England v Pakistan 4th Test, The Oval

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mr Tree

President of the PBSA
Joined
28 Apr 2000
Messages
34,993
Reaction score
606
Location
Czech Republic
You'll find that Mr Tree resurrected this thread because he simply had to have the last word. lol

:rolleyes:

i find the process of argument and counter-argument interesting, i find this topic interesting and i find Banana's inability to answer my simple questions interesting.

is that quite alright with you :confused:
 

Sweepy

Part-time Grapeviner
Joined
27 Feb 2001
Messages
15,329
Reaction score
1
Location
The Beautiful South
:rolleyes:

i find the process of argument and counter-argument interesting, i find this topic interesting and i find Banana's inability to answer my simple questions interesting.

is that quite alright with you :confused:

Oh go on then... :sorted:
 

Banana

Very, very seldomly incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
78,574
Reaction score
11,172
Location
London
MrTree said:
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...

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 :rolleyes:

So this is what it's all about is it?! :rolleyes: Let's take them one by one shall we:

"can we confirm please, is your view that Common Sense has no part to play in resolving such disputes?" . Whose "commen sense" are we talking about here? Are you suggesting that a different course of action should be taken to that provided in the laws? I don't subscribe to that. The Laws cater for the situtation are were applied. Why do you think the Laws should be ignored?

"so, as I say, does the decision really matter?" Yes it does, otherwise we wouldn't be debating.


Hope that helps old chum.

Let me know where on the GPG you have admitted that you have been wrong. Look forward to it :wave:
 

Banana

Very, very seldomly incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
78,574
Reaction score
11,172
Location
London
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.

that's a silly thing to say. we won the series anyway. does 2-0 or 3-0 matter?

Let me know where on the GPG you have admitted that you have been wrong. Look forward to it :wave:

Accusing WEB of "a silly thing to say" is a perfect opportunity for your first ever "I was wrong". :rolleyes:
 

West Ealing Bee

Only Reading
Joined
6 Apr 2000
Messages
16,572
Reaction score
0
Location
At the match
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.

To the rankings it clearly does matter.

A week or so ago when the result was 3-0 we were ranked second (rightly or wrongly - and I suspect within five weeks we'll know whether that is right or wrong) now it is 2-0, with no other matches being player, we are fourth. So clearly it is a factor ;)

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....

I firmly believe the change sets a dangerous precident, I hope it is one that will never have to be challenged but the fact it is there is a major problem for me.
That a team could simply walk off and not be penalised is, IMHO, grossly offensive to paying spectators and sports fans in general.

If you think it is fine, that is your choice :shrug:
 

Mr Tree

President of the PBSA
Joined
28 Apr 2000
Messages
34,993
Reaction score
606
Location
Czech Republic
"can we confirm please, is your view that Common Sense has no part to play in resolving such disputes?" . Whose "commen sense" are we talking about here? Are you suggesting that a different course of action should be taken to that provided in the laws? I don't subscribe to that. The Laws cater for the situtation are were applied. Why do you think the Laws should be ignored?

"so, as I say, does the decision really matter?" Yes it does, otherwise we wouldn't be debating.

1) yes, i'm suggesting there should have been some flexibility in applying the law in this situation. the law did not fully cater for the situation, and was applied in an overly draconian fashion.
have a look back through the thread at the "live" comments. there was general disbelief at the situation that was unfolding. surely the best course of action would have been to have all parties sit down and talk about it, not for Mr Hair to just go "right that's it, game off, i refuse to umpire any further"

his inflexibility in applying the law helped to cause this furore. i think it could've been avoided if they could have found a sensible way to talk it through at the time.

clearly, this too is what the ICC feel, with the benefit of hindsight.

2) i think we're debating it for the sake of complaining about something. i don't think, in the grand scheme of things, that losing this "victory" matters one iota, but as a knee-jerk reaction, a lot of people are complaining about it.
i can see where WEB is coming from... but i'll get to him ;)
 

Banana

Very, very seldomly incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
78,574
Reaction score
11,172
Location
London
1) Have you read the Law. It catered for *exactly* this situation.

2) Without the recent decision you wouldn't be on here pretending you are not wrong. Therefore it is of the utmost importance to you. QED.
 

Mr Tree

President of the PBSA
Joined
28 Apr 2000
Messages
34,993
Reaction score
606
Location
Czech Republic
To the rankings it clearly does matter.

A week or so ago when the result was 3-0 we were ranked second (rightly or wrongly - and I suspect within five weeks we'll know whether that is right or wrong) now it is 2-0, with no other matches being player, we are fourth. So clearly it is a factor ;)

I firmly believe the change sets a dangerous precident, I hope it is one that will never have to be challenged but the fact it is there is a major problem for me.
That a team could simply walk off and not be penalised is, IMHO, grossly offensive to paying spectators and sports fans in general.

If you think it is fine, that is your choice :shrug:

re: the rankings - I was not aware of that. if that's the case, then you have a point. although, is that not a slightly bizarre system :eek: one test should surely not have such influence.
anyway, I think you've missed my point, that any drop from 2nd to 4th has more to do with lost series elsewhere than this result. indeed, you could argue that as we never "won" this game (and were in fact likely to lose it, or at best draw it), we were in a false position in 2nd, and 4th is the more correct position.

(btw, even if we were to win this series now vs S.Africa, i don't think it'd prove us the 2nd best team in the world - home advantage is a big factor)

the cricket rankings are maybe marginally more relevant that the FIFA football rankings, but again, does it really matter that much? do you go round crowing to Indians and Saffers that we're the 2nd best team in the world :D (i doubt you'd do it with much sincerity - even if statiscally we look good, i think we can agree that the England team's in a little disarray at the moment)

for your second point, it's my honest opinion that these were exceptional circumstances (Banana seems to think not, which I guess implies that these situations crop up regularly, though he is yet to furnish me with further examples, so I'm a little confused :suspect: )
i don't think it's very hard to imagine that Pakistan were in a state of disbelief at the time of the penalty award, and that given their history, Inzamam could not be 100% sure at the time that none of his bowlers had actually tampered with the ball, and thus did not challenge the penalty at the time.
then, they went off for tea, presumably had a team meeting where Inzy said "right you ****s, who did it?" and everyone said "well i bloody didn't". they then naturally felt aggrieved that they'd been accused of cheating on very little evidence, took their stand and the rest is history.

(this is obviously conjecture, but I don't think it's hard to imagine)

in these circumstances, where you've been accused of cheating, penalised for it and nobody's actually proved you did it, I can understand their chagrin. i've said MANY times that they did not go about their protest the right way, but I don't think in the long run they should be penalised for making a stand against the way they were treated.
i accept your point that it was a bloody cheek for those paying spectators, but I believe Pakistan have made efforts to financially compensate the ECB (and thus, indirectly, those spectators) for their actions.
 

Mr Tree

President of the PBSA
Joined
28 Apr 2000
Messages
34,993
Reaction score
606
Location
Czech Republic
i am very much enjoying this exchange of opinions, now that it has become 2-way :yes:

hooray to sensible debate :bound:
 

Mr Tree

President of the PBSA
Joined
28 Apr 2000
Messages
34,993
Reaction score
606
Location
Czech Republic
1) Have you read the Law. It catered for *exactly* this situation.

2) Without the recent decision you wouldn't be on here pretending you are not wrong. Therefore it is of the utmost importance to you. QED.

it catered for the situation where a team would not come on to the field of play, by saying that they should forfeit the game.

agreed, undenied.

BUT, as above, i actually think that the situation was a little more complicated than that, and that these were expectional circumstances.
you still seem to be struggling with the question: "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?"

as for 2, you write QED but I can't fathom the first sentence - is that a triple negative?! :eek: (without... not... not...)
anyway. please - you're mixing up your points here. in the grand scheme of the cricketing world, it does not matter whether we won/drew/lost that game. (ok ok, according to some ranking doo-da it does - i have dealt with this point above)
to me, this argument matters. because, i don't understand why people are complaining about this - it doesn't make sense to me. it is interesting to hear WEB's views on the situation, but I feel I have answered them fairly well. that, of course, is just my opinion, but I do feel that sometimes people lack a little perspective and a little bit of ability to view the bigger picture, so I'm just trying to help :)
 

Banana

Very, very seldomly incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
78,574
Reaction score
11,172
Location
London
It does not matter how many teams have refused to take to the field Mr Tree. The situation is catered for within the Laws. It's a very simple concept really. You may have a different (i.e. wrong) concept of what should have happened. That is your right. However there would be little point in having rules and laws of games if they are to be ignored at your whim.

I still not that you have not admitted you were wrong on the point WEB made re the 2-0 v 3-0 result and how it affected Englands ranking. I don't see any point in continuing the debate with you if you cannot even admit fault on a matter of fact.

You did of course state that when you are wrong you say so. However you have been exposed as wrong even in this regard.

I shall leave you drowning in your hypocrisy :wave:
 

West Ealing Bee

Only Reading
Joined
6 Apr 2000
Messages
16,572
Reaction score
0
Location
At the match
re: the rankings - I was not aware of that. if that's the case, then you have a point. although, is that not a slightly bizarre system :eek: one test should surely not have such influence.
anyway, I think you've missed my point, that any drop from 2nd to 4th has more to do with lost series elsewhere than this result. indeed, you could argue that as we never "won" this game (and were in fact likely to lose it, or at best draw it), we were in a false position in 2nd, and 4th is the more correct position.

(btw, even if we were to win this series now vs S.Africa, i don't think it'd prove us the 2nd best team in the world - home advantage is a big factor)

the cricket rankings are maybe marginally more relevant that the FIFA football rankings, but again, does it really matter that much? do you go round crowing to Indians and Saffers that we're the 2nd best team in the world :D (i doubt you'd do it with much sincerity - even if statiscally we look good, i think we can agree that the England team's in a little disarray at the moment)

for your second point, it's my honest opinion that these were exceptional circumstances (Banana seems to think not, which I guess implies that these situations crop up regularly, though he is yet to furnish me with further examples, so I'm a little confused :suspect: )
i don't think it's very hard to imagine that Pakistan were in a state of disbelief at the time of the penalty award, and that given their history, Inzamam could not be 100% sure at the time that none of his bowlers had actually tampered with the ball, and thus did not challenge the penalty at the time.
then, they went off for tea, presumably had a team meeting where Inzy said "right you ****s, who did it?" and everyone said "well i bloody didn't". they then naturally felt aggrieved that they'd been accused of cheating on very little evidence, took their stand and the rest is history.

(this is obviously conjecture, but I don't think it's hard to imagine)

in these circumstances, where you've been accused of cheating, penalised for it and nobody's actually proved you did it, I can understand their chagrin. i've said MANY times that they did not go about their protest the right way, but I don't think in the long run they should be penalised for making a stand against the way they were treated.
i accept your point that it was a bloody cheek for those paying spectators, but I believe Pakistan have made efforts to financially compensate the ECB (and thus, indirectly, those spectators) for their actions.

Do we agree changing 3-0 to 2-0 did make a difference ;)

There is no doubt this was an exceptionla occurance and I very much doubt it will ever happen again but the whole aspect if changing a result in a committee rook and throwing the decision of on-field officials completely out the window appals me :shrug:

I believe the situation was discussed on TMS at lunchtime, I didn't hear it.

I did hear later the ECB make the BBC confirm they were very much against the change of result - in case those listening had not gathered that from the discussion.
If it was a non-issue I'm sure the ECB wouldn't care, they will be financially recompensed by Pakistan (a Twenty20 game is being scheduled with England taking all the cash), but the scenario doesn't sit well with them - and doesn't sit well with me.
 

Mr Tree

President of the PBSA
Joined
28 Apr 2000
Messages
34,993
Reaction score
606
Location
Czech Republic
Do we agree changing 3-0 to 2-0 did make a difference ;)

re: the rankings - I was not aware of that. if that's the case, then you have a point. although, is that not a slightly bizarre system :eek: one test should surely not have such influence.

i've looked again, and i did clearly start my post with the above. i am a little confused at how you and Banana BOTH missed it :confused:
i also address the point that, while it may have "made a difference", surely the difference that it made, in the bigger picture, is not that significant (re-read my earlier post for clarification on this)

hooray to sensible debate :bound:

unfortunately i spoke a little too soon........

It does not matter how many teams have refused to take to the field Mr Tree. The situation is catered for within the Laws. It's a very simple concept really. You may have a different (i.e. wrong) concept of what should have happened. That is your right. However there would be little point in having rules and laws of games if they are to be ignored at your whim.

I still not that you have not admitted you were wrong on the point WEB made re the 2-0 v 3-0 result and how it affected Englands ranking. I don't see any point in continuing the debate with you if you cannot even admit fault on a matter of fact.

You did of course state that when you are wrong you say so. However you have been exposed as wrong even in this regard.

I shall leave you drowning in your hypocrisy :wave:

i "don't see any point in continuing the debate" if you're not going to read my counter-arguments and address them in a sensible manner. is there not a line in the CoC, "attack the argument, not the person"?

of course it matters how many teams take to the field of play. the reason they forfeited the game at the time is because the Pakistan team did not take to the field of play, so obviously it matters.

the rules attempt to cater for every situation, but i do not believe that they imagined that this situation would take place. i think, at the time, the problem would have been best resolved by abandoning that session, and sitting around a table that evening and finding a solution whereby we could continue with the game.

Mr Hair did not believe this (and, as you noted earlier, it was not just him, but Mr Doctrove also agreed - however Mr Hair has been historically regarded as the senior umpire and chief protagonist in this decision). Mr Hair believed that, as Pakistan were refusing to play, all he could do was to abandon the game and declare the game an England victory.

I believe we could've resolved it a different way at the time, thus avoiding this furore. I believe that if Mr Hair had been a little more reasonable, using a little more common sense rather than just applying THE LAW in a draconian, by-the-book fashion, it would've been better for everyone.

This is my opinion. I do not appreciate the fashion in which some people are dismissing this opinion which I have attempted to back up with (what I think are) pretty reasonable arguments.

Mr WEB - if you want to bring the ECBs view into it as something to back up your argument, then do you think it'd be valid for me to have the ICC on my side. They are of the opinion that the match should've been resolved in a different fashion, and that England's "victory" (in a match they never looked like winning on the field of play) was unjust, and thus the official status of the match should, with the benefit of hindsight, be viewed as a draw. I personally am very comfortable with this view, and think that the majority of English complaining against this decision is purely reactionary, and that in the long run people will happily "get over it".

(very strange to be on the same side as the ICC in an argument, as I, like many others, generally believe them to be a bunch of incompetent twits who are not running the game in the best way possible. however, in this matter, I agree with them rather than the ECB (who are also incompetent twits))

I fully accept your uncomfortable feelings on the matter - changing a result retrospectively in a room, rather than on the field of play, IS clearly not a great precedent to be setting. My view on that, expressed (many) many times already on this thread, is that these were exceptional circumstances, and so I do not believe that this will set a precedent in the future. As you commented earlier, I too hope that we will not have similar circumstances in the future whereby this precedent is tested :(
 

rebus

Chin Laden
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
27,436
Reaction score
4,140
Location
Leytonstone / Ilford
Is there a cricket match on. :fishing:

Can we have a car crash thread smiley please.
 

Salford Bee

Salford Bees on Tour
Joined
21 Jun 2005
Messages
10,734
Reaction score
0
Location
Salford
I think it's the labeling of the match to a draw that's the problem. It should have been expunged from the record completely or just had Match Abandoned alternatively Pakistan 'forfeit'
 

Mr Tree

President of the PBSA
Joined
28 Apr 2000
Messages
34,993
Reaction score
606
Location
Czech Republic
Still no "I was wrong" is there lol

are you serious? i even highlighted the relevant part for you, in bold.

i don't believe myself to be wrong, overall. on parts of the argument where WEB makes a relevant point, I happily take it on board, and attempt to address it. that is the whole point of debate - we are exchanging opinions. not just dismissing them, TELLING people they're wrong, and ignoring (repeatedly) any questions that we're finding a little difficult to answer.
 

Mr Tree

President of the PBSA
Joined
28 Apr 2000
Messages
34,993
Reaction score
606
Location
Czech Republic
I think it's the labeling of the match to a draw that's the problem. It should have been expunged from the record completely or just had Match Abandoned alternatively Pakistan 'forfeit'

yep, you're probably right - the designation of the match seems to be the source of the problem :sorted:

but, I would say my point is, as England never looked like winning the match on the field of play, is it that big a problem, really?

your first solution may well have been the best one :yes: the net effect, though, is the same I think
 

Banana

Very, very seldomly incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
78,574
Reaction score
11,172
Location
London
So "I was not aware of that" is now "I was wrong". **** me I pity the people that you are teaching English to. :rolleyes:

Not once on the GPG have you EVER admitted you are wrong yet you were on a crusade to get others to admit they were wrong. A new word for you students in the morning: Hypocrite: definition - the boy standing in front of you :wave:
 

rebus

Chin Laden
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
27,436
Reaction score
4,140
Location
Leytonstone / Ilford
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.

I've now read this thread and will now put my size twelves into the fray. Mr Tree can trump me on shoe size, but that's another matter.

It is completely unacceptable that this result has been changed to a draw - on what basis has this decision been made? If this was a football match and the other team refused to play on, the match would be awarded to the other side without question - I see no difference in cricket.

It's purely a decision to smooth over relations with Pakistan, and who knows, a back hander for their support in making sure Zimbabwe don't play in next year's 20/20 World Cup.
 

Mr Tree

President of the PBSA
Joined
28 Apr 2000
Messages
34,993
Reaction score
606
Location
Czech Republic
So "I was not aware of that" is now "I was wrong". **** me I pity the people that you are teaching English to. :rolleyes:

maybe you could do with some lessons. i concede that WEB has a point, and then go on to attempt to address it.

on the actual system of the rankings table, I did not know that changing the result would have an impact. if saying "I was wrong" is so important to you, then I was wrong to say that changing the result would not have an impact. however, if you notice, I then go on to say that that impact is not actually that important, in my view.

how are you getting on with answering that question that you've dodged multiple times?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom