Yes and yes: Hair did his job as specified... but in a manner that maximised the likelihood of a major incident; the guidelines to umpires should have been re-drafted long ago given the obvious potential for a major confrontation; Hair has grounds for grievance... but in fairness, almost all who wrote at the time suggested that in the hands of a different umpire (with Dickie Bird being the obvious example) the entire episode would have been avoided.

Hair didn't lose his job because of what he did, but because of {a} the way he did it; and {b} the way he had done things in the past: he's never shown the capacity to work with the players (as Dickie Bird always did, and as is expected of the referee of a rugby union game) - and whilst he could rightly point to the fact that his employers hadn't codified these expectations, his employers could reasonably point to decades of evidence of a culture of umpiring that would have suggested otherwise.

The management of the umpires has been perfectly satisfactory for just about every other official in the game... but Hair's personal style exposed obvious limitations: that might be grounds for cutting Hair some slack... but it doesn't make Hair blameless!

Yes but why was their a vote to get rid of Hair and not Doctrove, or the third umpire or even the match referee?.
Exactly - so the 7-3 vote probably counted for nothing.
And that's one reason (only one) that makes the ICC redundant.
Take the (C) out of cash, and back into cricket - by that I mean having a smaller ICC and making sure one vote one nation means just that.
I can't say exactly how cricket would reform in a way backwards to good standards of conduct and fair play, but with a major change like getting rid of the ICC - delegates could look at the problems facing cricket - instead of doing nothing like the ICC.
Ninjaman world cricket is not pleasant as it is, like I keep saying if this umpiring business is not sorted - then cricket will split.
Power as much as cash will have to be redistributed, not as in communism - but lessening of power bases.

Yes and no I mean that one member one vote means just that, just because a board is richer because of TV rights does not follow that they should wield such power, and worse that that , some would say to influence from that position is down right corrupt.
This simply was not the case at the beginning was it?, as time went on it became clear that Hair was going to be made a scapegoat - and the ICC pounced over the e mail which Hair legitimately wrote asking for cash to not carry out his contract.
Sheer opportunism on the part of the ICC.

not just the Darrell Hair affair when I talk of flexibility, I am also thinking about the England players under a (perceived threat) to their lives, the worry those (perceived threats) caused their families and friends - the ICC not being flexible and giving the England players a dispensation was nothing more than disgraceful.

It would have been no more less democratic than the one nation one vote we have, were one vote counts for ten votes of the weaker nations.
But they did back him at first - wonder why everything changed, and please not that e mail just making sure he had a future.

Yes and some of that money should go to other nations or fewer nations will be playing each other.

The West Indies are fighting a losing battle as things are - look without some investment and promoting, then cricket will sooner than later give way in that part of the world to the excellent sport offered in the USA - Ninjaman I am convinced that without a West Indies renaissance - that will happen.
Yes but cricket is NOT a corporation - it is merely a sport where some nations earn inflated amounts of money compared with the rest - and putting test cricket before Odis will help stem that to a degree.

Depending on who-to survive, and the rest will have to follow when cricket implodes.

Cricket should be free to view the world over - there would be little loss in revenues.

If we had an ICC who ensured that some of the huge amounts of cash was distributed amongst the less well of cricketing nations, then countries like the West Indies would be better of - but no self nest feathering will continue as cricket withers IMO.

Look at the state of world cricket Ninjaman - look at the dreadful shots played in test cricket due to the influence of one day cricket (promoted because it's a cash earner).
Cricket therefore has dropped in playing standards.
Look at how the perception of umpires has changed, has Steve Buckner been treat fair?, if he was failing due to age - then why was he allowed to carry on. very (Flintoffesque).

Look at how the behaviour of the cricket players has spread to the crowds, I never heard racist chants when I started watching and playing a little cricket.

I can't pretend in one post, or even threads to have a foolproof plan to put cricket to right - what I can do is IMO identify what is wrong.

Who has presided over this decline in standards?, The ICC are the governing body.

__________________
Ern

Well that's your own version of events and as such you're perfectly entitled to express it, but you'll have to forgive me if I don't buy into any of it as I beleive the truth is somewhat different to the one you and many others either want to or have been fooled into beleiving.

Hair (and Doctrove) merely followed the Laws of Cricket the ICC themselves had handed down to all Umpires to follow. The relevant section is included in the 'Preamble - The Spirit of Cricket' -

THE PREAMBLE – THE SPIRIT OF CRICKET
Cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that it should be
played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game. Any action
which is seen to abuse this spirit causes injury to the game itself. The major
responsibility for ensuring the spirit of fair play rests with the captains.

3. The umpires are authorised to intervene in cases of:
• Tampering with the ball

and

5. It is against the Spirit of the Game:
• To dispute an umpire’s decision by word, action or gesture

An Umpire does not have to give any proof of his decision making on the field - the cricket field is not a court room, there is no burden of proof and most players will simply accept the word of an Umpire and get on with it, as the Laws of Cricket dictates he should. He does not have to give any proof in LBW decisions nor in caught behinds, nor in run outs nor in any other issue that happens on a cricket field, he merely has to be clear in his own mind what beleives happened and what be belveives the truth to be.

There was only one person in this fiasco that should have been punished and that was the Pakistan Captain who deliberately went against rule 5 in the Spirit of Cricket. The correct course of action was to have accepted the decision, with protest if necessary and then appealed against it's legitimacy AFTER the days play. If Inzamam was so convinced of his teams innocence what did he have to lose by playing on? Instead he chose to protest the decision, in my mind effectively vindicating the decision the on field umpires had taken.

The Pakistan captain was the only person who brought the game into disprepute, presumably deliberately in an attempt to spotlight the medias attention on what he considered was a 'slur against Pakistan' having been accused of cheating. Quite how Inzamam could behave so indignantly, when Pakistan have a track record of these types of infractions, particularly Afridi's 'dancing on the pitch' escapade, which was only spotted because he did so, stupidly, right in front of the cameras. No doubt had the eivdence not been so compelling the Paklistan's would have behaved in precisely the same way in that situation, or not even have been caught at all.

The 'major incident' you talk of was the direct result of Inzamams actions, and not Hairs, who was merely doing what he considered was 'his job', and he was fairly widely renowned to be a stickler for the rules, which is presumably what yours and many others peoples objections are based on.

Umpires are selected to officiate Cricket matches, they are not there to play world politics and therefore they should NOT consider the implications of the decisions they take, as long as they take those decisions with integrity, honesty and to the best of their ability. Umpires do not consider the implications of giving someone like Sachin Tendulkar out in a home ODI series in front of thousands of adoring Indian Cricket fans and neither should they consider the implications of a ball tempering accusation to any side if they truly beleive that is what happened. To say otherwise is to accuse Hair of deliberate dishonesty and bias, which is effectively what Inzamam did when bringing the game into disrepute. In fact they're not just accusing Hair of being dishonest, they're accusing Doctrove of being dishonest as well.

The resulting appeal hearing, not surprisingly headed by another Asian, who I'm pretty sure had instructions from the ICC on what the outcome would be, concluded that whilst there was insufficient evidence to support the ball tempering claim, the ball was 'not entirely in a natural state', my paraphrasing. That in itself was vindication of Hairs and Doctroves actions, as on the Cricket field they do not have to produce any evidence or proof of their actions, but merely on what they see and beleive with their own eyes. It's not as if he suddenly plucked the ball out of the air, looked at it and accused the Pakistani's of ball tampering. That ball was closely monitored by both Hair and Doctrove for a number of overs and, the bowlers themselves were watched quite closely by both umpires before they finally made their decision.

The outcome of that Appeal was precisely what the ICC wanted - inconclusive, so Inzamam gets off with a minor rule conduction violation and Hair got a smack on the wrist, and that should have been the end of it, but no, the Pakistani's wanted vengeance and a scapegoat and the ICC was pressured into supplying one.

In usual cicrumstances the ICC Umpires Panel, who appoint and remove umpires from the Elite Panel should have decided whether Hair was fit to continue as an Elite Umpire or not, so why was it put to a full member vote? Exactly what business did the full members have in voting on Hairs retention or release, apart from the Asian block countries taking revenge on an Umpire they felt (wrongly) was biased against them?

Take a read of Cricinfo's Andrew Millers excellent article on the Indian Cricket League for your answer -

"There's too much dysfunction in world cricket today, and most of that stems from the ineptitude of the ICC, which is more of a scapegoat than a governing body. It seems to exist primarily as a means for India to distance itself from decisions it doesn't want to take, or be seen to be taking. "

Source: Cricinfo - Opening a Pandora's Box

Are you really that surprised that the likes of India and Pakistan can get away with manipulating the ICC in removing umpires they don't happen to like? The World game of Cricket is now being run by money from the BCCI and integrity and honesty appears to have no place any more in our International game.

The issue of free to view cricket is not a world game issue at all

Furthermore, the selling of TV rights is a national board issue so why should the ICC dictate to any board who and for how much they sell their TV right for?

Another example of placing upon the ICC responsibility for your perceived failures of current world cricket when that is not exactly in its remit.

There is no issue in the WI, for example, over free to air cricket games.

You are an Englishman and you obviously have a problem with YOUR games being on cable/satellite or whatever.

Then the problem is the ECB and your government who allow the game to be packaged and sent out to tender to interested bodies.

That could be rectified tomorrow as an internal English matter with no recourse to any external governing body.

However, because it can it will always choose to go with the highest bidder (Murdoch's Sky?) because that gives it the most money i.e. looking out for its own financial self interest.

Yet, somehow once the ICC is gone that looking out to maximise your earning potential will disappear.

It won't.

So your blaming the ICC for something the ECB does is nonsensical

It IS distributed around less well cricketing nations. Less well than WI too.

My point to you is nobody in the WI is blaming the ICC for the ills of WI cricket.

Surprisingly, they blame the WICB whose responsibility it is.

So why are you, if not for any other reason than thet are as per usual a convenient crutch to lean on, blaming the ICC?

One of things the ICC actually did do, on a financial basis, that affected the WI (but benefitted the bigger nations like England) is since 2000 how away tours are funded.

That decision was voted for by all the member nations and, because of the very idea of a vote, become binding for all teams to follow and enforced by the ICC.

So while you could, if you choose, blame the ICC for that, it was actually a member vote under the ICC which everyone else follows.

Kind of the way you want cricket to be run once you get rid of the ICC.

Proving once again that even if you scrap the ICC and replace it with another body where the members vote on decisions, there will still be decisions that cause some people to come off worse than others.

The assumption that decisions will be equally beneficial to all is strange.

I have no problem with the overall quality of cricket.

The good players rise to the top and I have NO problem with one day cricket either.

However, if you do, then tell the ECB, PCB, ACB, WICB etc... to stop playing so many one day matches.

Barring the ICC tournaments which are only every 2 or 4 years, all the one day games are scheduled by each board.

NOTHING to do with the ICC.

How many times does this have to be said?

So, once again, when you get rid of the ICC, there will still be all these one day games because the boards are scheduling them.

So when the ECB agree to play 7 ODIs on their tour of India, are you blaming the ICC for that?

The perception of umpires has not changed.

People's patience with accepting blatant mistakes they have to accept because it is done thing has decreased though.

Because the ICC, for as long as they could, stood by him and refused to see his skills were diminishing that is why he was allowed to carry on.

I thought you were the advocate for the ICC standing by their employees?

Yet, when they do and then the umps proceed to mess up you then blame the ICC for not seeing they have slipped.

An employee can choose at whatever point it feels like to fire you once it feels you are no longer fit for the job.

It has always been there.

So racism in crowds is because of the cricket players?

Interesting. Nothing to do with the racism in society in general?

It is actually under the ICC that there have been attempts to actually introduce punishment for racism.

It was rife against some back in the 40s/50s/60s etc, but nothing was done then.

Barring the massive complaints of teams like WI and India, the MCC would have continued sending touring teams to South Africa all the way through apartheid. SA resigned from the ICC in 1961? and yet England and Australia were still looking to and actually tour there.

But, oh yes, it's the ICC's fault for the crowds following the players and being racist.

Keep thinking that everything was oh so wonderful back in your day.

**

No one would dare presume anyone would have all the answers, Ernest.

However my response to your posts is to show IMO that removing one body and replacing it with another body (with the same members) that works along the same lines (one member, one vote) as the replaced body tends to have the same results.

You are asking for the lessening effect of money on the game. I admire the principle but have not seen a single point that shows any potential effectiveness in the actual implementation and practice. Maybe because cricket does not exist in a vacuum and the influence of money is an occurence across the world.

The bodies that run each territories cricket are themselves set up to serve their own self interest and thus the circle is never ending.

Do you have proof that he was briefed what the outcome should be?

If you do, then present it.

If not, you're on sticky ground.

But then paranoia and prejudice tends to do that.

Also, what is the issue with the appeal hearing being carried out by shock, horror "another Asian"?

Are you claiming that once an Asian is passing judgement on an issue involving another Asian team, then the ability to make a fair judgement disappears?



As for Pakistan having a "track record". So what and says who?

Afridi was caught and punished for HIS actions but I guess we shall use that in perpetuity to suspect Pakistan, right?

I guess I'll have to look out for Michael Vaughan considering previous England captains have been known to carry dirt in their pocket to tamper with the ball.

And the next time, hopefully not though, that an Australian is reported for racial abuse they'll take into account Darren Lehmann's past offences.

You never know with their track record!

***

When an umpire gives a man out lbw, he is implictly saying that his dismissal satsifies all the criteria that allow him, in his opinion, to give the batsman out.

When he says not out to an lbw appeal, he is saying that not all the criteria are met.

On many occasions, a bowler may have a quiet word or even when the umpire gives the decision he may indicate that it was too high, there was bat etc...

Likewise, things like run out, caught, stumped are quite clear what the umpire is thinking when he gives or does not give them out.

When the umpire calls a team for ball tampering, he is saying that a member or members of the team are tampering with the ball.

Well then, who?

Oh sorry, all we have is a Pakistani track record to go by

Unless you can prove that the damage was not caused by freak conditions or occurence but by the actions of a team member, punishing the team is blatantly wrong and bound to illicit a strong reaction. You change the ball, leave it for inspection by match referee and get on with the game.

And hiding behind the spirit of the game when in fact blaming a team for doing something you can't prove, or even attempt to prove when all hell is breaking loose, a team member did is against the spirit of the game and fairness in general.

Hair would have never called England for ball tampering under the same conditions and I'd bet good money on that.

The sentence in question contains the words 'I'm pretty sure...', the key to understanding that sentence is to understand the 'I'm' part of it refers to my own person belief and opinion and as such I do not have to present any 'proof' to you of what I happen to personally beleive.

You don't read much do you? Here's a Pakistan Captain accusing his OWN players of cheating for gods sake!
Cricinfo - Pakistan 'cheats' described by Imran (12 November 1998)

But you just bury your head in the sand and ignore it, because you clearly only want to beleive what YOU want to beleive and ignore all the evidence put before you.

No other side in International Cricket has had as many 'cheat' allegations laid against them as the Pakistan side, there's no smoke without fire my friend.

There's many more instances of Pakistan cheating than the Afridi instance - that was just one I happened to have personal knowledge of - because I saw it with my own eyes.

These are the key two sentences in my opinion that demonstrate to me that you simply don't understand what's being said to you, or you wouldn't keep repeating the same boring words over and over and over again - proof.

There IS NO proof for gods sake, only belief, and the sooner you realise that the better.

So, when an Umpire gives a batsman out LBW, he does have to be clear in his mind that the criteria required for giving that person out LBW has been met, and the most important of those criteria is, is the ball going on to hit the stumps, because if it isn't, all the others become irrelevant don't they? How can the Umpire be 100% sure and 100% certain that ball is going to hit the stumps? He never EVER see's the ball hit the stumps, so all he can do is use a 'best guess' based on all the criteria available to him to make his decision, but there is no proof that ball will hit the stumps is there?

Where's that proof you so desperately want and chilidishly and cowardly continue to hide behind to construct your nebulous argument?

So if we apply that exact same 'criteria' to ball tampering, it soon becomes apparent that the Umpires do NOT need to see someone tampering with the ball to suspect and beleive that ball tampering has taken place, in exactly the same way that he does not need to see the ball physically hit the stumps to beleive it's going on to hit them.

All I can say to you is, for the benefit of the world wide cricket playing community - don't ever become an Umpire.

Of course you don't but it would be nice when we are having a discussion to offer some proof instead of making accusations that you can hide behind "beliefs" when challenged.

You've just accused the judge of not being impartial and taking orders from the ICC to come to a pre-arranged outcome. As the outcome didn't fit your liking then there's no way it could have been come to a fair and reasoned manner at all.

But, I guess, you've already shown your ability to accept accusations and judgments against people without having to offer proof, let alone make them.



I read a lot thank you very much!!

So Imran makes accusatory comments in 1998 about a match in 1989 and that is enough to slap Pakistanis with a track record that they should always be judged suspiciously?

So the team of 2006 has to live with the stigma of those actions just because they have the misfortune of being Pakistani?

No proof needs to be offered, just check their nationality because those guys are always up to no good when it comes to cricket!!

Well there was NO EVIDENCE that any individual on the Paksitani side of 2006 actually tampered with the ball at the Oval.

The judge said so too. You know the "Asian" one.

I see you haven't responded on the significance of the judge being Asian either. Don't bother, I see why.

You are the one who is burying his head in the sand because the outcome failed to fit your preconceived ideas about Pakistanis you are on here showing your bigotry.

No evidence of ball tampering.
No evidence of the ICC pressurising the judge.

Yet YOU are the one who believes (i.e. no proof) the 2 things above but I don't.

And I'm burying my head in the sand??

Get a grip!!

So I guess when they are accused in 2006 and no evidence is offered up, we should just fine them and get it over and done with?

No Pakistani could ever get a fair hearing from you then and you have the gall to complain about the ICC or the judge.

What's the point of having a hearing to establish facts if you are going to punish based on nationality?

You should be ashamed of yourself.

You won't be though, bigots never are.

Firstly, I'm not hiding behind anything at all, I'm merely putting forward my 'beliefs', which at the end of the day, is primarily what opinions are comprised of. You however, appear to want unequivocal proof of absolutely everything before you'll even consider someone elses opinion, belief or point of view - I've already stated very clearly - there IS NO PROOF, so please stop asking for it.

You appear to view the world very much in terms of black and white and conveniently ignore all the grey areas - it must be nice to be able to view the world with such simplicity.

I've not accused anyone of anything. I've merely put forward my 'belief' that the person responsible for adjudicating the 'ball tampering' case was influenced by the ICC officials in what kind of outcome they expected to see, and low and behold, the outcome is precisely what the ICC would have wanted - inconclusive - coincidence? You want to beleive so don't you?

Do you honestly beleive that 'adjudicator' would have found the Pakistan captain guilty of ball tampering when he knew full well what kind of implications that would have had for world cricket? With Pakistan threatening to pull out of the ICC, with the very real possiblity of the other Asian block countries supporting and following them? Do you have the slighest idea what that could have done to world cricket? Clearly not from your naive opinions.

So the outcome was inconclusive, pretty much the verdict every single person in the entire world expected - what a surprise! Despite the fact that there WAS evidence that ball had been tampered with - just no absolute proof, that proof you so desperately want to cling on to.

There are currently 8 Match Referees on the Elite Panel -

Chris Broad - Eng
Jeff Crowe - NZ
Alan Hurst - Aus
Clive Lloyd - WI
Ranjan Madugalle - SL
Roshan Mahanama - SL
Mike Procter - SA
Javagal Srinath - Ind

Why am I not surprised, that out of a selection of 7 possible Match Referees (Australian one removed for obvious reasons) to adjudicate the case of which only 3 of them are from the sub-continent, that we got one of those 3 sub-continental referees to adjudicate a case involving a sub-continental side?

There were a possible 4 completely neutral Referees that could of adjudicated that case - Chris Broad, Jeff Crowe, Clive Lloyd and Mike Procter, yet they went for one of three sub-continental referees - why? Or is that merely yet another unrelated coincidence?

Perhaps if the ICC had been completely impartial in this matter and appointed a neutral Referee to adjudicate the case they couldn't have been accused of trying to influence that outcome by appointing a sub-continental referee? They only have themselves to blame.

Another ball tampering case -
BBC SPORT | Cricket | Counties | Surrey count cost of ball inquiry

Where's the culprit? Where's the person who did it? Where's the PROOF? Didn't stop them from being found guilty of it did it? That's because Surrey were honest enough to admit that the ball looked like it had been tampered with despite no-one owning up to doing it, and no-one being caught in the act of doing it either.

No doubt you'll ignore that because it doesn't sit happily with your pathetic burden of proof in the same way you ignore everything that doesn't sit happily with what you happen to want to beleive.

That's just the one I happened to find fairly quickly, there's plenty more if you want to look for them. What it means is, that Pakistan players in the past have had a predisposition to bending the rules in their favour. Now, that doesn't mean every single Pakistan player is either a cheat or predisposed to cheating, but it does set a precedent and that they've been accused of and found guilty of doing it in the past. If they've done it in the past, what's to stop them doing it in the future?

There you go with your burden of proof again, there was evidence of ball interference, just not conclusive evidence. There was no evidence any individual on the Surrey side tampered with the ball either, but they didn't stop them from being found guilty did it?

Now ask yourself the question, if there was no evidence that anyone on the Surrey side tampered with the ball, yet they still got found guilty, why was the Pakistan side found not guilty with the same lack of evidence?

See above re ICC Match Referees.

The outcome was precisely what I and the rest of the world expected to see, because I knew (and so did everyone else) that Pakistan would be exhonerated of ball tampering because of the likely implications it would have for world Cricket.

I am not a bigot, and I object vehemently to being called one and being personally attacked in that way. My only concern and it's a view I've expressed on these boards several times now and I'm not the only person who happens to beleive this, is that the sub-continental sides, headed by the BCCI and India are pulling the ICC puppet strings and forcing them to bend to their will. I object to a 'faction' of Cricket sides using the ICC for their own purposes.

Theres plenty of evidence that I can see that Pakistan influenced the ICC into appointing a Referee from their own sub-continent that would produce the outcome that both the ICC and PCB wanted - and they got what they wanted as well.

My main annoyance in all this is a perfectly good and capable Umpire in Hair, who enjoyed his Umpiring job was removed from that job by the political power of the sub-continent, in precisely the same way that India were able to remove Steve Bucknor - the most experienced Elite Panel Umpire currently Umpiring in World Cricket - because they didn't happen to like the decisions he made.

Both these instances produce extremely dangerous precedents for World Cricket and it's high time this nonsense was brought to an end.

Whilst there's always something to be said for scrutinising decisions... there's something deeply disturbing about a pervasive cynicism about the reasoning, motives and intentions of any official: if there's concrete evidence of something amiss then fine, address the fact - but the very basis of society as we know it is offering the benefit of the doubt to the accused.

In this instance, it's not naivitee to suggest that a judge from India or Sri Lanka should be regarded as perfectly fit to pass independent, impartial judgement. Aside from anything else, the ICC has a duty to treat ALL its match referees as EQUALLY capable of passing independent, impartial judgement.

If the ICC had let on that an Indian or Sri Lankan match referee had been ruled out on the grounds of being sub-continental then it would have been absolutely wide open (and rightly so) to a HUGE lawsuit: I'm quite sure the ICCs own equal opportunities policy forbids this sort of discrimination... and no industrial tribunal or law court on earth would side with ANY employer who tried this on.

Either the past performance of a potential match referee suggests he is capable of performing at that level, or it doesn't... and if it does... the employee MUST be trusted to carry on performing at that level, without discrimination. If subsequent actions suggest a performance related issue that's something to be dealt with afterwards (on the basis of concrete evidence)... but no employer is going to get away with deciding this matter in advance!!!

A few other points:

1. No one is disputing that Hair had reasonable grounds for making the call he did given the guidelines laid out in the rule-book.... but there's a damn good reason why we always distinguish between "Policy" and "Procedure": the former ain't worth the paper it's written on unless implemented... and the latter is actually the more significant as the former is something on paper and the latter concerns what transpires in practice!

2. Any independent review looking at the way cricket was officiated would have concluded that procedural precendent set umpires up more like the "player's friend" that they are in rugby union (where they constantly work with the players to avoid infringements) than like soccer referees (where a more confrontational, by-the-book approach is more common).

3. A review that dealt in shades of grey rather than black and white (your own distinction) would conclude that the "de-facto policy" for dealing with incidents was rather more subtle and nuanced (and commonly accepted) than the "de-jure policy" set out on paper... and that Hair was rather at odds with most of his colleagues in attending more to laid-down theory than to practical precedent.

4. The main charge that should be laid at the door of the ICC is negligence in failing to bring fatally flawed policy into line with rather better accepted procedure: no small failing, but better than the alternative (where great policy is not implemented, leading to dire procedure).

5. The boards who voted in favour of Hair were from the countries most culturally familiar with the high theory of policy being privileged over the mundane practice of procedure. That's not to say the UK, Australia and NZ are completely committed to that outlook, or to set up an orientalist contrast... but quite aside from anything else, any history that includes colonial encounter has had an object lesson in why precedent, procedure and practice might be privileged over the abstraction of an unenforceable, abstract, theoretical world of policy!

Simply because cricket is a sport and not a multi national corporation, if we have rich boards and poor boards then cricket has no future.
The problem with your views IMO Ninjaman is you only see things in black and white, that is naive IMO.
You are missing my point again, a reformed ICC would would have all cricket failures within it's remit, better than the present stagnant ICC we have at the moment.
Ninjaman - again you are accepting the status quo as though it is set in concrete, and for some strange reason you can't or won't see the failings of the ICC.
Cricket should move away from being a multi national big earner and go back to it's roots as a SPORT.
Points are getting clouded here, my beef is more than just who pays for TV coverage ,as important as I think that is.
You keep citing the points I make about the ICC being poor by giving me the same old points about 5-3 votes, and that rules are rules - and there is in place one - vote per nation state.

You can't accept that even if each nation has one vote, one vote from England/India would would have 10 times more clout than say one from Bangladesh or even the West Indies - that's wrong.
You can't seem to grasp what I think was wrong in the 2003 World Cup, you keep saying the ICC voted the sanctions against England.
1) Those votes count for nothing as far as I am concerned under the present system, one mans vote is more equal than anothers.

2) And even if the voting is fair, they why did the executive not advise the delegates to be flexible? (that's another point you won't/can't address.)

3) Darrell Hair - why was he the only one of the four officials to be in effect sacked, you see the need for a slimmer, fairer governing body.

4) Following on Ninjaman, why and please forget voting - was Darrell Hair made the scapegoat?, was he not a respected international umpire?, and if not why did the ICC allow him to officiate in a match involving Pakistan?.

Also if Hair was as bad as we are led to believe, then did the ICC fail cricket by not getting to grips with the situation long before the series in England in 2006?.

5) Steve Buckner I am told has been making mistakes, has the ICC failed cricked by not spotting this until it was to late? - both cases led to major incidents which could have been avoided if the claims are true.

The ICC should be replaced by a competent body, looking at the shenanigans sine 2003 - do you not agree?.

The ICC are supposed to be crickets governing body - truth is they stumble from crisis to crisis, don't you agree?
Because a matter has been voted on does not mean that's the end of the matter, decisions can be changed.

No all votes would have the same power, cricket is only a game.

Problem is Ninjaman is that the quality of cricket is declining because of one day cricket, bound to happen with bowlers bowling to defend and batsmen having to improvise - problem is they take this mode into test cricket.

Well only in part.The ECB are mostly to blame, but the ICC as cricket managers should see the damage being caused to test cricket, but I wonder if the ICC is as committed to rest cricket as it is to the lucrative ODI's

There has always been mistakes - problem is these mistakes are now highlighted by the replay screen, again the ICC should ban them because IMO they are making umpiring intolerable.
Never said that, but poor behavior on the park at times reflects the behavior off it, no game more so than Soccer.
With respect - what have they done that's made any difference?.
Well I saw it in real life and the government brought out the 'race relations act', what have the ICC done - and I never notice rife racism in sport anyway to be honest.
And why did the ECB stop playing SA Ninjaman?, could it be that England stood by one of it's employee's - unlike the ICC with Hair and Buckner.
Ninjaman - I would like to think it is STILL my day, and yes cricket was played in a better spirit.

Exactly Ninjaman - and don't you think it's time for a change?, unless that circle is broken IMHO.

__________________
Ern