The PCB want result changed....

[Richard]

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.

Hmm... have you met sst?

Seriously - bit surprised to see this from Matt and Fus. Last thing I'd have expected.

 

[Engle]

Looking thru Merriam-Webster :

passionate : excited, quickened, stimulated, high-powered, high-pressure, steamed up, impetuous

ref : steamy, sultry

It says nothing about being fair-minded

 

[Barney Rubble]

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.

Fair enough, consider me officially backed down. I don't really have much of an argument left here, would be stupid to carry on with it. And yeah, Hair was obviously a huge part of it, he's an absolute ****wit.

Not really sure what I was trying to prove by talking about being a passionate fan etc., it seems like mostly bollocks now I read it back. Lucky I said all that in a fairly unpopular thread that not many people are reading.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

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.

Agree with the whole bad precedent thing, but there's a small difference between claiming bias out of nowhere and being accused of ball tampering and penalized for it.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Agree with the whole bad precedent thing, but there's a small difference between claiming bias out of nowhere and being accused of ball tampering and penalized for it.

Yeah, you've only got to look at how fast my argument unravelled to see how flawed it was.

 

[PY]

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.

I don't care about the rest of the argument, that is the key thing to me.

The result should be an accurate, untarnished record of what happened. Pakistan failed to take to the field and were punished according to the law. What caused that shouldn't be reflected in the result IMO as it shows a lack of shouldering responsibility on behalf of the PCB.

However, I'm not too fussed about it myself but the reasons behind it would be interesting to read and I can't see what it would achieve.

One-sided enough?

 

[Craig]

10/10 for ranting to Mr Pitt.

 

[Migara]

Let them have the asterik against the results. It will catch the attention of future generations more than changing the result.

 

[Perm]

Haha, no.

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

Yeah, agreed. Pakistan forfeited the match, and I in no way support their "right" to do that in protest of an umpiring decision, regardless of what that decision actually was. Result to stand IMO.

 

[Matt79]

Yeah, Pakistan deserved to be penalised for refusing to play. Hair also deserved to be punished, and that happened as well. I don't see how you can argue that the Pakistan team was retaliating means that it doesn't have to suffer the consequences of its decision.

 

[pasag]

Pretty opportunistic, thinking this was ICC's "give in" week or something.

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.

Well said. Got irked by something similar someone said here this week, being critical of certain Australians for not blindly standing up for the side in the current controversies.

 

[luckyeddie]

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.

I don't know which is the more ridiculous scenario.

England only being 2-1 down in a future series against Australia or Australia ever having anything to complain about regarding umpiring.

 

[Matt79]

Damien Martyn circa 2005 might want to talk to you about that!

 

[GIMH]

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?

Hehe, late to the party...

My take on this - pretty much agree that Pakistan should have been aware at the time of the potential consequences of refusing to play: if you make a stand that you believe to be principled, then I reckon the result becomes of a lesser consequence and as such, they should have (and should now) taken defeat on the chin as being something that came about because they felt cornered and wrongly accused. Result should stand.

 

[luckyeddie]

Damien Martyn circa 2005 might want to talk to you about that!

Sorry, my mistake.

Only had to go back two and a half years to find a couple of iffy decisions.

 

[Richard]

Think common consensus - which I'd agree with - seems then to be that Pakistan deserved to be punished because despite the fact that they had legitimate reason to protest, their chosen method of protest meant that according to the law, they forfeited the game.

Think it's probably England who deserve the result changed more than Pakistan, actually.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Think common consensus - which I'd agree with - seems then to be that Pakistan deserved to be punished because despite the fact that they had legitimate reason to protest, their chosen method of protest meant that according to the law, they forfeited the game.

Think it's probably England who deserve the result changed more than Pakistan, actually.

Can't do one without the other though.

However, I do see your point; I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting England deserved to win, but (IMHO, obv) Pakistan did derserve to forfeit. England's "victory" is just a by-product of that.

 

[Richard]

No, no, of course you can't, was just saying any change would actually help reflect more accurately on England than Pakistan.

Obviously, the requirements of accurately reflecting Pakistan's actions are more important than avoiding inaccurately reflecting England's. Ergo, leave as is > change.

 

[nightprowler10]

Yeah, you've only got to look at how fast my argument unravelled to see how flawed it was.