ICC agrees to change Oval forfeiture to a draw

[SJS]

Indians never had a problem with him and I think we are the same as Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

He is not racist... But he did seem to have genuine problems officiating in games involving Pak and Lanka, for reasons best known to the parties alone.

I think the reasons are well known to everyone who is willing to remove the "he-is-a-rascist-PERIOD" blinker from his eyes.

Hair is one of those umpires (wish there number was more) who will call a bowler for chucking if he finds the action doubtful and some teams have an issue with that. Since they cant talk about the actions of their bowlers, since legitimised by ICC, its easier to paint him in a dirty-racist-hue.

His other 'problem' is that he does take his job too 'seriously' and does think HE and his fellow umpire are the final arbiters of the game they are officiating in. His 'problem' is that the player-power and numbers-strength era seems to have been completely missed by him. He does not understand that not only he, but even the 'bosses' sitting in ICC are helpless before the new power centers in the game.

I do not know Mr Darryl Hair so I also do not know if he is a racist or not but I don't think he can be dubbed a racist because of anything he has done on the cricket field as an official.

 

[Jonty Lathwal]

Who cares?????

Everyone has forgotten it........

Even Haer too......

 

[SJS]

Who cares?????

Everyone has forgotten it........

Even Haer too......

Exactly.

That is why this (what ICC has done) makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[biased indian]

Even thouhg i agree with every body here....becuse if they wanted to come out at a decision they should have done it before the next test match

didnt see any body mention this..even though pakistan did refuse to come out to play after the tea..they were ready to come to play after the talks with match refree and when they came out to play it was hair the only man who refused to resume the play..

ya pakistan did refuse to play..but it was not like that thye just walked of the stadium...they wanted the 5 runs to be revoked..and when they where ready to continue even with that not revoked it was hair who refused to continue the play

 

[zaremba]

I think the reasons are well known to everyone who is willing to remove the "he-is-a-rascist-PERIOD" blinker from his eyes.

Hair is one of those umpires (wish there number was more) who will call a bowler for chucking if he finds the action doubtful and some teams have an issue with that. Since they cant talk about the actions of their bowlers, since legitimised by ICC, its easier to paint him in a dirty-racist-hue.

His other 'problem' is that he does take his job too 'seriously' and does think HE and his fellow umpire are the final arbiters of the game they are officiating in. His 'problem' is that the player-power and numbers-strength era seems to have been completely missed by him. He does not understand that not only he, but even the 'bosses' sitting in ICC are helpless before the new power centers in the game.

I do not know Mr Darryl Hair so I also do not know if he is a racist or not but I don't think he can be dubbed a racist because of anything he has done on the cricket field as an official.

Spot-on. He has copped an awful lot of abuse and accusations of racism which were, for the reasons you've given, baseless, and the only accusation against him which has any truth in it is that he is a stickler which, as an umpire, he is entitled to be.

I've no doubt that if he had umpired when Ian Meckiff was "bowling" he would have no-balled him too.

 

[Richard]

Cricket's never been a true democracy and probably never will be, that's how the world is. People have and always will do things that are weighted in their own interests.

The Western boards were doing it before and now India is doing it, I fail to see how one group of people doing it was alright and the game was seen as being in good hands; while the other group is doing htier own thing is dangerous and ruining cricket.

It isn't. And NO-ONE, least of all Matt, implied such a thing.

The fact that cricket's never been a true democracy is and always has been a travesty. But the fact that it was poor in one direction in another time doesn't mean no-one has any right to complain about it being poor in a different direction at a different time.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

PCB/Inzi & Pak had the last laugh.....

It's the rest of the sporting world that's laughing at the whole of cricket.

 

[Richard]

Think it's a bad decision. Can't see how retrospectively changing a result is good for anyone.

Off topic, and taking this discussion about retropsectively changing results to a more general level, does anyone know if the ICC have a policy re the results of matches if players subsequently test positive to drugs?

Say, for example, Warne had played in the 2003 WC, Australia won it, and his test results came back positive after the tourney. What would have happened if:

1. he'd starred.
2. he'd played 2 or 3 games, done okay then got injured.
3. he'd been very average but played all the games.

Should the WC be taken off his team? And if so, would opinon change depending on whether 1, 2 or 3 had been the case?

Honestly, how many times I have to address similar stuff to this I don't know.

The fact of the matter is that, here, there is one Umpiring decision - the last of the match - which has been changed retrospectively. It's completely different to anything (be it a one-off or something continuous) which has happened within a match or tournament.

This offers no precedent to anyone to change anything which happened during the course of a game.

 

[zaremba]

Honestly, how many times I have to address similar stuff to this I don't know.

The fact of the matter is that, here, there is one Umpiring decision - the last of the match - which has been changed retrospectively. It's completely different to anything (be it a one-off or something continuous) which has happened within a match or tournament.

I don't follow your logic in trying to distinguish or compare (a) one-off decisions at the end of the game and (b) misconduct which happened within the game.

The decision that might be changed retrospectively in the hypothetical WC example would also be a one-off, and the last of the match/tournament, namely "what was the result?" - effectively the same decision as that which the ICC overturned yesterday.

The fact that the reason for overturning the decision relates to events which occurred during the match/tournament is neither here nor there.

 

[SJS]

Even thouhg i agree with every body here....becuse if they wanted to come out at a decision they should have done it before the next test match

didnt see any body mention this..even though pakistan did refuse to come out to play after the tea..they were ready to come to play after the talks with match refree and when they came out to play it was hair the only man who refused to resume the play..

ya pakistan did refuse to play..but it was not like that thye just walked of the stadium...they wanted the 5 runs to be revoked..and when they where ready to continue even with that not revoked it was hair who refused to continue the play

.... by which time Darrell Hair had already made his decision regarding the outcome of the match. Pakistan played at 'brinksmanship' and cried when their bluff was called.

 

[zaremba]

Pakistan played at 'brinksmanship' and cried when their bluff was called.

Precisely.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Honestly, how many times I have to address similar stuff to this I don't know.

The fact of the matter is that, here, there is one Umpiring decision - the last of the match - which has been changed retrospectively. It's completely different to anything (be it a one-off or something continuous) which has happened within a match or tournament.

This offers no precedent to anyone to change anything which happened during the course of a game.

I think he was just asking a general question.

 

[nightprowler10]

Not such a bad thing IMO. Reveals true feelings of posters who enjoy the 'us' vs. 'them' nature of multicultural sport.

AWTA. I think it was an idiotic decision to take and stupid for the PCB to waste their time on this matter. Its over and done with, let it die. But some of the comments being made here by some rather respected members is surprising.

 

[SJS]

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.

Well said.

 

[Richard]

I don't follow your logic in trying to distinguish or compare (a) one-off decisions at the end of the game and (b) misconduct which happened within the game.

The decision that might be changed retrospectively in the hypothetical WC example would also be a one-off, and the last of the match/tournament, namely "what was the result?" - effectively the same decision as that which the ICC overturned yesterday.

The fact that the reason for overturning the decision relates to events which occurred during the match/tournament is neither here nor there.

It's not a case of a one-off decision at the end of the game, though - it's a case of a one-off decision to end the game.

You cannot change the result of a whole tournament retrospectively. You could declare it void, but that'd be it. You cannot say "as Australia had a player who should under some ruling or other have been banned they forfeit the crown to <insert>". Nor can you say "as the obviously erroneous decision in the 15th over of the game might well have had an impact upon it, the result is reversed".

All that is being changed is that the decision made in order to end the game produced not "England win" but "match abandoned as a draw".

 

[Richard]

I think he was just asking a general question.

Oh yeah, I know that. The point is, though, the "general" to which the question applies does not apply.

If that makes sense.

 

[Debris]

I don't understand why Pakistan would want the result changed. Haven't they ceded any moral high ground they may have had? It did not change the result of series at all.

I thought Pakistan's position was (rightly or wrongly) that they would rather forfeit the test match than let the ball-tampering decision stand. Changing the result just blurs the issue.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Down with the Asian bloc!

(face)

 

[SJS]

Down with the Asian bloc!

(face)

 

[zaremba]

It's not a case of a one-off decision at the end of the game, though - it's a case of a one-off decision to end the game.

No it's not. The decision to end the game stands. It is the decision as to who won that has been changed.

And having said that I will wind my pedantic neck back in...