No matter what they take from me, they can't take away my dignity

The forfeited test (I'm calling it that while I still can) used to give rise to a pub quiz question something along the lines of "when did a team last score 300+ in their first innings and go on to lose".

However, it now spawns a new question, which is "which test match took the longest time to produce a definitive result".

If the report of an attendee at the ICC meeting is true, then the ICC is about to rule that this test was drawn, not forfeited. The source has said "England and Pakistan have agreed to declare the Oval Test as a draw to maintain the dignity of Pakistan in world cricket, especially after the ball-tampering charges were dropped".

I'd almost forgotten about that; it seems a lifetime ago. The cricinfo article goes on to say "The topic took up a considerable chunk of the morning's proceedings".

Um, the Zimbabwe crisis?
IPL/ICL?
That Stanford millionaire match?
The new Premier League thingy?

All this is (presumably) on the agenda, and the retrospective change of result of one match in a series that was already won by England took up a considerable chunk of the morning's proceedings?

We all know how easy it is to get bogged down in meetings, but people, for shame.

Quite apart from this, Pakistan's argument seems to contain an internal inconsistency. They seem to be saying that the test shouldn’t be regarded as forfeited, because Darryl Hair was acting outside his authority in the ball tampering episode. However, the test was forfeited because Pakistan refused to come back on the field and play. They refused to play because they said there had been no ball-tampering, and indeed, no charges were brought against them for tampering with the ball.

So they can regard themselves as vindicated, as the claim that they tampered with the ball did not hold up to scrutiny. They were protesting because they felt that they had been falsely accused, and it looks like they were right.

The subsequent Darryl Hair mess does not change this. Nothing that happened since then changes the reason for the refusal to play and the forfeiture.

I know Pakistan were later willing to play, I know that. But if it's dignity that's at stake, what's more dignified? Moaning for the record books to be changed, two years after the event, or standing by the decision that you had made at the time because of accusations that you regarded as unjust?

I've got my guns pointing at Pakistan right this minute (metaphorical guns, so you can take me off the watch list), but I'm also cross at the ICC for not standing firm. Please, please, let the Zimbabwe vote have nothing to do with this.

I await my little correction slip for my Wisden almanack (sigh).www.cricketwithballs.com

Now with new proper english lady blogger.