CricInfo Home
News Home

NEWS FOCUS
Rsa in Pak
NZ in India
Zim in Aus

Domestic
Other Series

Back in 1993 when the one-day international between the West Indies and Pakistan at Bourda was ruled a tie following the invasion of the field by spectators, the question was asked, why?

Today, following a similar incident on Wednesday, also at Bourda, and a similar ruling, it must again be asked, why?

On April 3, 1993, the West Indies, replying to Pakistan's 244 for six, were 242 for five and, according to the rules governing the series, needed two runs to win when Ian Bishop stroked the last ball of the match from Wasim Akram towards long-on and the crowd invaded the field as the batsmen took off for the first run with the ball going towards substitute Zahid Fazal.

A run out, on the first or second run, would have left the West Indies short of victory, but they got home safely with Carl Hooper beating Fazal's throw to Akram.

The match was ruled a tie on the reasoning that the spectators affected Fazal's ability to field the ball quickly and to throw it to Akram.

On Wednesday, Australia, replying to the West Indies 173 for five, were 170 for seven and needed four runs to win when Steve Waugh hit the last ball of the match from Keith Arthurton towards long-on and the crowd invaded the field as the batsmen took off for the first run with the ball going towards Stuart Williams.

Two runs would have meant victory for the West Indies, three runs, according to the present rule, would have tied the match and four would have handed Australia victory.

With the crowd all over the field, Australia got two and, after viewing the film, after discussing the matter with representatives of both teams, Raman Subba Row, who was also the match referee in 1993, ruled it a tie.

In 1993, Pakistan may have been unfortunate not to have been awarded the match. Although it is possible that even without the invasion, Fazal could have fumbled long enough for the second run to be made safely or could have sent in a bad return, there was no doubt the invasion interfered with the fielder.

On Wednesday, the shoe was on the other foot and the West Indies were unfortunate not to have been awarded the match. Although the crowd invaded the field and although it is possible that Arthurton, in the tension of the moment, could have done something surprising with Australia desperately attempting a third run, there is hardly any doubt Australia would not have made it for a third run to tie the game, much less a fourth to win it.

The ruling of a tie on each occasion seems to have been a cop out - a weak decision.

With no provisions in the rules to penalise the home team for the behaviour of its spectators, the match referee should have decided what effect the invasions had on the result of the matches and ruled in favour of the team which was affected. Either that, or he should have ruled them abandoned.

In 1993, Pakistan was the team affected and on Wednesday it was the West Indies.

What is important to remember also is that a tie is when a match ends with the score level and for a match which does not end with the score level to be recorded as a tie is a misrepresentation of the facts.

While the ruling of Subba Row on Wednesday is questionable - as it was in 1993, the invasion of the field by spectators on Wednesday as it was at Bourda in 1993, as it was at Sabina Park during the second Test, as it was at Kensington Oval during the third Test and as it has been in the Caribbean in previous years, is an embarrassment to West Indies cricket, and something must be done about it.

At Kensington Oval, the local board, with the help of the police, took steps to prevent a recurrence during the Test match and they succeeded. The other boards have to follow the BCA's example - either that or the West Indies Board should schedule matches elsewhere.

The present situation could lead to players being injured intentionally or not. It could also lead to the rest of the cricket world saying no to the World Cup being staged in the West Indies.