• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The ICC is sending wrong signals by awarding the match to the hosts!

WeptWindies

Cricket Spectator
The match ended in shame. The crowd, which watched the West Indies put the Indian attack to the sword on Tuesday morning and then erupted as the Indian openers ran riot, watched the third one-day match being abandoned after 27.1 overs following three incidents of crowd misbehaviour.

ICC match referee Mike Proctor awarded the match to India under the Duckworth-Lewis system which came into force since 25 overs had been completed.

But the decison left a bad taste in the mouth. Only stand-in captain Ridley Jacobs and manager Ricky Skeritt attended the presentation ceremony from the Windies side. Former West Indian paceman Ian Bishop, here as a commentator, summed up the mood when he said, "I can't believe this is happening. It will set a bad precedent and send the wrong message to miscreants that they can finish a match if India is winning by throwing (things on to the field)."
 

Choora

State Regular
India deserved to be the winners, they were the better team and would had won the match had the crowd not disrupted it.Crowd trouble occus everywhere so don't make a fuss about it, it was bad indeed and hopefully it won't happen in future!
 

Paid The Umpire

All Time Legend
I think that the game should either been given to the Windies or called a no result.

If spectators are allowed to stop games, then well it should penalise the home team. IF the game went to the away, side would you chuck stuff onto the ground?


NO!
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
I'm surprised but pleased by the fair nature of the comments suggesting a no result was right - I was going to post something along these lines yesterday, but expected that I'd get shouted down, and didn't want to cause conflict.

Good on you all!
 

R_Powell_fan

U19 Captain
IMO It doesn't matter whether the Indian team were winning the game or not, It should have been a no-result, and saying that crowd trouble happens everywhere doesn't cut it, I mean, If everybody jumped into a river of molten lava would you too ??
On a lighter Note: You never know...maybe Dillon will get 4 wkts in 4 overs and R.Powell will get a hat trick and India will collapse.....;):D;):D
The BCCI MUST take action to prevent any such re-ocurrances of this nature...it is simply not cricket, i.e: crowd trouble.
 

anzac

International Debutant
crowd disruptions of this matter do not occur everywhere to my knowledge....

a single incident can be looked upon as an abnormality - but 3 matches in a row is beyond pathetic!!!!!

a non result should be awarded in the first instance of disruption by the crowd, but IMO it does not go far enough for repeat offences. Even tho' this is the first of the 3 matches to have actually been abandoned because of the disruptions I do not think that a 'no result' is fair because of the incidents at the proceeding 2 matches & the reports that this game was disrupted 3 times b4 being called off.

IMO the continuing disruptions are in part attributable to the lack of positive and definative action being taken re the earlier incidents.

EG - elsewhere miscreants can be banned for life; the team / association heavily fined; and forced to play subsequent matches either away from home, with no gate (crowd), or even barred from the competition for a number of years....

A riot by Liverpool supporters in a European Cup final resulted in the deaths of about 21 of the opposition supporters. The consequences were that ALL English clubs were banned from ANY European football competition for a decade. At the time of this ban Liverpool was THE dominant club not only in English football but also in Europe. This not only hurt all the clubs pride & revenue big time, but was a contributing factor to the demise of the performance of the national team.

While I am not saying that we have sunk to this level of behaviour, I think the options should be there for teams to suffer similar fates because of persistant crowd disruptions. The precedent is there that nations have been banned from international competition in the past for other reasons, & I do not see that there should have to be a 'direct' threat to the players for a team or players to refuse to tour because of such behaviour!!!!

:(!
 

Bazza

International 12th Man
So what happens is if England bowl first in all home ODIs in future (assuming we win the toss), all we need to do is get off to a good start in reply, then the crowd can cause problems and we win the match by the D/L method. See a problem with this? I do, and that is why the match should have been a no result at the very least. I would have liked to see the match awarded to the Windies, but the ICC would never do that.
 

CricketGuru

School Boy/Girl Captain
I think that by gving away india the game because of crowd touble isnt going to help the crowd problem but it will further encourage the home crowd to interrupt.

It doesnt matter who was winning because cricket is a games of chance and West Indies could have had that chance any time.

I think that game should have been declared 'no result'.
 

Choora

State Regular
Originally posted by anzac
crowd disruptions of this matter do not occur everywhere to my knowledge....

:(!
It has happened in England, Australia, Pakistan,Bangladesh and SL!
 

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
Ideally, it should have been a "no result". It is not fair to penalise the home team or the opposing team for the rowdy acts of a bunch of hooligans.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
A 'no-result' is probably the fairer to both teams but I believe that the home team has to take responsibility for their home crowd to some extent, hence the match (especially since it was the third time in a row this has happened) should have been award to the WI, regardless of whether India looked like winning or not.

Giving it to India was beyond a mistake. It certainly sends an ugly message to those who wish to bet on or disrupt games and want their team to win.
 

warrioryohannan

U19 Cricketer
Originally posted by Top_Cat
A 'no-result' is probably the fairer to both teams but I believe that the home team has to take responsibility for their home crowd to some extent, hence the match (especially since it was the third time in a row this has happened) should have been award to the WI, regardless of whether India looked like winning or not.

Giving it to India was beyond a mistake. It certainly sends an ugly message to those who wish to bet on or disrupt games and want their team to win.
Its the host Cricket board that has to take responsibility of their home crowd and not the home team.Although if the services of Indian cricketers had been acquired to calm down the crowd and had they refused to cooperate then it would have been a different case
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
Originally posted by Choora
It has happened in England, Australia, Pakistan,Bangladesh and SL!
But not with such regularity.

Giving India the win is definitely the wrong decision. Going off this logic, if we English had decided to throw enough empty cans of Boddington's at the Indian batsmen as they walked on & off the field at 146/5 in the NatWest to force abandonment, we should be given the win?

Allowing India to win on D/L sets the wrong example. It should have been a NR at least if not a forfeit - what's to stop India being up on this after 25 in match four, then another abandoment?

A very, very dangerous precedent has been set for World ODI Cricket.
 

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
Originally posted by Top_Cat
A 'no-result' is probably the fairer to both teams but I believe that the home team has to take responsibility for their home crowd to some extent, hence the match (especially since it was the third time in a row this has happened) should have been award to the WI, regardless of whether India looked like winning or not.

Giving it to India was beyond a mistake. It certainly sends an ugly message to those who wish to bet on or disrupt games and want their team to win.
Why does the home team have to take responsibility for the home crowds? If team member/s incite the crowd to a frenzy and directly or indirectly provoke the crowd to a violent action, yes, they have to take responsibility for their actions. In this case, they are just playing the game and trying to win a match for their country. What kind of justice is served in penalising them?

On the other hand, giving the match to India was a mistake. I repeat, it should have been a "no result".
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Originally posted by Choora
Originally posted by anzac
crowd disruptions of this matter do not occur everywhere to my knowledge....

:(!
It has happened in England, Australia, Pakistan,Bangladesh and SL!
What, 3 matches in a row being halted, one abandoned and one almost abandoned?

OK there was one in England last year, but that wasn't home fans.

Tell us when all these happened then?
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
If team member/s incite the crowd to a frenzy and directly or indirectly provoke the crowd to a violent action, yes, they have to take responsibility for their actions. In this case, they are just playing the game and trying to win a match for their country. What kind of justice is served in penalising them?
As I've said, if penalising the innocents (the players) costs them the game, maybe their home fans would think twice about disrupting the game. It sucks that the players would be the ones to lose but nothing else seems to be working.
 

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
Originally posted by Top_Cat
If team member/s incite the crowd to a frenzy and directly or indirectly provoke the crowd to a violent action, yes, they have to take responsibility for their actions. In this case, they are just playing the game and trying to win a match for their country. What kind of justice is served in penalising them?
As I've said, if penalising the innocents (the players) costs them the game, maybe their home fans would think twice about disrupting the game. It sucks that the players would be the ones to lose but nothing else seems to be working.
That's exactly the point which I was making. Genuine(even passionate) cricket fans and hooligans need to be differentiated. The first type would never go for this type of behaviour while the 2nd type would go for it regardless of the match situation. There is no patriotism involved in their actions, it's just a desire to cause trouble. It could even be some ulterior motive as the rumours floating around suggest. Do you think punishing the players by awarding the game to their opponents will chastisise these people? I don't think so.
 

Top