Wasim says ICC is run by whites

[C_C]

Im not disputing that Aussie umpires may have been biased in the 1980's - they may or may not have been, I don't know. Im making the more general argument, that the dominant team tends to get the close calls in their favour, and citing the Windies in the 1980's, and Australia in the last 10 years, as examples. Im not defending Aussie umpires, or disagreeing with what Gavaskar and Holding had to say.

Yes, i know.
The flaw to your argument is the WI vs NZ series in 79/80, which was easily the most blatant exhibition of biassed umpiring. And WI were pretty dominating between 75 and 94.

 

[greg]

There was a law change regarding lbw decisions in the mid/late 50s. Before Ramadhin-Valentine duo, batsmen would be out for padding up if the ball is going on to hit the stumps- that was modified to batsmen judged out if the ball is going on to hit the stumps and is pitched in line with the stumps.

This is simply not true. What is your source for this?

 

[howardj]

Yes, i know.
The flaw to your argument is the WI vs NZ series in 79/80, which was easily the most blatant exhibition of biassed umpiring. And WI were pretty dominating between 75 and 94.

One series hardly constitutes a fatal flaw. Of course there will always be exceptions, such as the series that you cited. I did say 'tends to', not 'always'. I think it was evident in the Ashes series also, where England tended to get a lot of close calls. And good luck to them - that's what you TEND TO get when you're the dominant team. Anyway mate, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Slow Love™]

I shouldn't have got involved in this conversation

However, if we are talking laws then it was the MCC which was the guardian pre modern ICC. The Imperial/International Cricket Conference had no official role until very recently.

I don't really think it matters that much - stating that these organizations were controlled by a white heirarchy serving predominantly white interests over the vast majority of the twentieth century wouldn't be that controversial a statement, really.

Anyhow, you're right, it's a stupid argument to be having, and I'd forfeit the historical argument and revert to the legitimacy of Wasim's statement. (Just IMHO )

 

[C_C]

One series hardly constitutes a fatal flaw. Of course there will always be exceptions such as the series that you cited. I did say 'tends to', not 'always'. I think it was evident in the Ashes series also, where England tended to get a lot of close calls. And good luck to them - that's what you TEND TO get when you're the dominant team. Anyway mate, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Well the whole 'dominant team tends to get the better decisions' theory is valid when the judiciary( ie, the umpires) are essentially neutral ( or atleast, supposed to be).
With home umpiring, it doesnt matter whether its the dominant team or the worst team, home umpires will inherently be biassed in favour of the home team in most occasions.
Some teams( England, Australia and Pakistan) took a more biassed stand than IND, SL, WI and NZ did through that period.

 

[C_C]

This is simply not true. What is your source for this?

I read it in a cricket book citing MCC minutes and rule changes a long time ago. Will try to get the name of it.

 

[greg]

I read it in a cricket book citing MCC minutes and rule changes a long time ago. Will try to get the name of it.

The law did not change between 1935 (when it was altered from the former "pitch in line, hit in line" law to allow the ball to pitch outside the off stump") and 1970. Once of the main motivating factors behind the 1970 change was to "discourage pad play" - which had as its most famous example May and Cowdrey's successful attempt to keep out Ramadhin in 1953.

see - http://web01.cricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/152418.html (it's a bit hazy on what the precise changes were, but the motivations are clearly expressed, and contrary to your claims.)

 

[archie mac]

No, lbw laws were changed in batsmen's favour ( cannot be out anymore to balls pitching outside leg, cannot be out padding up on the front foot unless the ball landed in line with the off stump).
.

I am almost certain in Test Cricket, you have never been able to be dismissed to a ball pitching outside the legstump.

For many years until 1935? the ball had to pitch wicket to wicket for a batsman to be dismissed LBW.

The rule was changed so a ball could pitch outside offstump and if it struck a batsman in line and was going on to hit the stumps he could be given out LBW.

Later this rule was changed to the current rule where a batsman could be given out if he didnot offer a shot to a ball pitching outside offstump, if in the opinion of the umpire it would have gone onto hit the stumps.

If that rule was in force against May and MCC during their record partnership they may well have lost to the WI.

 

[Slow Love™]

Good to see Mani's so quick to respond indignantly to Wasim's stupid comments though. If only he was as quick to respond and condemn the ZCU.

In fact, he could have used the fact that he's willing to apologize for Mugabe's henchmen no matter what they do as a rebuttal to Wasim's comments. Because clearly, the goras are the ones kicking up a stink about them.

 

[honestbharani]

That's your view.

I'll stick with Goochy and AB

Both of them are very well known NOT to be whiners, right?

 

[honestbharani]

BTW, I think his opinions are wrong as well. It MAY HAVE BEEN that way in the past, but it definitely isn't at the moment.


But having said that, Mike Procter has said that some teams like "Australia, RSA and NZ" have played the game very aggressively over the years and that it shouldn't be cut down.... Given the context of this comment, what he was effectively saying was that it was okay for guys like Warne and Lee to over appeal while it wasn't for guys like Kumble and Murali.... (He mentioned the Indian players as quieter, gentler type cricketers)... I wonder why he is still kept as a match referee if he has such biased views? the rules should be the same for everyone.

 

[Slow Love™]

But having said that, Mike Procter has said that some teams like "Australia, RSA and NZ" have played the game very aggressively over the years and that it shouldn't be cut down.... Given the context of this comment, what he was effectively saying was that it was okay for guys like Warne and Lee to over appeal while it wasn't for guys like Kumble and Murali.... (He mentioned the Indian players as quieter, gentler type cricketers)... I wonder why he is still kept as a match referee if he has such biased views? the rules should be the same for everyone.

You're exactly right. Proctor probably sees his comments as cultural sensitivity, but in reality, it's allowing those guys to do it (because it's their "nature" to play the game aggressively) and not allowing other teams to do it (because it's not in theirs?). Either decide the behaviour's tolerable, or it isn't, because otherwise, it's going to be a ludicrous minefield of your own making.

And yes, I'd be concerned about him refereeing in the light of these comments, too.

 

[swede]

The law did not change between 1935 (when it was altered from the former "pitch in line, hit in line" law to allow the ball to pitch outside the off stump") and 1970. Once of the main motivating factors behind the 1970 change was to "discourage pad play" - which had as its most famous example May and Cowdrey's successful attempt to keep out Ramadhin in 1953.

see - http://web01.cricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/152418.html (it's a bit hazy on what the precise changes were, but the motivations are clearly expressed, and contrary to your claims.)

I understand it to be like this.

Prior to 1935 you could only be out LBW if the ball pitched in line.

from 1935 you could also be out if the ball pitched outside off and was blocked in line.

from 1970 LBW was expanded to include all off-pitched balls no matter where they were blocked, however now batsmen were reprieved if they offered a shot to off-pitched balls.

both the 35 and 70 changes were made to stop pad play.

The 35 rule divided players. some liked it, others didnt and others again wanted to go further. the 1970 rule did both. It expanded the use of LBW if no shot was offered. but went back to the old rule if there was a genuine attempt to play a shot.

I think this put a stop to the controversies as it solved what I think was the problem with the 35 law, that it both curbed pad defense but also attacking shot.
The downside was of course that umpires now had to guess the batsmen intentions.

It has never been possible to be out LBW in test cricket to a leg-pitched ball. But it was discussed in connection with the 1935 rule change, where both Don Bradman and the editor of wisden saw no reason that there should be a difference between leg and off.

 

[ClownSymonds]

Isn't that untrue?

England, Australia, New Zealand - White (generally)
South Africa, Zimbabwe - Let's not go down that road.
West Indies, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka - Black (generally)

Indians and Pakistanis are black?! I have no clue what color filter you're looking through.

 

[Josh]

Indians and Pakistanis are black?! I have no clue what color filter you're looking through.

lmao!

 

[open365]

funniest comment ever.

 

[social]

Anyway...

Akram comments ill-informed and offensive – ICC

Jon Long

December 11, 2005

ICC President, Ehsan Mani, today strongly attacked comments made by former Pakistan player Wasim Akram that alleged a bias by the ICC against Asian countries, labelling them as ill-informed and offensive.

"As a Pakistani I am honoured by the privilege given to me to lead the ICC in carrying out its responsibility to act without fear or favour to any nation. It is a great disappointment to see this former great player, particularly as he is from my own homeland, make such ill-informed, offensive and inaccurate comments," said Mr Mani

"The reality is that what Wasim has alleged is offensive not just to me but to everybody involved with the ICC - the directors, the umpires and referees, the staff and the many former great players from across the cricketing world, including many from Asia, who are involved with the ICC through its Cricket Committee," he said.

"His comments are not supported by any facts, are ill-informed and make no constructive contribution to the debate on moving cricket forward.

"With former Indian captain, Sunil Gavaskar, as Chairman of the ICC Cricket Committee that includes four representatives from Asia; with former South African vice-captain, David Richardson, as General Manager - Cricket; and with former Sir Lankan captain, Ranjan Madugalle, and Sri Lankan player, Roshan Mahanama, amongst the Emirates Elite Panel of Referees we have access to some outstanding cricketing people to deal with cricket issues. In this process, the views of the Asian region are well represented.

"In reality the ICC today is a multi-cultural body that reflects and embraces the diversity of the cricket world. This is reflected at the Board table, at all levels of the administration and in the critical operational areas of the Cricket Committee, umpiring and refereeing and anti-corruption.

"In light of the reality of the modern ICC, these comments are a poor reflection on Wasim's ability to play a constructive role in debating cricketing issues and bring into question his ability to research, understand and make judgments on the way in which the ICC carries out its mandate from all members."

Abalanced response.

The notion that the ICC has favoured "whites" over "coloureds" is plainly ludicrous and not based on fact in any way, shape or form. If anything, the reverse has been true as administrators have sought to take advantage of the massive revenue streams available from the sub-continent.

 

[swede]

Look-you can pretend as much as you want but facts clearly indicate that ICC ( or its previous avatars) were largely a ' whiteboy club' till the mid/late 80s. Facts prove this- the ICC ( and its previous avatars) have consistently taken decisions to protect English and Aussie interests only leading up to that period- most rule changes were brought forth when one ( or both) of the two abovementioned teams were struggling against the other team(s). The lbw laws were changed as soon as Sonny Ramadhin and Alf Valentine flummoxed the English batsmen in England. Bouncers were okay when Thommo and Lillee were peppering the batsmen away - overs and overs at a stretch but murmurs began as soon as West Indies did the same- with better efficiency. That eventually led to the bouncer rules. Third umpiring was brought forth largely due to the Gatting-Shakoor Rana incident, despite the fact that English or Australian home umpires were historically no worse than the Pakistani ones ( the most biassed three countries when it came to home umpiring). Blatant cheating by NZ umpires resulted in the WI series loss to NZ in 1979/80.
The examples are too numerous to dismiss the fact that ICC has been pro-white for most of its existance.

Right now, i think its not really a 'white bias' but rather a bit of a bias towards Australia and England.
In the test i've watched involving these two nations, they usually get the longer end of the stick when it comes to 50-50 decisions and true shockers more often than not.
As of now, i think that the bias has lessened considerably but still exists.
One tends to forget that 'equality' and 'no racism' policy in the west is rather new- essentially gaining mass momentum from the mid-late 1960s. Typically it takes a long time and several generations to change ( for better or for worse) the social norms of a society and i need not point out that many of these so-called elite umpires and officials grew up in a society that openly thought whites were superior to all other human beings.
So overall, i would say Akram's statement has some merit to it.

you seem to believe only the west can be racist, strangely.

But is it so strange that australia and england dominated cricket through the MCC and ICC. why should they apologize for this?

Given that these 2 nations played test cricket since the 1880´s (and in some ways for a while before that) and that it was almost the 1950´s before anyone else began to become established and competitive it would seem quite natural to me that england and australia would dominate then and for some time afterwards, just as its natural they now dont.

If sumo wrestling became a new british sporting passion, I would also find it normal that japan countinued to dominate the running of the sport while it developed in the uk.

 

[social]

BTW, I think his opinions are wrong as well. It MAY HAVE BEEN that way in the past, but it definitely isn't at the moment.


But having said that, Mike Procter has said that some teams like "Australia, RSA and NZ" have played the game very aggressively over the years and that it shouldn't be cut down.... Given the context of this comment, what he was effectively saying was that it was okay for guys like Warne and Lee to over appeal while it wasn't for guys like Kumble and Murali.... (He mentioned the Indian players as quieter, gentler type cricketers)... I wonder why he is still kept as a match referee if he has such biased views? the rules should be the same for everyone.

Somehow Ive never had the feeling that Murali, Kumble, etc, etc will ever die wondering when it comes to appealing.

The Indians, in particular, are past masters of placing pressure on the umpires through incessant appealing.

And the Sri Lankans, under Ranatunga, were definitely one of the worst behaved sporting outfits that it has ever been my misfortune to witness. Ranatunga, in particular, played on the stereotype of his countrymen being "gentle, etc" to extricate himself from blame for controversy after controversy and was more than happy to play the race card whenever it suited. It's the reason why he was/is one of the most despised cricketers in recent memory.

 

[Dasa]

^I've only ever heard Aussies say they 'despise' Ranatunga...same with Ganguly. Perhaps because these two actually decided to challenge the Aussies at their own game.