Oval Test result 'to be changed'

[Sureshot]

Maybe it's all related to Zimbabwe not touring next year for the World T20?

 

[nightprowler10]

Im sick to death of the pakistan team and the ICC. Pakistan are crap at cricket and have been for a long time its just they cant seem to accept this and have to result to childish behaviour to get results. They refused to take to the field meaning they forfeited the game, since when is a forfeit a draw?

Bit over the top there IMO.

 

[usy]

Maybe Sureshot started taking drugs too..

Really, but seriously guys, my only problem was the accusation of our players “tampering” the ball, apart from that I’d known that Inzy arguably did wrong and later I came to agreeing the fact that yes, we should’ve carried on playing.

I have no idea, but PCB is getting worse day by day, and I can’t help it.

It’s nothing to talk about, get over it, do something else.

 

[Simbazz]

In my opinion, there isn't much the ECB can do. Plus, they've been a tad busy with the Zimbabwe thing.

As i've said, i've lost all respect for the PCB, they're going the same way as the BCCI as Usy has said (I cant believe i'm agreeing with Usy) and are trying to "dictate," the way cricket goes, much like the BCCI.

 

[Sureshot]

But it is something to talk about, Usy. That's why we are here. To discuss.

Thing is, going back two years, they had held their protest, fine, do that, but when asked by the umpires whether they would come back, they should say yes. It would have been a stronger protest. Less for the ICC to lean on. But this opening old cupboards, I really want MCC running cricket again. Businessmen running it, doesn't work.

 

[Simbazz]

Exactly, Sureshot! The MCC are passionate about cricket, whereas the ICC are passionate about the next pay cheque.

 

[usy]

But it is something to talk about, Usy. That's why we are here. To discuss.

Thing is, going back two years, they had held their protest, fine, do that, but when asked by the umpires whether they would come back, they should say yes. It would have been a stronger protest. Less for the ICC to lean on. But this opening old cupboards, I really want MCC running cricket again. Businessmen running it, doesn't work.

discuss? It doesn't help, nor change PCB. anyways.

read my post about MCC and take the spaces out from the three words.

 

[PhilD123]

This isn't about the result of the series Usy, or even how the match was shaping up. It's about principles. It opens up a huge can of worms, Pakistan did not take to the field in sufficient time, and so as the rulebook goes, Pakistan forfeited the match. Nothing that happened to produce that situation makes that ok. So why, oh why is the result changed? I can't see any reason apart from the ICC's incompetance.

Also, why bring it back up now? It's in the past, it happened nearly two years ago, people have left it behind, so why bring it all back up again now. Good on Michael Holding, I doubt the ICC will be too bothered, but at least its some form of protest.

 

[stereotype]

Can this thread be merged with the stupidest cricketing moments?

I cant think of a stupider one

 

[smssia0112]

This is ridiculous. You guys are acting as if Pakistan were 100/9 chasing 500.

Pakistan were well and truly in front in that game. No doubts about it.

This discussion SHOULD NOT be about the idea that if your team is losing you sit in the dressing room. The fact is that Pakistan were well and truly in front in that game, and the best England could hope for is a draw.

I really don't know what game you guys were watching, but from my point of view, Pakistan were going to win late on Day 5. If you guys are thinking that Inzamam and his men were trying to avoid a loss, then I think you need to check into a mental asylum.

Let me honestly tell you something. Had Pakistan gone on with the game, probably winning late on Day 5, and then staged a protest at The Oval, who would be there to listen? Inzamam would be slapped with a 9-match ban (5 matches for ball tampering and 4 for bringing the game into disrepute - protest). This would take Inzamam out of the ICC CT and the ODIs v West Indies (at our home)

And guess what? Almost every single one of you would be declaring Pakistan as BALL TAMPERERS and CHEATS for the next 10 years. And you know it. Everytime Pakistan would win a game, we would be referred to as cheats and ball tamperers. Every time one of our bowlers got a 5-wicket haul you would say we tampered with the ball.

What Inzamam did has avoided this. You may call us sissies for sitting in the dressing-room, but the fact that we proved that we did not tamper with the cricket ball is all that we wanted. And we got it.

Referring to the decision to change the Oval Test - it doesn't matter at all. If anything Pakistan should have got a win for it

And to be honest, PCB announced in our local newspaper that they would put the matter forward, and if their request was denied, then so be it. They were not very bothered in all honesty because it barely affects the ICC Test Rankings (AFAIK) and it was a little under 2 years ago.

zMario, I hate to say this, but you are ridiculously thick if you truly believe that. You think the world is out to get you, here's a newsflash - The Asian Bloc run the ICC! I just can't get over how ridiculously stupid those comments are. Seriously. Everyone knows that Pakistan were going to win, they weren't acting like sissys, they were acting like spoilt brats who feel they are above the game. If there was no evidence, they wouldn't have suspended Pakistan, and Hair could have been disciplined accordingly. The fact that they refused to play didn't change the evidence available, it just made Inzamam guilty of bringing the game into disrepute. All it said to the world was that if you don't like a decision, just don't go back on the field.

 

[irottev]

I don't think I should say too much or i'll annoy a lot of people, but I think this was a disgraceful move.

 

[sohum]

I don't know much about American sports, but the fact is you can't overturn an individual decision because it just opens up extra variables which don't solve anything. A good sporting body backs its umpires for the same reason they hire them - if they didn't want them making decisions, they'd hire a team of video umpires to overrule them in game.

You didn't say anything new. Your lack of knowledge about American sports doesn't mean you can continue to make a statement that a "good" sporting body backs its umpires. Sometimes it's not as much about backing as it is about getting things right. I'm not saying what the ICC did was right, but you are completely wiping out the possibility of getting decisions correct in the future, by saying the ICC should back their umpires regardless of whether what they did was correct or incorrect.

Again, you seem to be drawing this into an issue of no evidence. The issue here is not why he made the decision but that he made it. Over the past 2 years the ICC have shown beyond all doubt that they do not support their umpires. They sacked Hair because Pakistan complained, they demoted Bucknor because India complained, now they've overturned a decision made 2 years ago which completely undermines the umpires' decisions. As an umpire in Australian football, I can tell you right now that if my league overturned a decision I made, I would be mighty annoyed at them because it undermines me and undermines the umpire's call is final rule.

Like I said, if you are going to make an oversimplification and state that this decision to overturn the result allows you to forfeit a game and get it to be a draw, then I am going to respond to that incorrect conclusion. This match featured extenuating circumstances--a team was accused of cheating, and without any solid evidence. That is the reason that all the drama followed. Implying that any team can now complain and get a draw in their favor is nothing but immature, especially if not made with humorous intent.

sohummisra added 3 Minutes and 37 Seconds later...

I've always respected his view, doesn't surprise me at all. They forfeited the game, how can it be a draw? Complete farce, completely unneeded and has resulted in the resignation of one of the most respected people in world cricket.

You would remember that it was not Pakistan's intent to forfeit the game. It was their intent to stage a protest and then take the field. Of course, high-and-mighty Darrell Hair couldn't have anyone mucking around in his kitchen, so he declared the game a forfeit, despite attempts by the match referee to continue the game. If I remember correctly, both teams were ready to take the field, as well, but Mr. Hair wouldn't have any of it.

sohummisra added 2 Minutes and 12 Seconds later...

As I've said before, it was absolutely stupid for the PCB to bring this up, even stupider for the ICC to grant this, but why isn't anyone holding the ECB responsible? They had absolutely no problem with this. Why the hell not?

Why? Because it is obvious from some of the posts in this thread that there are members on this board with anti-Pakistan and anti-subcontinent feelings.

 

[Owzat]

Can this thread be merged with the stupidest cricketing moments?

I cant think of a stupider one

Read my post in that thread, this was my winner. Therefore it deserves a thread of it's own.............

As for Hair's motivations which have been questioned on more than one occaision, the series was dead so why wait until then to make such a decision when the game was drifting to a draw and the series over already? And what advantage a four run penalty and a change of ball? The ball change may have worked in the bowler's favour as much as the batsman's. The biggest allegation that can be made against Hair is his call was wrong - that we will never know. What I dislike intensely is the hair-brained conclusion that he is racist or bias, even if he was wrong doesn't mean people can allege/assume the worst.

 

[Cricket_god]

This proves ICC Is a International Council Of Cowards
We should try to change the outcome of sydney test

 

[smssia0112]

You didn't say anything new. Your lack of knowledge about American sports doesn't mean you can continue to make a statement that a "good" sporting body backs its umpires. Sometimes it's not as much about backing as it is about getting things right. I'm not saying what the ICC did was right, but you are completely wiping out the possibility of getting decisions correct in the future, by saying the ICC should back their umpires regardless of whether what they did was correct or incorrect.

The correct thing to do is to back the umpires' on field decisions and then work on their decision making skills behind closed doors. Reversing a decision after the game should not happen under any circumstances. One of your arguments last time we were discussing this was that Hair acted completely in the rule book without applying them using common sense, which wasn't human enough for you. Part of umpiring is that mistakes will always be made. A governing body must accept this, and be willing to take their decision as final.

Now, what if a team loses by a few runs, and goes back to that dodgy LBW decision? It's not similar circumstances, but the ICC have clearly shown that they value certain boards' opinions over their own umpires. The effect of publically humiliating umpires is a negative one, and will only discourage people from becoming umps in the future. Should the ICC stand down umpires for bad umpiring? Yes. Should they do it because cricket boards are unhappy with them? Absolutely not. Not to mention the fact that the ICC publically backed Hair after the actual test, saying that the decision was correct to award the game to England, and that he had the right do so.

Like I said, if you are going to make an oversimplification and state that this decision to overturn the result allows you to forfeit a game and get it to be a draw, then I am going to respond to that incorrect conclusion. This match featured extenuating circumstances--a team was accused of cheating, and without any solid evidence. That is the reason that all the drama followed. Implying that any team can now complain and get a draw in their favor is nothing but immature, especially if not made with humorous intent.

I never said that, humorous or otherwise. I suggest you reread what I said, because I never suggested that.

You would remember that it was not Pakistan's intent to forfeit the game. It was their intent to stage a protest and then take the field. Of course, high-and-mighty Darrell Hair couldn't have anyone mucking around in his kitchen, so he declared the game a forfeit, despite attempts by the match referee to continue the game. If I remember correctly, both teams were ready to take the field, as well, but Mr. Hair wouldn't have any of it.

But you're not allowed to refuse to take the field for a protest. Again, had Pakistan followed correct protocol, then they'd have the high ground here. They didn't intend to forfeit the game but they did. One would think they would think twice before mucking around with the fans, opposition, media personnel, sponsors and even the umpires over a 5 run penalty, but the ICC have taken that example away too.