

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!