Umpires Follow England Out Of Zimbabwe

[Rich2001]

The decision by the International Cricket Council not to reschedule England's cancelled fixture against Zimbabwe has had further repercussions in that English umpires Peter Willey and Neil Mallender have expressed doubts about going to Bulawayo to officiate in the matches there and have been replaced by the ICC.

Based on the evidence presented to the ICC by the England and Wales Cricket Board, Willey and Mallender had concerns about their safety if fulfilling appointments in Zimbabwe.

Willey was due to partner Dave Orchard in the Zimbabwe versus Australia match in Bulawayo on Monday, 24th February, with Mallender as third umpire. Willey was also to be third umpire for the Zimbawe against the Netherlands game, also in Bulawayo, four days later.

Billy Bowden of New Zealand will replace Willey for the Australia match, while Nadeem Ghouri of Pakistan stands in for the Dutch game. Mallender will be replaced by Brian Jerling of South Africa.

 

[full_length]

 

[krkode]

Well, I guess that might have been expected...but aren't umpires easier to replace than players...

 

[marc71178]

Good for them I say - it's much more of a stand from them than the players.

 

[Rich2001]

Also their decision came from seeing the same information that made England refuse to play, so if the whole England team and now two umpires both think it's unsafe etc, it makes you wonder what the ICC are basing/making their decision on.....

 

[marc71178]

$$$$$$$

 

[Anna]

Originally posted by Rich2001
Also their decision came from seeing the same information that made England refuse to play, so if the whole England team and now two umpires both think it's unsafe etc, it makes you wonder what the ICC are basing/making their decision on.....

Exactly!

 

[full_length]

"Also their decision came from seeing the same information that made England refuse to play, so if the whole England team and now two umpires both think it's unsafe etc, it makes you wonder what the ICC are basing/making their decision on.....
"

the security reports?


There are other countries apart from England in the ICC you know..
ICC will need more than what catches the fancy of the Englishmen. England decides two weeks before the tournament that they have a problem. And you guys arent even drawing attention to the signed contract this time round

Is the issue political, moral or one of personal security?

Did Nasser and his boys finish the 'reading up on Zimbabwe' before making their decision? They said they didnt know enough about what was happening in Zim and so couldnt say anything for sure just around a month before the WC! If they didnt know they should have done exactly what Fleming did wrt Kenya- he shut up and said that NZ cricket board will make the decision and he'd adhere to it. Now thats sensible. If the players had a strong stance to make for good reasons, they should then have made that stance and boycotted the match. Otherwise they should shut up and let the people who do know more about the situation take the decisions.

Flower and Olonga do certainly know what they are doing, Hussain and his boys, and the ECB dont seem to.


As for the umps, who cares? Whatever the rules are about an umpire pulling out of a match he was supposed to umpire, with a few days notice, should apply.

 

[Rik]

England decides two weeks before the tournament that they have a problem.

Yes but they were having doubts about it as soon as they heard they were due to play in Zimbabwe. The ICC are the ones to blame for it lasting so long.

Why is it that people on this board have a problem with England boycotting the Zimbabwe match yet nobody seems to care that NZ are boycotting a similer, if less dangerous situation in Kenya...

 

[krkode]

I guess it's because Kenya getting those 4 points won't change much, whereas Zimbabwe's getting of those 4 points could just ruin another country's chances...:wow:

 

[luckyeddie]

[B

There are other countries apart from England in the ICC you know..
ICC will need more than what catches the fancy of the Englishmen. England decides two weeks before the tournament that they have a problem. And you guys arent even drawing attention to the signed contract this time round



Did Nasser and his boys finish the 'reading up on Zimbabwe' before making their decision?
Flower and Olonga do certainly know what they are doing, Hussain and his boys, and the ECB dont seem to.


As for the umps, who cares? Whatever the rules are about an umpire pulling out of a match he was supposed to umpire, with a few days notice, should apply. [/B]

With the greatest of respect, in this instance England are most certainly a 'special case' - for no other reason than the whole history behind Rhodesia/Zimbabwe and Britain.

Mugabe sees the 'white farmers' issue purely and simply as the settling of a few old scores, expunging the Old Colonials and so forth from the country and establishing his own idea of 'democracy' (not just one colour or one party but one tribe or clan - a bit like Iraq really).

As for the umpires, I definitely DO care. They are neither disposable nor ten-a-penny (I know that you did not say that). Do you honestly think that they are taking this drastic action to add clout to Nasser Hussain's cause, or for some other political reason? No, I think that they are genuinely worried.

 

[full_length]

LE, I didnt mean to trivialise their concerns. From their perspective, it's the most important thing in the world for them that they stay alive...
It's just that it doesnt ruin my day to not have umpires A and B officiating there especially since those are personal decisions. They didnt say they are making any statements did they? Atleast I didnt hear that.
ICC will have a policy for all this and I dont think they'll have any trouble with the ICC.

What cause does Nasser Hussain have exactly? And it's not me who said that the umps are making a statement or taking a stand. There were others congratulating the umps here..

England does have a special link to Zimbabwe alright. But that should be covered by the security report. You know something that amounts to "Englishmen stay away from Zimbabwe" or "England dont play in Zimbabwe".
For example, western foreigners are in general advised to stay away from certain parts of the world. One would think that security reports and travel advisories are made taking this into account.
If the security reports, national and ICC dont prohibit the English from physically being in Zimbabwe, I dont know how the ECB can expect the ICC to claim security concerns and pull out.
That's why I asked whether its politica, moral or security related converns that we are talking about...

 

[full_length]

Rik:
England may have had 'doubts' but they sure havent handled it well.
they've been so unsure that they dont have one stance to go around between ECB, the team and their govt.
Their govt. could have put their foot down and said they cant tour Zim no matter what. This should have been done long back, without being specific to the WC, and then the onus was on the ICC to handle the rest.

As for the ECB, they've been jumping up and down for the past couple of months. The decision to host the WC in SA, Zim and Kenya was made long ago. What were they doing all along? What big single catastrophy happened two months back?
They cant even spell out what they are concerned about and importantly what they are making a case of.

Anyway, I am sick of this dragging on. The issue is solved- England have lost 4 pts and I hope they're made to compensate Zim financially.

Re: Kenya
As for me, I wrote about it in the cricket thread. But that's a question you should be asking those who've been talking the most on this topic. That would be the English and the NZ posters mainly! Thats why nobody is talking about the Kenya match. I would have been interested to see what happens if NZ lose to WI. But that didnt happen

 

[luckyeddie]

FL - if the umpires are scared, then it's security-related and I can't blame them.

If there's another reason, that's unacceptable IMO

 

[Rik]

Sorry mate but it's not our fault our Government can't decide for us. And seriously we do not want to pay any compensation as it will come out of our taxes for a decision we didn't even make. There are 4 people I would ban for this entire fiasco and they are:

Tony Blair
Malcom Speed
Ali Bacher
Peter Chingoka

Blair did nothing to help the ECB, Speed wouldn't listen, Bacher wouldn't listen, Chingoka is obviously a friend of Mugabe's and tried to accuse the ECB of all sorts of things. How is a comprimise supposed to take place when the 2 parties can't even talk to each other?

 

[full_length]

"FL - if the umpires are scared, then it's security-related and I can't blame them.

If there's another reason, that's unacceptable IMO

"

Come on Eddie, how's that different from what I said?
I repeat, it's the others here who were saying they picked a stand.
And thats why I said it is of no interest to me whether they go to Zim or not- its their personal decision.

 

[luckyeddie]

FL - I wasn't aware it was different from what you said.

 

[full_length]

Sorry mate but it's not our fault our Government can't decide for us. And seriously we do not want to pay any compensation as it will come out of our taxes for a decision we didn't even make. There are 4 people I would ban for this entire fiasco and they are:

Tony Blair
Malcom Speed
Ali Bacher
Peter Chingoka

Blair did nothing to help the ECB, Speed wouldn't listen, Bacher wouldn't listen, Chingoka is obviously a friend of Mugabe's and tried to accuse the ECB of all sorts of things. How is a comprimise supposed to take place when the 2 parties can't even talk to each other?

Then go play in Zimbabwe. England would ideally like to not play in Zimbabwe, get those four points, not pay any money even though they cant take a single stance between them, nor can they cite any official security report- government or ICC.
That's not going to happen.
Zimbabwe has gone out to organize a mega event that will generate a lot of revenue for them. They cant do any more than organize the event to the best possible extent, and arrange for security. If they've satisfied all official criteria for that, then they shouldnt be denied that match. If they are, someone has to pay for it.
Does the ECB have any specific genuine complaints over the ICC's security reports? If they did, they can easily take ICC to court. And what does their govt's security advice say?

 

[full_length]

"FL - I wasn't aware it was different from what you said."

OK, I'm confused. I thought you were following on this line:

"Do you honestly think that they are taking this drastic action to add clout to Nasser Hussain's cause, or for some other political reason?"

sorry!

It's probably time for me to go home and get some coffee

 

[marc71178]

I guess it's because Kenya getting those 4 points won't change much, whereas Zimbabwe's getting of those 4 points could just ruin another country's chances...:wow:

I think you're putting Kenya down here - do they not still have to play Ban, and they already have 8 points - 12 is going to be there or thereabouts, and a win over SL or WI and they could be in the Super Sixes!