ICC bend to Pakistan pressure

The ICC continues to excel itself as a spineless excuse for a world governing body if reports that Pakistan have been able to persuade the ICC board to change the result of the 2006 Oval Test are to be believed.

The match was originally awarded to England after Pakistan refused to leave the dressing room because the umpires (note, not just Darrell Hair but both of them) accused them of ball-tampering. The basis for that allegation and the removal of Hair from the ICC elite panel have no relevance here; the central fact is that Pakistan, like all sides, are paid to provide a spectacle and they failed to do so.

It doesn't matter how aggrieved they were, they failed in their main duty to play cricket. Personally I think they should have received a bigger punishment than just forfeiting the Test. If Paul Collingwood can be banned for four matches for letting the over-rate slip, Inzamam-ul-Haq, a batsman I admire very much, should have received a ban for failing to resume play.

The ICC's decision to change the match to a draw has apparently been done to "maintain the dignity of Pakistan". As far as I'm concerned, they lost that when they refused to play. What next? Change the result of the 1932-33 Ashes because England's bodyline tactics were a bit sneaky? Give the Edgbaston one-day international last month to New Zealand because England didn't try hard enough to get their overs in?

The ICC have let down their umpires, whose every decision can now be openly questioned and if players don't like it they can go on strike, and they have shown once more their contempt for the paying public, whose right to a day's entertainment for their money can now be denied simply because an egotistical captain doesn't fancy playing.

Comments

[Lisa Simpson]

Well done Patrick. Isn't it amazing the amount of abuse this issue causes? Glad to see some balance this time!!

[Scott]

I remember watching the game live and your first instinct has to be taken into consideration. I was dismayed that this aspect of the game was handled as it was. I was also dismayed how the Pakistani team dealt with the umpires decision. Yes Hair could and should have played it differently, but Doctrove had to agree also. Umpires were working within the laws bestowed upon them.
Points below are thus and fact:

1. Doctrove has not been mentioned - why? Is it any coincidence he's non-white?

2. Pakistan failed in their obligation to return to the field. Game over i'm afraid.

3. Hair was made a scapegoat and suspended from duty, now re-instated. Whatever your individual take on Hair was or is, he was working within the rules. Was his suspension a penalty or was it political? Would a policeman be suspended from work for pulling you over for drink-driving?

4. The ICC have shown possibly the most alarming case of indecision and panic I have ever witnessed. They have essentially created a chasm of weakness in the game.

5. Under the rules, the game was forfeited. England won. End of story.

In a time of extreme flux within the sport, this is possibly the most damaging decision in its history. To me, this is the death knoll of Test Match cricket and worse still, there can no longer be anything called the 'Spirit of Cricket.' It's meaningless now. This will resonate through all walks of life, so the next time you get stopped by the police after one too many, quote the ICC. You're bound to get let off... and the policeman will get suspended.
Genius

[Peter McGuinness]

Here is the straight-forward logic chain being used to mount an argument of racism against you Patrick:

Two people have differing opinions about cricket.

If the two people are of identical racial backgrounds and possess the same colour skin, it is a 'disagreement about sport'.

If the two people are of differing racial backgrounds, the difference of opinion about cricket is transformed into a over-arching issue of assumed underlying prejudice, and the person with lighter coloured skin is - necessarily - a racist.

This preposterous position needlessly dilutes (in fact it hampers) genuine efforts to eradicate the stain of racial prejudice in all sport.

Does racism exist in cricket? Unfortunately it does. However, is someone expressing a view about the conduct of a cricket game and the interpretation of the rules a racist, because these views are at odds with the cricketing views of someone with a different racial background? The argument is fallacious.

Using stereotypes. Yes. Using vilifying language. Yes. Attributing unpleasant behaviour sets as exclusive. Yes. The list goes on, and examples eslewhere are innumerable. But expressing an opinion about a purely cricketing matter?

The full extrapolation of the position, concludes that you would hold a different opinion about a forfeit by (predominantly white) New Zealand, adjudicated by two Asian umpires; than you would about the circumstances surrounding the forfeiture by Pakistan overseen by Hair and Doctrove. Further, you would judge the exact same circumstances differently dependent upon the race of the protagonists, because you are a white Anglo-Saxon resident in England, who uses his blog to express racism.

The above simply cannot be deduced from the content of your article.

Rational process does not interrupt the complex thought patterns of those who are determined to call you a racist because they do not agree with your cricketing views.

As someone of multi-racial background myself, I am acutely sensitive about what qualifies as racially prejudiced in the written word. In my opinion, you have never displayed racism in your writing, either overtly, or in sub-text.

If you are to avoid being labeled a racist in context with the above ill-conceived criteria, you would need to cease expressing your opinions about matters on the cricket field altogether. Please don't. If you are indeed a racist Patrick, you are doing a very crafty job of disguising it in Line & Length.

[Si]

An apology? For what exactly? Reading your posts there is recurrent theme that anything coming out of the sub continent is bad. Then usually there follows a string of readers from down under who of course will pat you on the back for it. Very predictable, almost worthy of shock jock radio. I’m disappointed I took the bait.

Funny you mention Simon Barnes. His take on this:

“It’s a bizarre business, the more so because on one level, the ICC seems to have got it right. That match in question ended when Darrell Hair, acting on a half-baked hunch and an overcooked sense of his own importance, called the match off…Both teams were ready to carry on: the spectators were ready to watch, the viewers were ready to view, the commentators were ready to comment, the press were ready to write, but Hair was not ready to umpire. So he called the game off and awarded it to England. Now the ICC has, again, made it clear that he was wrong to do so. Which is fair enough so far as it goes.”

As for Doctrove, he was clearly the junior partner in this. Some transparency would help the situation. I find it strange that you are more than happy to condemn the ICC yet give Hair an easy ride. It was he that not content with ruining a game, threatened the ICC and betrayed (or even defamed) another umpire (Koertzen) yet got his job back.

[Peter McGuinness]

Ridiculous. Cowardly. Farcical.

It's difficult to know who is more contemptible. Those who cynically use the serious issue of racism as a tool with which to manufacture sporting results, or those who are so gutless as to give in to such base manipulation and bullying.

In the true sense of the word, the ICC is pitiful in every respect. It's one redeeming feature is that it provides morbid entertainment for those poor souls curious as to where the bottom of the barrel is located.

Every time you think they've hit it, new depths are plumbed...

Here's a question for you Patrick.

My step-daughter is black. Next time she doesn't like a white netball umpire's decision, should she follow the ICC precedent by leading her team off the court and waiting for a favourable outcome? After all, she has got her dignity to consider.

The self-interested cartel of 'creative entrepeneurs' who control the ICC have set a moral logic trap for themselves from which they cannot escape. Not that they care one iota. Obedience to the dollar transcends the fundamentals of rationality and sportsmanship. And these last few, wild years - you can be guaranteed - are just the beginning.

[Jamie Dowling]

Let's stick with the facts here rather than throw slurs around. I read somewhere that calling someone a "racist" is just a PC equivalent of telling someone to shut up. It's an easy slur to throw around. Stick with facts and evidence please. It's far nicer and far more in keeping with the Spirit Of Cricket.

Fact: The Pakistan team management - Bob Woolmer, Inzamam-Ul-Haq and Shahriyar Khan - failed to get their team on the pitch. So much for the Spirit of Cricket and accepting the umpires' authority. Under the Laws of cricket refusal to take the field is grounds for a forfeiture.

Mike Procter's role in this affair should also be examined closely. Why did he not intervene, get involved and work to get a positive result from the situation?

Darrell Hair was censured by the ICC but Billy Doctrove was not. Yet both had to agree that the match should be forfeited. Doctrove's subsequent no-show at Darrell Hair's legal proceedings seems never to have been adequately explained.

Fact: Inzamam was found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute.

This decision sets a dangerous precedent as Simon Barnes has written. Not just for any other test match or maybe one dayer where there was one or more questionable decisions which may have impacted on the final result.

The ICC have irreparably damaged the authority of the umpires at all levels of the game. How long before we see juniors and local cricket matches where one captain takes offence at an umpire's decision and drags his team off? The precedent is now set - walk off and get a draw.

Is that really caring for and providing leadership for the world game?

But if we're going to start talking about reversing dodgy umpiring decisions then that opens a whole new kettle of fish....

[Andy Bill]

Its not just the ICC is it? I would think that the ECB will back down too. England won simple as that. If in any other sport you protest during a match you will lose. If you have a gripe, play out the game and have a moan afterwards (when you've stuck it to em and won!)
One rule for one...spring to mind?

[Som]

Sourav Ganguly, a fellow Bengali, just sent me an SMS, telling in all probability, he might emulate Kapil Dev and become captain of India's 2003 World Cup winning captain, retrospectively!

As a Pakistani fan, I'd like to say that criticism of Inzamam's actions on that day do NOT equate to racism. I'd agree he acted hastily and deserved sanction....and if I recall correctly, he was indeed suspended for a few matches, by the same heaing that had Hair removed.

Let's put this in perspective though.It's not as though the two umpires showed much diplomacy either. Hair walked into Inzamam's room, gave him a cold ultimatum, and when he didn't respond immediately, he whipped off the bails a few minutes later. Even though officials were talking some sense into Inzi at the time.

The paying public was treated to the ludicrous sight of the Pakistan team belatedly making the field, only to find the umpires absent. Really, the incident was a farce, for all parties, Pakistani cricketers and umpires alike. I can understand the ICC changing the result to a draw though. On pure sporting grounds, better to term the Oval result as the abandoned match it was, than pretend it was a "victory" for one side. That just seems more accurate.

[coffeesnob]

Since when has Pakistan had any "dignity"? It's a failed state.

[mike moore]

Another ICC decision which confirms my view of them: Piss-weak! Mike Moore, Hervey Bay, Qld, Aust.

[Patrick Kidd]

Si,
If I weren't an easygoing chap I'd take offence at your comments that almost allege racism from me. I'll put your BNP allusions down to a hasty need to type on your part. If you want to apologise, that is up to you.

Try reading the post before commenting next time. You'll observe that I don't condone Hair's accusation of ball-tampering (no evidence was found that Pakistan had been cheating), but instead I am opposed to a team, any team, deciding not to play because their honour has been slighted. Pakistan had plenty of channels in which they could have voiced their grievance.

Denying the paying public of a session's play (and for that matter denying Pakistani fans of a possible win given the reasonably strong position Pakistan were in) is inexcusable. I am sorry that you think it is acceptable.

Furthermore, there were two umpires in the middle, even the ICC acknowledged that and admitted that while Hair may have appeared to be taking the lead, both umpires wree jointly responsible for what went on. Billy Doctrove has expressed no unease with what happened. And Doctrove is black. So by defending him as well as Hair does that make me a racist or not?

[Jamie Dowling]

This is, if any more were needed, final proof that the ICC is totally unsuited to leading world cricket or, in fact, any cricket at all.

Living in Dubai they have lost any connections with the real world they might have had.

I'd quote Bill Hicks but it wouldn't be appropriate for this column.

[Indian Cricket]

I am amazed with the issue raised & information displayed by you. May be http://www.indiancricketleague.com support your efforts.

[Si]

Oh what a surprise to find you defending Hair's arbitary decision to brand Pakistan cheats. This blog reads like a BNP pamphlet sometimes.

Yours chippiness.

[Som]

I think the worst sufferer would be the umpires. Things have come to such a pass that an on-field umpire knows whatever he decides out there, can very well be challenged and overruled. The aura of authority they had over the years, has simply been punctured.

[Homer]

Patrick,

Per CricInfo - "England and Pakistan have agreed to declare the Oval Test as a draw to maintain the dignity of Pakistan in world cricket, especially after the ball-tampering charges were dropped,".

So, why did the ECB agree?Does the Zimbabwe vote have any bearing on the ECB's volte face?

Cheers

[Andrew Nixon]

I take it the ICC will also change the result of the 2001 Headingley ODI that was forfeited by England after a pitch invasion by the Pakistani fans to a no-result?

Didn't think so.

[Johnmc]

Is it too cynical to suggest that such a cave-in may affect how Pakistan vote in the Zimbabwe debate tomorrow?