Oval Test result 'to be changed'

[Insomniac]

That is not what is being discussed here.

I'm just showing exactly who is at fault for seeing the first forfeited test match and then changed to a draw.

The first step in understanding the problem is figuring out whose at fault. --> Darrell Hair.

He should have been banned from umpiring in matches with Pakistan before 2005.

There was NO PROPER PROTOCOL established for incidents like this. You cannot say Pakistan did wrong, because there was no proper protocol established. The rules state (at the time) that it is at the umpire's discretion as to whether a match has been forfeited or not.

Had Darrell Hair had a vandetta against South Africa (and he was umpiring in this current ongoing test match), he could have seen Ian Bell and Stuart Broad walking out, no SA players, hell, I'm gonna knock the bails off, and England win. The umpire's discretion is a fine line. At least now that power lies with the match referee.

 

[m_vaughan]

But still Pakistan were aware that whatever the circumstances they will lose the game if they do not take the field as per the rules. They took that decision and hence as per the rules should be penalised.

Otherwise it will set a bad precedent and teams can misuse this.

 

[Sureshot]

Darrell Hair didn't umpire that Test on his own.

 

[evertonfan]

Nor do he do anything wrong whatsoever. It was the Pakistan team who acted like a bunch of toddlers deprived of a bag of sweets or something.

 

[shefellover93]

It seems really stupid by the ICC to change the result of a test that any person with sense could figure out (That's probably why the ICC bolloxed it up so) It's the same in any sport, if a team refuses to go to the game or play in the game then that game is awarded to the other team, simple.

I mean it was back in 2006, the result stood (Not that it had an impact on the series anyway) and Hair was banned and he came back and it was all finished. I have to say that the ICC are one of the worst governing bodies (Besides the FAI) that I've seen. By reversing that descision they've first taken away their own dignity, then the umpires and just handing a victory to a Pakistani team that didn't deserve it.

Tough ****, people get bad decisions all the time (Andrew Strauss and Paul Collingwood's dismissals in the recent England v South Africa test spring to mind) but they don't go back to the dressing room and throw the toys out of the pram and decide to not play but that doesn't mean the result has to be changed.

Pakistan could have come back out like real men, played the game, played it hard but fair and try to win the match (Although with their previous performances in the series that was always gonna be doubtful) but they had to throw a hissy fit and then the ICC decide that it's enough to CHANGE A RESULT OF A MATCH

I'm disgusted from not only an England fan's point of view, but from a cricket fan's point of view

 

[evertonfan]

^^^^
What he said pretty much does sums up the entire situation really. Of course you gte the Pakistani argument saying it was a slur on their country when really, their players just acted like babies.

 

[sohum]

Tough ****, people get bad decisions all the time (Andrew Strauss and Paul Collingwood's dismissals in the recent England v South Africa test spring to mind) but they don't go back to the dressing room and throw the toys out of the pram and decide to not play but that doesn't mean the result has to be changed.

Like I've said a million times, this was not just another umpiring decision. I cannot see how anyone fails to grasp that idea.

Pakistan could have come back out like real men, played the game, played it hard but fair and try to win the match (Although with their previous performances in the series that was always gonna be doubtful) but they had to throw a hissy fit and then the ICC decide that it's enough to CHANGE A RESULT OF A MATCH

IIRC Pakistan were well in control of that game so this whole theory gets thrown out of the window. Besides the fact that they did not throw a hissy fit to get the result changed, they staged a protest because they thought they were unjustly being accused of cheating. The whole result being changed is a compound of political agreements as well as the ICC's lack of common sense.

 

[pal]

If I remember correctly, Pakistan were close to winning that much by an innings or at least by a significant margin of wickets. There wasn't much question that Pakistan were going to win that match. They did what any team with even an iota of dignity and self-respect would do when being unjustly accused of cheating by an umpire with a known history of acting like a jackass in matches involving Pakistan. The entire matter could have been obviously been handled in a more reasonable manner by the ICC and the fault lies entirely with them.

 

[m_vaughan]

They could and should have protested after the match or the day was over. They dint and hence were rightly penalised.

 

[Insomniac]

They could and should have protested after the match or the day was over. They dint and hence were rightly penalised.

Now tell me m_vaughan, where the hell does it say in the ICC Handbook to do that?

There is and was no set protocol for incidents like this. Can you not get that into your thick head?

This was not the same type of umpiring decision as a caught behind or LBW.

Darrell Hair thought he was bigger than the game, and he should have been kicked out for life. Unfortunately, his contract is yet to run out.

THE MAN BLACKMAILED THE ICC FOR $500,000. ARE SOME OF YOU THIS THICK?

 

[m_vaughan]

Like I said it doesnt matter why they did it and neither I am against their decision. They choose to protest during the game, and accepted that they would be forfeiting the game as a result. Case closed really.

 

[Sureshot]

Any more insults and this gets closed.

 

[adyhorn]

Now tell me m_vaughan, where the hell does it say in the ICC Handbook to do that?

There is and was no set protocol for incidents like this. Can you not get that into your thick head?

This was not the same type of umpiring decision as a caught behind or LBW.

Darrell Hair thought he was bigger than the game, and he should have been kicked out for life. Unfortunately, his contract is yet to run out.

THE MAN BLACKMAILED THE ICC FOR $500,000. ARE SOME OF YOU THIS THICK?

Where does it say for a team to walk off and refuse to play?

 

[Insomniac]

Like I said it doesnt matter why they did it and neither I am against their decision. They choose to protest during the game, and accepted that they would be forfeiting the game as a result. Case closed really.

Is it our problem that the ICC decided to change the result of a game we deserved to win?

Where does it say for a team to walk off and refuse to play?

Where does it say that an umpire can be biased against one country?

 

[Sureshot]

Where does it say that Hair was the lone umpire in that Test?