The ICC have, once again, changed the result of that infamous Oval Test match between England and Pakistan in 2006. The match, notable for the allegations against Pakistan of ball-tampering and the subsequent decision of the Pakistani’s to delay play by not re-entering the field after tea, was originally given as a win for England. Last July, the ICC decided to change the official result to a draw. However, the powers that be have decided to re-instate England’s ‘win’ and the result of series will go down as 3-0 to England.
Haroon Lorgat, ICC Chief Executive, has said that the decision ensures ‘the integrity of the game’. Is it the right decision. The adjusted series scoreline certainly flatters England as they did not deserve to win that Oval Test – Pakistan held a huge first innings lead and England had just about made up that deficit when the drama all kicked off.
However, awarding Pakistan a draw would be like rewarding them for not playing the game. Whether they were guilty or not in the whole ball-tampering fiasco, no team should have the power to delay a game on their terms. They should have been aware of the consequences of their actions and accepted the decision. As much as the umpires were in the wrong, the one thing they did right was to follow the rules of the game.
Far be it from me though to say what is right and what is wrong. Have the ICC made the right decision, finally? Thoughs, comments and answers are encouraged below please.
Sit on that fence any longer and you’ll get a splinter up your arse. England won that match, because the opposition failed to continue playing. Sometimes you can win by not being the loser. It matters not that England were behind at the time, just as it matters not if a boxer is miles ahead on points when he gets KO’d. The series scoreline doesn’t flatter England, you dolt. They won two matches convincingly and then were handed a third.
It’s all very well being diplomatic, but sometimes you just have to tell it like it is, the pakistan management behaved appallingly during that episode, and the ICC showed itself up to be the biased bunch of self-serving crooks we all know it to be.
England won. But it would have been a better sight simply for the umpire to successively time-out each Pakistani batsman. That would’ve got them playing again, I bet! After all, no one likes an extra duck added to their average.
no team should have the power to delay a game on their terms.correct.similiarly no stupid stuck-up mini-hitler should have the power to level baseless allegations just because he doesn’t like people belonging to certain areas of the world & of certain religions.
yes,the icc is right in awarding the game to england but completely wrong in reinstating psycho hair.i also can’t believe that there is a view that the icc is biased towards pakistan or pakistani cricket.actually they’re screwing up the chances of a good cricket team .
Adolf Hitler was a totalitarian dictator who crushed all political opposition at home, started World War 2, conquered Europe and tried to purge Europe of all Jews, Gypsies and all other “inferior” races.
Darrel Hair a cricket umpire who made a controversial call in a cricket match, which was technically within the rules. That decision cost Pakistan the match, and he may or may not be prejudiced against Asians.
There is absoutely no justification for comparing Hair to Hitler, EVEN IF Hair is a racist, by calling him “mini-Hitler.”
Criticism of Hair is wrong and unintelligent, he did nothing wrong and his subsequent treatment and sacking by the ICC (his employer) at the time was the worst part of the whole fiasco.
The ICC have made the right decision – if only to prevent a side walking off the field before the end of a test match in the future and claiming a draw, based on the ‘Oval precedent’.
Well done ICC.Is anybody surprised here?
Thats what the ICC do.To & fro from here to there till they percieve least resistance.If they find themselves in trouble they WILL change their decision again.
Criclover is right,Hair should have been banned from all forms of cricket.
Defense of Hair is more than unintelligent,it borders on lunacy.Lets not get parochial here.Hair transcends that.If you go through the events that occured the biggest mistake he made was coming to the inference that the ball was tampered with & giving england 5 P runs.Not one of the 24 cameras there picked up anything.If you even fart on the field the cameras pick it up now & yet they didn’t pick up anything.If Hair was right, in that case every other team should be accused of ball-tampering & the batting team be awarded with 5 P runs because this shape-changing of the ball occurs regularly.Normally umpires just get the ball changed.Very regular phenomenon.Hair got suspicious because it was pakistan he was dealing with.He also didn’t tell Inzy what was going on,only that he was going to change the ball.Is that in the laws?
All the commentators on the spot agreed that Hair was wrong.Nasser Hussain if I remember correctly said that he would have done the exact same thing.Boycott said at the hearing he’d have done a lot more than what Inzy did.Atherton,Holding & Botham wanted Hair to continue with the game & criticised him for not doing so.Imran Kahn,Wasim Akram,Miandad,Kapil Dev,Ranatunga & other Asian greats agreed that he was biased agianst asian teams.Not just asian teams,south africa have levelled accusations of biased umpiring against him.Gary Kirstens brother Peter got frustrated with him.He won Australia a test against India at adelaide.Only a complete moron or a hugely parochial individual would defend Hair.Thats like saying the whole world is crazy,I’m always right.
He later alleged racial discrimination on part of the ICC when they sacked just him and not Doctrove who’s a black west indian.That’s as low as the Marianna trench in the pacific ocean considering the simple fact that he was the senior umpire & was in charge of the situation also making the controversial calls of ball-tampering and later forfeiture.The game is not about the umpires ,its about the cricketers.Thats what the best umpires feel.Hair is not a nincompoop,which makes him even more dangerous for a brainy biased man can do a lot of damage.He has too.
He also had a history of problems with specifically-Inzy.On 1 occassion,he referred a run-out appeal where Inzy had got into the crease & then jumped up to evade the incoming throw.Hair referred & then in no uncertain terms instructed the rookie 3rd umpire to give it out as in his opinion under the laws of the game Inzy was out.Which is clearly not the case.Inzy had to walk back,he took even more time than he generally takes.
| 
Posts and words
Loading ...
