Last updated: 8th July 2008
Riverside: Farcical scenes
Durham chief executive David Harker has called upon the ECB to throw Yorkshire out of the Twenty20 Cup after the quarter-final between the two teams had to be postponed.
The ECB ordered the match at the Riverside to be called off just minutes before the players were due to take to the field, due to the apparent ineligibilty of Yorkshire spinner Azeem Rafiq for the group match against Nottinghamshire in which the teenager played.
The governing body will meet on Thursday to discuss action to be taken, with Durham insisting they should advance to the finals day at the Rose Bowl on July 26.
"To be honest the only fair outcome now is that we go to the finals and if it's a result of Yorkshire being kicked out then so be it," said Harker, who believes any re-arranged game would hamper Durham's chances of success due to their busy fixture schedule.
"Any other solution which doesn't have Durham automatically proceeding to the finals day is going to further disadvantage us and that can't be right."
A crowd of around 6,000 had gathered at the Riverside but were left frustrated by the late cancellation of the match.
"They turned up in good faith and the game hasn't happened because of an administrative error. There's a lot of bad feeling out there," Harker added.
"The players are absolutely devastated as well. We were in a determined state of mind for a huge game."
Glamorgan also have an interest in the outcome of the ECB's hearing as they finished third in the Mid/West/Wales division, but did not progress to the quarter-finals because the other two third-placed teams, Yorkshire and Kent, had more points.
If Yorkshire are thrown out of the competition, Glamorgan chairman Paul Russell hopes his county will be reinstated.
"There must be a slim chance that we will get back into the tournament," he said.
"If Yorkshire are thrown out then Glamorgan would seize the chance (to replace them) with all the energy we could muster."
Russell believes that although it was "a terrible shame" the match was postponed, the ECB made the right decision.
"It must have been an enormously hard decision," he added.
"But if the game had been played, the consequences could have been completely disastrous.
"I have a huge amount of sympathy with Durham who are an entirely innocent party in all of this.
"I don't think Yorkshire acted with any mendacity or ill purpose. I think it's a genuine oversight on their part."
Meanwhile, Durham have revealed the timeline of events that led to the postponement of Monday night's match.
2.45pm - Durham informed that game cannot go ahead and are asked by ECB not to open gates to spectators. Durham ask ECB to reconsider.
3.30pm - No confirmation from ECB is received by Durham regarding its challenge and the club decides to open the gates for the safety and comfort of the spectators outside the ground.
3.30 - 4.30pm - A number of calls are exchanged between Durham and officials at ECB.
4.23pm - A draft press release, announcing the postponement of the game is issued by ECB to Durham, who challenge the release.
4.45pm - Durham are asked by ECB to consider playing an exhibition match.
5.00pm - It is agreed by both sides not to risk the players in an exhibition match in adverse weather conditions. The ECB then insist that the quarter-final could not go ahead and issued a press release to this effect. Durham then contacted the ECB match manager to request that an announcement be made over the PA system in inform spectators.
| Fixture |
|---|
| Sunday 12th October |
| Test Match Series |
| India vs Australia |
| International Quadrangular Series |
| Pakistan vs Zimbabwe |
| Canada vs Sri Lanka |
| Monday 13th October |
| International Quadrangular Series |
| TBC vs TBC |
| TBC vs TBC |
| Tuesday 14th October |
| 1 Day Intl Series |
| Bangladesh vs New Zealand |
| Friday 17th October |
| Test Match Series |
| India vs Australia |
| Bangladesh vs New Zealand |
| Nat West Triangular Series |
| Ireland vs Zimbabwe |
| Saturday 18th October |
| Nat West Triangular Series |
| Kenya vs Ireland |
| Result |
|---|
| Saturday 11th October |
| 1 Day Intl Series |
| Bangladesh vs New Zealand New Zealand won by 75 runs. |
| International Quadrangular Series |
| Canada vs Zimbabwe Match Tied |
| Sri Lanka vs Pakistan Pakistan won by 3 wickets. |
| Friday 10th October |
| International Quadrangular Series |
| Sri Lanka vs Zimbabwe Sri Lanka won by 5 wickets. |
| Canada vs Pakistan Pakistan won by 35 runs. |
| Thursday 9th October |
| 1 Day Intl Series |
| Bangladesh vs New Zealand Bangladesh won by 7 wickets. |
| Wednesday 24th September |
| County Championship - Division One |
| Somerset vs Lancashire Lancashire won by 8 wickets. |
| Kent vs Durham Durham won by an innings and 71 runs. |
| Nottinghamshire vs Hampshire Hampshire won by 203 runs. |
| Sussex vs Yorkshire Match Drawn |
Sir Ian Botham's latest charity walk around Britain is underway. Find out how you can get involved here...
Sir Ian Botham told Sky Sports News he thinks England are good enough to reclaim the Ashes next summer.
Bumble has fun on the golf course, names his Desert Island Discs and solves the credit crunch.
Harbhajan Singh hit 54 as India recovered from 155-5 to finish day three of the first Test against Australia on 313-8.
Launch the scorecentre for the latest from the first Test between India and Australia, also live on Sky Sports 2.
Jacob Oram was New Zealand's hero with both bat and ball as they clinched a 75-run win against Bangladesh in Mirpur.
Australia's Mitchell Johnson overcame a nervous start to claim four prize Indian wickets on the third day of the first Test.
Captain Shoaib Malik was the hero as Pakistan beat Sri Lanka by thre wickets in the Twenty20 quadrangular series in Canada.
Comments
Luke Johnson says...
Matthew Bass seems to negate any context with the punishment he suggests. It is like saying person x, convicted of dangerous driving should get the full 2yrs even though he caused minor injuries and only driving at the speed limit?! Ridiculus. The context of the offence should dictate the punishment - i.e. how much yorkshire actually know of the offence, and of course how much influence rafiq had in the Notts game, which was minimal at a stretch. Someone has also said that notss could have earned more runs off his two overs, what and extra 1 off each? He was by far the worst average. Again a ridiculus argument. David Harker is of course going to have this view, but the effect on Durham should have no effects on the outcome of the hearing, that blame lies at the ECB's feet for taking so long. I think the most appropriate outcome should be Yorkshire vs Durham, but more than likely a Nott replay, even though they were well and truly beaten previously. If i were a yorkshire fan, i would be very angry if they were chucked out.
Posted 13:44 10th July 2008
Matthew Bass says...
Taking all points into account i think Yorkshire should be thrown out for breeching the rules and the ECB should allow Notts back into the competition as they were the opponents of the bowler. Even if the overs he took were wicketless Notts could have got more vital runs off them. If its a replay then that would mean Yorkshire could continue in the competition because they've breached the rules. I can't see how Glamorgan can get back in because they were in a completely different group, points between group shouldn't make any difference. As mentioned before letting Durham get a bye into the finals would spark many arguments and since the conditions were bad, the match would probably have been delayed until it was cancelled due to rain. Notts on the other hand have been cheated against because it doesn't matter what's done, Yorkshire worked against the rules and should be thrown out straightaway.
Posted 16:12 9th July 2008
Chris Smith says...
Durham will suffer if they do not reach the final. They have brought in two of the best all rounders in the Twenty20 game and were ready to play on Monday 7th July. This error will cost them not only through upsetting all the fans gathered at the ground but the fact these two players world class players are not available for any replayed game as they were contracted for Twenty20 only. Durham are totally innocent in all the incompetence that has taken place yet if any game is played they will suffer as they will lose two of their best Twenty20 players and suffer from the fixture backlog which is unavoidable. The ECB must take the blame and accept all responsibility for what confusion has and am sure will occur in the next weeks leading to Twenty20 finals day. Notts lost and Rafiq didn't contribute anything so why after getting beat by 9 wickets should they get through?
Posted 15:57 9th July 2008
Joseph Smith says...
Duncan Hall seems to be suggesting that it's all right to play an eligible player (ringer) as long as he's not a good one, with his remark that if it was Muralithuran that had played he could understand the chaos ensueing but not for a young lad who hardly contributed to the match he played in. Rules are rules whether you're the best or a young debutant and are we really going to believe that just because Michael Vaughan was pulled out by England that a young 17 year old was Yorkshire's only viable option from a squad of their size.
Posted 15:08 9th July 2008
Alison Sutherland says...
I think Yorkshire should be kicked out. They know the rules as well as every other county and they broke them. The only loosers here are Durham and their spectators
Posted 11:44 9th July 2008
Chris Edwards says...
Surely since Notts were the most obvious victims of Yorkshire 'breaking' the rules, then they should be credited with a winning result in the relevant game. This I believe would mean that they would have qualified for the knock-out stages !?
Posted 19:40 8th July 2008
Justin Cast says...
I think that both the Durham & Glamorgan Chief executives are jumping the gun a bit. The only opponents that have actually played against Azeem Rafiq (the banned player in question) were Nottinghamshire which under most sports ruling bodies would take the points won by Yorkshire and give them to the opposing side (Notts) who would then play Durham at the Riverside, but it looks likely that won't happen as the ECB made Worcestershire replay the game when a similar thing happened. It would be a total farce if Glamorgan were given the place to play Durham and a cop out if Durham just proceed to the Finals day.
Posted 18:23 8th July 2008
Duncan Hall says...
I'm sorry but this whole thing is more than ridiculous. I was delighted to see Rafiq get a game and counties should be encouraged to play promising youngster, not have red tape put in the way. Let's remember the whole situation. England said Yorkshire couldn't play Michael Vaughan because he had to have a rest. So they played Rafiq instead. Now, no disrespect to Rafiq who looked very promising, but the idea that Yorkshire got an unfair advantage because they fielded a 17-year-old lad rather than the England captain and former number-one batsman in the world is nothing short of laughable. Fine - there's been a clerical error and there needs to be some comeback on Yorkshire, but when Lloyd and Allott were talking about Nottinghamshire having been 'sinned against' that's just nonsense! I can think of no sensible reason why the result at Nottinghamshire shouldn't stand. If it doesn't, every county who's lost in a crucial match any year since these rules came in will be challenging any debutants in the hope that more clerical errors might emerge and they might get all sorts of unexpected silverware or compensation. It's daft. If we'd fielded Muralitharan without registration that might have been different! The game should have gone ahead last night, and the ECB are to blame for that decision, not Yorkshire. The Durham Yorkshire match should now be replayed (after any appropriate fine or rap for the clerical error). There is no justification for Durham getting straight through to the semis. (Are any countries that England beat while Raffa was the Under-15 captain going to be asking for the results to be overturned? Let's get a grip!)
Posted 17:51 8th July 2008
Terry Denning says...
Ironically I had been at the Yorkshire Quick cricket schools finals at Headingly all day. I had to rush home to Stockton to pick up my wife and head to the Riverside. I arrived outside of the ground at about 5pm. I heard about the cancellation on the radio at that time. I turned around and returned home!! I had been calling the Durham box office, on a premium phone line incidentally!) every 15 minutes since 2pm to find out about the possibility of play due to the weather. The only information given was that play was at the discretion of the umpires but the forecast was improving. My last call after 4.15 approx said that it was still up to the umpires but conditions looked favourable. Never at any time was any other information given although it was known since 2.45pm. Why on earth did Durham not cancell the game there and then following an instruction from the ECB. All my travel and anxiety could have been saved as well as most of the other Durham and lets not forget the Yorkshire supporters. I think it's a disgrace that Durham allowed this to happen and also that Yorkshire were so inept as to create the cause for the mayhem. While i'm sure that I can either use my ticket or be refunded the cost, who is going to pay for my travel costs? - NOBODY! As a retired Project manager, had I made a decision like that I would have got the sack!!!!
Posted 16:13 8th July 2008
Bob Middleton says...
I noticed last night that the commentators from "Lancashire" provided no support to Yorkshire and suggested they should be "kicked out" of the Twenty/20 competition. I believe Azeem Rafiq was a late replacement for Michael Vaughan who made to withdraw. I believe there has been a pecedent set before when an ineligble player forced a replay of a match. Recently a player at Hull Rugby FootballClub played a Challenge Cup whilst ineligible. The Club were not "Kicked Out" and will feature in the Semi-Final. The Club have been fined! I believe Yorkshire should be made to replay their match with Nottinghamshire then hopefully fulfil their Quarter Final against Durham. To ECB are not blameless in this matter as I'm sure it does not take 10 days to highlight an administrative problem.
Posted 14:27 8th July 2008
Allan Gobey says...
Another example of the public relations disaster that is the ECB. Asking Durham not to play the game minutes before the scheduled start is ludicrous, the ECB's contempt for the fans who had turned up to watch the game is appalling, they should have allowed the game to go ahead and then decided what to do about it. After the match would have been the time for discussions regarding refunds and rematches, not the hour before the game. You have to wonder why it took so long for them to realise that Yorkshire had fielded and ineligible player in the first place.
Posted 13:09 8th July 2008
Duncan Goodfellow says...
I think Durham are getting ahead of themselves, what about Notts. whom the offence of fielding an ineligible player was committed. Also how can Durham complain about the match being postponed & having a fixture backlog, the game would not of been completed last night due to the weather anyway.
Posted 13:00 8th July 2008
Andy Bell says...
since the precedent has already been set from a similar situtation, the only two choices are to replay the Notts v Yorks game or (considering that the player in questions contribution to that game was two wicketless overs, he didnt bat, and his only notable moment was to fail to complete a run out) even that the Durham v Yorks game is just re-arranged. Harker's comments are pathetic, his suggestion (ironically) is the only unfair ruling that could be made, he has eyes firmly on the Champions League and doesn't care how Durham get there. Durham are a great club and it's a shame that he has come out with such an outrageous comment.
Posted 12:50 8th July 2008
Add Comment*
All fields are required