For this forfeit, you get a drawn Test

Inzy - modern fat players just don't measure upUmpires accuse Pakistan of ball-tampering. Pakistan refuse to play in protest.

After an investigation, Pakistan are found not guilty of ball tampering, but Inzy is banned for keeping his side off the field, so they’re saying that while he was right, he was also wrong.

Now the match is being reclassified as a draw, meaning Pakistan weren’t wrong when they refused to play. Ordinarily, if you refuse to play, you forfeit the match. By saying that they didn’t forfeit the match, this is tacit approval.

So Inzy got banned for correctly protesting against unproven allegations of ball tampering in a now acceptable manner. Is that where we are?

Share this article...Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0

*** Asterisk-powered reminder that you can and should sign up to receive our email ***

13 Appeals

  1. is that where we are?

    we (read ICC) are at one ‘subcontinental’ vote away from ousting zc…to avoild 10 million pound going down drain…

    thats where ‘we’ stand…

  2. Absolutely!

    Don’t you know that Pakistan and India ( and probably Sri Lanka and Bangladesh) are nations with the most spotless moral integrity, fighting the good fight against the decadent and corrupt West?

    That whatever they do, is always, always Right?

  3. I can’t help thinking that this has rather a lot to do with the reinstatement of umpire Hair. I reckon that the Pakistanis kicked up such a fuss about the fact that Hair was once again on the superdooper elite umpire’s list that the ICC had to do something to mollify them.

  4. I am so looking forward to the retrospective rewriting of the Bodyline series….

  5. Pointless. Totally pointless.

    Didn’t the ICC have anything better to discuss during their 2-day holiday in Dubai.

  6. The ICC had nothing better to discuss during their hols, Q, because any topic to do with the future of cricket or any political ramifications thereof are taken care of by quite another body coughBCCIcough

  7. This “sub-continental” thing, isn’t it mostly balls? Isn’t it just India who are rather rich and weighty at the moment? Are Pakistan all that (or SL and Bangala for that matter)?? If so, isn’t it then a lazy argument (and let’s be honest, a rather stupid one) to suggest that the sub-continentals are ganging up together against the decent white guys (please note the facetiousness and/or sarcasm).

    I speak as someone with only the flimsiest grasp of the state of world cricket politics you understand, so feel free to give me a complete dressing down.

  8. yes, that is where we are, and yes, even on Pakistan’s own argument it doesn’t make sense.

  9. Sarah, Canterbury

    July 3, 2008 at 11:02 am

    That’s ok. We can employ the same tactics against the Saffers this summer. Bit of alleged ball tampering, hissy fits and protestations. That’s one result taken care of where we won’t lose.

    Oh, but we’re England, so that probably won’t work, will it? What was it Orwell said in “Animal Farm”?

  10. King Cricket

    July 3, 2008 at 11:16 am

    ‘Four legs good, two legs bad’?

    Now that’s racist. Pakistanis are bipeds, you know.

  11. But that statement morphs in the book. Very ICC.

  12. Sarah, Canterbury

    July 3, 2008 at 11:59 am

    I was meaning, “All animals are equal but some are more equal than others”, KC.

  13. I was wondering how “Once again the animals were conscious of a vague uneasiness” was relevant.

Comments are closed.

© 2017 King Cricket

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑