|
|
Post by Number 6 on Jul 3, 2008 5:47:07 GMT
I understand that the ICC are to change the result to a draw.
a) Why can they do this? The Laws state that the result of a match cannot be changed after the event.
b) This will open a can of worms with the possibility that umpires decisions can be challenged years after the event.
Opinions?
|
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Jul 3, 2008 11:02:50 GMT
Did you read that from here: news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/7485935.stmI am quite disgusted by the action of the ICC, who grow weaker with each passing day. This is not about whether or not the Pakistanis tampered with the ball, it's about them REFUSING TO PLAY. The law is very clear about the ramifications the umpire has to enforce in light of this and I'm staggered the ICC have decided to change the match's result (which they should have no right or power to do so anyway). That is very irritating. |
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Jul 3, 2008 15:32:45 GMT
... I am quite disgusted by the action of the ICC, who grow weaker with each passing day. This is not about whether or not the Pakistanis tampered with the ball, it's about them REFUSING TO PLAY. The law is very clear about the ramifications the umpire has to enforce in light of this and I'm staggered the ICC have decided to change the match's result (which they should have no right or power to do so anyway). .... Hear hear - just goes to show how big money corrupts. |
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Jul 3, 2008 16:47:37 GMT
It goes to show how, no matter what the weak ICC or anyone says, cricket IS about politics and not the sport.
|
|
|
|
Post by umpire50 on Jul 14, 2008 14:41:22 GMT
What annoys me most about this episode is the not-untypical gutless approach of the ECB who actually agreed with the change of result. Did they consult ECB ACO on the matter? I doubt it!
The sooner people who actually understand the Laws of Cricket(and Special Regulations) become involved in the governance of cricket - both at international and recreational level - the better.
From the moment that Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove made that decision at the Oval, it was evident that politics and the influence of money would take over.
|
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Oct 27, 2008 17:15:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by fatpunter on Nov 8, 2008 11:01:38 GMT
The lunatics have taken over the asylum.
If this is allowed to happen then what is the point of having laws in sport at all.
It's a case of money from TV rights in the subcontinent and having to keep sweet our Asian friends for fear of them taking the huff.
Or maybe some Pakistanis had money on themselves to lose! I know it is contentious but why has no-one else said it.
|
|
|
|
Post by swerveman on Feb 2, 2009 12:42:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Feb 3, 2009 7:11:34 GMT
... Hooray for common sense! ... and one up for the rule of Law (at last)!  |
|
