MCC to challenge ICC ruling on ~~forfeited Oval Test~~

Published: Friday, July 11, 2008, 3:35 [IST]
Share this on your social network:
   Facebook Twitter Google+    Comments Mail

Pak skipper Inzy led his team back to the dressing room which led to a chain of ugly events from forfeiture to Hair's sacking to the London: The Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), the body which governs the laws of cricket, has decided to challenge the ICC's last week's decision to change the result of the Test match between England and Pakistan, at the Brit Oval in 2006, to a draw.

Initially the match was decided as 'forfeited' after Pakistan refused to play against England after a ball-tampering row.

MCC Secretary Keith Bradshaw said the ICC verdict (to alter the match result) "contravened the spirit of the game as well as the Laws."

The Club's world committee is also opposed to any alteration to Law 21, which states that the result should not be changed, Keith said and added: "Cricket is the worse for this decision and it was opposed unanimously by the ICC"s cricket committee, on which I sit."

New ICC president David Morgan also said that he had also opposed the ICC decision, which overruled its cricket committee.

In addition, Robert Griffiths, QC, who represented Darrell Hair, the umpire who accused Pakistan of ball-tampering, at his tribunal hearing against the ICC, claimed that the ruling was 'unprecedented and dangerous'.

The ICC had no power to change the result, he added. "It is historical revisionism of the worst kind. It was plainly connected to the negotiations over Zimbabwe. I have been emasculated so as to appease Zimbabwe and its allies and for the questionable purpose of ensuring that the ICC World Twenty20 comes to England next year," timesonline.com quoted Griffiths as saying.

He added: "Law 21(10) is unequivocal: once the umpires have agreed with the scorers the correctness of the scores, the result cannot be changed.

The reasoning is vacuous. It was, officially, 'based on the view that in light of the unique set of circumstances, the original result was felt to be inappropriate'. This is even though ICC board member witnesses admitted under oath at Hair"s tribunal that the umpires' decisions were in accordance with the Laws."


Write Comments