Players and umpires came in for fierce criticism last night after the abandonment of the Twenty20 international between England and Australia.
They were accused of forsaking the interests of a crowd of 19,500 at Old Trafford. Play was abandoned at 8pm without a ball being bowled because of a small area of dampness around the bowlers’ take-off area at the Brian Statham End. But Jim Cumbes, the Lancashire chief executive, was left seething at the decision made by the umpires, Nigel Llong and Peter Hartley, in conjunction with the captains, Paul Collingwood and Michael Clarke, believing that conditions were perfectly playable.
“I’m angry, bitterly disappointed,” Cumbes said. “I know the umpires have tough decisions to make, and I’m perfectly aware about the safety of players, but there comes a time when you’ve got to think about the people who have paid £50 to come in. Sometimes I think we’d rather play in front of empty stadiums.”
Twenty20 cricket was introduced with the aim of attracting crowds and Cumbes issued a reminder last night that the paying public should remain the priority in the shortest form of the game, even at international level. “I’m angry because we were told when we started playing Twenty20 cricket that you should be expected to play in conditions you wouldn’t normally play first-class cricket in,” Cumbes said. “In my view, if that had been Lancashire versus Yorkshire on a Friday night, we’d have been playing. If we can’t do that at international level, let’s not play it at international level.”
Last night’s washout — which followed the abandonment of the first match at Old Trafford on Friday after seven balls of England’s reply to Australia’s completed innings — was the latest embarrassment in a summer when England matches have been blighted by the weather, despite huge investment in new drainage systems. In May, a one-day international between England and West Indies was abandoned at Headingley Carnegie, where work on the £600,000 drainage system had not been completed. There was also criticism when the third Ashes Test at Edgbaston was affected by rain after Warwickshire opted to delay their drainage work. Now the ECB is to hold an inquiry into the abandonment of last night’s match.
The outfield at Old Trafford was relaid last winter with new drainage, but the affected area was not covered by the system because Lancashire are to turn their square 180 degrees at the end of next season. On their final inspection at 7.45pm, the umpires and captains trod gingerly on the soggy area, about two metres square — which had been liberally sprinkled with sawdust — before calling the match off. Rain had fallen heavily in the afternoon, but later gave way to evening sunshine.
“The new drainage system is fine,” Cumbes said. “That area is not part of the new state-of-the-art drainage system, but it has had new drains put in. The reason for that is because the square is going to be turned at the end of 2010 and we’d only have to take those drains up again. There was no water [on that area], it was just soft.” Both captains expressed their sympathy with the spectators, who will be given the consolation of full refunds.
“It was a brave call for the umpires to make and I sympathise with everyone that has turned up,” Collingwood said. “I spoke to Michael [Clarke] and we agreed that if you were asking your bowlers to run in at 100 per cent, it was going to be pretty dangerous.”
Clarke disagreed with Cumbes’s view that different parameters should be applied to Twenty20 cricket. “It is disappointing when you have a beautiful day like that and you can’t get a game of cricket,” he said. “But the decision made is the right decision. You’re representing your country and you don’t just want to be bowling some full tosses so the crowd get a spectacle.”
Source:The times
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
ERC delivers withering indictment of Dean Richards in 'Bloodgate' scandal
Dean Richards, his reputation already shattered or, in the words of his own solicitor, "burned to a cinder", was identified today as the directing mind behind the Bloodgate affair. The evidence of the appeal hearing published this morning by European Rugby Cup Ltd places the blame for the deception and cover-up squarely on Richards's shoulders and makes it hard to believe he can ever recover.
It leaves no doubt that the former England No 8 orchestrated both the fabrication of a blood injury during the Heineken Cup quarter-final between Harlequins, the club of which Richards was then director of rugby, and Leinster last April, and the subsequent cover-up. He has already been suspended from any involvement in rugby for three years and it is hard to believe the game will readily accept him back.
"Mr Richards was the directing mind and had central control over everything that happened in relation to the fabrication of the blood injury on the pitch and the cover-up in the days after the match," the judgement said. In Steph Brennan, formerly the club's physiotherapist who has been punished by a two-year ban, he had a "willing lieutenant".
The evidence, in a 99-page document, makes clear the appeal committee's belief that Richards lied and lied again, even to the hearing itself. There is an almost contemptuous accusation that he was "ducking and diving" during various legal submissions in the first forty pages of evidence in the hope of avoiding ERC's jurisdiction: "The appeal committee were entitled to take the view they did not believe a word that Mr Richards said," the evidence says.
In one damning paragraph, the last shred of Richards's reputation is stripped away: "In one of the highest-profile matches in which the club had ever been involved, he was prepared to cheat Leinster out of a victory by bringing on a player at a crucial stage in the match when that player was not entitled to return to the field of play. He was quite disinterested in the consideration that, by acting the way that he did, the club which deserved to win the match might be deprived of its victory."
Richards has not been short of defenders within the Guinness Premiership during the last four months but today's verdicts will reduce their number. No-one doubts the qualities he brought to Leicester, England and the Lions during an outstanding playing career, nor the organisational powers which helped Leicester to domestic and European domination eight years ago.
He had hoped to do the same for Harlequins. Instead they have lost their good name, their chairman has resigned for an acknowledged failure to control Richards, and the club is hanging on to a place in European competition this season. The silver lining to the darkest cloud in their 143-year history is this afternoon's statement from the ERC board meeting in Dublin confirming their participation in this season's Heineken Cup though the board will reconvene next Tuesday to consider further the ramifications of Bloodgate.
The board is concerned with many of the issues and practices raised during the investigation, and whether there are implications for the wider game. They have reserved the right to ask Roger O'Connor, the ERC disciplinary officer, to investigate any other issues which may not have been covered by the disciplinary process so far. There may, therefore, be further misconduct complaints and even if ERC decide that their part is complete, the ball then passes to the Rugby Football Union's court.
The RFU cannot act until ERC have finally drawn a line under the case and handed jurisdiction on. But they may decide to conduct their own enquiry into the conduct of Harlequins over the last four months and they have confirmed the 13-man task force set up to examine the image of the game will themselves consider the implications of the five ERC judgements. That group will hold its first meeting next week, under the chairmanship of John Owen, the RFU president, and they have promised to come up with recommendations by September 30 on how English rugby can avoid so damaging an episode in the future.
Today's evidence shows the only area in which Richards did not have direct involvement was the alleged cutting of Tom Williams's lip by the match-day doctor, Wendy Chapman. "His was the dominant personality and influence on affairs," the judgement reads. "He knew, or ought to have known, that players such as Mr Williams would likely obey his directions whether it meant cheating or not."
Indeed during the evidence, the hearing heard that Williams, the wing required to bite into a blood capsule to fake an injury, described the situation in a text message to Brennan as "really, really rubbish." The committee said it "did not believe Mr Richards when he said that the prime driving force in the cover-up was the protection of the professional position of Dr Chapman. We considered the primary interest of Mr Richards was in preventing his own role in events being discovered.
"Mr Richards was by far and away the most experienced and senior individual involved. It was open to him at any stage to have said that 'enough was enough' and that the reputation of rugby and Harlequins had been sufficiently damaged. If he had admitted at any stage prior to the conclusion of the disciplinary hearing the truth of what had happened then the damage to individuals, the club and the game of rugby union would have been very much reduced."
Source:The times
It leaves no doubt that the former England No 8 orchestrated both the fabrication of a blood injury during the Heineken Cup quarter-final between Harlequins, the club of which Richards was then director of rugby, and Leinster last April, and the subsequent cover-up. He has already been suspended from any involvement in rugby for three years and it is hard to believe the game will readily accept him back.
"Mr Richards was the directing mind and had central control over everything that happened in relation to the fabrication of the blood injury on the pitch and the cover-up in the days after the match," the judgement said. In Steph Brennan, formerly the club's physiotherapist who has been punished by a two-year ban, he had a "willing lieutenant".
The evidence, in a 99-page document, makes clear the appeal committee's belief that Richards lied and lied again, even to the hearing itself. There is an almost contemptuous accusation that he was "ducking and diving" during various legal submissions in the first forty pages of evidence in the hope of avoiding ERC's jurisdiction: "The appeal committee were entitled to take the view they did not believe a word that Mr Richards said," the evidence says.
In one damning paragraph, the last shred of Richards's reputation is stripped away: "In one of the highest-profile matches in which the club had ever been involved, he was prepared to cheat Leinster out of a victory by bringing on a player at a crucial stage in the match when that player was not entitled to return to the field of play. He was quite disinterested in the consideration that, by acting the way that he did, the club which deserved to win the match might be deprived of its victory."
Richards has not been short of defenders within the Guinness Premiership during the last four months but today's verdicts will reduce their number. No-one doubts the qualities he brought to Leicester, England and the Lions during an outstanding playing career, nor the organisational powers which helped Leicester to domestic and European domination eight years ago.
He had hoped to do the same for Harlequins. Instead they have lost their good name, their chairman has resigned for an acknowledged failure to control Richards, and the club is hanging on to a place in European competition this season. The silver lining to the darkest cloud in their 143-year history is this afternoon's statement from the ERC board meeting in Dublin confirming their participation in this season's Heineken Cup though the board will reconvene next Tuesday to consider further the ramifications of Bloodgate.
The board is concerned with many of the issues and practices raised during the investigation, and whether there are implications for the wider game. They have reserved the right to ask Roger O'Connor, the ERC disciplinary officer, to investigate any other issues which may not have been covered by the disciplinary process so far. There may, therefore, be further misconduct complaints and even if ERC decide that their part is complete, the ball then passes to the Rugby Football Union's court.
The RFU cannot act until ERC have finally drawn a line under the case and handed jurisdiction on. But they may decide to conduct their own enquiry into the conduct of Harlequins over the last four months and they have confirmed the 13-man task force set up to examine the image of the game will themselves consider the implications of the five ERC judgements. That group will hold its first meeting next week, under the chairmanship of John Owen, the RFU president, and they have promised to come up with recommendations by September 30 on how English rugby can avoid so damaging an episode in the future.
Today's evidence shows the only area in which Richards did not have direct involvement was the alleged cutting of Tom Williams's lip by the match-day doctor, Wendy Chapman. "His was the dominant personality and influence on affairs," the judgement reads. "He knew, or ought to have known, that players such as Mr Williams would likely obey his directions whether it meant cheating or not."
Indeed during the evidence, the hearing heard that Williams, the wing required to bite into a blood capsule to fake an injury, described the situation in a text message to Brennan as "really, really rubbish." The committee said it "did not believe Mr Richards when he said that the prime driving force in the cover-up was the protection of the professional position of Dr Chapman. We considered the primary interest of Mr Richards was in preventing his own role in events being discovered.
"Mr Richards was by far and away the most experienced and senior individual involved. It was open to him at any stage to have said that 'enough was enough' and that the reputation of rugby and Harlequins had been sufficiently damaged. If he had admitted at any stage prior to the conclusion of the disciplinary hearing the truth of what had happened then the damage to individuals, the club and the game of rugby union would have been very much reduced."
Source:The times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
