• 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.

UDRS discussed without a vote

S

swede

School Boy/Girl Captain
silentstriker said:
They may or may not have had influence due to money. That is a world of difference from having an official legal veto - meaning, everyone else got together and decided to do something on any issue, if they somehow found their backbone and stood up, they'd still be LEGALLY prevented from doing something if the original members did not like it. It's shocking that you can't see the injustice in that.
Click to expand...
well I do actually agree that it was wrong for them to have the veto. or at least that it wasnt removed earlier. My point was that since England and Australia were also financial dominant at the time, the veto had little real relevance making it pathetic to portray it as some kind of grave injustice that should affect people´s thinking today.

Had eng/aus not had the veto they would have run things the way India do today. In actual matters there would be no difference
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
swede said:
well I do actually agree that it was wrong for them to have the veto. or at least that it wasnt removed earlier. My point was that since England and Australia were also financial dominant at the time, the veto had little real relevance making it pathetic to portray it as some kind of grave injustice that should affect people´s thinking today.

Had eng/aus not had the veto they would have run things the way India do today. In actual matters there would be no difference
Click to expand...
It would. India do need the support of others - they can't host WC by themselves because they need the other votes for example. It's one thing to have influence, it's another to have legal power. There's a huge difference.
 
S

swede

School Boy/Girl Captain
silentstriker said:
It would. India do need the support of others - they can't host WC by themselves because they need the other votes for example. It's one thing to have influence, it's another to have legal power. There's a huge difference.
Click to expand...
no, its better to make others dependant on you. Then they vote as you like and you dont even have to explain yourself. India actually holds more power now than eng/aus twenty years ago.

and again. in the 80´s England were constantly getting slaughtered on the field by a West Indies side that was completly dependant on England off the field. A terrible, evil power would hardly have allowed that. Its a complete nonsense to seriously suggest that there is legitimate cause for active administrators to carry 30 year old grudges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top