1.Cricket is a game of uncertainty and that includes umpiring errors.Also,there is a shortage of umpires,let us not forget. 2.An umpire has to stand on the ground for 5 days continuously.Do U expect him not to make mistakes esply since he is a man past his prime? Why no one in the cricketing world is thinking of changing umpires sessionwise so that they are more alert?Umpires short? 3.Cricket is no more a gentleman's game.The stakes are high.Even in a boxing clash which is not a gentleman's game,the opponents embrace each other after the bout despite severe thrashing by each other.Why can't cricket understand that much when it is pretending to be gentle?Cricket rules need to be changed to accommodate verbal abuses with the changing times.The players of both countries should be clubbed before the play and asked to vent out their spleen by hurling the choicest abuses on each other.For this,1 or 2 players from each side can be nominated and a ritual of verbal bashing can be performed and then the play can go on smoothly.ICC rules should change. 4.We are having a huge hangup about our caste&religion&race&language®ion and behave very badly with each other on noticing these. Still,Aussies are better.The citizens are sympathising with Indian players'plight due to poor umpiring.Australians,as authorities,do not come clean just like Indians. 5.Monkey is mankind's venerable common forefather unless you don't believe in Darwin.There is no humour left in ICC. 6.Bring Sehwag .
After Yuvraj was CLEARED by Proctor on the basis that he was SHOCKED by the decision, not showing dissent (which I believe was incorrect by Proctor), there is no basis upon which Ponting or anyone else could be cited for a hearing. End of story.
On the umpiring front - Kumble agreed with Ponting that if there was a dispute, the fielder and the captain's word was final. THE PURPOSE OF THIS AGREEMENT WAS TO AVOID ENDLESS REFERRALS TO THE THIRD UMPIRE. Ponting is the one who has been pushing this for 2 years now.
Ponting went to Clarke, Clarke stated that he believed he caught it, and Benson, knowing that this agreement was in place, asked the fielding team's captain for confirmation, which Ponting gave. If you've played cricket at any decent level, you will know that if there is doubt like that on a catch and the umpire asks for the fielding captain's final word, the universal signal from the captain is to put the finger up to indicate "out".
Again, separate the emotion from the facts and then analyse. Or reverse the facts - if Jaffer had dived forward at gully, Kumble would have been the man putting his finger up and Benson would have been the one following.
RE:Catches, dissent and citings
by Vijay Singh on Jan 09, 2008 06:50 AM Permalink
I do not agree if Ponting was truthful in saying that he caught the ball and it his hand held ball touch the ground? Please see the video to confirm. How can you trust the Captain's word when the technology says otherwise. On Bhajji if said sorry in Mumbai and agreed that he said and said sorry. Why do you believe he will say it again. Also, the whole word cricket lovers know that Tendulkar is the man who can be trusted over Ponting who can lie (see video).
The Orlando Magic and the NBA banned Magic fan Hooman Hamzehloui from attending any league games this season and revoked his season tickets after he directed a racial slur at Houston Rockets center Dikembe Mutombo Thursday night during a preseason game at TD Waterhouse Centre.
Hamzehloui, a Windermere resident and realtor, was ejected by security at TD Waterhouse Centre. He later conceded he called Mutombo a "monkey" and made monkey-like gestures.
He said he didn't know saying monkey could be construed as a racial slur. Mutombo had to be restrained during the game from going after Hamzehloui and wanted the league to take action.
Hamzehloui sent a letter of apology to Mutombo and offered $5,000 to a charity of his choice. But the league and the Magic wanted to set an example and put some teeth in the Fan Code of Conduct it instituted after the Detroit Pistons-Indiana Pacers brawl. Courtesy: Orlando Sentinel
RE:Macaca
by sri on Jan 09, 2008 06:21 AM Permalink
There is a big difference between Sen george calling Siddharth a monkey and you or me calling Siddharth a monkey. Similar logic applies to the N word. The racism of the white man over centuries cannot be diluted out by equating it with any behaviour of a non-white player towards another non-white player. Even if Symonds does not agree. The whole virulence and hatred that goes with a White-man's chant of the word Monkey and that of Harbhajan's is simply not comparable EVEN if he used that word.
RE:Macaca
by Ford Eals on Jan 09, 2008 06:44 AM Permalink
Amar Kumar, Do you really need to show off that you read so much of American news in every posting? And if you do read news, please do it carefully. I hope you know that Senator's indiscretion was captured on a camera and is available on youtube. So do you agree that the evidence in his case was overwhelming? What Prem is saying here in the article is that there is no enough evidence to convict H Singh. Like Prem pointed out, I do believe in Sachin so I THINK H Singh is innocent, again I THINK. Obviously there is no evidence so it's only fair that H Singh is pardoned. If you are in America, I am sure you have heard the phrase 'Comparing Apples to Apples'. That's precisely the reason, you cannot compare the senator case with H Singh case. Grow up.
Ricky Ponting lied about two catches, and stayed back when he was out and tried to influence umpire's decision(successfully)he should be banned. Mind you, umpires are already proven guilty in this game.
scrap this game from official records.
symonds and clark lied, as proven in camera footage, they should be penalized to bring disrepute to the game.
Procter was biased in his decision, a charge should be filed against him.
if sledging is your culture, keep it inside your house, do not bring it on field. a rule should be made against it.
Bhajii did not said anything. stop lying. A counter case should be filed against Australians for continuously lying, and working with twisted motives. Indian cricket board is not showing a tiny bit of its muscle. we are the richest sports club in the world, because of Indian's love for the game, not due to sledging/cheating. australia is going round the world cheating.
India is not Sri-Lanka. And one day Sri-Lanka, India and Pakistan will be one.
RE:here is the correct report on second test
by Michael Mammen on Jan 09, 2008 06:05 AM Permalink
Badeguruji
While you are wielding your sword of vengeance, please also ban: Saurav Ganguly for claiming half-volley catch in world cup final against Australia MS Dhoni for claiming half-volley catch against England
Please also cancel: Results of many tests in India from 1960-1995 where LBW's/edges were incorrectly given or not given, favouring India India's victory over England last year as Sreesanth was plumb LBW
Did you read the report - Harbhajan has been confirmed to have said it before to Symonds, so clearly it is not a "Continuous Lie" - even if the appeal is upheld (as it probably should be based on current evidence).
Go through every game in history and scrap any game where a decision or decisions may have changed the result of the game.
Ban Sreesanth for sledging Australians when he wasn't even good enough to make the team (he was 12th man)
When you see the stupidity of your proposal, revert to logic and grow up.
RE:here is the correct report on second test
by GOGO on Jan 09, 2008 06:18 AM Permalink
you are talking about one off wrong decisions. It was not the case in Syndey, eight or nine decisions going against one team certainly arouses doubt
Latif's catch. Much has been made by way of comparison to Ponting in relation to the catch and the penalty. How many of you have seen it on video? Search for it on Youtube under "Latif cheating".
Latif dives in front of slip, the ball enters his gloves, while he is in mid-air and about to hit the ground, the ball falls out (not even dislodged by the ground, just falls out!!), he hits the ground, rolls over, picks it up (knowing the umpire couldn't see it) and claims the catch.
Now Ponting - he dives, collects the ball CLEANLY in mid-air and grasps it. This satisfies the first part of the laws re: catches - he has the ball under control. This is why the still photo of him shows his facial expression claiming the catch literally as he hits the ground.
BUT he didn't quite get there. The laws also require him to control his own body. This doesn't happen until he hits the ground, at which point he grounds the ball as well. This is the fatal flaw, as they say. Completely understandable as to why he thought it was a catch, because he was almost there. All he needed to do was turn his hand as he made impact to leverage the ball off the ground. But he didn't, so no catch.
But contrary to teh spirit of the game? NOT EVEN CLOSE. Watch Latif and you'll know exactly what I mean. Separate the emotion from the facts and then decide.
Correct decision - not out because it was grounded. Thankfully the umpire didn't see/hear it flick the batsman's glove!
RE:Catches, claims and the rules
by sri on Jan 09, 2008 06:12 AM Permalink
Michael, you are right that the two are not comparable. And, it is also true that Australians such as you and many others who are commiserating with India are doing a great job of keeping things civil and rational. Not to mention, serving as wonderful diplomats for your country. As a result this whole affair is becoming less and less an India Vs Australia affair and more and more a player-specific-ethics and umpiring issue. Of course that doesn excuse the whole sledging process that the Aussies are masters of. But this incident should go a long way towards making sledging unacceptable as "part and parcel of cricket".
RE:Catches, claims and the rules
by Voosan Raj on Jan 09, 2008 06:19 AM Permalink
Now I wonder why Aussies GDP is stagnant and rapidly going down the hill.
It appears majority of the Aussies are involved in finding loop holes in the laws and trying to vindicate themselves.
Let me give you peace of mind, a cheater is a cheater, whether you cover the catch with your ass or you catch it in mid-air, the truth remains Ponting is a freaking moron, one of the game's ugliest sports person.
Firstly, clarification: 1. Gilchrist walked after Shepherd said "not out" in the WC semi-final against Sri Lanka. 2. Gilchrist has walked each and every time he has been out since that time (never disproved) 3. Gilchrist has said that if he KNOWS he's out, he will walk every time. 4. That said, a batsman doesn't necessarily know every time he's out (ie when a batsman hits their pad at the same time as the ball, or an attempted hook shot which may or may not flick the glove ever so slightly). 5. When wicketkeeping - Gilchrist has said that if he doesn't see an edge or hear a noise, then he doesn't really appeal. 6. Gilchrist has said that if HE IS NOT SURE, then he asks the question and leaves it to the umpire. 7. Picture a player on day 5 of an emotionally draining, tense, frustrating test match, chasing an improbable victory. Dravid tucks the bat in and in the blink of Gilchrist's eye, there is some sort of noise (which you could hear as the ball flicks the pad) and he goes up. Why - because he wasn't sure!! 8. Again, incompetence gets the decision wrong, and I'm sure Gilly looked at the replay afterwards in slow motion and wasn't over the moon. But again, the same point is made - he wasn't sure so he asked the question and relied on the umpires (shock horror gasp) to do their job.
Give the man a break and don't use him as a patsy in your arguments of convenience!
RE:Gilchrist
by Indian on Jan 09, 2008 06:12 AM Permalink
Fantastic Mr. Mammen:
And in your opinion, is Harbhajan strutting about like the wronged "Roy" claiming that he said all those words that he is supposed to have said? And that's why you are condemning Harbhajan? Your bottomline is clear: When MY man says something then (even if he is proved eventually wrong) he is right because he thought he was right at the time he thought he was right. Never mind whether later its something else. But when YOUR man says something then he has to be wrong because he is not MY man... WHITE is always right and the non-white should believe him. Non-white is always wrong, even when he stands up to something he feels is wrong. Excellent logic Mr. Mammen.
RE:Gilchrist
by Michael Mammen on Jan 09, 2008 07:08 AM Permalink
Perhaps if you correctly interpreted my logic we wouldn't have a misunderstanding!
1) I think I may have said it 20 times here, but as a lawyer, I agree that Harbhajan couldn't be found guilty based on the currently available evidence 2) I admire the way Symonds handled the first occurrence with Harbhajan - telling him privately it was deeply offensive, asking him not to repeat it. The Hogg situation should be handled the same way. Harbhajan perhaps wasn't to know, similarly Hogg wasn't to know. If Hogg says it again in Perth, throw the book at him. 3) I'm Indian
RE:Gilchrist
by Michael Mammen on Jan 09, 2008 07:28 AM Permalink
Not sure how I was conceivably reported for racism and I'm struggling to understand the previous post but: 1) I'm Indian 2) Harbhajan has been warned about the significance of saying monkey to Symonds, therefore IF it can be proved, then he deserves a severe punishment 3) If Hogg didn't know the significance of saying the b word to Kumble/Dhoni, then he should be warned in the same way Symonds warned Harbhajan the first time round, then banned if he repeats it. 4) As per 1), I'm not white.
I have immeasurable respect for Kumble during this series. Lionhearted bowling, spirited captaincy and determined batting.
BUT "only one team playing in the spirit of the game?". My contention - NEITHER team was!
Firstly Australia: (a) not walking when obvious - I agree that walking is optional but "it's just not cricket" when Clarke edges to first slip and stands his ground. Symonds however was honest - "yes I nicked it on 30, but I could also sit here and tell you about the number of bad decisions I have got" (b) aggressive appeals - pioneered by Indian spinners on home tracks (ie appeals for bat pad catches with the bat held high in the air), improved by Sri Lankans and Pakistanis, and perfected by Mr. Shane Warne. But really, what team pushing for a world-record equalling victory doesn't aggressively ask the question at any opportunity? I'd bet my life that most Indian fans would kill to be in the same position as the Australian juggernaut! (c) Catches - I will discuss in my next instalment
Now India: (a) aggressive appealing - ie Kumble appealing for LBW when Hogg drove through the offside for 2 runs (b) Over rates - deliberately slowed down - such as calling for shinguards for ball 6 of an over! (c) Ishant - coming out with 2 left gloves with 9 minutes to go, followed by Pathan laughing with the replacement glove!
If you want to take the moral high ground, your own house needs to be in impeccable order. IMHO, India doesn't have a leg to stand on.
RE:The true SPIRIT of the game
by Indian on Jan 09, 2008 06:21 AM Permalink
Mr. Mammen:
If India doesn't have a leg to stand on, then does Australia have the Sydney Watch Tower to stand on in your (not so humble) opinion?
Listen to the Aussies rant: "We did nothing wrong"! "Indians are poor losers"! "We played hard and fair"! etc. etc. etc. etc.
If a team cannot uphold some decency when they are supposed to be the undisputed and rarely challenged leaders; then I don't know when they will uphold any decency at all. And all the so-called spirit of the game just started evaporating the moment another team slightly tightened the screws on them, despite bearing the brunt of phenomenally adverse decisions. I don't know how would your precious champs have behaved, had even 50% of those decisions gone the other way.
RE:The true SPIRIT of the game
by Michael Mammen on Jan 09, 2008 07:35 AM Permalink
Kumble's words "only ONE team was playing in the true spirit of the game".
If Kumble had said "I don't think Australia was playing in the true spirit of the game", I wouldn't be as fussed.
But his carefully chosen words take on different meaning altogether.
You should read my other comments - I am completely critical of the Australian's behaviour and amazed that so many people on this forum seem to think I have condoned it. For the 21st time - the Australians were childish, churlish, embarassing, lacking in grace, humility and need a good whack over the head. But when the heat dies down and people start thinking with their HEAD instead of their HEART, logic will prevail and appropriate action will be taken.
I have never said the Indians were poor losers, rather I congratulated Kumble on his superb leadership in adversity. My only comment extended to the Indian batting line-up, who, notwithstanding the Dravid decision, couldn't survive 72 overs on a decent track!
Your comment "I don't know how would your precious champs have behaved, had even 50% of those decisions gone the other way."
I can tell you exactly how they would have regrouped. They would have battened down the hatches, and come out wanting to prove their point on the field, not in the media or by stomping off throwing a temper tantrum or holding the ICC to ransom.
One thing Australians generally are not cursed with is a victim complex. We cop it on the chin and move on to the next battle.
RE:RE:The true SPIRIT of the game
by Indian on Jan 09, 2008 08:32 AM Permalink
Michael:
Kumble surely actually meant "Aussies didn't play fair". Bill Woodfull had meant the same during the Bodyline series.
Gentleman that Kumble is, he didn't go for point blank accusations, of the "you shouldn't be standing in this room" variety. But direct accusations are a strict no no in Indian culture (as an Indian, you know what I mean).
As for the moral high ground concept: Going by this token, (vocal as they are) Aussies should never complain about any verbal exchange anytime. So no case against Bhajji, all are happy and that's that.
It's good that Australians don't have a victim complex (or at least believe they don't so suffer). Indians will surely learn this gradually as they grow up in the game.
RE:The true SPIRIT of the game
by Michael Mammen on Jan 09, 2008 09:11 AM Permalink
Indian If Kumble meant that, then I'm happy to agree the Aussies didn't play fair. But he said it very specifically. You may recall Woodfull said words to the effect of "I'm sorry sir, but only one side is playing cricket out there". The meaning was very clear.
With the current mentality, I agree 100% that Aussies can't complain about any verbal sledging. But racial comments have always been viewed as distinct from this (in every country of the world), rightly or wrongly.
Again, if Harbhajan didn't know what he was saying was offensive, I have no problem with that being a valid defence (due to cultural considerations). But given he appears to have had his warning, all that remains is to establish what evidence there is, and to clear Harbhajan if there isn't enough!
I should note that for many years, even decades, Australians did have a victim complex, hating tours of the subcontinent and just wanting to get out and get home. It's only since Steve Waugh and the Indians willingness to embrace him, Gilchrist and Lee that Australia has just played the game hard (and sometimes too hard), but enjoyed the fruits of its labour.
Here's to hoping Perth is a great spectacle for cricket, sportsmanship and international relations - it also may mean I cop a little less anti-Christian, anti-Australian, anti-migrant criticism :)
RE:The true SPIRIT of the game
by Indian on Jan 09, 2008 09:24 AM Permalink
Dear Michael:
Here's to Perth! I too hope to see a great match.
You have not, and certainly won't cop any unjustified anti-anything criticsm from this Indian :)
Has been a pleasure exchanging comments with you sans the usual vitriolic outbursts! BTW I am in Sydney myself and am trying to sort out this chaotic mess with some logic.
I do hope current ongoings will spark the Indians into giving a tougher fight at Perth.
Prem - excellent article but why did you have to bring Haneef into all this? No, he was not condemned first. There was evidence against him - no solid proof, though. IN fact, INDIAN agencies also had evidence against him, all of which was covered up after our PM lost sleep over the terrorist. . Simple points: Why did he give his SIM to his cousins? It IS a crime. Anyone giving his SIM to anyone else, that is to eb used in a terrorist activity since, muslim or hindu, IS GOING TO BE ARRESTED AND TORTURED INTO CONFESSION RIGHT HERE IN INDIA. The Aussies did not do the same. . Also, I heard his interview on radio - why does he have an fake American accent on an Indian radio channel when he studied in Bangalore followed by the UK and then was in Australia??? I would suspect such a chameleon of wrongdoing anytime. Prem, please keep to cricket - don't go ahead and support haneef, or you would be guilty of the same crime ponting is committing.
RE:Hmm
by Onlooker on Jan 09, 2008 06:31 AM Permalink
Similarly, how can Prem go ahead support Harbhajan knowing fully well he was an offender earlier (by his own account)?
As an Australian born Indian lawyer, I found the Proctor decision impossible to understand. He said he was convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" yet all we have heard is the word of 3 Australians who say they heard it versus 2 who say it wasn't said. I'm glad that it has been clarified that Harbhajan did racially abuse Symonds in India, but that they discussed it privately and he agreed to not repeat it. So it's quite clear cut. On the disclosed facts, Proctor couldn't possibly find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt unless a) he's biased, b) he only found guilt "on the balance of probabilities" (ie 4 vs 2) or c) there is other evidence.
If the BCCI wants to prove their point, they should authorise Sachin and Harbhajan to come out PUBLICLY AND EXPLICITLY confirm that the words "big monkey" never came from Harbhajan's mouth. Then let the ICC deal with the resulting ultimatum.
Some commentators said they would be interested to see what Sachin would say in a quasi-judicial environment (ie a hearing), and I'd love to know whether he chose his words carefully. There is a big difference between "I didn't hear anything said by Harbhajan" and "I can definitely confirm he did not say "big monkey".
Please note, almost every Australian worships the ground that Sachin walks on (in cricketing terms of course) - his skill, his record in Australia, and his ability to perform on the big stage.
If he verifies it publicly, most Australians would support the BCCI in the appeal!
RE:The Harbhajan matter (2)
by Onlooker on Jan 09, 2008 06:06 AM Permalink
Mr Mammen, I am no attorney but unless it is beyond reasonable doubt, you can't convict! That is the bare minimum for conviction.
RE:The Harbhajan matter (2)
by Onlooker on Jan 09, 2008 06:25 AM Permalink
If Sachin said that Bajji would be immediately cleared of all the charges but he wouldn't. Cause he knows the truth and more than that he knows that the Australians know that he knew it.
I think it is too late anyways for Sachin to be a witness now.
RE:The Harbhajan matter (2)
by Onlooker on Jan 09, 2008 06:09 AM Permalink
In other words, the defense failed to create a reasonable doublt in prosecution witness accounts (which I think is the only evidence in a word against word case).
RE:RE:The Harbhajan matter (2)
by Indian on Jan 09, 2008 07:01 AM Permalink
Onlooker: I read two of your comments above. First one says "unless it is beyond reasonable doubt, you can't convict"; and the second one says "defense failed to create a reasonable doubt in prosecution witness accounts"..
I am somehow reading between your lines and finding that you believe in "guilty unless proven innocent" approach.
I think it should have been the other way round. Since the umpires didn't hear anything, therefore the Aussies should have been able to "prove beyond reasonable doubt" (as opposed to just create reasonable doubt) that there is something wrong with defense witness accounts.
And I can't see (I too am not a lawyer, but still) how a wicket-keeper can convince Procter that he heard something that the umpire didn't.
RE:The Harbhajan matter (2)
by Onlooker on Jan 09, 2008 07:33 AM Permalink
Indian, Ok, let me share my understanding.
As for public it goes "Innocent unless proven guilty". Meaning, until a verdict is given against you, you are innocent. Now that a verdict gone against you, you are guilty.
But when you go in to the courts, it works slightly differently. The prosecution have to prove that the defense is guity. But at the same time, you (as a defense) have to prove your innocence to the Judge. In this type of case, the prosecution would bring witnesses. You as a defense asking questions and trap them in them in giving conflicting accounts, you can prove your innocence. I think you can also have your witnesses (if available) who the prosecution would question. By questioning, you can easily bring the truth out or poke holes in the witness accounts and thereby you can prove your innocence.
RE:RE:RE:The Harbhajan matter (2)
by Onlooker on Jan 09, 2008 07:36 AM Permalink
You are close. That is what the defense attorney should do. Draw the diagram of the pitch, stumps, grounds etc. make the witness locate their positions at the time of this incident. If the wicket keeper is far off than the umpire, the case is CLOSED!!! Simple.
