Pakistan forfeit test
If you've already read this post earlier, scroll down to the list of columns/articles on the issue. That part keeps getting updated.
Like Matt said, the fourth test at The Oval was awarded to England after the umpires, Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove, reasoned that by not taking the field post-tea, Pakistan had conceded the game.
A joint statement by the ICC, ECB and PCB revealed that the umpires didn't come out when Pakistan did because in their opinion, the game was over. So why didn't they pull out the stumps when they left the field? Like I pointed out yesterday, flicking off the bails doesn't mean game up.
What happens now if video evidence emerges indicating that some Pakistani player(s) did alter the condition of the ball before the umpires asked to inspect it? How about if the 26 cameras around the ground didn't capture a thing? Who has the burden of proof?
What the cricketing world is saying.
- Andrew Miller, "What a horrible mess"
- Angus Fraser, "It's just not cricket!"
- Blue and Brown, "Darrell Hair - not a diplomat, but he is quite fat"
- Christopher Martin-Jenkins, "ICC largely to blame as game is ultimate loser"
- Chris (The Burnt Bail), "Darryl Hair's petulance exceeds his trouser size"
- Cricinfo Surfer, "The Oval debacle"
- Geoff Boycott, "Hair cuts an over-officious figure in the game"
- Imran Khan, "Hair the Hitler does it again"
- Intikhab Alam, "Umpire Hair should have come up with proof"
- Jonathan Agnew, "While I do have some sympathy for Pakistan, staging a sit-in was not the right way to register their protest"
- Kamran Abbasi, "Hair-raising row turns Oval Test on its head"
- Khalid Hussain, "Hair-raising incident sets fire to a dead Test rubber"
- Lawrence Booth, "Isolated Hair's future in doubt as ECB fumes"
- Mihir Bose, "Attack on Inzy's "izzat" was the last straw"
- Nasser Hussain, "I'd have done the same if I had been in Inzy's shoes"
- Pratyush (Sportolysis), "Cricket suffers"
- Ramiz Raja, "Pakistan in the crossHair"
- Rick Eyre, "First thoughts on the Fourth Test"
- Scott (The Corridor), "Oval Test awarded to England"
- Stu (STUmpCam), "It's just not cricket....;-("
- Ted Corbett, "Ball tampering row in spotlight"
Labels: ball tampering, forfeit, hair, oval 2006
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed -
|
Two headlines on Cricinfo today, from unrelated stories:
Controversy surrounds Test forfeiture
'Spirit of cricket is to play under worst circumstances'
South Africa are roundly criticised for going home because they did not feel safe. Pakistan seem to have mostly escaped criticism for refusing to play because they felt insulted.
geoff: Yes, I noticed the irony too. What I do find surprising, analyzing the reactions which I've collected in this post so far, is that just about everyone is blaming Darrell Hair for it. Yesterday, the Sky commentators were saying something to the effect of "Hair should have taken the relations with Pakistan's players into context and that he ought not to go exactly by the rule book". That's plain nonsense. The rule book exists for a reason. You transgress it, you get hauled up. In Hair's opinion, Pakistan did tamper with the ball. So he did the needful. I'll be very interested to see how the PCB reacts if some evidence emerges about the tampering.
I fully predict this to blow up into an us v them issue, Asian cricket boards v the rest. Sri Lanka are fuming after South Africa took the flight home.
What I don't understand is why no-one wants to challenge the ICC in a court of law over this issue, or indeed other issues in the past. If you have a problem and feel that the system of the organization you're in will not give you justice, you ought to go to the courts!
By 
Jagadish (21 Aug 2006, 6:09:00 pm)
We'd prefer if you posted comments with your real name to add more credibility to your opinions. However, the moderators reserve the right to delete comments, especially those containing offensive or unsuitable language. The opinions in the comments are your own views. You are welcome to provide a URL to your own cricket blog, but the moderators reserve the right to delete comments which only reference sites for viewing live streams.
Links within entries open in a new window. Some of the links may now be broken/not take you to the expected report since the original content providers may have archived/removed the contents. Some of the sites linked may require registration/subscription.
All opinions expressed are those of the authors alone. The authors' respective employers (past, present or future) are in no way connected to the opinions expressed here.
All pictures, photographs used are copyrights of the original owners. We do not intend to infringe on any copyright. Pictures and photographs are used here to merely accentuate and enhance the content value to our readers.
|
|
|
|
Post a Comment