England v Pakistan 4th Test, The Oval
- Thread starter coconino
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 324
- Views 10K
- Status
Edmundo
Whinging pom
How is having to play four matches without their captain and leading batsman not a sanction? 
But Pakistan forfeited the match in accordance with the rules.
What next??? That we should award teams victories/defeats when the last two days have been rained off before "xxxxx did nothiong to deserve winning/losing it anyway". What a load of bullshit.
Les Beeavinu
Administrator
How is having to play four matches without their captain and leading batsman not a sanction?
Ed, a team walked off with full support from their cricket board, team management and players. As a result, the umpire was thrown off the world panel and is now unlikely to ever take charge of a Pakistan game again - indeed he may not be allowed to umpire any sub-continent game.
You can play your games on whether I have moved from no sanction to adequate sanction of you wish - the point I'm making is that a precedent has been set that will allow a country to decide on what reaction there should be to a decision. What would you expect to happen to someone like Manchester United if the referee got a crucial decision wrong such as not giving a goal or maybe a last minute penalty and the team walked off. Thrown out of the competition, large points deduction, heavy fines or captain suspended?
The official's decision is final - that's how it works in all sport regardless of whether the decision is correct.
Except, of course, if you are Edmundo!!! In which case all sport should be there solely to entertain the public. If this were the case Mosley, Eccleston and umpteen BFC players would be languishing in some 3rd world jail
Edmundo
Whinging pom
We've been over this before and we aren't going to agree. Pakistan mounted an ill advised protest and were informed by Hair that he had awarded the match to England. He should have told them that if they didn't resume that he would have no alternative but to award the match to England, but perhaps he had his reasons for not warning them. England were happy to continue the match and it was only Hair who refused to countenance that. Of course some people have a view that the Pakistanis are always villains and it is convenient to ignore Hair's key role in the events. I wonder how England would react to an umpire accusing them of ball tampering?
Ed, you are WRONG.
Hall warned them in accordance with the laws of the game and the conditions of the match.
I know you were there and have some bizarre biased view of what went on but it was very clear what was happening and it was very clear that Hair followed the law/conditions/guidelines as set-out. He was right regarding the procedure he followed. The Pakistanis were wrong
Les Beeavinu
Administrator
I trust that you won't imply that I'm taking this view because it's Pakistan Ed.
Here you go Ed, ever your beloved cricinfo explain the sequence of events and how they followed the laws and what laws are relevant
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/engvpak/content/current/story/257072.html
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/engvpak/content/current/story/257072.html
Edmundo
Whinging pom
I am not wrong, I have a different opinion to you - why is that such a problem for you? Hair did not warn them - and as you know, he was suspended from umpiring for his actions in this match. And you seem to completely ignore the fact that England also wanted to resume the match.
Edmundo
Whinging pom
There is simply no need to talk to me in that condescending manner - which you seem to do every time we talk about cricket - and that article does not state that Hair warned the Pakistani team that he would declare the match forfeit - it also points out that the decision was made at 10pm, which was long after both teams had declared their willingness and desire to continue the game. In spite of all that had happened on that Sunday afternoon, I cannot believe that it would not have been in the best interests of the game to have resumed on the Monday, as both teams wished.
He did not have to warn them that he would declare the match forfeited.
The decision was made when Hair removed the bails. Hair then correctly said that the match was over and refused to umpire a match that had already finished - it took until 10pm for the rest of the parties to accept that.
It matters not one jot if England wanted to carry on - there was no match to carry on.
Hair did everything correctly.
It may well have been in the best interests of the game to do as you said. But the game was over.
The decision was made when Hair removed the bails. Hair then correctly said that the match was over and refused to umpire a match that had already finished - it took until 10pm for the rest of the parties to accept that.
It matters not one jot if England wanted to carry on - there was no match to carry on.
Hair did everything correctly.
It may well have been in the best interests of the game to do as you said. But the game was over.
Mr Tree
President of the PBSA
this is happening too regularly for my liking but........ I agree entirely with Ed 
i find Jonathan Agnew's remarks on this turn of events unhelpful to the point of moronocy (which is a shame cos Aggers is a legend)
clearly, here we were dealing with exceptional circumstances. no-one is suggesting that, in the future, if it looks like you're losing, you should stay in the dressing room and not play. this is very clearly NOT what Pakistan did, their decision to stay in the dressing room was based on quite different reasons.
if a captain, in the future, DOES try to exploit this so-called loophole, then I'd have thought it'll be obvious enough that the book will be thrown at them...
meanwhile... the dust has settled on this issue. Pakistan handled the situation very badly, as did the umpires. the sensible thing, as it makes no real difference to the result of the series or anything else, is to declare the match a draw (indeed, i even like the idea of it being officially designated "abandoned - incomplete") and move on
i find Jonathan Agnew's remarks on this turn of events unhelpful to the point of moronocy (which is a shame cos Aggers is a legend
)clearly, here we were dealing with exceptional circumstances. no-one is suggesting that, in the future, if it looks like you're losing, you should stay in the dressing room and not play. this is very clearly NOT what Pakistan did, their decision to stay in the dressing room was based on quite different reasons.
if a captain, in the future, DOES try to exploit this so-called loophole, then I'd have thought it'll be obvious enough that the book will be thrown at them...
meanwhile... the dust has settled on this issue. Pakistan handled the situation very badly, as did the umpires. the sensible thing, as it makes no real difference to the result of the series or anything else, is to declare the match a draw (indeed, i even like the idea of it being officially designated "abandoned - incomplete") and move on
Simon T
Bees Up Fulham Down
If they are going to start retrospectively changing results, perhaps they can have Pakistan forfeit the games where they played their drug cheat bowlers after they had failed their drugs tests
GP200
Voice of the mysterons...
...........will they keep their win bonus money???...................
Les Beeavinu
Administrator
It is supposition that this wouldn't happen again - hopefully correct - but here lies the problem with precedent. If it did, punishment would be applied based on the facts of that case but any subsequent challenge to that punishment now has a very lenient reference point. My concern is not about the why's and wherefore's of that particular game, it is the fact that a team - any team Ed - can challenge the rules of the game and get off very lightly - far lighter than the official who made the decision.
West Ealing Bee
Only Reading
If we now live in a sporting world where the officials' decision is not final, whether it is right or wrong, then sport as we know it has finished IMHO.
We can all quote examples and what ifs. The basic fact is Hair made a decision according to the laws as he understood them, was backed by his colleagues - Doctrove at least if not the match referee and third umpire, and has now seen that decision reversed by what appears to be a Kangaroo Court.
It was a unique instance - no team has ever, to my knowledge, refused to play. And we all hope it won't happen again.
However, if it does, if England decide they didn't like an lbw decision or the fact a caught behind wasn't given out, what is to stop them walking off and refusing to carry on.
Precident says that game will now be drawn, and in law precident is a very powerful thing.
It may be that my view is not universal, that's fine, but any decision made where one side is allowed to vote (Pakistan) and the other isn't (England) is laughable anyway.
We can all quote examples and what ifs. The basic fact is Hair made a decision according to the laws as he understood them, was backed by his colleagues - Doctrove at least if not the match referee and third umpire, and has now seen that decision reversed by what appears to be a Kangaroo Court.
It was a unique instance - no team has ever, to my knowledge, refused to play. And we all hope it won't happen again.
However, if it does, if England decide they didn't like an lbw decision or the fact a caught behind wasn't given out, what is to stop them walking off and refusing to carry on.
Precident says that game will now be drawn, and in law precident is a very powerful thing.
It may be that my view is not universal, that's fine, but any decision made where one side is allowed to vote (Pakistan) and the other isn't (England) is laughable anyway.
I agree completely WEB.
Officials decisions should be final otherwise we'll be waiting years to know the outcome of matches.
Anyone for changing the result of the 1966 world cup final?
Or for disallowing Maradona's Hand of God goal
Ridiculous.
Officials decisions should be final otherwise we'll be waiting years to know the outcome of matches.
Anyone for changing the result of the 1966 world cup final?
Or for disallowing Maradona's Hand of God goal
Ridiculous.
Edmundo
Whinging pom
In football, referee's decisions to send off players are regularly overturned and the world hasn't fallen apart yet. In tennis, players are allowed to get line judges' calls overturned if they are incorrect, yet Wimbledon seems to be progressing fine. In cricket, umpires can have their decisions overturned if they made a mistake - witness KP at Lord's last year - or if the fielding captain requests it.
WEB, can you explain your last paragraph, please? What has Pakistan been allowed to vote on that England has not? And how exactly is the game's governing body - the ICC - a kangaroo court?
WEB, can you explain your last paragraph, please? What has Pakistan been allowed to vote on that England has not? And how exactly is the game's governing body - the ICC - a kangaroo court?
Les Beeavinu
Administrator
Has a result ever been retrospectively changed because of it? Has any team or individual ever walked off in a match as a result of a decision and not forfeited the match? If Pakistan had completed the match and challenged the decision of the umpire afterwards and proved innocent, nobody would have batted an eyelid. That's what happens in many other sports, as you mention.
SpiderBee
Surrey Wyvern
To quote Roy Hodgson
"it's a disgwace"
"it's a disgwace"
gashbee
Well-known member
lol
Completely agree with Banana & WEB on this.
Could BFC go to court and get Ray Bigger's 8 minutes reduced to 5 ?
Edmundo
Whinging pom
Darrell Hair wouldn't let them.
Les Beeavinu
Administrator
Pakistan 's actions forced him into the decision.
West Ealing Bee
Only Reading
The ICC - ie the collection of nations - voted on a proposal to change the result.
Pakistan were allowed a vote, England were not.
As I said, the laughable judgement of a Kangaroo Court.
The match was completed. It was over. The result had been decided. The umpires had given their decision. The fat lady had sung.
Holysmit
Well-known member
What a load of b***ocks.
Once again Pakistan who have a dubois record at best play the oh we're so harshly treated.
Hair is the only umpire who had the balls to stand up to them and has been hung out to dry over this.
I'd say Pakistan should be ashamed but they obviously won't be.
Once again Pakistan who have a dubois record at best play the oh we're so harshly treated.
Hair is the only umpire who had the balls to stand up to them and has been hung out to dry over this.
I'd say Pakistan should be ashamed but they obviously won't be.
Edmundo
Whinging pom
This is where we part company, I'm afraid. No-one forced him and IMHO he handled the whole situation dreadfully. In football you occasionally see a referee lose control of the match and get universally condemned. Pakistan didn't behave in the correct way, but nor did Hair.
Edmundo
Whinging pom
I'm afraid I haven't seen anything that said England weren't allowed a vote and Pakistan were - you'll have to help me out with a reference. What I read was that the ECB supported the decision - have you seen/heard otherwise?
What did Hair do that was in contravention of the Laws of the game or incorrect in applying the Laws?
What did the other umpire do that means he escapes your wrath?
Why do you blame Hair in preference to the Pakistani team?
West Ealing Bee
Only Reading
It was reported on BBC radio this morning, I heard no-one query it.
I have also not heard or read an ECB statement saying it supports the decision
Edmundo
Whinging pom
Mr Tree
President of the PBSA
there is no denying that Pakistan SHOULD have just got on with it, but I support their idea of making a stand over the fact that they were accused of cheating. the way they went about it was appalling, but Hair's inflexibility over dealing with the fiasco was equally appalling.
my attempt to answer Banana's questions:
1) maybe nothing, although I don't know all the in's and out's. but this was clearly an extraordinary situation, and inflexibly applying THE LAW was not the correct way to deal with it. Common sense, it appears, has no place in dealing with such a situation - is that your view?
2) Billy D was clearly complicit, as he didn't disagree with Hair's actions. However, the thing that really set up Hair as the villain of the piece was his later actions in asking the ICC for $1m to resign quietly. That is why Hair is vilified and Billy largely forgotten, i think you'll find.
3) again, Hair's inflexible attitude in applying THE LAW helped to bring about this situation as much as the Pakistani team's actions.
honestly, i think it's important to remember:
England did not WIN this game. (indeed they were losing it at the time)
England WON the series anyway. now in the record books it will say we won 2-0 and not 3-0.
so, really, what are you guys complaining about? please, have a long hard think, because a lot of people appear to be moaning for the sake of it.
we all often ask for Common Sense to prevail vs THE LAW, and yet here it has and everyone is whining, for no good reason. i despair.
The situation was clearly catered for within the Laws of the game. It was not extraordinary. What is the point of having laws if you then apply them in a "flexible" (i.e. inconsistent) way.
I think you'll find that Hair was suspended and then offered the money as a way out for both parties. Billy was never suspended.
I disagree. The issue was created by the Pakistan team alone. If they had come out when requested by Hair then then we would not be talking about this.
Mr Tree
President of the PBSA
to answer your 1st answer: it's SPORT, it's a GAME! yes, have THE LAW, have rules, but come on, it's fun, entertainment.
it clearly was an extraordinary situation, unless you can find me some more examples of teams refusing to take the field after having been accused of cheating?
can we confirm please, is your view that Common Sense has no part to play in resolving such disputes?
and may I ask, why exactly does this (decision to reverse the result) matter to you? to me, it seems laughably unimportant really...
it clearly was an extraordinary situation, unless you can find me some more examples of teams refusing to take the field after having been accused of cheating?
can we confirm please, is your view that Common Sense has no part to play in resolving such disputes?
and may I ask, why exactly does this (decision to reverse the result) matter to you? to me, it seems laughably unimportant really...
Sweepy
Part-time Grapeviner
Which is why I lost interest in Formula 1 a few years back, and only now occasionally watch highlights. There seems little point in watching a sports contest if the result being discussed in the bars afterwards could be changed at a later point.
There seemed to be a phase in F1 where results were frequently being changed after the event (when future race sanctions would have been a preferable alternative). I don't see any point in watching a sport where that happens. On the other hand, it would be nice to see after Brentford having been beaten by Fulham 1-0, a Fulham player fails a post-match drugs test and the match is awarded to Brentford. But in the wider scheme of things, it would be bad for the sport.
NO to retrospective changing of results.
Inappropriate Smilies Bee
Well-known member
this sets a ridiculous precedent for corrupt teams to get a draw by walking off. an absolute disgrace. sad times. just not cricket.
Inappropriate Smilies Bee
Well-known member
Les Beeavinu
Administrator
It would appear that Michael Holding is at odds with Ed as well.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/7490924.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/7490924.stm
Jimbee
Who's the dummy?
And Aggers has been censored for speaking out. 
The H
poker semi-professional
has anyone anything nice to say about the Pakistani cricket team....... i've nothing but vitriol, so i'd like some positives before i post...
Inappropriate Smilies Bee
Well-known member
ed who? do you mean ted dexter? he is my best mate's son.
good on michael holding.
remember the famous commentary faux pas: "the bowler's holding the battyman's winkie".
thank goodness someone in cricket has a grip on reality.
scott out, holding IN.
Mr Tree
President of the PBSA
as per this part of my previous post (which was completely ignored by everyone) - no-one celebrated the inglorious victory, and yet we moan moan moan that the history books are now changed to rob us of this "victory". why does it matter?
Banana - these are very simple questions in response to your points. particularly the first one. the fact that you are unable to answer it does not mean that i have "lost the cricket argument", as you claim in another thread. come on, simple question, simple answer, please.
i notice that the furore over this decision has died down, as it is now week-old news and all the reactionaries have stopped with their knee-jerk reactions and doubtless found something else to distract them or complain about.
so, as I say, does the decision really matter? no, you've all got over it pretty quickly
West Ealing Bee
Only Reading
i notice that the furore over this decision has died down, as it is now week-old news and all the reactionaries have stopped with their knee-jerk reactions and doubtless found something else to distract them or complain about.
so, as I say, does the decision really matter? no, you've all got over it pretty quickly
The fact that England have dropped from ranked second in the world to fourth on the basis of a decision taken in a committee room does bother me.
I explained why I was happy with the decision.
I didn't see anyone give a rational decision as to why it was ok to change an official's decision months after the event so I assumed everyone agreed I was right
TW3Bee
We're The Royal Oak Lionel Road
I thought we were playing South Africa today.
Sweepy
Part-time Grapeviner
You'll find that Mr Tree resurrected this thread because he simply had to have the last word. lol
TW3Bee
We're The Royal Oak Lionel Road
Why isn't it just closed?
weymouth bee
Active member
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2002
- Messages
- 8,824
- Reaction score
- 0
Mr Tree
President of the PBSA
that's a silly thing to say. we won the series anyway. does 2-0 or 3-0 matter? i honestly don't know, but i would blame our slide in the rankings on series defeats in other countries ahead of this.
we did not win that test. we were awarded it in exceptional circumstances. for it to go down in history as an England victory would not, in my or the ICC's opinion, be proper.
Michael Holding and others on here think that it should historically be designated as an England victory. I'm not convinced, and I'm yet to see why it matters really.
The points have been made that it invites any losing captain to sulk off, get the game abandoned and declare it a draw (i don't think this is in any way true), and now, that it affects our world rankings (i think there are more important things affecting that - plus, do you really think we're the 2nd best team in the world at the mo?)
there is an argument, why bother to make the change? well, i agree with the change, and it had to happen one day, and whenever it did happen people would moan about it for a little and then get over it, so at the end of the day it didn't really matter when they would actually choose to re-designate the official result of the match. it's done, the history books will have an interesting official footnote, and life will carry on much as before....
- Status