The ICC executive board recently endorsed Zimbabwe as a full member of the ICC, which effectively endorses the thuggish Mugabe regime that has taken over cricket in that unfortunate, beleagured country.
It is clear that this decision is a direct consequence of the financial power exerted over world cricket by the Asian cricket powers, especially India.
The politicking over Zimbabwe has been somewhat hidden with whatever threats being made behind closed doors. But the fact of this financial power has been fully revealed by the equally shameful decision by the ICC executive board to alter the result of the August 2006 Oval Test between England and Pakistan from an England win to a draw.
The Times Online has published a fascinating discussion of these two ICC decisions written by two top legal authorities, Robert Griffiths QC and Stephen Whale. According to these legal experts: “The cricket authority did not have the legal power to alter the result of a Test match.”
The experts concluded on the matter of the ICC changing the result of a Test match, after stumps have been drawn, declaring “it had no power to do so under the Laws of Cricket and the decision is a nullity. But it is deeply troubling that the ICC should take this unprecedented and dangerous step. It is historical revisionism of the worst kind.”
Once this precedent has been established, it is not hard to see it becoming used in the future. Should Cricket Australia now have England’s victories in the Bodyline series reversed because England violated cricket’s ‘spirit of the game’ ethic?
It’s more likely, of course, that the precedent might be brought into play on a Test that has been played more recently.
As it happens, there is just such a Test, England vs South Africa at Lords which finished on Monday 4 July, 2008 when the two captains agreed on a draw at 4.50pm on the final day, even though there was plenty of time left for the match to continue, and South Africa were only 48 runs in front of England when stumps were drawn.
Mike Selvey in The Guardian had this to say about the way the Test was concluded: “In the knowledge that games going nowhere can end at the start of the last hour, which is 5 pm, the umpires contrived to manufacture bad light at 4.40 pm, a nice wheeze that brought derision from the crowd and was spoiled only by the inconvenience of the sun coming out – the umpires were forced to call the players back for a further two overs.
“At this stage, the clock moved on to 4.50 pm, the teams shook hands and stumps came up. ‘We had a gentleman’s agreement,’ said Smith by way of explanation, which means that his side had not declared, the only way, given the 10 minutes between innings, that play could end earlier.
“Had he done so of course, England, gentlemen or not, could have opted to chase the tantalising target of 48 to win in 19 overs. If that was the case, and England didn’t bat, could the ICC, in its wisdom, deem England to have refused to play and forfeit the match? And then call it a draw in a year’s time?”
How would a court of law sort out the mess if, say, someone who had taken a large bet with spectacular odds on South Africa winning the Test after it had followed on over 300 runs behind decided to challenge the umpires ruling that the Test was a draw?
You’d have to think that a court might decide that South Africa did actually win the Test, given the fact that there was no declaration and England gave away its right to try and score the runs needed to win the Test.
If the ICC can change the outcome of Test after stumps were drawn without any precedent to back up its ruling, it’s not hard to image that a court, using this precedent, can and will do the same thing.
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we flatter to deceive.”
Sooner or later the ICC’s groveling decision to over-rule a fundamental principle of cricket – that the umpire’s decision is final and irrecoverable – will be tested with grave implications for the governance and the statistical integrity of the game.
"No cricketer that has ever lived hit the ball so often, so fast and with such a bewildering variety of strokes.” - HS Altham…
Featuring Aussie cricket star Usman Khawaja and taking inspiration from multiple horror films, Amazon Prime's promo for the 2024 T20 World Cup has certainly…
After a career that has spanned more than two decades, James Anderson leaves cricket as a legend of the game, up there with the…
Calvin Harrison mixed things up in his delivery stride starting behind the-non-striker, then going between the umpire and the stumps to deliver the ball…
Backing up too far, the Dehli Capitals batsman was caught out of his crease when Shai Hope hit the ball to the bowler who…
After some mid-over words between the Indian teammates as Kohli belted Shama for 10 runs in two balls, the bowler had the last laugh…
