ICC agrees to change Oval forfeiture to a draw

[Burgey]

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.

Well yes, but my point is if there's a precedent set to change the result of a game, where does it end?
Certainly in other sports people have retrospectively had medals taken from them, relay teams have been DQed because 1 member was found to have taken drugs.
And in any event Rich, I was asking whether there is an ICC policy on the issue? I could see the boards of most if not all countries being pretty fired up if it transpired they got rolled over by a side which contained a fella who had been on the elephant juice.
It will happen one day in cricket, as it has in nearly every other sport. I suppose I'm just eexpecting too much for the ICC to have something in place for when it does happen .

 

[duffer]

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

Not directed at Rubble tbh. The way the ICC is talked about down here in the media you do get the sense of what I was getting at though.

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.

Yeah, but why weren't there such howls of derision aimed at the ICC before when the power was with the western nations? Because I sure as hell don't remember too many of them from outside the subcontinent. That was my entire point, everyone likes playing victim when it suits them and it pisses me off no end because I know it'll never stop and the chances of moving forward are laughable.

 

[silentstriker]

Crap decision

I can see it now a team lets say Aust. (before Dasa gets upset ) are 9 down in the 2nd innings needing 200 to win with all of day 5 to go.

One of the English players says something bad about the Aussie crowd (convicts); what if the Aussies walk off and demand a draw keeping the Ashes 2-2?

If that ever happens, I'll pay you $1000. You're talking absurdities now.

 

[Precambrian]

Not directed at Rubble tbh. The way the ICC is talked about down here in the media you do get the sense of what I was getting at though.



Yeah, but why weren't there such howls of derision aimed at the ICC before when the power was with the western nations? Because I sure as hell don't remember too many of them from outside the subcontinent. That was my entire point, everyone likes playing victim when it suits them and it pisses me off no end because I know it'll never stop and the chances of moving forward are laughable.

One of the best posts in CW Ive come across

 

[archie mac]

If that ever happens, I'll pay you $1000. You're talking absurdities now.

Well I thought what Pakistan did was absurd, and this decision by the ICC makes it even more likely to happen

I will mention Chile in a certain game of soccer

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Crap decision

I can see it now a team lets say Aust. (before Dasa gets upset ) are 9 down in the 2nd innings needing 200 to win with all of day 5 to go.

One of the English players says something bad about the Aussie crowd (convicts); what if the Aussies walk off and demand a draw keeping the Ashes 2-2?

If that ever happens, I'll pay you $1000. You're talking absurdities now.

If England go into the Final Test next summer drawing 2-2 I'll give you $2000.

 

[archie mac]

If England go into the Final Test next summer drawing 2-2 I'll give you $2000.

Go the Poms!

 

[DaRick]

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci-i...ry/359329.html

I disagree with this. If you are going to make a principled stand, you have to deal with the consequences. If you refuse to come out to play, forfeiture is the only route that can be taken. This is independent of whether Hair is wrong, or right, or whether what Pakistan did was wrong or right. If you don't come out to play for any reason, you lose the game, even if what you did was for the proper reasons.

This sounds like a pointless gesture to me, really. It's not like the result of an entire series was unjustly affected as a result of Darrell Hair's belief that Pakistan had forefeited the game.

Although I have to admit that I initially sympathised with the Pakistanis (the anti-Hair articles which sprung up on Cricinfo, plus Hair's prior relations with the subcontinent, admittedly led to this), but I began to realise that Hair was doing nothing but interpreting the laws of cricket (however rigidly). In essence, he was being crucified for trying to do his job competently.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, but why weren't there such howls of derision aimed at the ICC before when the power was with the western nations? Because I sure as hell don't remember too many of them from outside the subcontinent.

You don't remember any of it, or if there were or weren't - you're too young. So am I. I have no recollection whatsoever of a time when the UK and Australia basically ruled cricket, I do not want to have any recollection of it nor do I want to be reminded of it. That's why subcontinentals accusing me and my countrymen (especially those of a similar age to me) of double-standards in anything relating to this annoys me greatly.

In reality, it wouldn't have been aimed at I$C$C anyway - until 1993, I$C$C was simply an adjuct of MCC.

Were there howls of derision aimed at MCC when western nations were in power? Frankly I'd be very surprised if there weren't, because there damn well should have been. But I don't know if there were or weren't, because it was before my time.

That was my entire point, everyone likes playing victim when it suits them and it pisses me off no end because I know it'll never stop and the chances of moving forward are laughable.

I agree that it's a perpetual vicious-circle, but I just disagree with who you were apparently accusing of "playing the victim".

I actually don't think there's all that much of that done, certainly nowhere near as much as certain people like to think, and certainly it's pretty minimal on CW.

 

[Richard]

Well yes, but my point is if there's a precedent set to change the result of a game, where does it end?

It ends in the only predecent that's been set - if a decision to abandon the game on a whim is taken, the result of that decision can later be disputed. The game cannot be restarted later - but the decision of whether it's positive-result (win\loss) or draw can be changed. And nothing more.

Certainly in other sports people have retrospectively had medals taken from them, relay teams have been DQed because 1 member was found to have taken drugs.

Even though a relay "team" is a team in a sense, it's nothing remotely comparable to a cricket team. It's based on the fact that individual athletes are stripped of medals having found to have broken drug-taking rules. The occasiona teams are consigned to the majority, which is that athletics is an individual sport. In cricket there is no individual-or-team thing - every game of cricket is the same, a team game played by individuals.

And in any event Rich, I was asking whether there is an ICC policy on the issue? I could see the boards of most if not all countries being pretty fired up if it transpired they got rolled over by a side which contained a fella who had been on the elephant juice.
It will happen one day in cricket, as it has in nearly every other sport. I suppose I'm just eexpecting too much for the ICC to have something in place for when it does happen .

I agree completely that there should be something in place - but cricket cannot be compared to individual sports, as there is simply no way to equate it.

 

[Richard]

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...

I know the decision to end the game stands. But this move to change the outcome of a decision which ended the game does not give precedent to anyone to change the result of a game based on a decision which occurred during a game.

 

[silentstriker]

Well I thought what Pakistan did was absurd, and this decision by the ICC makes it even more likely to happen

So you are saying that teams will walk off in the middle of play now if they are losing?

 

[itduzz]

Pak did the right thing....Pak & Inzi had the last laugh....

 

[Richard]

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

Pak did the right thing....Pak & Inzi had the last laugh....

Repetition does not make things more true.

 

[itduzz]

Repetition does not make things more true.

It does.....Hair was an idiotic racist and was rightly ousted by PCB & Inzi...shame on ICC for bringing back Hair....

 

[Richard]

It does

No it doesn't.

Hair was an idiotic racist

Was? I'd say he never was (there's negligable evidence to support such a claim), but if he was then surely he still is?

was rightly ousted by PCB & Inzi

Not really. He was dropped by I$C$C because they had the sense (a rare moment) to realise that his situation had become untenable... for a time.

shame on ICC for bringing back Hair....

Not really. They had little choice. And Hair is more than capable of doing an excellent job in games involving England, New Zealand, India, South Africa and West Indies.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It does

No it doesn't.

Excellent.

 

[archie mac]

So you are saying that teams will walk off in the middle of play now if they are losing?

I am saying it is a possibility, in an extreme circumstance. Anyway I thought you were the one suggesting teams should do what ever it takes to not lose? We now have a precedent (spelling), why would a coach or captain facing the sack if they lose a series not try it?

To say that no one would ever try it, seems naive

 

[Craig]

The sky is falling in! The Asians are taking over the world! Some ****ing ridiculous comments here. In case people didn't realise, the ECB supported this decision as well, where are the comments denouncing their influence on the game? Any excuse to have a go at the 'Asian bloc' will do, I suppose.

So off that fence, so what is your true opinion of what happened?

As it stands, what happened in 2006, happened, rightly or wrongly, so it being draw does the sum of nothing. Too bad laws don't allow it be delcared as "Match Abandoned", I wish it did, and if not, why not?

 

[Precambrian]

You don't remember any of it, or if there were or weren't - you're too young. So am I. I have no recollection whatsoever of a time when the UK and Australia basically ruled cricket, I do not want to have any recollection of it nor do I want to be reminded of it.

In reality, it wouldn't have been aimed at I$C$C anyway - until 1993, I$C$C was simply an adjuct of MCC.

Perfect example of can give, but can't take. And the second quote blatantly contradicts the first quote. Must be a tired man.

That's why subcontinentals accusing me and my countrymen (especially those of a similar age to me) of double-standards in anything relating to this annoys me greatly.

I don't think any "subcontinental" here in CW is naive enough to equate you or "people of your age" to the ECB. The grouse is against mainly the ECB, and to some extent the English govt. Noone is stupid to make it personal, dear Richard.