that's how I remember it being handled.

 

[open365]

Huh? Less than 2 years have passed since Ovalgate '06. I don't think anyone was suggesting it'd suddenly start happening 3 times a season.

Ok, when do you see it happening again? How often do teams get wrongly accused of cheating in one form or another?

In the Oval was a very isolated incident, and as such I don't see it having any significant effect on the way the game is governed or played in the forseeable future.

 

[Richard]

The annoying thing for me was the undertones of suspected racism surrounding the hole incident, it's hard to blame the PCB for it because it was an understandably awkward situation, but it seemed clear to a lot of people that they were accusing Hair of racism(all it what you will) by doing so, yet the accusations where never fully expressed by anyone and the issue was hurriedly brushed under the carpet by the ICC (sounds fammiliar). Or at least that's how I remember it being handled.

Not sure the allegations were ever specifically of racism, though - certainly they shouldn't have been, as Hair had perfectly legitimate defence against such an accusation which I never doubted for a second.

The accusation was always that Hair's manner was overbearing, officious, and that this had manifested itself worst with Pakistan, though the Sri Lankans also had fair claim to such a thing.

 

[Richard]

Ok, when do you see it happening again? How often do teams get wrongly accused of cheating in one form or another?

In the Oval was a very isolated incident, and as such I don't see it having any significant effect on the way the game is governed or played in the forseeable future.

I hope it won't, and as I said - I don't think it's extraordinarily likely to either. But you can't claim that it obviously hasn't based on less than 2 years' hassle-free-ness.

 

[open365]

Not sure the allegations were ever specifically of racism, though - certainly they shouldn't have been, as Hair had perfectly legitimate defence against such an accusation which I never doubted for a second.

The accusation was always that Hair's manner was overbearing, officious, and that this had manifested itself worst with Pakistan, though the Sri Lankans also had fair claim to such a thing.

That's racism though, well, maybe not in it's true dictionary definition form, but 'manifested itself worst with pakistan and sri lanka' is basically implying that the guy has something against Asians/Black people/Foreign people.

Which is kind of my point.

 

[Richard]

Well, it'd depend. Generally, for something to be racist, it'd have to be prejudice against all of a certain race, or all of a race that is not your own.

There was nothing of that sort in the accusations from Pakistan, UIMM. Nationalistic bias (ie, Pakistan are a bunch of cheaters) is the worst that was suggested.

 

[Precambrian]

Shortsighted and ridiculous decision. It has created a really unfortunate precedent. In fact, there is a distinct possibility that an unscrupulous captain might actually use this as an escape route.

eg- your team is chasing 400 plus on the last day and are 4 down for 150 odd 1 hour before tea. no chance of win, and primary motive is survival. suddenly you get a terrible decision from the umpire and off you pack and go. forfeit on protest against the decision. voila. you've a draw!

 

[four_or_six]

This match always makes me think of Chris Read.

Next to come in when the match was abandoned, batting reasonably well with 126 runs in 3 innings since his recall, and England on top when he came in... how many would he have needed to score to not get dropped (straight after this match) for the Ashes?

 

[zaremba]

Generally, for something to be racist, it'd have to be prejudice against all of a certain race, or all of a race that is not your own.

Not necessarily. It can be much more insidious than that. The "some of my best friends are black / pakistani / indian" line of defence is laughed out of court pretty consistently by Employment Tribunals in discrimination cases.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Was always very likely to happen once the ECB had no objection to it.

Yeah, it's pretty unabashed political expediency IMHO. Obviously I'm not party to what backs have been scratched or knobs twisted behind closed doors, but I suspect the whole Zimbabwe/world 2020 issue is now rather more likely to be resolved in the ECB's favour. I don't particularly like the decision, but can see why the ECB might choose to give way on this one.

On reflection, I'm not overly concerned about the precedent it sets either. Forfeiture wasn't an issue in tests for the better part of 130 years, so I think it's reasonable to assume it probably won't be one again for a good few years to come.

Next time Pakistan wants to make a "principled stand" tho I'd suggest that ceasing to select players who've been convicted of cheating would be a better way to go about it & leave them far less open to accusations of humbug.

 

[Richard]

This match always makes me think of Chris Read.

Next to come in when the match was abandoned, batting reasonably well with 126 runs in 3 innings since his recall, and England on top when he came in... how many would he have needed to score to not get dropped (straight after this match) for the Ashes?

England on top?

Personally I honestly wonder if 150* would have sufficed. Not that he was ever remotely likely to score that in a Test or even half of it.

 

[Richard]

Not necessarily. It can be much more insidious than that. The "some of my best friends are black / pakistani / indian" line of defence is laughed out of court pretty consistently by Employment Tribunals in discrimination cases.

This wasn't an employment tribunal though.

Fortunately.

TBH, I have no reason to doubt Hair's lack of racial discrimination. But I do think Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, had legitimate case to be suspicious of him.

 

[four_or_six]

England on top?

Sorry, I meant in that innings they were batting well.

Personally I honestly wonder if 150* would have sufficed. Not that he was ever remotely likely to score that in a Test or even half of it.

No, probably not enough... it just makes me wonder.

 

[GIMH]

There is a good reason why those aren't comparable (much as it would indeed be ideal to find a way to change the results to accommodate them). This case was unique - it was the decision of the Umpires to stop the game. To completely rule-out all that had gone before and say "England have won". All other things, it was stuff before the end of the game that impacted unfairly upon the result (rain, bad in-game decisions, etc.), these can't be unequivocally changed, without changing everything else thereafter. However, as there was nothing to follow this decision, nothing else is being changed.

All that is being changed is that this final decision, instead of being ruled as "England have won", becomes "match abandoned".

I was being facetious, just in case anyone missed that

Meh, whatever anyhow. SS needs to update those CW rankings though.

 

[silentstriker]

I was being facetious, just in case anyone missed that

Meh, whatever anyhow. SS needs to update those CW rankings though.

Way ahead of you.

 

[Malleeboy]

I think other countries should go through the history books and find other matches that deserve having their results changed!

What about Adelaide Bodyline test! Declare it a void match and thereby give the Don an average of over a 100.

Or the Kiwi's having the underarm bowling game overturned!

I'm sure every country could find some result they think deserves overturning.

The Umpire was in the wrong, he made a mistake, it shouldn't have happened. But once you start changing results post series yet alone after the match, where do you stop.

Refusing to play canot be tolerated, and should always be punished (especially when no matter what you thought of him the umpire, he did act within the laws of cricket. Well maybe too much within the exact requirements but still he did follow them)

If your going to make a moral stand then have the b@lls to live with the consequences. It makes you moral cases far stronger IMHO. Pakistans action are a bit like Ghandhi deciding after a beating to have the guy who hit him shot. Greatly diminishes the moral force of the action.

 

[GIMH]

Way ahead of you.

LOL yeah the next post I read after posting was your update!