Forfeiting can be an unfortunate occurance. Forfeiting can be sudden. It can happen for any reason. Such instances include a full team being unable to pitch and failing to travel. However, there are times when teams decide to forfeit out of spite. There are numerous examples of this happening.
A recent example is a Glabal T20 Canada (GLT20) match between Bangla Tigers and the Toronto Nationals. Rain played a big role in the result. It rained so much that the umpires determined that a result was only possible through a Super Over.
If the game had been completely washed out, Bangla Tigers would have automatically qualified for Qualifier 2 by virtue of finishing higher on the points table in the group stage.
However, Tigers captain, Shakib Al Hasan deemed a Super Over to be insufficient and didn't show up for the toss. Tigers owner, Zafir Yasin, said that that they shouldn't have decided the result via a Super Over. GLT20 CEO, Joy Bhattacharjya, however, explained the decision to play wasn't arbitrary.
He said, "When asked why the regulations were distributed via WhatsApp (by tournament director Ingleton Liburd), Bhattacharjya said, "They were sent to the managers' group for immediate action, and all tournament-related updates had been provided on the same group until then".
"We were trying to ensure there was a result either way, however, heartbreaking as it may be for the team that loses a one-over shootout. "And it was all part of the regulations."
The earlier match, between Brampton Wolves and Montreal Tigers, was also held at the same stadium. It was a washout. Montreal eventually progressed to the final by virtue of topping the group-stage table.
Bhattacharjya explained the Super Over wasn't a sudden addition to the regulations.
"It's not like the Super Over provision was brought in for just the game involving Bangla Tigers," he said. "It was in place for both games [Qualifier 1 and eliminator]. It's just that it wasn't possible for the first game and because the second game happened much later in the day, there was a little more time for the ground staff to work on the outfield."
In the eliminator (between the Tigers and Nationals), after initial delays, a decision was taken to have a toss at 19:10, with the Super Over beginning at 19:30. As per regulations sent to both teams, there was a provision to call off the game if the Super Over didn't begin by 19:50.
"At the time of the toss, the Toronto Nationals captain was present, but the Bangla Tigers team refused to appear," GLT20 said in a statement. "The match referee explained the plausible consequences of the said action to the captain [Shakib Al Hasan] and thereafter the umpire subsequently awarded the match to Toronto Nationals."
Yasin insists they had sought to have a minimum of five overs per innings, and not just a Super Over to decide the result. Bhattacharjya said the rules could not be changed just like that.
"Where's the credibility for a league if rules are changed on the fly?" he said. "If we changed rules for one team, Brampton Wolves would've had every reason to argue they were robbed of an opportunity to directly qualify for the final instead of now having to play in the eliminator. The credibility was at stake."
Bangla Tigers were also displeased that the boundaries were shortened before the official cut-off time to "remove the dangerous area of play from consideration". Yasin said the organisers had "compromised the integrity of the competition" by seeking assistance from the Toronto owners to procure additional covers on the day of the playoffs.
"If the team owner intended to assist the tournament by purchasing covers, such a contribution should have been made before the tournament began, not before a crucial match," Yasin said. "This situation raises concerns about the integrity of the league and the possibility that the league's management decisions were influenced in favour of that team."
Bhattacharjya explained this was done simply to ensure a crucial stage of the competition wouldn't be decided by the elements and that these calls were made entirely by the match officials, who were the deciding authority.
"In a country like Canada, where such infrastructure isn't always easily available, procuring additional covers was only done to ensure we did everything to have play," Bhattacharjya said. "We readily accepted any help we could get, so that we didn't leave anything to chance with the weather around."
Despite the match being awarded to Toronto, Bangla Tigers turned up at the venue on Saturday morning to play Qualifier 2, only to be informed by the officials that no fresh requests would be entertained. Brampton, who lost Qualifier 1 by virtue of finishing lower on the table, eventually lost Qualifier 2 to Toronto.
A forfeit took place in 2001, between England and Pakistan. England took on Pakistan in the 7th game of the 2001 NatWest Tri-series after they lost a chance of featuring in the final. Pakistan, who won the toss, invited England to bat first and bundled them out for 156, thanks to Waqar Younis’ 7-wicket haul in a single spell. Pakistan were 153/4 in 39.5 overs and further needed just four runs. At this point, a large number of spectators invaded the Headingley pitch.
The players and umpires tried to find safe places but the invasion turned to be quite violent as a ground steward was injured badly and was taken to the hospital. The steward was kicked in his stomach and head by the mob resulting in broken ribs and a damaged spleen. The England captain, Alec Stewart, decided against resuming the game and instead conceded the match to Pakistan.
In 1996, a forfeit took place in a World Cup match in 1996. Clouds hung over the matches to be hosted by Sri Lanka during the 1996 World Cup until the start of the tournament. A total of 1 000 people were affected due to a terrorist attack in Colombo about three weeks before the tournament. On the eve of tournament opener, Sri Lanka played against Wills XI, a team of players from India and Pakistan.
This game was organised to put away the security concerns of the visiting teams. However, Australia were not convinced enough and pulled out of the game against the Sri Lankans at the Colombo’s R Premadasa Stadium. They stayed back in Mumbai on the day of the game. Just like the Australian side, West Indies also forfeited their match against Sri Lanka to be played at the RPS Stadium.
Both Australia and the West Indies let the home team, Sri Lanka, take away two points in the process. However, the forfeiture didn't affect either side as they both ended up in the quarter-finals. The Sri Lankans did get to play their remaining two matches against Zimbabwe at the Colombo’s SSC and against Kenya at the Asgiriya Stadium in Kandy.
Another forfeit took place at another World Cup, in 2003. It was another joint one between England and New Zealand. The 2003 World Cup was jointly hosted by South Africa, Zimbabwe and Kenya but the majority of the games were played in the rainbow nation only. Zimbabwe played all their Group games in Harare and Bulawayo while two of Kenya’s Group games were held in Gymkhana club in Nairobi. The matches to be hosted by Zimbabwe and Kenya were doubtful due to political and security issues.
England refused to travel to Harare to face Zimbabwe which was their first game of the tournament. They forfeited the match due to the moral, political and contractual unrest. Even before the tournament, the English side decided against touring Zimbabwe and asked the organisers to change the host accordingly. England conceded four points to Zimbabwe by forfeiting the game as no provision was made to shift it.
New Zealand did the same with their group match in Nairobi against Kenya. They conceded a walkover to the Kenyan side as the capital city, Nairobi, was under terrorist threat. Due to the walkover, England missed out on a spot in the Super Six and Zimbabwe went through. Even New Zealand failed to get through to the semi-final due to the four points left over to Kenya. The Kiwis finished the Super Six stage with 8 points while Kenya got into the semis with 14 points under their belt.
A forfeit took place in 2007 between Canada and Kenya. Canada and Scotland took part in the ODI Tri-Nation series in Kenya ahead of the 2007 ICC CWC League Division One. Canada began their campaign arriving two days after their 24-hour journey. They faced Scotland where they failed to defend their total of 292 in a thrilling game. They got a one day off before facing Kenya but on the night before the matchday, it was announced that the match was called off.
Canada officials called for a meeting with the match referee, Javagal Srinath, on the eve of the match. They informed that they will be unable to field an XI the next day with five players from their squad being unwell. The local doctor confirmed that all those players were suffering from a viral stomach condition. Srinath insisted the Canada team to wait until the morning before calling off the game.
Canada, however, rejected the offer and forfeited the match; allowing the hosts Kenya to claim full four points. Canada thus became the first team and are also the only side to date to forfeit a match of International status due to lack of 11 match-fit players. The organisers dealt with a big blow as the game, to be played on Saturday, was set to see a huge turn-up due to the presence of school children.
The earliest example of a forfeit took place in 1978. It was a match that pitted two rivals against each other, India and Pakistan. India spent nearly three months in Pakistan in the last quarter of 1978. India won the first ODI game by 4 runs but were bowled out in the 2nd game for only 89 runs and lost by 8 wickets. Ahead of the final game of the ODI series, the two teams played the first two matches of the 3-match Test series. The first Test ended in a draw while Pakistan took a 1-0 lead by winning the second Test. Sahiwal hosted the ODI series decider which was a 40-over match where Pakistan won the toss and elected to bat first.
Asif Iqbal’s 72-ball 62 played a key role in helping the home team to finish with 205-7 in the 40 overs. Anshuman Gaekwad anchored the chase with a 44-run opening stand alongside Chetan Chauhan (23 off 28) and put on 119 runs for the 2nd wicket with Surinder Amarnath (62 off 75). Gaekwad faced Sarfaraz Nawaz when India needed 23 runs from the last three overs to win the series. Pakistan bowled high bouncers to keep India away from scoring. Anshuman asked the on-field umpires to intervene but they turned out to be helpless.
The home umpires, Javed Akhtar and Khizer Hayat, requested Pakistan skipper Mushtaq Mohammad not to bowl a negative length but he refused to stop; claiming it as an aggressive length. Each of the first four balls of the 48th over were well beyond Gaekwad’s reach and were dot balls (zero runs scored) as there was no provision of bouncers limit back then. Indian captain, Bishan Singh Bedi, walked out to have a word with the opposition number Mushtaq and seemed to be unhappy with the talks.
Bedi then called back his batters Gaekwad and Gundappa Viswanath to the pavilion. Mushtaq then walked into the Indian dressing room to convince the Indian side to resume the game. Bedi firmly took a stand against Pakistan’s bouncer strategy and didn't allow his batsmen to continue even though he knew the opposition would win the match and series. Thus, Bishan Singh Bedi became the first captain to concede a match to the opposition in International Cricket.
A well known one and the only one in Tests, happened in 2006, during Pakistan's tour of England. It happened during the fourth day of the fourth Test between England and Pakistan at The Oval. Umpires, Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove, ruled that the Pakistani team had been involved in ball tampering. The Pakistani players refused to take the field after the tea break in protest of the decision. After waiting two more minutes the umpires removed the bails and declared England winners by forfeiture. This was the first such end to a Test match in more than 1 000 Tests.
The International Cricket Council (ICC), England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) and Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) later affirmed that the decision to award the match to England was in accordance with the Laws of Cricket. After the game, an e-mail was leaked showing that Hair had offered his resignation from the ICC Elite Umpire Panel in return for a non-negotiable one-off payment of US$ 500 000. Hair said that the ICC had been in negotiations with him prior to the incident.
The ICC match referee, Ranjan Madugalle, later acquitted Pakistan captain,, Inzamam-ul-Haq of a ball-tampering charge but banned him for four one day internationals for bringing the game into disrepute. After the hearing, the ICC announced that Hair wouldn't be umpiring at the 2006 ICC Champions Trophy because of security concerns. Hair was later banned from officiating in international matches by the ICC. They stated that although Hair had been banned from Tests, there is "no issue" with the result of the Oval Test match.
In the aftermath of the Oval incident, Hair was voted Umpire of the Season in a poll carried out by The Wisden Cricketer, with more than a third of the votes. A leaked ICC report showed that immediately before the Oval incident, Hair was ranked the second-best umpire in the world overall behind Simon Taufel and number one in terms of decision-making statistics.
In 2007, Hair announced he was suing the ICC and PCB on grounds of racial discrimination, alleging that he was made a scapegoat when he was barred from officiating Test matches after the Oval Test, as no action was taken against his fellow umpire, Billy Doctrove. He later dropped the discrimination case. The ICC restored Hair to the Elite Umpiring Panel in 2008 but he resigned five months later, having officiated in only two further Tests.
It caused much debate in the cricketing world, with former cricketer, Michael Atherton, criticising Hair for not continuing the game. Nasser Hussain sided with Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq, saying that he would have done exactly what Inzamam did, while Steve Waugh backed the umpires' decision, saying "No-one is bigger than the game. The laws are there for a reason."
Michael Holding described the umpires' initial penalty for ball tampering as "insensitive" and said that every law has room for flexibility. Imran Khan called Hair an "umpiring fundamentalist" and commented that "Such characters court controversy," while Wasim Akram called for Hair to be sacked.
It was revealed in an ICC news conference on 25 August that after the game, Hair had offered his resignation from the ICC Elite Umpire Panel. In an e-mail entitled "The Way Forward" addressed to Doug Cowie, the ICC's umpire manager, and with apparent reference to an earlier conversation between the two which had not been made public by the ICC, Hair stated he would resign from his position in return for a non-negotiable one-off payment of US$ 500,000 directly into Hair's bank account. This was to be kept confidential by both sides. Hair was in contract with the ICC until March 2008 and the payment was said to compensate for the loss of future earnings and retainer payments. He subsequently revoked this offer.
Hair had stated that the suggested sum was to be compensation for the four or more years he would have umpired for had the controversy not happened, which he claimed would be "the best years he had to offer international umpiring." Hair had previously suggested, however, in an April 2006 interview that he might give up umpiring at the end of the World Cup saying "I'm not so sure that after another 12 months I'll have the passion to keep enjoying it."
In the press conference, the ICC's chairman, Malcolm Speed, didn't offer any assurances about Hair's future.
On 27 August, Hair responded to the release of the e-mails by stating that the ICC had been in negotiations with him prior to him sending them. He was quoted as saying: "During an extended conversation with Mr. Cowie, I was invited to make a written offer. The figure in the e-mail correspondence was in line with those canvassed with the ICC." The ICC, however, denied they had invited a claim.
In a press conference on 28 September 2006, Hair reiterated that he never considered retirement.
These instances are actually amazing in their own right. However, I don't agree with some of them. The way the match ended for the GLT20 is ridiculous. If there's a way to make a result, the teams should take it with both hands and not rely on other methods for a result. Another one is the Canada match. You should see how the players are doing on the morning of the game to make a decision and to not rush to judgement. The invasion of the Headingley pitch by fans is utter nonsense. Security should've made sure that onlookers couldn't go onto the pitch
I tend to agree with the ones that focused on the safety. The welfare and safety of the players is paramount.