ICC does U-turn on 2006 Oval Test result

[EnterTheVoid]

The right decision in my view; well done ICC (Indian cricket Council) for growing a pair

[Tapioca]

Pakistan loses Oval 2006 again Thanks to the rift with BCCI http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/388625.html

[Tapioca]

Please merge with the other thread

[SachDan]

Atlast ICC got it right :winky:

[The Outsider]

There have been a lot of humiliating defeats in the history of cricket but Pakistan has set foot where no team has gone before - losing the same match twice.

[Ram]

And what was the basis of their U-turn? IMO, that match should be a no-result. No team worth its salt will continue to take the field if its being alleged to have done something really improper, especially since it has been proved later on that the Pak team didnt tamper the ball. Besides, the lame umpires refused to over-turn their decision of calling the match off, even when the Pak team obliged take the field later on.

[The Outsider]

^ Results of cricket matches should be decided when the match ends not in retrospect. You cannot have committees coming up with decisions years later. This has only corrected the wrong.

[Ram]

^ Results of cricket matches should be decided when the match ends not in retrospect. You cannot have committees coming up with decisions years later. This has only corrected the wrong.

Thats just a really stubborn, 'Go-by-the-book' way of looking at it, completely oblivious to the circumstances that prevailed then. What the umpires did was to accuse the Pakistani and more importantly, its captain, of a serious breach of conduct. No sane captain would continue to play as though nothing had happened. Even if we were to simply go by the book and award the match to Eng, where's the redress for the Pakistani team, who were wrongly accused of tampering the ball and were subjected to needless public humiliation? The point here is not whether to award the match to Eng because Pakistan refused to take the field, it was that the umpires messed it up in the first place. If anything, this match should have resulted in the reform of the existing ball-tampering regulations and how it gets reported.

[The Outsider]

The point here is not whether to award the match to Eng because Pakistan refused to take the field, it was that the umpires messed it up in the first place. If anything, this match should have resulted in the reform of the existing ball-tampering regulations and how it gets reported.

So are we going to have committees pondering over the results of every match in which there have been umpiring mistakes? At the end of the day, it was no more than an umpiring error for which Pakistan refused to take the field. There would have been a time and day to clear their name when the match was over.

[Ram]

So are we going to have committees pondering over the results of every match in which there have been umpiring mistakes? At the end of the day' date=' it was no more than an umpiring error for which Pakistan refused to take the field. There would have been a time and day to clear their name when the match was over.[/quote'] BIG correction. What Darrell Hair did that day was NOT an 'umpiring error'. He wrongly accused the Pakistani cricket team of a serious Code of Conduct Breach. Such lunacy rarely ever happens on the field, which incidents like that didnt happen before or since. You may argue that enforcing Code of Conduct on the field is part of an umpire's duties, but what Hair did wasnt umpiring in the strictest sense. And whats the point of agreeing to play on, in the hope of clearing the name when the match was over? The damage was already done. If anything, if the Pakistani had just continued to play as though nothing happened, that would have almost been like tacit admission of their guilt. And here's one more reason why the umpires screwed it up even more. It has been made as clear as daylight that all the Pakistani team wanted to do was to register a protest, so they decided to leave the field. After a while, they agreed to resume playing. So, we have this strange case of both team wanting to take the field, crowds eagerly anticipating play and yet the umpires wouldnt budge because the earlier cut-off time to take the field was missed by the Pakistani team. How more stupid it can get?

[The Outsider]

^ It was an umpiring error. Looking at the ball, Hair thought it had been tampered with, awarded 5 runs to the batting side and play actually went on after that. It was after the tea interval that Pakistan refused to come out. If all Pakistan wanted to do was register a protest, it would have been noted even if they came out late by a couple of minutes. I watched the action live and it was abundantly clear that Pakistan had no intentions of resuming the game after tea and it was only after a few phone calls and meetings that they decided to come out. You cannot have the opposition waiting there forever to resume the game - it was rightly awarded to England and I am glad that the result has stayed. It just happens that this was a dead rubber, what if Pakistan was leading 1-0 or it was 1-1 in the series? Would you change the possession of the trophy years later?

[Ram]

^ It was an umpiring error. Looking at the ball' date=' Hair thought it had been tampered with, awarded 5 runs to the batting side and play actually went on after that. It was after the tea interval that Pakistan refused to come out. [/quote'] Checking of tampering of the ball is part of one umpire's on field duties, but its almost impossible to come to any valid conclusion whether the ball was tampered or not, without extensive tests and analysis, none of which the umpire has access to on the ground. So, I refused to acknowledge that this was part of 'umpiring'.

If all Pakistan wanted to do was register a protest' date=' it would have been noted even if they came out late by a couple of minutes. I watched the action live and it was abundantly clear that Pakistan had no intentions of resuming the game after tea and it was only after a few phone calls and meetings that they decided to come out. You cannot have the opposition waiting there forever to resume the game - it was rightly awarded to England and I am glad that the result has stayed.[/quote'] And all the while, you continue to ignore the main reason for this controversy, which was some horrendous officiating. Sure, things went according to the book, but thats not the point here.

It just happens that this was a dead rubber' date=' what if Pakistan was leading 1-0 or it was 1-1 in the series? Would you change the possession of the trophy years later?[/quote'] The state of the series is irrelevant. In end, series results and winner's cup comprise only a trivial part of stats and history, but what Darrell Hair did that day was to cast a serious serious aspersion on the integrity of the Pakistani team. That is simply unacceptable.

[The Outsider]

Checking of tampering of the ball is part of one umpire's on field duties, but its almost impossible to come to any valid conclusion whether the ball was tampered or not, without extensive tests and analysis, none of which the umpire has access to on the ground. So, I refused to acknowledge that this was part of 'umpiring'.

You want to change the laws and the actions taken for leveling tampering charges, fine.....but according to the existing laws the umpire was well within his rights to do what he did. If Pakistan were unhappy with the playing conditions they should have complained about them before or after the match.

And all the while, you continue to ignore the main reason for this controversy, which was some horrendous officiating. Sure, things went according to the book, but thats not the point here.

That is the point - the book might be wrong but to change the book during a match is unfair.

The state of the series is irrelevant. In end, series results and winner's cup comprise only a trivial part of stats and history, but what Darrell Hair did that day was to cast a serious serious aspersion on the integrity of the Pakistani team. That is simply unacceptable.

What about England? They did not level the wrong charges, they were willing to play, why should they be penalized if the opposition refuses to turn up for whatever reason. It's international sport - why should they miss out on a match and hypothetically a series win if the umpire made a mistake and the opposition was whining about it rather than playing cricket? Pakistan chose whining over playing cricket and the match was rightly forfeited. A cricket match is not the time to argue for rule/conditions changes.

[DomainK]

They both made mistakes. Hair was just being an ass and so was Inzy. Refusing to play was dumb and then not having anyone capable of talking/understanding English messed it up even more. Both made grave mistakes, both got punished. But the match- it was forfeited. Pakistan refused to play and hence England won. I can not see how it can stand otherwise.

[Bumblebee]

well it is the right decision!

[Ram]

You want to change the laws and the actions taken for leveling tampering charges' date=' fine.....but according to the existing laws the umpire was well within his rights to do what he did. If Pakistan were unhappy with the playing conditions they should have complained about them before or after the match.[/quote'] How are the Pakistanis supposed to have known that they would be wrongly accused of ball-tampering in the middle of the match? All this 'you cant change the laws in the middle of the game' sounds old-school Victorian to me. Why cant we think practically for a change?

That is the point - the book might be wrong but to change the book during a match is unfair.

And so it is to award a England, when a HUGE injustice was meted out to the Pakistani team. A match they were dominating until that point. That is why I say the fair result is a draw. The Pakistani team were put in a quandry for no fault of theirs and yet, to finish everything off, they get penalized with a defeat too. How unfair is that?

What about England? They did not level the wrong charges' date=' they were willing to play, why should they be penalized if the opposition refuses to turn up for whatever reason. It's international sport - why should they miss out on a match and hypothetically a series win if the umpire made a mistake and the opposition was whining about it rather than playing cricket? Pakistan chose whining over playing cricket and the match was rightly forfeited. A cricket match is not the time to argue for rule/conditions changes.[/quote'] The result of the match is immaterial, I dont understand why you keep harping on it. The teams play 100s of tests and dozens of test series all the time. Soon, all these results will be long forgotten. What wont be forgotten is the stigma of being accused of ball tampering. And thats the crux of the argument here. The basic fact is that the Pakistani got the roughest end of the deal that day. The least they can expect from then on is atleast for the match to be declared as a draw.

[graphic23]

MM, they unfairly dominated the match. They tampered with the ball. They refused to come out of the dressing room, accused the onfield umpire. They effectively forfeited the match. No two ways about it. If you're ball tampering, the umpire can't say that they will deal with it later - it has a direct effect on the match.

[Guest Hiten.]

MM' date=' they unfairly dominated the match. They tampered with the ball. They refused to come out of the dressing room, accused the onfield umpire. They effectively forfeited the match. No two ways about it. If you're ball tampering, the umpire can't say that they will deal with it later - it has a direct effect on the match.[/quote'] If I recall correctly Hair 'assumed' that Pakistani's tampered the ball but he could not prove it. So, Pakistani's did not tamper the ball in that match. But I have always maintained that Pakistani's committed a blunder by 'protesting' for 10 mins and not showing up on the field. There are different ways of protesting and over-ruling the umpire's harsh decisions. These issues are to be taken off the field (that is when the game is done with). Had the Indians not taken the field due to Bucknor's umpiring blunders, I would have not supported team India because of the fact that they are running away from a challenge. Sure we lost that test, but we did fight as much as we can. Poetic justice was given to us as Bucknor was kicked out of the tour and we won the perth test. ICC needs to seriously look into their administration. They are taken for granted by all the boards and ICC cannot make one firm decisions and stay put on it; be it referral or be it oval saga. If ICC keeps going along the same lines, I fear for their existence in the near future.

[graphic23]

^ Fine, if Hair was unable to prove that Pakistani bowlers were tampering with the ball, then after the match, it could have been resolved. But according to the MCC Laws of Cricket, if a team refuses to play for whatever reason, it is considered a forfeit - and therefore, the umpire has to award the match to the opposition team, which is what happened in this case.

[90mph]

ICC should change the result every year. This will make both sides happy.