Oval Test result 'to be changed'

[m_vaughan]

I have nothing against Pakistan, but I think the ICC have made a bigger fool out out themselves by manipulating their own sport. It doesnt matter what the circumstances were, but a rule was broken and a decision was made.

Its good to see someone as great as Mr. Michael Holding thinks on the same lines and has decided to quit the ICC as a result.

Cricket has been on the decline for a while now (in terms of respect and stature), and this particular incident has made it worse.

 

[smssia0112]

The ICC have got some huge issues, that's for sure.

I'd like to say that, yes, I am anti-BCCI and PCB, but who can blame me when you look at all the things they're doing to cricket at the moment. I certainly don't hate all their players (I respect guys like Tendulkar and M. Yousuf), and I don't hate their fans either. I just hate the businessmen who are dragging bad politics into the game and controlling the ICC through their money.

 

[Sureshot]

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.

It doesn't matter what their intent was, it is against the rules to refuse to take to the field in protest. Hair and Doctrove did the right thing, the match referee took things into his own hand to try to get the game going again. It wasn't Hair's fault that the game was forfeited (or not, as it is now), Pakistan played with fire and they got burnt.

 

[usy]

Sureshot, I see you in Dubai few days now, we have to do something about ICC now , make sure you bring you're AK47.

 

[sohum]

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.

What game? Cricket or any sport? There are plenty of viable situations where decisions can be reversed after the game when more intelligent people have looked at it in a calmer environment. Your definition of "correct" is far too Utopian to be applicable to the real world. Speaking of sport generally, I see no problem in reversing a decision if it is obvious that it is incorrect. In that regard, I do not think that the reversing of this result was exactly an intelligent decision, but I am defending the right for the governing body to make sure things end up more accurate. Of course, any such change in decision should happen relatively soon after the actual event occurred.

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.

I do not have any idea what this has to do with the topic at hand (reversing of decisions), but I will address the point anyway. Yes, Hair acted within the rulebook, and applied them with a lack of common sense and without any amount of forward-thinking. As I said in that discussion, it is completely out of line to equate a mistake such as a misjudged LBW or a missed edge with the mistake that Hair made. Decisions relating to the cricket can definitely be accepted (and are accepted) by the ICC, but something such as an allegation of cheating is far more extenuating a circumstance and warrants special action. There is no need for a governing body to tie themselves to the decisions of the umpires, especially as they are providing them employment. When you hire someone and they make a mistake on the job, you do not take their mistake as the final outcome--you usually give them some sort of punishment or warning, and ensure that the problem is fixed.

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.

You are mixing up things around here. As I have said over and over again on PC, you cannot equate a "dodgy LBW decision" with a malformed allegation of cheating or a poor judgment call. The repercussions are simply too different in nature, and the mistakes are on completely different orders of magnitude. Apart from that, I am not sure how any more of this applies to the topic at hand, since it has nothing to do with whether the ICC should have overturned the decision or not.

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

You did not say that, but that was your response to a quote from my previous post where I squashed the idea that this decision overturning would set some sort of dangerous get-out-of-jail-card precedent.

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.

Yes, you're not allowed to not take the field. Yes, Pakistan should have followed the protocol. But how about the fact that Hair refused to think about the same "fans, opposition, media personnel, sponsors" when he decided not to overturn his decision to award the forfeiture? It is my opinion that he acted somewhat selfishly, there, especially since I believe his decision to award the forfeit in the first place was driven by the fact that the Pakistani team opposed his decision.

sohummisra added 1 Minutes and 17 Seconds later...

Cricket has been on the decline for a while now (in terms of respect and stature), and this particular incident has made it worse.

It's a shame that you are judging the sport by off-field incidents rather than the quality of cricket on-field, which I do not think is remarkably worse than in previous years.

sohummisra added 1 Minutes and 11 Seconds later...

I just hate the businessmen who are dragging bad politics into the game and controlling the ICC through their money.

They're not businessmen, they're politicians. Jagmohan Dalmiya was a businessman. I agree that the BCCI has gone into much worse hands since his ouster and the reign of politician Sharad Pawar.

 

[Insomniac]

If there was no evidence, they wouldn't have suspended Pakistan, and Hair could have been disciplined accordingly

Dean, I can respond to all your damn statements and opinions with one sentence.

Ranjan Madugalle, the man who decided the punishment for Inzamam, said IN PUBLIC that if Pakistan did not stage a protest, Mike Proctor would have gone on the word of the umpires and charged him wtih ball-tampering, because it would not have been worth the effort to go through hours of footage of 29 cameras.

Whether the protest was done in the right way is debatable, as I suggested, we could have played one over after tea, and then just gone off the field - Sri Lanka have done this in the past when Murali was no-balled by Hair, and after much convincing from the match referee, were persuaded to resume the game. No forfeiture there.

Dean - I don't see how you can call my comments stupid. Whenever others (not specifically you) see a Pakistani taking a 5-wicket haul, had we just sat there, won the test match, and then put some type of protest, then whether its a cheeky comment or whatever, one would call us ball-tamperers and cheaters for the next 10 years. This incident would be brought up nearly every time.

By the way, what the hell is "correct protocol" . Tell me where in the ICC Handbook or Playing Conditions it tells exactly what to do in such a case.

Regarding Michael Holding - he is a hypocrite in a way.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63260.html

* This was the Croft/Goodall test. At tea on day 3, WI were so incensed by umpire Goodall that they refused to come out for session 3 until he was replaced. They emerged after a delay of 11 minutes, but removed all gear from the dressing room at the end of the day's play. The following day was a rest day but officials were fully occupied ensuring that the game continued.

* On the following day, Colin Croft "again behaved abominably, needling umpire Goodall, petulantly knocking off the bails and eventually charging deliberately into the umpire. What made matters worse was that Mr Goodall then had to walk the length of the pitch to discuss matters with Lloyd, whose lack of action condoned this dismal performance taking place under his captaincy."

Also, in 1987, I don't remember England having much respect for umpires either..

Think about it - Darrell Hair's "ransom" of $500,000, the e-mails...

Look - Pakistan suffered a punishment for their actions of "bringing the game into disrepute"

Inzamam-ul-Haq was banned for 4 games, which was the lowest possible.

The charges of ball-tampering were dismissed, which is all we wanted.

I don't think ANYBODY cares whether the result is 2-0 or 3-0. We got the charges dismissed one way or another.

 

[usy]

Just because we are (were) so good at bowling fast, doesn't mean that we tamper with it in past, as always claimed by English people.

make peace.

 

[Will_NA]

Pakistan staged a protest. I'm sorry but the match does not resume on Pakistan's terms but the ICC's regulation which obviously mean jack all. They deserved to have the match forfeited but the ICC lack the necessary backbone to stick with their decisions.

 

[m_vaughan]

The BCCI is the ICC's backbone right now. I hear the FTP is now going to be modified so as to consider the IPL?

m_vaughan added 9 Minutes and 34 Seconds later...

When you hire someone and they make a mistake on the job, you do not take their mistake as the final outcome--you usually give them some sort of punishment or warning, and ensure that the problem is fixed.

Unless that employee has followed the rules set by the company itself. The Umpires followed the rules. Period.

Yes, you're not allowed to not take the field. Yes, Pakistan should have followed the protocol. But how about the fact that Hair refused to think about the same "fans, opposition, media personnel, sponsors" when he decided not to overturn his decision to award the forfeiture? It is my opinion that he acted somewhat selfishly, there, especially since I believe his decision to award the forfeit in the first place was driven by the fact that the Pakistani team opposed his decision.

Pakistan had broken a rule by forfeiting the game. Hair had not when he awarded the game to England as per the rules. So there is no reason for him to reconsider since he had not done anything that was against the rules. Teams cant change their minds every now and then and assume that if they revert their decision after some time it will be fine. Time was lost in the process. It sets a bad precedent.

It's a shame that you are judging the sport by off-field incidents rather than the quality of cricket on-field, which I do not think is remarkably worse than in previous years.

Such off-field incidents are eventually affecting the cricket on-field. Cricket is no longer a sport anymore.

They're not businessmen, they're politicians. Jagmohan Dalmiya was a businessman. I agree that the BCCI has gone into much worse hands since his ouster and the reign of politician Sharad Pawar.

And just imagine what is going to happen when he becomes ICC president. God save Cricket.

 

[usy]

humans have brains, they use that and improve cricket, because God didn't make it.

Also Cricket is a sport and always will remain in my eyes.

 

[m_vaughan]

Unfortunately there are using their brain NOT to improve cricket here.

 

[Cricketman]

I haven't bothered to read through all your quote filled messages and all that stuff so here is my view in one short nutshell thing -

Stupid to bring it up again, 2006 was like 300 years ago and nobody really cares anymore. Things were dealt with, the decision shouldn't have been revoked IMO, and the ICC are getting weaker day by day and should stop succumbing to these national boards that they have power over. Grow some balls, already!
/ Thread.

 

[sohum]

Unless that employee has followed the rules set by the company itself. The Umpires followed the rules. Period.

Fair enough. He would still be liable for penalization depending on how he applied those rules, which is really the mistake he committed.

Pakistan had broken a rule by forfeiting the game. Hair had not when he awarded the game to England as per the rules. So there is no reason for him to reconsider since he had not done anything that was against the rules. Teams cant change their minds every now and then and assume that if they revert their decision after some time it will be fine. Time was lost in the process. It sets a bad precedent.

Of course there is no reason apart from understanding that the game of cricket is bigger than his ego. Sure, he acted completely within the rules, but he just did not apply them with any sort of forward-thinking ability or common-sense. Allegations of cheating are never taken sitting down, especially when the accused party is innocent. At the very least Hair should have known what he was getting himself into. He had the opportunity to let things blow over and resume the game but was probably blinded by his own anger at the players not respecting his (poor) decision.

Such off-field incidents are eventually affecting the cricket on-field. Cricket is no longer a sport anymore.

You are way too cynical. These off-field incidents only affect the on-field incidents if you allow them to. Most of the issues are raised and dealt with in the boardrooms of the ICC than on the field. The players still get along with each other as good as ever and the cricket on contest is still as good. Personally, when I sit down to watch a game of cricket, I don't give a rat's ass about what the BCCI and ICC are doing. When I watch India-Sri Lanka today, Hair's decision-making over Murali and Pakistan, and BCCI's stiff-arming in Australia will be the last things on my mind.

And just imagine what is going to happen when he becomes ICC president. God save Cricket.

Oh dear, you are way too dramatic.

 

[Insomniac]

I want to finish this thread off by saying, The Oval test match was theft, commited by a bigoted Australian umpire.

Darrell Hair has over the course of the last NINE years penalized ONE team after Sri Lanka repeatedly in incomprehensible ways.

Turning down PLUMB LBWs and caught behinds was not enough for this man.

Darrell Hair is the ONLY umpire I have EVER seen disallow a CLEAN BOWLED from square leg. The wicket keeper was ABSOLUTELY NEVER NEAR the stumps during this incident
when the ball racked the off stump. (Saqlain Mushtaq v B Lara (?) Pakistan v West Indies, WC 99)

Hair is the ONLY umpire to penalize a batsman for running down the wicket, without EVER giving a warning to the batsman. The fact that the batsman stepped off of the wicket after taking his inital step makes it even more indefensible. (Salman Butt v England, 2nd Test, 2005)

Darrell Hair is the ONLY umpire to give a batsman out AFTER HE HAS MADE HIS GROUND, just for jumping out of the way of a delivery after a bowler (Harmison). It was completely against the spirit of the game, and the LAWS of the game (I thought Hair was a policeman)
(Inzamam-ul-Haq v England, 2nd Test, 2005)

Darrell Hair is the ONLY umpire to make the impossible happen. He is completely corrupt, bigoted, and a CHEATER, that he even managed to make Sir Ian Botham sympathize with Pakistan.

Fact is, Darrell Hair was, and will always be a corrupt cheating lying scumbag.

If you cannot digest the points above, then I seriously do not know what to say. There is COMPLETE video proof of all the incidents above on Youtube.

 

[m_vaughan]

That is not what is being discussed here.