The
International Cricket Council has finally decided to move the postponed Champions Trophy out of Pakistan. A tournament that had already been
postponed from September 2008 to October this year, was retained by Pakistan
purely because of the
BCCI backing to
PCB. At that time (in Aug 2008), India & Pakistan were pretty close and both countries considered the other to be a stauch ally. Under pressure from BCCI, PCB & the other pro-BCCI boards, the rather powerless ICC merely
postponed the Champions Trophy by a year hoping that the situation would change by end-2009. And change they did. The
unfortunate terror attacks in Mumbai in Nov 2008 put the 2 countries at loggerheads. Public opinion against Pakistan led to India's tour of Pakistan being
called off on the advise of the Indian Government. With the cancellation of that series, with the security situation in Pakistan not improving, with many internation teams still against touring Pakistan, and with the BCCI-PCB bloc
breaking up, the ICC
took the open option to move the tournament out of Pakistan. Though no alternate location has been announced, based on the alternate venues discussed last year, I would think that Sri Lanka and South Africa would be the likely alternatives. Given their history of raising questions over a visa for
Peter Chingoka (Chairman,
Zimbabwe Cricket),
England &
Australia are least likely venues for this tournament.
Pakistan have now lost the Oval 2006 test to England.... again! After having initially lost
the match after umpires
Darrell Hair &
Billy Doctrove awarded the match to England, Pakistan got the
result changed to a draw at the July 2008 ICC meeting.However, the custodians of the laws of cricket, the
Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC),
refused to acknowledge the change in result on the basis that the ICC did not have the authority (
Law 21.10) to overrule the umpires' decision. Keeping in mind the stance of the MCC, the ICC have now
decided to re-reverse result of this match to a forfeiture by Pakistan. This
ping-pong how weak the ICC is, and how easily it is swayed by its member countries. The main "aim" of the ICC, it appears, is to simply avoid confrontation with anyone, nevermind the rationale of their decisions. In my opinion, the ICC should never have changed the decision of the umpires in the 1st place. Over-ruling the umpires' decision on the very result of the game opens such a pandora box that it is not beyond possibilities that teams could start asking for reversals of dismissals on the basis that the umpires were wrong. Don't get me wrong; I don't for 1 moment think that the umpires were correct in awarding the match to England. In his quest to exert his authority as the umpire, Mr. Hair conveniently forgot that as an umpire, his 1st action should be to ensure an environment where both teams can compete fairly. As the umpire, he was not the main event, merely a conduit to ensure that the main event carried on. So, though I don't agree with the umpires' decision, I firmly believe that the umpires' decision should be final. If batsmen are expected to take wrong decisions by umpires, if bowlers and fielders are expected to recognise that snicks might be missed by umpires, it goes without saying that a result determined by the umpires should be accepted by all and sundry. The initial decision by the ICC to reverse the original result was a political one... and I for one am glad that they have rectified that by now making a cricketing one!
The International Cricket Council has finally decided to move the postponed Champions Trophy out of Pakistan. A tournament that had already been postponed from September 2008 to October this year, was retained by Pakistan purely because of the BCCI backing to PCB. At that time (in Aug 2008), India & Pakistan were pretty close and both countries considered the other to be a stauch ally. Under pressure from BCCI, PCB & the other pro-BCCI boards, the rather powerless ICC merely postponed the Champions Trophy by a year hoping that the situation would change by end-2009. And change they did. The unfortunate terror attacks in Mumbai in Nov 2008 put the 2 countries at loggerheads. Public opinion against Pakistan led to India's tour of Pakistan being called off on the advise of the Indian Government. With the cancellation of that series, with the security situation in Pakistan not improving, with many internation teams still against touring Pakistan, and with the BCCI-PCB bloc breaking up, the ICC took the open option to move the tournament out of Pakistan. Though no alternate location has been announced, based on the alternate venues discussed last year, I would think that Sri Lanka and South Africa would be the likely alternatives. Given their history of raising questions over a visa for Peter Chingoka (Chairman, Zimbabwe Cricket), England & Australia are least likely venues for this tournament.
Pakistan have now lost the Oval 2006 test to England.... again! After having initially lost the match after umpires Darrell Hair & Billy Doctrove awarded the match to England, Pakistan got the result changed to a draw at the July 2008 ICC meeting.However, the custodians of the laws of cricket, the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), refused to acknowledge the change in result on the basis that the ICC did not have the authority (Law 21.10) to overrule the umpires' decision. Keeping in mind the stance of the MCC, the ICC have now decided to re-reverse result of this match to a forfeiture by Pakistan. This ping-pong how weak the ICC is, and how easily it is swayed by its member countries. The main "aim" of the ICC, it appears, is to simply avoid confrontation with anyone, nevermind the rationale of their decisions. In my opinion, the ICC should never have changed the decision of the umpires in the 1st place. Over-ruling the umpires' decision on the very result of the game opens such a pandora box that it is not beyond possibilities that teams could start asking for reversals of dismissals on the basis that the umpires were wrong. Don't get me wrong; I don't for 1 moment think that the umpires were correct in awarding the match to England. In his quest to exert his authority as the umpire, Mr. Hair conveniently forgot that as an umpire, his 1st action should be to ensure an environment where both teams can compete fairly. As the umpire, he was not the main event, merely a conduit to ensure that the main event carried on. So, though I don't agree with the umpires' decision, I firmly believe that the umpires' decision should be final. If batsmen are expected to take wrong decisions by umpires, if bowlers and fielders are expected to recognise that snicks might be missed by umpires, it goes without saying that a result determined by the umpires should be accepted by all and sundry. The initial decision by the ICC to reverse the original result was a political one... and I for one am glad that they have rectified that by now making a cricketing one!
one question aditya. according to u, in what scenario will ICC be correct in reversing an umpire's decision?
ReplyDeleteyou have accepted that you don't think the hair's decision was correct. quoting you - "though I don't agree with the umpires' decision, I firmly believe that the umpires' decision should be final". you also said that - "As the umpire, he was not the main event, merely a conduit to ensure that the main event carried on". which leads me to believe that you think that Mr. hair did something which was not exactly within his authority.
I just wanna know if u think that it is incorrect to reverse an umpier's decision altogether. If not then where should the line be drawn?
I would also like to know more about why you think ICC was wrong in reversing the decision. You spoke about setting a precedent; this will stand as a good arguement under one of these 2 conditions -
1. if you think that no matter what decision an umpire takes can't be reverted by ICC or any higher authority for that matter.
or
2. if you can provide a clear distinction in terms of what decisions you think can be reverted and what cannot.
As per the current laws of cricket (Law 21.10), the umpires' declaration of the result of the game is FINAL. The umpires have the responsibility to verify the correctness of the scores & results before signing off the scoresheet. But once the result is signed off, it should not be changed. And this is stand argued by the MCC as well.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, since the umpire is a conduit for the game, he should have been less confrontational against Pakistan. First of all, without any proof of ball tampering, he should not have even given the 5 penalty runs to England (the decision that triggered Pakistan's refusal to take the ground). The rules clearly allow him to change the ball if the condition of the ball has deteriorated without needing to provide any penalty runs. That was the 1st decision I didn't agree with. With this decision having been made, Mr. Hair should have been more understanding of Pakistan's protests during the Tea interval. He should have also personally spoken to the captain and advised him to come out rather than awarding the match to England. The decision to award the test to England was the 2nd thing I didn't agree with. But, and it is a very big "but", Mr. Hair did not exceed his authority. That is why I said I didn't agree with his decision, but he acted firmly within the purview of the ICC Playing Conditions of that time. Since then, the Playing Conditions have been changed and the authority to award a match by forfeit lies only with the Match Referees.
As for generally reversing an umpire's decision, I think as long as there is are means and methods to request for and attain a reversal in decision, that is permissible. A method that provides for an umpire's mistake to be reversed is vital for the game going forward, and I am much in favour of the Referral System that is currently employed on trial basis in international cricket.
"as long as there is are means and methods to request for and attain a reversal in decision, that is permissible"
ReplyDeleteplz correct me if i misunderstood you -
so if there are no formal means to request for a decision reversal, an umpire's decision should not be reversed ICC?
Yes, correct.
ReplyDeleteUnlike in soccer (where they have red cards), no decision taken by am umpire in a game impacts any player for a subsequent game. So there should be no reason to change any umpire's decision post-game since the result cannot be changed anyway.
Any formal means will only serve to reverse an umpire's decision during the match, not post-match.