World Cup Final Fiasco

[nompere]

Whatever really went wrong

content-uk.cricinfo.com/wc2007/content/current/story/292771.html

Are the administrators writing such long and complicated sets of rules that no-one can find their way through the jungle?

[fatpunter]

If you've ever done an ECB game such as County 2nds or National Knock-Out you will realise that the Laws of the Game pale into insignificance when you receive a copy of the local rules and regulations. They have always been ludicrously overlong and therefore open to misinterpretation.

I am not suprised in the least that the World Cup Final got people confused.

Having said that, I must say that I got bored with the whole lot seemingly several months ago. What an overly long and tedious competition. We all thought Australia would win, and they did. We all thought England would be rubbish, and they were. We all thought that there may some some strange results involving teams from the sub-continent, and there were. All in all, a long and pointless excercise!

[wisden17]

Really got to disagree fatpunter.

I've done plenty of ECB games (although not done an ECB game with D/L in, although have done other games with it in) and I always make sure I know the regs before the game.

After seeing the events at the World Cup final I went and had a look at the rules for the competition, which are on the ICC's website. Yes there are 58 pages. But it is very clear and simple what the rules say, and it makes the point (more than once!!) that as long as 20 overs have been bowled in the 2nd innings then it can constitute a match.

Now if I was a professional umpire, remember this is what these guys' jobs are, and not only that but I involved in the World Cup Final(!) I would make sure that I was confident with what the rules were.

It is also worth pointing out that whilst a lot has been made of the fact the tournament lasted several months, this also means that these officials have been umpiring in matches for the last couple of months with exactly the same rules and so it is hard to say that they shouldn't be up to date with what the rules were!

In the end it appears, from the press reports, that it came to down to a slight personality issue, where one umpire said 'x' and everybody seemed to nod in agreement! Now this may well be an unfair characterisation on what happened, and if so I do apologise, but it is simply unforgiveable that this situation occured.

The thing that strikes me, regardless of any of the five officials ignorance of the 20 over significance, how did they let the match re-commence in light levels which were dangerous, and as such under Law 3.9d they should not have let there be any more play.

Some commentators have made mention of the Oval incident and how in that situation the umpires were correct in law, but were censured. Yet here it seems the umpires were incorrect (in playing regulations and I would also content more significantly in law (in relation to Law 3.9d) and there does not appear to be any plans to take any actions about it.

All in all a sad end to a poorly run tournament.

[umpireindia]

Yes, and these playing conditions are used in all the one dayers and not only for the world cup, except for a few administrative changes. The umpires(emirates panel) have been used to the playing conditions of the new power play and stuff since they were introduced along with the super sub

Utter nonsense - that they commenced the game in such dangerous light conditions.

I was watching the match and I heard a commentator saying " I think, it is Chaminda Vaas, who is on strike" This comment was enough to show the dangerousness of the light.

[peterg]

I made an error over applying league regulations last season. My mistake haunted me afterwards, and I made absolutely sure at the start of the season that I knew the regulations thoroughly. I also wrote to the league umpiring official to query one point I was uncertain about.

My point is that officials at a World Cup should have made sure they knew the regulations. It is hard to understand so basic a mistake. Or were there extenuating circumstances to explain an error at this level?

[wisden17]

Well Peter, the thing that springs to mind with what you say is that it wasn't just one official that made a mistake, but a team of 6! 5 match umpires and the match referee all failed to know what to do it seems. I find it hard to believe that there were any extenuating circumstances. Both teams thought the game was over. The scorers thought it was over. Only one umpire (media reports seem to suggest!) thought it wasn't!

Interesting though how no action was taken with regards to the officials, yet only last year another ICC Umpire followed the laws and playing regulations to the letter yet got disciplined! Funny that, isn't it!

[Guest]

Most domestic umpires operate under one set of league regulations on Saturday, a completely different set of knockout on Sunday and a third set on mid week or evening matches! We would have every excuse for confusing one set with another.

These guys had been playing the same set of regulations for (was it?) 56 days and goodness only knows how many games without any deviation. By the time they reached the final, they should have known them backwards in their sleep!

[umpireindia]

I would like to know why the ICC has double standards for different things.

Had there been no ball tampering, why didn't the other umpire on the field object to it?

Had the status quo maintained, the matter would have ended there. Instead, the other umpire, after having stood with the sacked umpire all the time, said that there was no ball tampering when it came to the enquiry.

It is a joint decision, isnt it?

How will you penalise only one umpire for this?

Who said there was no ball tampering?

How did the match Referee find that there was no ball tampering after so many days?

What was the match referee doing when the umpires called the match off?

The ICC was very biased in reacting to it and have shown their weakness in dealing with Asian countries.