At its meeting last week, the International Cricket Council's executive board decided that the result of the August 2006 Oval Test match between England and Pakistan should be altered from an England win to a draw. It had no power to do so under the Laws of Cricket and the decision is a nullity. But it is deeply troubling that the ICC should take this unprecedented and dangerous step. It is historical revisionism of the worst kind.

The events of the match in question need little by way of reminder. It is the one during which, for the first time in Test history, the umpires awarded the match to a side (England) because in their opinion the other side (Pakistan) refused to play. This refusal went back to the umpires’ award earlier in the match of five penalty runs to England because of their conclusion that Pakistan had unfairly changed the condition of the ball.

The ICC’s executive board resolved in response that one of the umpires, Darrell Hair, should no longer officiate at Test matches. The other umpire, Billy Doctrove, escaped censure. Hair was cast out into the wilderness seemingly never to return. However, the Australian brought employment tribunal proceedings against the ICC.

It transpired at the hearing that the proposal effectively to demote Hair was put together at an unrecorded meeting over lunch comprising the representative of Pakistan, the representative of New Zealand and the representative of Zimbabwe. The Board members all reconvened after lunch, whereupon the resolution was carried after a very brief and again unrecorded discussion before the members went off to get ready for a dinner.

The tribunal proceedings came to a premature end when Hair agreed not to pursue his claim in return for reconsideration of his position at the next Board meeting. The prohibition on his officiating at Test matches was lifted at that next meeting, leading to Hair’s successful return at two of the New Zealand Tests earlier this season.

Why the vote last week? It was plainly connected to the negotiations and posturing over Zimbabwe. Quite why the ICC cannot see that which is obvious, namely that Zimbabwe does not presently deserve to be an ICC full member, is a mystery. Or it is, if one does not appreciate the political and commercial considerations which, in the modern game, appear to override cricketing considerations and the time-honoured principles of the game. These principles have been emasculated so as to appease Zimbabwe and its allies and for the questionable purpose of ensuring that the ICC World Twenty20 comes to England next year.

The England and Wales Cricket Board stated position as to its role in the ICC’s decision has been conspicuous by its absence. It would be nice to think that someone is standing up for English cricket, but we have our doubts. To his credit, David Morgan, the new ICC President, did not support the decision. It prompted Michael Holding to resign from the ICC Cricket Committee, which had earlier recommended to the Board that the result should remain unaltered. It would be surprising if MCC supported the Board’s decision. Leaving aside Michael Holding’s honourable example, responses from cricketing bodies around the world have been signally lacking in the face of this decision and all its very grave implications.

MCC, not ICC, is still responsible for the Laws of Cricket. Law 21(10) is unequivocal: once the umpires have agreed with the scorers the correctness of the scores at the conclusion of the match the result cannot thereafter be changed. ICC has not explained how its decision, almost two years after the event, takes effect in the light of that wording. The reasoning is vacuous. It was, officially, “based on the view that in the light of the unique set of circumstances, the original result of the match was felt to be inappropriate.” This is despite the fact that ICC Board member witnesses admitted under oath at Hair’s tribunal hearing that the umpires’ decisions at The Oval were entirely in accordance with the Laws of Cricket.

Match-fixing, umpire demotion, a farcical World Cup, Zimbabwe, altering results. What next? If the ICC wishes to retain a modicum of its diminishing credibility, it should follow the lead of David Morgan and Michael Holding.

Even if it does not, as there was no power to change the result, the ICC decision is a nullity. The match therefore should still be recorded as an England win.

The authors are barristers at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square, London and represented the umpire Darrell Hair in his recent tribunal proceedings. The former is a member of the MCC Committee

A fuller version is scheduled to appear in the first August edition of the New Law Journal

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure