The power of the ICC.>

[Ernest]

This is not a thread about Zimbawe as such, it is to do with the ICC and it's all consuming power.

I have in the past defended the ICC, but if you read the link I will provide, I have lost a lot of respect for the ICC, and I feel a little more sympathy for the ECB, although not much.I think this man ICC president Ehsan Mani, is just a bit two faced.

I for one did not know one of the penalties for not touring Zimbabwe, was we could be ordered to play Australia only once every five years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cric...nd/4049599.stm Here is the details of just what the ICC can do.

[Beny]

The Icc is the agreed world governing body which is needed to direct a very internatioal game where traditonal power brokers would otherwise be able to push around the little fellas. Somebody needs to control all of this and an international commite is the best way of doing it.

[Maranello]

Ernest if England pull out of the ICC, what would you replace it with?

Also, England pulling out on their own would not make any sense, they would need other countries, eg Australia, NZL etc pulling out with them. Otherwise, England would pull out and no one would play them - hardly a sensible move!

[Zainub]

Number one thing that I have to point out here is how the issue of England being penalised has been greatly over rated, Speed some time back in an interview with Wisden said the possibilities of England being isolated in case of a potential Zimbabwe boycott were distinctly "remote". Can't find the link right now, will add it to the post when I do. The only realistic fine they could have faced was of about 2 million pounds if I'm remembering correctly...that figure may be wrong, but the jist here is that in case England would have boycotted the tour they would have just faced big fines, the chances of their membership being overthrown were as good as none, and on that basis I don't know how convinced I'm about that possiblity of an England boycott causing them to play Aus once every 5 years as opposed to two...I think that too is merely a threat, and in the real world just another attempt by the ICC to get England to tour.

Having said all that, I really find it surprising that the ECB can't realise this (i.e. all these threats are realistically just that...merely threats) it self. If every one in England, I mean the public, players and others concerned were so unwilling to tour they should have taken it upon themselves to just simply say to the ICC that we won't tour, no strings attached. Instead they proved themselves to be a real big bunch of ...(censored)...Personally I don't think the reasons for not going to Zimbabwe are justified, but had I thought so, I would have been furious with the ECB, and to much lesser extent the ICC. In my view if England are now in Zimbabwe supposedly against every English fans' wishes its not because of the ICC's power or rules (that's what they are here for, to run the game) but it's because the ECB has acted like a body with no self convinction, and over afriad of the ICC.

[Occasional Fan]

I agree with everything in your post, Zainub. England should remain in the ICC and change it from within. If it can't get agreed changes to the rules it objects to, then on issues which are fundamental - as I believe ability to withdraw from any fixture on moral or political grounds to be - it should advise the ICC that it will not be bound by the ICC's rules. That can be unilateral as far as I am concerned. There is a condition to any sort of unilateral action, however, which is that the person or group taking the action must be prepared to live with the consequences. In this case, either by agreement or by unilateral action, England must take back to itself the power to withdraw from fixtures on moral or political grounds. If the ICC wants to eject England as a result of its taking that position, fine - England must be prepared to accept that consequence. All this nonsense about calling people's bluff is, in my opinion, for the birds. On this sort of issue, you make your mind up what you are going to do, then do it. Deal with the consequences as they arise.

And, just to pre-empt any questions about how I would feel if other teams withdrew from commitments to play England on moral and political grounds, my answer on that is clear: it's up to them. No-one should be required irrevocably to assign their moral or political judgment to another power.

Just returning to the questions in the poll, I can't vote for any of them. If it were there, my answer would be "I am not satisfied with the ICC but the ECB should remain a member".

[Beny]

Originally Posted by OF

And, just to pre-empt any questions about how I would feel if other teams withdrew from commitments to play England on moral and political grounds, my answer on that is clear: it's up to them. No-one should be required irrevocably to assign their moral or political judgment to another power.

The ICC represtents the world cricketing community. If England do not wish to conform to the will of that community then they must be willing to accept the consequeces. If refusing to tour puts in jepordy contacts or obligations then the ICC has every right to enforce it's laws.

[Occasional Fan]

Which is exactly what I am saying!

[Beny]

So you would risk leaving the ICC?

[Occasional Fan]

If I were in charge of the ECB, I would not resign from the ICC. I would unilaterally take back the moral and political rights for England if the other members would not agree to give them back to the members. And if the result of that was that England got bounced out, then, yes, I would accept that. The principle here is too big to allow anyone else to dictate to the ECB in my view.

It's a bit of an aside, Beny, but I really do not think this would be the end of English cricket or the world game. Don't get me wrong: I would hate to see England isolated from the rest of the cricketing world, but if it happens, so be it. Look at the South Africans: shunned for twenty odd years, played amongst themselves for most of that time and emerged with one of the strongest teams in the world. (Having a bad time just now, but that's just cyclical.) There's no reason at all why England should not be able to do the same if - perish the thought - we actually were chucked out. Eventually as time moves on we would all come back together again, and maybe in the interval England would have sorted out a more sensible domestic schedule and spent some time and money on their own development. Again, just to be clear, I don't want to see this happen, but if the ICC forced England to do it, then I'd do it.

[Beny]

Personaly I'd shut up and go along with it. I have already said that I can't see the sense in not going.