The MCC shows some spine...

Huzzah...


2006 Oval Test still a forfeit for MCC
Cricinfo staff
October 26, 2008


The MCC, the independent governor of cricket’s laws, has recommended the ICC overturn its awarding of a draw for the disputed England-Pakistan Test at The Oval in 2006. Originally the match was ruled the first forfeit in the game’s history, but the ICC changed the result at an executive board meeting in July.
The MCC world cricket committee, which includes current India captain Anil Kumble and former Test leaders Rahul Dravid, Michael Atherton, Shaun Pollock and Steve Waugh, met on Saturday and Sunday in New Delhi and decided “cricket is the worse for this decision”.

The committee chairman Tony Lewis wanted confirmation from the ICC that the original outcome of the match should stand. “The ICC has no power under the laws of cricket to decide that results should be altered, whether it feels it's ‘inappropriate’ or otherwise,” the former England captain Lewis said. “The ICC’s decision is wrong and sets a very dangerous precedent. Cricket is the worse for this decision.”

Majid Khan, the former Pakistan captain, said the committee’s decision was unanimous “simply because the rule states that you can’t overturn a decision”. “The result should stay as is,” he said. When asked what the reaction to the decision would be in Pakistan, Majid said “we’ll wait and see”.

The controversy began after tea on the fourth day of the fourth Test when Inzamam-ul-Haq, the Pakistan captain, refused to lead his team back on to the field following Australia umpire Darrell Hair and West Indian Billy Doctrove enforcing a five-run penalty for ball tampering. It was a decision that initially gave England victory and resulted in a suspension for Hair, who was reinstated after an employment tribunal hearing in October 2007, following protests from Pakistan. Hair has since stood down from elite-level umpiring.

Inzamam, who is now retired and playing in the unofficial Indian Cricket League, was fined for four games for bringing the game into disrepute. The team was cleared of the original ball-tampering allegations.

"The board's decision was based on the view that in light of the unique set of circumstances, the original result of the match was felt to be inappropriate," the ICC said in a statement in July. The ruling meant England won the four-match series 2-0 instead of 3-0.

“As far as we’re concerned there is no record of any other result [but a forfeit],” Lewis said. “We’re not reversing the ICC result, we’re just saying they had no place to do that. We, MCC, wrote the rules in 1788 and the laws working party now is run by Robert Griffiths QC. Legally, there is absolutely no way the ICC can change the laws of the game, which it did do.”

The committee also supported the umpire review system that was used in the recent Sri Lanka-India Test series and agreed to work with the ICC in ensuring the primacy of Test cricket. It also vowed to complete further research into trialling pink balls in the hope they could be used in day-night Tests.

An increased focus on fostering spin bowlers was also discussed along with a recommendation that umpires should not give the players the option to leave the field for bad light. MCC’s 18-man world cricket committee is charged with improving the game and its governance. As the sport’s law makers, the MCC has the power to alter the rules while using its influence to urge the ICC to change its position.

© Cricinfo

Sanity at last.

Jebus, I imagine PakPassion is going apesh!t right now.

Cue the ICC throwing toys out of pram before sitting down to pen their very own Laws of Cricket (voluntarily assisted by the PCB) !

Majid Khan must be in the dung.

Merlin wrote:Cue the ICC BCCI throwing toys out of pram before sitting down to pen their very own Laws of Cricket (voluntarily assisted by the PCB)ICC !

This is more likely.

Shares in the Majid Khan effigy emporium have skyrocketed however.

taipan wrote:

Merlin wrote:Cue the ICC BCCI throwing toys out of pram before sitting down to pen their very own Laws of Cricket (voluntarily assisted by the PCB)ICC !

This is more likely.

Aye, I did seriously think of your amended version but I figured ...

BAN INDIA.
BAN BCCI.
BAN ICC.
BAN PCB.

... kinda summarizes it concisely.

JGK wrote:

“As far as we’re concerned there is no record of any other result [but a forfeit],” Lewis said. “We’re not reversing the ICC result, we’re just saying they had no place to do that."

So what's the official result then?

Expect a visit from Filo within the next 24 hours...

Expect a lawsuit from Hair real soon.

ACTUAL result : Match forfeited by Pak. England win series 3 - 0.

ICC result : Check first with the BCCI to make sure that they have no objection; then call the PCB to reluctantly reinstate the forfeit decision.

Then sit down with the BCCI to re-write The Laws of Cricket, making sure that Gavaskar, Inzaman and Ranatunga are all consulted on the Law concerning "refusing to take the field".

Fair enough i guess.

So there are two bodies, one formerly England dominated that makes the rules and one Indian dominated that administors the game world-wide. I guess not many people of the subcontinent care what the MCC say.

So what does this mean exactly? As far as I can see, the ICC have said "the match is now a draw" so the MCC have said "actually the rules state that you aren't allowed to do that".

But officially, isn't the result still a draw? I mean what power do the MCC have in this matter exactly?

THICKEDGE wrote:So there are two bodies, one formerly England dominated that makes the rules and one Indian dominated that administors the game world-wide. I guess not many people of the subcontinent care what the MCC say.

There is just the ONE body - The MCC - who both wrote and, over the decades, have administer the Laws of Cricket.
The MCC are the arbitrators who ensure impartiality when ruling on said Laws, be it at test or grass roots level.
They have QC's who ensure such impartiality and a Cricket Committe consisting of players from all cricketing countries.

The ICC administer the game of cricket.
They'd like to think they govern and decree the Laws of the game - as would the BCCI.
They don't. Neither of them do.
It doesn't really matter whether people on the subcontinent care about what the MCC say.
The Laws are the Laws.
And they adhere to the Laws.
End of.

Eagerly awaiting Buckaroo's response

It doesn't really matter what the official records show. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that the match result should never have been changed and will always view it as an England win due to Pakistan's forfeit.

One team/person/horse ... whatever does not take to the field.
When invited to by the officials they continue to refuse, whatever the excuse or reason.

That's known as forfeiting a match - ie., refusing to play the opposition.

In horse racing it's known as a withdrawal or scratch.
In tennis its known as bye.
In cricket it's called a forfeit.

In the ICC it's known as fudging.

Spot on, merls.

The thing is that the ICC decision just further undermines the umpires (as if that is possible.)

I thought that if the umpire makes a wrong/bad call and you sook...you are fined at best (unless you're Ponting...I think they take his various deficits into account and realise that if they didn't, cricket would lose one of its finest batsmen permanently.)

It seems to me absolutely crystal clear. You "respect' and abide by the umpire's decision on the field and complain afterwards if you think he is incompetent, bias, rascist etc

I never understood even a twisted rationale to change that outcome. There isn't one.

Bradman wrote:Expect a lawsuit from Hair real soon followed by another book

Fixed.

Henry wrote:

Bradman wrote:Expect a lawsuit from Hair real soon followed by another book

Fixed.

Maybe there will be another book!
And if that's how he reclaims lost earnings for having been wrongly dumped on from a great height by his employers whilst being openly called a racist by the PCB Chairman - then I suggest Hair write away and dish the dirt on the whole sorry affair, warts and all.