Re: RSC fallout
- From: "R. Bharat Rao" <rao2_noread@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 22 Aug 2006 16:58:45 -0700
Mike Holmans wrote:
On 21 Aug 2006 04:50:59 -0700, "R. Bharat Rao" <rao2_noread@xxxxxxxxx>
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
To me, the most amazing part is the speed with which the umpires moved
to a decision
that was never reached in 129 years of Test cricket. Yes, they had the
power to award
a game, but prudence would have dictated that they consult with the ICC
before taking
such an extreme decision -- if the ICC was unreachable, their
representative (the match
referee) was nearby, and at the very least consultation with him would
have been
advised before taking the final step.
Do you know that the umpires did not discuss the matter with the match
referee before awarding the match, or are you just surmising that from
the absence of any positive statement that they did?
(Just got back after 1.5 days away -- hence the late response.)
I read somewhere that the MR was desparately trying to restart the
match after
the players returned -- which leads me to believe that he was not in
agreement with
the forfeiture decision. If what I read was wrong, then I'm sorry.
Yes, they did probably discuss with him, but if they didn't have
*agreement* from
him (as the ICC's representative), prudence would dictate waiting to
decide on
forfeiture -- calling play off for the day perhaps.
Bharat
.
- References:
- RSC fallout
- From: R. Bharat Rao
- Re: RSC fallout
- From: Mike Holmans
- RSC fallout
- Prev by Date: Re: RSC fallout
- Next by Date: Re: RSC fallout
- Previous by thread: Re: RSC fallout
- Next by thread: Re: RSC fallout
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|