Thu Jul 03 02:00PM
The ICC will announce later today that the result of the controversial Oval Test between England and Pakistan in 2006 will be changed from an English victory to a draw. There was nothing at stake in the series, with England already leading 2-0, so it's a token gesture.
But having re-instated "Instigator in Chief" Darrell Hair as an International Cricket Council elite panel umpire, Cowers can't wait to hear the basis of this decision.
In an era of spin - that's the Alastair Campbell rather than the Monty Panesar variety - how exactly will the ICC say 'we've changed the result because we want to keep Pakistan happy but we can't afford to pay Darrell's legal bills'.
Aggers has described this decision as opening a can of worms and what's to stop this dangerous precedent being adopted by other sports? Let's go back into the history books and see what may have happened if you could change the rules after the event.
1) England win the 1986 World Cup.
Maradona's Hand of God goal is ruled out. John Barnes comes on and his back post dink is nodded home by that bloke from the crisps advert for the equaliser and then Digger goes on a Maracana style mazy run to score the winner. Barnes goes on to score sensational individual goals in the semi-final and in the final victory against Germany. In a sad twist of fate, Barnes has to battle the demons of drugs, women and the mafia for the next 20 years while Diego becomes a rather wooden host of Channel Five's football coverage.
2) England win the 2007 World Cup.
Mark Cueto's foot wasn't in touch and the Springboks are beaten as Jonny Wilkinson kicks a 70m drop goal from the left touchline. The Duke of Newcastle, Wilkinson, is afforded 30 butlers including Danny Cipriani to polish his boots while Sir Brian Ashton resigns to take a meaningless post at a south coast football club.
3) Ben Johnson wins the 1988 Olympics
Johnson beats Carl Lewis in the 100m final at the Olympics, lowering his own world record to 9.79 seconds and the Stanozolol contained his urine sample is explained using the Dennis Mitchell defence of it was the result of "five bottles of beer and sex with his wife at least four times." All urine samples are now unable to stand up in court with the 100m world record now 7.40 seconds.
4) Mike Tyson still world champion
Don King tells all that removing a piece of an opponent's right ear is not clearly prohibited in the Marques of Queensbury rules and Iron Mike retains his title. He goes on to collect half a nose and some chin in subsequent defences before eating Lennox Lewis' heart and his children in his final defence.
5) Australia win the 2005 Ashes
With three runs needed to win, Steve Harmison has Mike Kasprowicz caught behind but replays showed that the ball hit the batsman's hand when it was off the bat and the decision is overturned. Australia go on to win the Ashes 5-0, Freddie never fell on to that bus, KP never met Jessica and we are all still talking about 1987.
- - -
To quote Angus Fraser in The Independent this morning:
"England's selectors have been living on a diet of chateaubriand and spam in the last week as they ruminate over a Test side to take on South Africa at Lord's in a week's time and attempt to assemble a 30-man preliminary one-day squad capable of winning September's Champions Trophy in Pakistan."
As for the chateaubriand aka the Test attack, predictably the Ashes seam quartet have all missed out with Geoff Miller making the right noises about needing to give Andrew Flintoff time.
Of course what he really means is that we need 'Daisy' Jimmy Anderson to have one of his off-days or Ryan Sidebottom to pull a split end or Stuart Broad to go for some so we can bring him in unnoticed or we need Freddie to score some runs and Paul Collingwood to miss out again but at the moment, we don't have a place for him.
Well the spam, the one-day team, has a certain fishy scent to it.
The absolutely meaningless waste of ink provisional 30-man squad for September's ICC Champions Trophy in Pakistan comprises five uncapped players, most notably perhaps Darren Pattinson, Nottinghamshire's Australian fast bowler, who was born in Grimsby.
Cod Almighty!
- - -
FEEDBACK OF THE DAY: There are two sides to every story:
"The ICC lacks balls. What a load of garbage. All this says is that if you dont agree with an unmpires decision. SPit your dummy and you get a draw. If anythig Pakistan should have their test status revoked for a year for bringing the sport in to Disrepute", suzukiaussietrav.
"This is the victory of justice and sign of good leadership like Inzamam," Mahasim h.
"This could mean that if a team feels they are not going to win, they could stay in the dressing room and gain a draw, citing some incident or other for not playing. In most sports the referee / umpire's decision is final and all participants have to abide by it. The ICC have made a rod for everybody's backs," nmlansley
"As a cricket umpire that has worked hard to learn the laws of the game I love. It is with dismay I read that pakistan have now been given a draw. The law says that if a team refuse to take the field, they forfiet the game. Is it the policy of the ICC to change the playing rules after the event," jbostock01.
TALKING POINT: Have your two cents on the ICC renege.
LIVE: India are taking some tap off Sri Lanka in Karachi, follow the game now - LIVE SCORECARD
Why on earth would Darren Pattinson want to move away from Grimsby to the sunny shores or Australia? There's no way he'll be able to get a good scampi supper over there.
I wonder if Diago's lyrical skills would have been on par with MC J to the Bizzle?
Nothing short of comedy of errors or is it merely a comedy?
Bizarre and unsupportable decision to call the test a draw. Apparantly 'abandoned as a draw' abandoned why? The lack of two sides wishing to take part? And also, two for the price of one, here's why Paul Collingwood was right. The only other option is a dead ball. So at any point in a limited overs match when the batting side requires more than a run a ball, any ball which cannot be played other than down the track for a single at best can be negated by running straight at the bowler/fielder retrieving it. Does the batting side not already have sufficient benefit of doubt??? And why is there a dismissal 'obstructing the field' if not to be used in cases when batsman charge straight at a bowler retrieving a ball??? I cannot understand the pillorying of Collingwood for this when he is right both within the law and the spirit of the game. Did the possibility, even for a moment of the NZ batsman declaring himself out for obstruction occur to him? Thought not....
Guess what i was doing the other day? Playing cricket. I really enjoyed it. Then i woke up. What a nightmare.
Twice now in tests Pakistan have been accused of scuffing the ball,
neither ball has been produced in public why?.Was umpire D Hair correct;
after all he as now been reinstated.
Please sign in to add your comments.