What should have been the result of this match?

[Crookbond]

I actually loved to see the frustration in the eyes of Steve Waugh there at the end when he couldn't buy only 6 runs off the whole over. That was indeed a thrilling contest

Not many times has Steve Waugh finished second best in such close encounters. If I remember correctly, this is just the second time that has happened (assumption : Steve Waugh could only complete 2 runs). Edit - Just in case, if people are wondering which was the "other" time Mr. Ice Nerves Steve Waugh lost his cool, here it is - UNXX5Bswxrg

[chainsmoker1985]

Not many times has Steve Waugh finished second best in such close encounters. If I remember correctly, this is just the second time that has happened (assumption : Steve Waugh could only complete 2 runs). Edit - Just in case, if people are wondering which was the "other" time Mr. Ice Nerves Steve Waugh lost his cool, here it is - UNXX5Bswxrg

Lol, what happened there exactly? Why have not Boobelinda uploaded this finish :protest: I want 2 see last couple of overs :((

[Ultimate_Game]

U_G' date=' I have a different perspective. Controlling of crowds, fans etc. are a duty of the law & order of the country. To put their frailties on a cricket team is unfair towards the cricketers. I understand where you come from but this is what the ICC and the cricket boards should ensure. I wouldn't take away victory from a cricket team because its fans are ill-mannered.[/quote'] In my book it's the home board who has to be accountable for their fans and security. It's unfair to the cricketers but not the home board. If they can't even manage to guarantee a crowd trouble free game they don't deserve the win. Incidentally I think that even the WI-India game where the crowd stopped the game when Sehwag was given out while India was chasing 300+ and were in a great position at 220 odd for 2 (IIRC early 200os) should also have been awarded to WI and not India. This would also send an example to the crowd that they can't willy-nilly disrupt the game and there will be consequences to their action. So many times in the past Pakis got away with such behavior from their crowd or players when India toured Paakistan and that's one of the reasons they have a better record which is quite misleading. On 1989-90 tour India had Pakistan on the mat at 13/3 in nearly 10 overs with Prabhakar nearly unplayable and the match was "abandoned" owing to crowd disturbance. Another example, though slightly different from crowd trouble perspective, would be in late 70s when India needed 20 odd to win in 4 overs with 8 wkts in hand when Pakis started bowling bouncers which the batsmen couldn't even reach. Umpires didn't call them wides or no-balls and Bedi (Indian captain at the time) conceded the match in disgust and it was ruled a Paki win :hysterical: Thus the 0-1 record should really have been 2-0 in India's favor. Crowd and a team needs to be penalized else they will continue doing the same to give their team an advantage.

[vvvslaxman]

4 dot balls against Arthurton? :cantstop:

[Crookbond]

In my book it's the home board who has to be accountable for their fans and security. It's unfair to the cricketers but not the home board. If they can't even manage to guarantee a crowd trouble free game they don't deserve the win. Incidentally I think that even the WI-India game where the crowd stopped the game when Sehwag was given out while India was chasing 300+ and were in a great position at 220 odd for 2 (IIRC early 200os) should also have been awarded to WI and not India. This would also send an example to the crowd that they can't willy-nilly disrupt the game and there will be consequences to their action.

You're right there but if they don't the ICC has to step in is my point. The ICC normally just watches the game like a match referee without interfering. From time to time, it must take out it's iron rod and smack some lazy *****. Another way to treat is to ban the ground from hosting matches for a few years. Everything settles out once such things start happening. I would rather abandon a match - as one doesn't know what would happen even if a team is in a winning position - or apply the forward D/L method to decide the winner of the game (as if it rained).

[Ultimate_Game]

You're right there but if they don't the ICC has to step in is my point. The ICC normally just watches the game like a match referee without interfering. From time to time, it must take out it's iron rod and smack some lazy *****. Another way to treat is to ban the ground from hosting matches for a few years. Everything settles out once such things start happening. I would rather abandon a match - as one doesn't know what would happen even if a team is in a winning position - or apply the forward D/L method to decide the winner of the game (as if it rained).

But ICC doesn't have any jurisdiction over law enforcement and security bodies of the home country :dontknow: ICC can only supervise the game but it's the home board who has to be accountable for ensuring the game happens in an orderly fashion without any trouble from the crowd. If you abandon the match coz of crowd trouble, you go on a slippery path where you tell the home fans that they can create trouble and get the match abandoned if their team is in trouble as i mentioned in my previous post. Crowd trouble is not the same as rain. You can't do much about rain but I sure expect the host nation & board to provide adequate security for the game so that the game is trouble free.

[chainsmoker1985]

In my book it's the home board who has to be accountable for their fans and security. It's unfair to the cricketers but not the home board. If they can't even manage to guarantee a crowd trouble free game they don't deserve the win. Incidentally I think that even the WI-India game where the crowd stopped the game when Sehwag was given out while India was chasing 300+ and were in a great position at 220 odd for 2 (IIRC early 200os) should also have been awarded to WI and not India. This would also send an example to the crowd that they can't willy-nilly disrupt the game and there will be consequences to their action. .

But what you are talking about, if it is the mistake of the crowd and they are not learning at all, there is an agenda of banning that stadium or city from hosting any further matches for a period of time, like 2 years or so. The burden of the mistake of crowds just cannot be put on home country and their players. I gave this example before as well where SL team was attacked in Pakistan, and the match was abandoned, but match was not gifted to SL players. Similarly, if any such incident happens, you just cannot gift the match to any country. They have to earn it to win it.

[chainsmoker1985]

^What could be the better example than Pakistan been banned from hosting matches after that SL incident

[chainsmoker1985]

Here is another such incident, where crowd didn't let the match to finish, literally and match was awarded to the opposition team like U_G was suggesting. But the only difference is that India could not have won that match. So, the result was already almost clear. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3qyMwZA9dc]INDIA vs SRI LANKA, 1996 WORLD CUP SEMI FINAL, EDEN GARDENS, KOLKATA, IND INNINGS - YouTube[/ame]

[Crookbond]

But ICC doesn't have any jurisdiction over law enforcement and security bodies of the home country :dontknow: ICC can only supervise the game but it's the home board who has to be accountable for ensuring the game happens in an orderly fashion without any trouble from the crowd. If you abandon the match coz of crowd trouble, you go on a slippery path where you tell the home fans that they can create trouble and get the match abandoned if their team is in trouble as i mentioned in my previous post. Crowd trouble is not the same as rain. You can't do much about rain but I sure expect the host nation & board to provide adequate security for the game so that the game is trouble free.

The ICC should make it clear to the board (WICB in this case) about this. I would also suggest stringent measures like playing bans if there's crowd trouble. If I'm not wrong, Brazil hasn't hosted a FIFA WC after 1950 (will now in 2014). The reason being security concerns. The same can be done for a cricket boards too. Just ban them to play in their country. The WICB *has* to ensure security, no two ways about it. As I mentioned earlier, if things happen the first time the forward D/L method could be applied as if rain has interrupted a game. I think it works best for everyone, unbiased.

[Crookbond]

^What could be the better example than Pakistan been banned from hosting matches after that SL incident

I believe that's the way forward. Again citing a FIFA example, check out the reason why FIFA banned Nigeria - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/africa/9060018.stm Also, read the implications - http://www.tribune.com.ng/index.php/sports/7768-what-fifa-ban-means-for-nigeria- I doubt ICC can ever do this.

[Stuge]

^What could be the better example than Pakistan been banned from hosting matches after that SL incident

Their aren't banned from hosting matches (They were stripped of hosting WC because of security issues ).Otherwise there wouldn't have been any talks over Pak and Bangladesh series .

[chainsmoker1985]

Their aren't banned from hosting matches (They were stripped of hosting WC because of security issues ).Otherwise there wouldn't have been any talks over Pak and Bangladesh series .

No, thats happening now, and bcoz they are reconsidering playing cricket again in Pakistan.... Earlier they had been banned jointly by all the nations. Nobody wanted to play there

[chainsmoker1985]

I believe that's the way forward. Again citing a FIFA example' date=' check out the reason why FIFA banned Nigeria - [url']http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/africa/9060018.stm Also, read the implications - http://www.tribune.com.ng/index.php/sports/7768-what-fifa-ban-means-for-nigeria- I doubt ICC can ever do this.

Yep, even I heard the whole Nigerian team was suspended by their board and this led to a ban by FIFA on Nigeria football due to political interference. On your last question, ICC can do that, but bcoz cricket is mainly played only in 9-10 nations, so they can't completely ban a country, though there was a big example of South Africa, when their national team was banned for such a long period of time due to their govt's apartheid policy. Check out the column 'Suspension of South Africa (1970?1)' in the middle of this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cricket

[chainsmoker1985]

Here is another such example where the authorities had to empty the stadium to continue the match... This was actually a very famous Calcutta test between India and Pakistan, I am sure you would love revising the whole chapter... http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/483619.html

[Crookbond]

Here is another such example where the authorities had to empty the stadium to continue the match... This was actually a very famous Calcutta test between India and Pakistan, I am sure you would love revising the whole chapter... http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/483619.html

Yes, We all know about this, don't we? I watched this thing live. IMHO, Pakistan went against the "Spirit of the Game"