ICC agrees to change Oval forfeiture to a draw

[Richard]

Why not decide that we would have got the 10th Aussie wicket at Old Trafford but for rain, and change that series to 3-1 while we're at it? Let's right all the wrongs; umpiring errors, bad light, you name it.

There is a good reason why those aren't comparable (much as it would indeed be ideal to find a way to change the results to accommodate them). This case was unique - it was the decision of the Umpires to stop the game. To completely rule-out all that had gone before and say "England have won". All other things, it was stuff before the end of the game that impacted unfairly upon the result (rain, bad in-game decisions, etc.), these can't be unequivocally changed, without changing everything else thereafter. However, as there was nothing to follow this decision, nothing else is being changed.

All that is being changed is that this final decision, instead of being ruled as "England have won", becomes "match abandoned".

 

[Jono]

The sky is falling in! The Asians are taking over the world! Some ****ing ridiculous comments here. In case people didn't realise, the ECB supported this decision as well, where are the comments denouncing their influence on the game? Any excuse to have a go at the 'Asian bloc' will do, I suppose.

Not such a bad thing IMO. Reveals true feelings of posters who enjoy the 'us' vs. 'them' nature of multicultural sport.

 

[Richard]

The ECB were also in favour of a change in result? That strikes me as fairly ludicrous, TBH. Any background available on why?

I imagine simply because, like the rest of the country, they were embarrased to be given a completely hollow "victory". That Test rates (or rated, rather, now) even lower on the "enjoyable victory" scale than the Centurion 1999/2000 one (and that was completely unrelated to the "fix") for mine.

As I said - purely from the POV of that game in isolation, this decision is a good one. The reason for its stupidity is the possible ramifications for the "refusal to play" rule, making it more difficult to implement.

 

[Fusion]

I must reiterate how disappointed I am with this ruling. I hold the view that what Pakistan did at the Oval was a principal stand worth taking. In fact, I think the majority believes that Pakistan were in the right. As I have pointed out before, even former English captains like Hussain and Botham supported them. However, this decision gives some zealots the opportunity to slam Pakistan and continue to push for the “us vs. them” divide. IMO, Pakistan has gained nothing positive from this move.

 

[zaremba]

There is a good reason why those aren't comparable (much as it would indeed be ideal to find a way to change the results to accommodate them). This case was unique - it was the decision of the Umpires to stop the game. To completely rule-out all that had gone before and say "England have won". All other things, it was stuff before the end of the game that impacted unfairly upon the result (rain, bad in-game decisions, etc.), these can't be unequivocally changed, without changing everything else thereafter. However, as there was nothing to follow this decision, nothing else is being changed.

All that is being changed is that this final decision, instead of being ruled as "England have won", becomes "match abandoned".

I'm not particularly worried about precedents.

The real point here is that England won the match. Pakistan refused to play (an act for which their captain was rightly disciplined, and for which there was no defence) and therefore forfeited the match. They lost. England won. End of story.

 

[Richard]

I'm not particularly worried about precedents.

What? There is certainly a possibility that this will impact upon the "refusal to play" rule and make it more difficult to implement.

Not, of course, that it should EVER need to be invoked.

The real point here is that England won the match. Pakistan refused to play (an act for which their captain was rightly disciplined, and for which there was no defence) and therefore forfeited the match. They lost. England won. End of story.

England didn't deserve the victory, though. Yes, Pakistan deserved the defeat (it was a worthwhile sacrifice for mine) but Pakistan deserved the defeat less than England deserved the victory.

For mine, the fairest result of that game would indeed have been a draw.

 

[Jono]

The ECB were also in favour of a change in result? That strikes me as fairly ludicrous, TBH. Any background available on why?

England and Pakistan have agreed to declare the Oval Test as a draw to maintain the dignity of Pakistan in world cricket, especially after the ball-tampering charges were dropped," a source who attended the meeting said. The topic took up a considerable chunk of the morning's proceedings

Should read the article before slaying Pakistani cricket. Its still a poor decision, but both parties are responsible.

 

[Richard]

Whoa, whoa... "to maintain the dignity of Pakistan in world cricket".

Strikes me that this will do the precise opposite, actually. As pointed-out (mostly by Fusion), one of the biggest reasons that this is a bad decision.

 

[Jono]

What? There is certainly a possibility that this will impact upon the "refusal to play" rule and make it more difficult to implement.

Not, of course, that it should EVER need to be invoked.

England didn't deserve the victory, though. Yes, Pakistan deserved the defeat (it was a worthwhile sacrifice for mine) but Pakistan deserved the defeat less than England deserved the victory.

For mine, the fairest result of that game would indeed have been a draw.

Umpiring wasn't 'test standard', should be removed of test status

 

[silentstriker]

Just let them all play amongst themselves IMO.. We don't need them, and they don't need us..

Hey, the divisive politics are the way to go. They've been proven to work so well in past societies.

I hate these divisive, ridiculous statements.

 

[Richard]

Umpiring wasn't 'test standard', should be removed of test status

That brings-up an interesting question.

What would the current climate be like if India had (by some miracle) won the "Third Test" (which ended-up being a South Africans vs Indians tour-game) in 2001/02?

I for one am pretty glad they didn't. As the refusal to grant that game Test status, deplorable as it was for that match in isolation, was one hell of the right decision. India had far less reason for being annoyed at Denness than Pakistan did at Hair, and the price to be paid for taking the stand (which was principally taken by South Africa) was the loss of Test status for the game.

And I'd be worried that after this, there might be some movement to have Test status wrongly re-conferred on it. You'd imagine SA might object rather than agree in that case, though, at least.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Should read the article before slaying Pakistani cricket. Its still a poor decision, but both parties are responsible.

Yeah, probably should.

Pretty appalled that the ECB were party to it as well - Pakistan should have thought about their own integrity before forfeiting the match. Why don't we just forget about everything bad that's ever happened so no-one gets punished for anything? That'd be a nice, easy way to ensure no more work for the authorities.

I agree that it's fairly embarrassing for England to have won such a game - but why couldn't the result have been changed to "no result", rather than a draw? A draw doesn't reflect the circumstances of the game. It implies that both sides have gained something positive from it, when in reality, Pakistan's decision not to play doesn't merit any credit on their part. You shouldn't be able to benefit from refusing to play, and in terms of the match result, Pakistan have done just that.

 

[silentstriker]

Ridiculous decision, utterly ridiculous.

Tempting to suggest it's yet another example of how Asian teams are becoming far, far too powerful in today's game. Seems like India are gonna veto the plan to expel Zimbabwe, and now Pakistan can refuse to play in any match they're losing and get away with a draw. Why the hell should their input matter any more than anyone else's? The whole point of the ICC is to ensure that all nations get a fair say in the way the game is run. That is quite clearly not happening at the moment. The fact that India and Pakistan have huge economic power over the game should mean nothing when the rules of the game are in question.

You realize England was in favor, right? The Evil Corrupt Asians (ECA) ruining the game motif is an easy card to play for people who want to bury their heads in the sand and make up excuses instead of thinking about the issues. It's emotional, divisive, and feeds on the vilification of the 'other.' It's a perfect tool, if you don't feel like thinking.

And yes, that doesn't mean that ECA doesn't exist, but you can't blame it on the ECA if the other boards advocate it from the beginning, as the ECB did. But it's the Evil Corrupt Asians who get the blame. Makes sense.

 

[Richard]

I agree that it's fairly embarrassing for England to have won such a game - but why couldn't the result have been changed to "no result", rather than a draw? A draw doesn't reflect the circumstances of the game. It implies that both sides have gained something positive from it, when in reality, Pakistan's decision not to play doesn't merit any credit on their part. You shouldn't be able to benefit from refusing to play, and in terms of the match result, Pakistan have done just that.

A Test can only be won (and therefore lost by the other team) or drawn.

It's not like a ODI that can be abandoned as a no-result.

I can't see that a whole new category could be created for a single game.

The only other option would be to completely lance the game from Test cricket, declare it void - which would be most unfair on the players who'd performed well for 3-and-a-half days of 100% normal cricket.

Sadly, there's no easy option.

 

[Barney Rubble]

A Test can only be won (and therefore lost by the other team) or drawn.

It's not like a ODI that can be abandoned as a no-result.

I can't see that a whole new category could be created for a single game.

The only other option would be to completely lance the game from Test cricket, declare it void - which would be most unfair on the players who'd performed well for 3-and-a-half days of 100% normal cricket.

Sadly, there's no easy option.

I guess not. Wasn't aware that it was impossible for a Test to be called a "no result", thought that was what had happened with the abandoned Test between England and WI in 1998, but after some research, it turns out it wasn't.

 

[Richard]

No indeed, "match abandoned as a draw" (that which happened in the drawn timeless Tests of 1930 and 1938/39, and at the aforementioned Sabina Park 1998 game) is no different to "match drawn" in the grand scheme.

 

[sledger]

This really opens up a big can of worms, for me personally this should really have been forgotten about forever, I doubt any good will come of it being brought back into the public eye.

 

[zaremba]

What? There is certainly a possibility that this will impact upon the "refusal to play" rule and make it more difficult to implement.

I doubt that we will ever see similar circumstances again. I'm not saying there are no difficulties about precedents here. The point that concerns me is that the decision in the circumstances of this particular match was completely wrong.

England didn't deserve the victory, though. Yes, Pakistan deserved the defeat.

No-one's suggesting that England deserved the victory - whether or not they deserved to win is completely and utterly irrelevant.

The fact that Pakistan deserved the defeat, which you accept, is all that matters.

It's in the nature of a forfeited match that the winning team enjoys an unearned windfall.

 

[Richard]

I doubt that we will ever see similar circumstances again. I'm not saying there are no difficulties about precedents here.

I certainly hope we won't. The worry is that if we do, this precedent will impinge upon it.

The point that concerns me is that the decision in the circumstances of this particular match was completely wrong.

No-one's suggesting that England deserved the victory - whether or not they deserved to win is completely and utterly irrelevant.

The fact that Pakistan deserved the defeat, which you accept, is all that matters.

It's in the nature of a forfeited match that the winning team enjoys an unearned windfall.

Exactly, and that (presumably) is why the ECB were keen to get the result reversed - they had been given something they (nor anyone else in the cricketing fraturnity in this country in all likelihood) wanted. Pakistan, evidently, don't think they deserved to lose - so whether that's wrong or right, if two teams both want something, and there's no central authority (which there isn't - as I say, I$C$C is no more than the sum of its parts), then it's going to happen.

 

[zaremba]

That's quite possibly the means by which the decision was reached. Doesn't mean that the decision is right though.

It's also a pity that such a nasty little incident has been reignited by the ICC in this way. Every time I think about it I get angry at Pakistan's behaviour, not just their refusal to play or their disingenuous and contradictory explanations afterwards, but also their howls of wounded pride at the suggestion that one of their number may have cheated, just months after Afridi pirhoutted on the pitch in one of the most despicable acts of cheating I've ever seen. (I'm not suggesting any other country is beyond reproach btw).