Last week,the ICC officially changed the result of the fourth Test match at the Oval in 2006, won by England after Pakistan forfeited the game, into a draw.
Interestingly one website reported that the International Cricket Council's Cricket Committee headed by Sunil Gavaskar disapproved the proposal and the issue was referred to the ICC's Chief Executives' Committee (CEC). Unable to come to a unanimous decision, the CEC then passed the buck to Executive Board Members, who after deliberation decided to change the result from a forfeiture to a draw.
The PCB chairman, Dr Nasim Ashraf, hailed the decision by the ICC to change the status of the Oval Test from forfeited to draw as a ‘big achievement’. However, this decision was neither hailed or derided by other national cricketing bodies.
Expectedly the decision to change the result to a draw drew the ire of quiet a few cricketers and columnists. Michael Holding was so disgusted, he quit from ICC's Cricket Committee in protest.
Some called the decision a 'dangerous precedent'. Others called it a 'farce' and warned that from now on cricket playing nations would contest each and every unfavorable result. There are others who linked it to horse trading over the Zimbabwe issue.
The ICC was unperturbed by these angry fulminations. They stood by the decision to change the result of the Oval Test to a draw. Fortunately, the MCC has now challenged ICC's decision.
The MCC, the custodians of the Laws of Cricket, says that the ICC's decision "contravenes the spirit of the game as well as the Laws. The club’s world committee is also opposed to any alteration to Law 21, which states that the result should not be changed." They have asked the ICC to review their decision.
Surprisingly, David Morgan the new President of the ICC has also opposed the decision.Though the last word is yet to be spoken, the venerable Wisden's editor, Scyld Berry has remarked, “Wisden will record the ICC’s change of verdict but not endorse it.”
Technorati Tags Test,ICC,Oval,MCC,Wisden
9 comments:
One of the most ridiculous decisions. How can you change the result of a game. As Ian Chappell rightly pointed out , previouisly wrongs have been committed against teams, but they have carried on playing.
A result of a test match has been changed two years after its completion. SAD SAD SADday for cricket.
Apurv,
Agreed. Reeks of opportunism. MCC's challenge is the only hope of righting this wrong.
hypocrite dickheads...
dont forgive them MCC coz they know what they are doing ;-)
Pan,
Dick heads? Not muppets? :)
See what happens when they get rid of Gavaskar?
no this word is under exclusive right of attapattu ;-)
Homer,
For all his stature as a Captain, Clive Lloyd comes across as a lackey in his present avatar.
I beg to differ here,You guys are just focusing on one side of the picture and completely overlooking the other side.There is a difference between getting a few wrong calls in a match and getting wrongfully accused of ball tempering.
Inzi made the right decision if he had finished the match and then tried to get his team clear of ball tempering charges it would have never happened.
A step like that was needed to stop Darryl Hair from his racist crusade against the Asian teams.
If ICC can honorably restore Darryl Hair after all of his wrong doings then they can also change the result of the match, Pakistan would have won the match anyways for them the result is still not fair.
As far as Micheal Holding is concerned where was he when Darryl Hair was getting restored, and what does he have to say about umpires like Hair and Bucknor deliberately taking over matches,the spirit of the game perhaps should not apply to them because they are not Pakistanis and their mistakes by default are innocent ones but god forbid if the same decision was taken by Aleem Dar he would have been crucified at the spot.
Somebody had to put an end to Hair's racist crusade against the Asian teams. I am glad that Inzi did it.
Wasim,
I respect your opinion and in no way want to challenge it.
I just want you to ponder a moment - tomorrow, citing this as a precedent, how can we stop India from demanding a reversal of the Sydney Test result?
All I am saying is that irrespective of the merits of this case, it sets a bad precedent.
Post a Comment