ICL does not care for ICC. As long as money spins and there's a fair game, it will remain order of the day. It's time ICC pack its bags and another thing - you never fared good to Indians. Let the game remain professional. Mr Speed, don't poke your dirty nose in our affair. In other words, GET LOST. You ain't nobody. Your slave BCCI may blow the trumpet but its days are numbered.
RE:ICC - Who?
by . on Aug 28, 2007 06:20 PM
ICC-who?? It is like asking "US FDA who??" or "IHF who" , think maan think!! Don't let emotions cloud your intellect!!
Without central regulatory or administering authorities, it will be complete chaos!! Do you want chaos to control your life??
I will give you an example!! Say you take a drug that is approved by the food and drug administration! A competitor comes out with another product and it does not get approved, so the comnpetitor establishes a regulatory framework of his own! And gets the drug approved! Now would you consume this new drug or continue consuming the earlier one??
Answer this question with all honesty and you will get the answer as to why the ICC cannot approve the ICL!! And rightly so!!
RE:ICC - Who?
by Manish Dhoot on Aug 28, 2007 06:41 PM
Where there is a will, there is a way. ICC cannot approve ICL becuase they are cricket controller. Read the four test. You will understand this. Read the last test.... It is like if you want to get a job in the company, you need to have reference from existing company employee ???? Is this any merit in this test !!!!
RE:ICC - Who?
by . on Aug 28, 2007 06:52 PM
You are right! And i'am not even saying that ICL will not do a good job! they might do a job much better than BCCI! But for them to come out on top of BCCI will entail the setting up of a new regulatory body along the lines of ICC!! Say rival bodies in Aus, SL, England, WI, Zimb, Bang, Pak, SA, NZ and the ICL float a new body!
RE:ICC - Who?
by Manish Dhoot on Aug 28, 2007 07:09 PM
Sirjee, as a cricket Lover, I want to see best India 11 representing India. It does not matter to me, whether it is BCCI 11 or ICL 11. If ICC does not recognise ICL, then they will be hurting themselves. Just Imagine ICL team performing wonders !!! and challenging and beating Australia/South Africa, etc... and BCCI team getting beaten up by Bangladesh...
As an Indian what would you say ???
Have a sports attitude and mentality. Not political.
mr. Speed Thank YOU... ..we heard Australian Cricket Opinion....we want REal ICC Opinion....first please be fair in every department GO ICL.....Screw BCCI
BCCI is playing a monopoly role in India, and ICC is playing all over world. So like ICL, anyone should start a rival group for ICC then only ICC will know that they cant control cricket
ICC is a tootless lion operating under the guidance of BCCI heavyweights. ICC is the only top sports body having less corpus money in its kitty compared to its members like BCCI, which revolves with more corpus money than its head. You can assess the integrity & efficiency of ICC by the headquarters change to Dubai by BCCI insistance.
So, there is nothing to infer from ICC statements. Delhi High court's intervention is a good relief for ICL.
RE:ICC - Toothless Lion !
by Ajay Kumar on Aug 29, 2007 01:25 AM
real toothless icc. never been able to control the menace of match fixing (as they themselvs r involved in it) n now showing control over world ckt.
Kerry Packer had also faced with some obstacles. But the authority could not do anything to him. If the bigwigs of cricket are associated with it then why the harm they won't give recognition to ICL? BCCI is doing business with cricket. Cricket should be played in oligopolistic way in every country
the batsman at the crease and bowler who is bowling should be given a chance to request the umpire for a third umpire's decision. (ONLY 2 CHANCES FOR EACH TEAM IN A MATCH)
i mean if a bowler thinks that he had got an edge of the batsman or he is plump infront of the wicket and still the umpire is not giving him out.
and same in case of batsman who is confident that he didn't nick a ball or he is not in front of wicket and still he has given out by the umpire, then he can consult the umpire and request them to take a third umpire's opinion. Often we see there was an inside edge and then ball hits the pads still the batsman is out LBW.
it may be decided that only 2 chances each will be given in a match. a team will get only 2 chances each in a match. That means if both the teams utilize their 2 chances then there will total 4 replays. So we will not take all the rights from field umpires.
And 4 replays will not consume too much time, and teams will also utilize these chances carefully (I mean they will not waste their 2 precious chances)
as we all know how important a wicket is at a crucial moment in cricket a bad decision can change the whole course of the match.
further it will also ease the pressure on the umpires in big matches at crunch times.
You had already seen so many bad decisions in this ongoing England India series. Even the best umpire in todays game Simon Toufel has made mistakes.
RE:APPEAL TO ICC
by rahul mohidekar on Aug 28, 2007 04:35 PM
Instead, i would suggest, ICC should appoint field umpairs only for no-ball, wide-ball, four and sixes kind of job. and third umpair should give decision for all the wickets... hence there will not be any partiallity in the game...
RE:APPEAL TO ICC
by Perumal Palani on Aug 28, 2007 04:51 PM
I think zubair is correct. If you keep appointing umpiars then there will be 11 equal to players.
RE:APPEAL TO ICC
by janmajoy c on Aug 28, 2007 05:03 PM
very good idea..and we should have one senior umpire to see that all 11 umpires are doing the work properly.
