ICC: Everyone's favourite boxing bag.

[max_dillon2007]

Hi there,
There is a reason why cricket is yet to played in olympic(dont remind me of 1902 when england beat poor france to win gold). Every popular game in he world has a very storg professional organisation which conducts without fear and stand by its word. But ICC is nothing more than a group of retired managers who are just earning their pension. Ever heard of FIFA cancelling the ban on a soccer player due to pressure from a particular country. But ICC do that, and do hat so often. What happened at sydney wasnt right if that was wat Roy sait it was. But more than Harbhajan it was ICC's fault to surrender under the pressure of BCCI and let the Harbhajan loose.(Poor Sreesanth,if only ICC had banned harbhajan then maybe he wouldnt have got the slap).Even in its decisions ICC is not sure. First they called Murali for chucking and then increased its own limit. Ever heard of FIFA to allow the goal made by hand valid by changing rule? Then again the Sledging, they are not sure here also. The players depends upon the Match referres personal choice. For example,Chris Broad, he would never ban an aussie or english player even if they sledge after every ball throughout the day, whereas any player from subcontinent would be charged for even a small talk. I know he might not do it intentionally,it might be in his subconscious to see aussie slegding right and other wrong. To remove this i think ICC either remove sledging completely or allow it without any limit(i remember how i used to annoy batsmen throughout the innings while keeping up the stumps in school cricket).

So I think ICC should make only yes or no kinda rules. I mean either you sledge or you do not sledge. there should not be a room for maybe or small. Grey area rules should be eleminated.

 

[Cricketman]

Off topic, but it seems that you are everyone's favorite e-punching bag today.

 

[sohum]

Comparing the rules of a game like football to cricket is a little shallow, seeing that the latter is extremely complicated whereas the former is straightforward.

With regards to the Harbhajan incident, it was one player's word vs. another's. Yes, the ICC has been increasingly pressured by the BCCI, but to look at it from a purely legal point of view, Symonds really had no case because he had no evidence.

With regards to the degree of flex being increased, I suggest you do your research before bringing up issues that have been done to death. By the old ICC laws, 90+% of international bowlers were above the limit and hence "illegal". If you want to compare it with football, imagine that FIFA had a rule where only goals scored with the left foot were valid. Would you outlaw all goals that had been scored with the right foot or would you change the law?

Finally, with regards to sledging, I think this is the one valid issue you have brought up. Sledging is not part of the game in that if you didn't have sledging, you would still have a game. However, it is important not to tread on the toes of the players and take the passion out of the game. To that end, I think the umpires have more often than not done a good job in keeping things calm. In the event they get out of hand, though, the ICC needs to strike hard.

EDIT: Oh, and the reason that cricket isn't played in the Olympics is because not enough of the participating nations actively play it. Also, the fact that it isn't conducive to the Olympic setting, at least until Twenty20 was invented.

 

[King Cricket]

I have said it earlier, and i'm saying it again in this thread, the ICC is run by a bunch of morons who don't even know the C of Cricket- just like BCCI. The chief of ICC, Morgan or Stanley or whatever his name maybe, has he any cricketing experience? A man with no cricketing experience whatsoever becomes the chief of ICC, the ruling body of cricket! Amazing! :

 

[.::Stevo::.]

I have said it earlier, and i'm saying it again in this thread, the ICC is run by a bunch of morons who don't even know the C of Cricket- just like BCCI. The chief of ICC, Morgan or Stanley or whatever his name maybe, has he any cricketing experience? A man with no cricketing experience whatsoever becomes the chief of ICC, the ruling body of cricket! Amazing! :

Uh, and what cricket skills are involved in running an organization?

 

[King Cricket]

Uh, and what cricket skills are involved in running an organization?

Correction, running the ruling body of cricket. And to run the governing body of cricket some cricketing experience is required, at least I think so.

 

[sohum]

Correction, running the ruling body of cricket. And to run the governing body of cricket some cricketing experience is required, at least I think so.

Not really. You will find that most cricketers probably aren't smart enough to manage a global organization. That said, you don't want it taken over by a full-scale businessman, which is what Jagmohan Dalmiya did to make BCCI the most powerful cricket organization today. I'd say it's best to have a businessman who has a strong interest in cricket, demonstrated maybe by his company sponsoring cricket, or by journalism on cricket.

 

[vaibhav mehta]

Max, it is easy to speak than to manage a international cricket organization. Those people are far more better and capable than us and that is why they are there.
Tell me, if you were head of ICC then what would have you done to help SCB?

It is not purely ICC's fault that they have to surrender under pressure of BCCI every time. It is just BCCI have ten times more money than ICC. ICC couldn't claim any authority over international cricket until ICC really have serious fund to run international cricket without BCCI.