Talk:International Cricket Council

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

cricket ball
Cricket Portal
Click here for information about how the WikiProject assesses notability
International Cricket Council is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.


International Cricket Council is avery good governing body which coordinates the international cricket all over the world. the test playing nations are India, Australia, Pakistan, New Zealand, South Africa, England, Zimbawe, Bangladesh.

Contents

[edit] Shifting to Dubai

The BBC article doesn't say anything about Malcom Speed's tax payments.

[edit] New Members 2005

I've added the four new members announced 28 June, 2005: Guernsey, Jersey, Mali, Slovenia, and upgraded the five moved from Affiliate to Associate status: Belgium, Botswana, Japan, Kuwait, and Thailand. Maybe someone can update the map graphic? -dmmaus 28 June 2005 23:00 (UTC)

Also, as mentioned on the map's Image page, France is incorrectly left uncoloured. Loganberry (Talk) 22:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] South Africa

I thought South Africa left the ICC in 1961 as it left the Commonwealth then, and so was not able to be a member. Indeed, the "Tests" they played from that time to 1970 were not recognised as Tests by the ICC at the time (even though everyone else recognised them as Tests). I have therefore changed the date in the table (which was showing 1970), jguk 28 June 2005 23:27 (UTC)

[edit] Team names

The links to teams are, currently, a bit of a mess. In some places there are links to [[French cricket team|France]], in others, [[Norwegian Cricket Board|Norway]]. What should we use? I'd prefer the team link, personally, as I think an article on the Norway cricket team (sorry, Pakistan 'G') is much easier to make and write than the article on Norwegian Cricket Board, and can also encompass more. Sam Vimes 21:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

It should be linked into the Norwegian cricket team. I was surprised at how much there is on Norwegian cricket in English on the web. I've been busy at work, which has reduced my article-writing (I was hoping to help out more on the English and Sri Lankan cricket seasons and to have completed the 2005 ICC Trophy by now - but there goes). I'm equally surprised you haven't written it yourself, Sam:) jguk 21:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I will get onto it at some point...only there's the Test match in Sri Lanka, two ODIs, NL games, an "ODI" between WI A v SL A and ICC trophy stuff to write...oh yeah, and it should be Norwegian, of course. But you agree that linking to the team in this article is better than linking to the board? At least we're more likely to get blue-links that way Sam Vimes 22:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, as we keep waffling on here, Sidp has been bold, made it all much easier to organise, and rendered this debate fairly useless. Sam Vimes 22:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] National team adjectives

I've changed some of these on the basis of how common they are. In each case I've tested the alternatives with Google simply adding "team" to the end, so that in the first case I compared "Argentinian team" to "Argentine team", found the latter was much more common and so edited. I'm listing the countries I have changed, in case there's a good reason to change any of them back. In each case the option I've chosen is listed in bold. Where the country's correct adjective is actually less common than simply using the noun (as in the case of Mozambique and St Helena) I've simply added a redirect to the noun form.

[edit] Associate members

[edit] Affiliate members

Good work there. Now to actually write the things. ;) Sam Vimes 21:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Your wish is my command! Loganberry (Talk) 23:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What about Harare meeting?

This obviously is no longer "going to occur" in March 2006; I hope that a knowledgeable editor will now update us. Rlquall 00:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

This is a rather confused and unbalanced article which suffers from a lack of proper editorial "grip". Much of the content is random, much of it wrong and too much of it is unsubstantiated by references or citations. Sports Fan 11:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location

I interviewed ICC officials in the Dubai office who confirmed to me that a benefit of the move to Dubai was to be closer to the Sub-continent, especially India. There is nothing POV about this nor anything remotely contentious! PaddyBriggs 07:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you source it then please? 'Cause alone it looks like it pov, as its as close to the sub-continent from dubia as it is to england.--THUGCHILDz 07:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually Dubai is FAR CLOSER to Mumbai than it is to London and closer still to Karachi and Colombo. Best source is Wisden - I'll dig it out! Regards. PaddyBriggs 07:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] ICC's handling of umpiring controversies

I spent quite a deal of time researching and then writing up a very detailed and thoroughly referenced section about the handling of certain recent umpiring controversies which have reflected adversely on the administration of the ICC. This section was casually deleted in its entirety by THUG.

The ICC has received a great deal of media attention throughout the recent 2007 Cricket World Cup which has focussed on its performance in its role as an ambassador for the game of cricket generally. Rightly or wrongly, the manner in which the ICC is perceived to be handling controversial issues subsequently reflects on the game of cricket.

This material I drafted is relevant subject matter in the context of the Wikipedia article on the ICC and I therefore think a broader discussion is needed on its merits. I have reinstated the material for the consideration and comment of the Wikipedia community and kindly ask that no user unilaterally remove it until its merits can be debated.

I see that one of THUG's comments when he deleted the section was that he did not believe that Umpire Hair has been banned by the ICC. The article which I footnoted refers to the fact that 7 out of the 10 ICC panel members voted to prevent Hair from officiating further but I acknowledge that he was not fired from the job and continues to get paid by the ICC. This however was not the purpose of my comment. If a User thinks that the words can be improved in any way (rather than just being deleted wholesale) please comment accordingly.--Calabraxthis 06:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well first of all, I would like you to get my user name right: it's THUGCHILDz not THUG. Second, this isn't a umpire controversy because the Darrell Hair issue is different from the issue with the final as speed explained in you reference and The disparity of treatment between the two incidents provoked commentators to observe that if an umpire correctly enforces the rules then he may stand to lose his job, but if four officials incorrectly apply the rules in the finale of a globally visible major tournament, the politics of the ICC may nevertheless operate to grant them absolution. is fully pov and is sourced by a comment. Third, There's no motion as of yet against Malcom Speed[1]. This simply doesn't need a section in this article. Things could be added to Malcom Speeds article but this just isn't a big thing as of yet. The Oval controversies is already covered in its respective articles and so is the final's error by the umpire's. The ICC isn't at fault for it as it's the umpires and match referees and there's certainly not much talks about the ICC not handling the situation right, because simply those two aren't related and didn't cause one of the biggest controversies in cricket's history, it was an error but it's not the same level and there's no motion from the national cricket boards as to go with a vote on should the referee and umpires be there or do they have no more confidence in them. Also, the ICC backed Hair up and still gave him appointments even after the vote for him not to umpire at test level. So I don't think it has anything to do with either and this isn't an umpire controveries as such I'll remove it. If anyone else wants to see what the edit was this.--THUGCHILDz 06:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll have to agree with Thugchildz on this one. The section in its current form should not and cannot be included in the article. It seems very POV and remember, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. However, do some reviewing to remove POV sections and it might become suitable for inclusion. --mdmanser 07:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with thugs and there's no point of the section being there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.66.200.40 (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Also, all these are covered in their respective incidents' article's anyway.--THUGCHILD z 01:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Absolutely disagreee. The section was originally perhaps a little biased - but as now drafted it is clear, well referenced and an essential addition. Suggest that those who disagree read it more carefully and stop playing stupid games. PaddyBriggs 06:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The ICC has been criticised for its perceived contradictory and inconsistent approach when reacting to controversial on-field decisions taken by its Elite Panel of umpires.

This statement isn't true or correct and so I don't see it's encyclopedic need to be in the article. 1st of all there isn't anything inconsistent about their approach. The ICC backed Mr. Hair up until all the national boards called for a no confidence motion and then they took the vote(7-3) in their meetings following which, Mr. Hair was restricted from officiating international matches involving the test nations.--THUGCHILDz 06:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Umpire Darrell Hair was banned from officiating in ICC fixtures in November 2006 [11] as a consequence of his decision in the fourth test played at The Oval [12] between England and Pakistan to penalise the latter team 5 runs for tampering with the ball. This action resulted in Pakistan forefeiting the match after they refused to recommence play following the tea adjournment [13]. Whilst Hair was criticised for his over-zealous implementation of the rules [14] few comentators doubted the technical correctness of his decision.[15][16][17]

Mr. Hair wasn't banned from officiating ICC fixtures which is absolutely wrong, he was restricted from officiating matches between test playing nations following the nations boards voted against him.--THUGCHILDz 06:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Subsequently in the final match of the 2007 Cricket World Cup played between Australia and Sri Lanka at Kensington Oval Bridgetown Barbados, Malcolm Speed, the CEO of the ICC declined to take action against four senior umpiring officials [18] for failing to observe the correct rules regarding the termination of play in circumstances of bad light, although the result of the match was not in consequence due to a gentlemans agreement between the two captains regarding their actions in the last three overs in near darkness. [19][20]

The ICC didn't take any actions against Darrell Hair either. The national boards voted against him in the no confidence motion. This could happen against the 4 senior officials involved in the final in the up coming meeting if the national boards call for it like they did against Darrel Hair. The ICC also on part of the umpire and also the umpires apologized for their mistakes too.[2][3]--THUGCHILDz 06:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The disparity of treatment between the two incidents provoked commentators to observe that if an umpire correctly enforces the rules then he may stand to lose his job, but if four officials incorrectly apply the rules in the finale of a globally visible major tournament, the politics of the ICC may nevertheless operate to grant them absolution. [21]

Totally POV, the 7 nations that voted against Darrell Hair definitely doesn't think the did what was right and so they didn't want him to be the umpire in games involving them. Mr. Hair didn't lose his job, the ICC still honors his contract with them and he still got international appointments like the World Cricket League despite Mr. Hair asking for $500,000 to quit.[4]--THUGCHILDz 06:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The handling of the incident promoted calls for Malcolm Speed to resign [22] and the suggestion that he may nevertheless face a vote of no confidence prompted by the Indian representatives on the ICC. [23]

There's no motion for a vote of no confidence against Mr. Speed.[5]--THUGCHILDz 06:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

As I have pointed out all the flaws in that section. I see no encyclopedic need for it to be in this article or at least not notable for the subject of the article; even if the media did, which isn't much really anyway, something said wrongly by the media doesn't need to be included in the encyclopedia as there's a lot of bad journalism around the web.--THUGCHILDz 06:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for these well reasoned comments THUGCHILDz. I still feel however that there is a gap in the coverage here and the overall comprehensive impression conveyed by the article. I will give some thought to an alternate formulation of words and revert. Regards --Calabraxthis 13:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to renovate the article soon, when I have time, to include stuff like ICC's supports to good cause like UNAIDS, UNICEF and their development work etc.--THUGCHILDz 00:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll have a crack at the stuff about the (publically visible) umpiring incidents when I get the chance. --Calabraxthis 07:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Zimbabwe, Mugabe and Australian Tour

The reason for the edit of yesterday (although I have not reinstated it following your deletion) and the further reason for the edit of this morning was to reflect a press release from the ICC itself where they explained that the ICC does not itself have the power to impose financial penalties (contrary to the words I had initally drafted). They say that the penalty arises under the Future Tour Programs Agreement which gives each member state the right to sue each other - but that the ICC does not itself recover any money.

I imagine that the words in this section will need to be updated somewhat over the coming months (as it reflects a current event and circumstances are constantly changing). --Calabraxthis 07:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Can the Zimbabwe section moved to the Tour article and a new article relating the situation with sports and government in Zimbabwe? I say this because other teams such as India has been blocked by their governments from touring Pakistan etc in the past. This really doesn't relate to the ICC as much as it does to Zimbabwe and it's relationship with others. So this should be moved to a new article with a title similar to something like Zimbabwe cricket and Mugabe government situation or something like that which will cover the events from the start- 2003 world cup when Andy Flower and Henry Olonga protested against the government to covering the situation now. Also some of the latter stuff which will be the Australia's tour to Zimbabwe should be more detailed in it's tour page.--THUGCHILDz 07:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the section as if you look at [this doesn't really have anything to do with the ICC. It's between the boards and the FTP which was made official after Cricket Australia proposed it. But I must say that that section should be turned into an article.--THUGCHILDz 01:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Just reflecting, the article still seems somewhat incomplete without a reference to this topic (together with the stuff on umpiring) but I agree that the detail is better reserved for another article. Unfortunately (sadly) I am tied down with (real) work at the moment, but I intend to give some thought to both topics and revert. Kind regards --Calabraxthis 14:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not really because they are not (as) relevant to the subject as it is to a Zimbabwe article or the 2007 world cup article (where it is covered already). Also, having a premeditated intention to revert or anything else in that regard isn't really a good form.--THUGCHILDz 00:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, a poor choice of a word on my part. When I said "revert" I did not mean that in the Wikipedia sense, but rather in the traditional sense of saying that I needed to go away (and think) and then return (and implement what I had been thinking about). I did not intend to rewind the clock on the text of the article in any way. Regards--Calabraxthis 07:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] East African cricket team after 2010?

I've already asked this over at the East African cricket team discussion page, but since that is a former team, I wouldn't expect too many people to be reading that discussion, so I'm posting this here as well.This is speculation so I am addressing it here and not in the article. It seems that Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania,Rwanda and Burundi will be moving towards a federal East African state (as the goal of the East African Community) by 2010. If this happens, then will the various cricket teams be merged into a new East African team? Has anyone heard or seen anything to that effect? Or will the various teams remain separate? Retaining separate teams could be possible since the United Kingdom has 2 teams or 3 depending on how you view it (an England team, a Scotland team and Northern Ireland being represented by a unified Ireland team).72.27.86.39 07:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the respective boards. If the current boards of each country wants to merge too then they'll play as one team otherwise they will keep playing separately, because you have to be an ICC member and if the current boards wants to disband the current ones and reapply then we will have one unified team.---THUGCHILDz 19:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)