Oval Test result 'to be changed'

[Insomniac]

Ross Emerson, iirc, there was a bigger furore over when he called Murali.


That doesn't mean you can do also walk off the field, anyway, they walked off the field when Emerson called Murali, not hair, in 1999.

Yes, you're correct, my apologies

It never went to court, pulled out of it only days after calling it iirc.

It didn't, but Hair did sue looking for money. In the end I think his lawyers advised him not to take it to court

I've never denied he was wrong in in the ball tampering accusation. Most of the cricketing world agrees with that, thus his banning from umpiring for however many years/months it was.

Then what are we arguing about?


Which the PCB would have appealed against the ICC would have been forced to change the rules regarding it. I think they did after the incident.

Yes, the rules have been changed. Deeming a match "forfeited" is in the power of the match referee, not the umpires.


But it wasn't a draw though, Pakistan forfeited the game. It makes no impact on the series result. But it can't be a draw when one side forfeits the game through refusing to take to the field, extenuating circumstances or not.

Tell that to the ICC, don't blame Pakistan for it.

..

 

[sohum]

You might argue that Pakistan did eventually agree to get back to playing, but I'm afraid you cant keep changing your mind. Had the umpires then reconsidered their decision it would set a bad precedent because one would think that if they do stay off the field for sometime and then decide to play again, it would be fine.

From the reports I remember reading, it wasn't Pakistan's intentions to not play. Hence they weren't really "changing [their] mind". They just wanted to make a short protest and get back on the field. However, I do believe there were reports that suggested otherwise, so that point may be valid.

sohummisra added 3 Minutes and 25 Seconds later...

Actually it wasn't your right, Pakistan were penalized 5 runs, England, 2 wickets, I think that's a bit more important.
Why do people think that he was doing it to be biased, I mean he was acting in good faith (Like Yorkshire but that's for another post) cheating must be stamped out and if he thought Inzamam (I can't spell his name) was cheating then it would be unfair on England not to do something, he penalized 5 runs, and Pakistan refused to come back out to play the game. Now if you think that means that Pakistan deserve a draw then you must either be

A) Pakistani
B) Crazy
or C) The ICC CEO

Next time you quote my post you might make sure your response actually has something to say about it.

sohummisra added 6 Minutes and 53 Seconds later...

Moving on to Hair's requested payoff, he did absolutely nothing wrong. After the Oval, the ICC had no grounds at all to sack him.

If the ICC had no grounds to sack him, then Darrell Hair should have waited for the courts to come to that decision.

EDIT - Just remembered another point I wanted to make, with regards the changing of the result - what a shambles. Imagine, going into the 06/07 Ashes series, England forfeited every game protesting about an umpiring decision. The results are later changed to draws, the series is 0-0, and England retain the Ashes.

The decision rewards teams for following an innapropriate course of action. Good idea? Not to me.

I suggest you read the rest of the thread, and before I take these above two paragraphs seriously, answer these two questions:

1. Do you really equate a poor LBW decision with a mistaken allegation of cheating?
2. Do you understand the extenuating circumstances involved in this event?

This overturning of the match results sets NO SORT OF PRECEDENT, except if another team is accused of cheating and refuses to take the field. The situations that led to the events that happened and the subsequent overturning of the decision WERE NOT A NORMAL COURSE OF EVENTS. Expecting that it sets a precedent suggests that one would happen on this sort of situation regularly, whereas in the history of cricket allegations of cheating have been few and far between, when it comes to accusations made by officials.

sohummisra added 3 Minutes and 9 Seconds later...

Madugalle ruled, after the match, that evidence is required. Until the ICC start employing phsycic umpires, it is difficult to see how they are supposed to take future judgements into account when making decisions - all they can do is follow the rules as they stand.

They don't need to employ psychic umpires--they need to employ umpires who possess common sense. Quite simply, all this bullshit about "Hair standing up for the game" is starting to get to me. He just believes he is above the sport. Sure, he's applying the rules, but he's applying them without any consideration of how his actions look to the rest of the world and how it affects the game of cricket.

You cannot just accuse someone of cheating and then say "there's nothing saying that I cannot make **** up." Or rather, no one with any humility whatsoever would do that.

 

[Insomniac]

Sohum

If only there were more people like you.