After all that;s been said on this topic, Prem leaves the jingoism and unnecessary linkage to national honor aside when he says that 'IF IT IS PROVED BEYOND DOUBT THAT BHAJJI DID SAY IT' then he needs to be punished but 'IN THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR PROOF', this needs to be accorded the disdain it deserves.
The unfortunate reality is that we, as a nation, equate cricket with our concept of national pride and that is the culprit - dont we have things that exemplify our national honor rather than a game? Dont get me wrong - I am a passionate lover of the game- but it is just that. Let's not get carried away and make over-the-top statements just to convince other that our pride is hurt.
Truth of the matter - neither accuser nor accused have an impeccable record/history and it is eminently possible something untoward transpired. Admonish and move on. Childish threats to not play are akin to a kid on the playground throwing a tantrum just because he was given out!
Cricket is a passion, but it should not take over our lives! Moderation is the need of the hour, not jingoism and posturing
RE:At last, some sense in this whole debate
by lalit jha on Jan 09, 2008 01:00 AM Permalink
Perhaps you fail to understand distinction between Sledging and Racism that why you wrote this way. There is also Integrity in question.
Its like my words carry more weight than yours ? How do you prove that in absence of facts and evidence. Don't round someone of his past behaviour on one or two instance.
RE:At last, some sense in this whole debate
by Ashwin Shankar on Jan 09, 2008 01:07 AM Permalink
It is not a question of just this being an incident as part of a game. This does involve a fellow countryman being branded something he hasn't been proven for and thus resulting in his absense from professional life and a balck mark on his personality , his charecter etc etc.. This is a question of standing up for one man who has provided substantial joy in the hearts of many an avid cricket lover. This is a question of standing up for the rights of citizens of the world and the world of sport. And Yessss.. I'd feel the same way if Indians are discriminated against in any walk of life.. or for that matter anyone is descriminated against due to their culture, their skin colour or their origins.
And yes , it does hurt me when Indians behave racist too..but in this case, how can anyone say that Harbhajan was the guilty party
RE:At last, some sense in this whole debate
by Sundar Sankaran on Jan 09, 2008 01:35 AM Permalink
I do not believe you have got the point I tried to make. I am not suggesting that Harbhajan was guilty, proved guilty or deserving of the punishment meted out. All I am objecting to is the WAY in which we want to take offence - let us be objective rather than take personal affront that someone had the 'gall' to accuse us.
Do I support the manner in which this whole thing was handled? No way. Does that equate to unquestioning support of someone just because he is Indian? Sorry, but I cannot be blinded in my support. Facts at hand is what I urge everyone to look at. The standard line of 'Aussies are arrogant' is NOT an excuse for us to put forward in defence of our reaction.
If he is not proven guilty beyond doubt, I will stand up for him regardless of whether he is an Indian or not.
A wee bit out of context but on the subjest of racism - we Indians are quick to complain of harassment but arent we the same people that attach so much importance to color of skin? Funnily, regardless of what our distinctions are, to the outside world, we are different shades of brown and THAT is what we take exception to.
Unfair slur? By all means, object. But objecting just because he is Indian? I dont subsctribe to that.
RE:At last, some sense in this whole debate
by Ashwin Shankar on Jan 09, 2008 01:50 AM Permalink
i do not believe that you've got the point i'm trying to make either.. He is innocent until proven guilty and if they branded him guilty without evidance to substantiate that claim, it is for a reason. How come th Aussies or Brits dont get a ban irrespective of calling others things a lot worse? Callin Jayasurya a "black monkey" did not call for a ban.Showing unsportsman like conduct by claiming catches which werent caught did not invoke a ban which asians and west indians get subjected to.That i believe is true racism, showing biased and double standards based on the colour of the skin
RE:At last, some sense in this whole debate
by lalit jha on Jan 09, 2008 02:00 AM Permalink
The problem is, some people don't care unless their own house is on fire... but some person, seems the case now, don't care even when his house is being put on fire.
LET ME TELL YOU, AT LEAST I AM NOT JUST SUPPORTING BHAJJI BECAUSE HE IS AN INDIAN BUT BECAUSE THE WAY BAN WAS PUT ON HIM WITHOUT EVIDENCE AND THE WAY OUR SENIORS WERE NOT HINDERED AN EAR IN THE PROCESS.
You know one of aunt tells me, nobody will do anything which he thinks is wrong. they will do it and they will give some reasons to themselves to fell that it is correct or atleast not wrong, or atleast not wrong in those given circumstances. and they will tell the others the same reasons.
ok. according to you , ponting calimed it is a catch because he felt so , and some body asked in these replies , but he knows so that it was not clean, i have n't yet heard your answer probably it is early morning 3.30 in australia.
i will wait till whatever it is.
and clarke said it is clean. and we all know it is not. whether it is 50-50 , or 25 - 75 , or 75 - 25 ,i will leave it to you.
in which case he should have told , skipper i'm not sure. go for the replays or continue with not out.
now in this case clarke is wrong.you will tell me not to blame ponting.good.
now, for not walking , i always felt that , the batsman feels , some times even if don't nick they give me out , even if i'm not lbw out , they give me out.so,unless the umpires gives me out , i won't walk.
right thats what ponting and symonds did in first innings and hussy in second innings.but what is clarke doing in second innings.ya, waiting. As, according to hayden he will only leave if umpire lifts the finger.well , good. the same fellows says catch is clean , and feild captain concurs , and we have to accept.good.
some where along the line , some how , my dear micheal, i fell HOW CONVI
RE:view of a common cricket lover and Mr.Micheal , will b glad , if you reply
by Michael Mammen on Jan 09, 2008 04:56 AM Permalink
Cricket Fan
You should read all of my (numerous!) posts. 1) Ponting - no comparison can be made to Latif - Latif actually dropped the ball in midair, picked it up and still claimed the catch! Ponting grasped the ball cleanly in midair but clearly did not know or did not realise that his body was not in control (as required by the Laws of the game) until he hit the ground (when the ball touched the ground).
2) Clarke - the same applies in relation to any potential grounding after the catch was taken. As for whether it carried - there is not a SINGLE replay which confirms it did not carry.
3) Shall we also suspend Ganguly and Dhoni for 5 matches each given Ganguly claimed a half-volley which wasn't even close to carrying in the World Cup final, and Dhoni claimed another half-volley against England? No, because players lunging forward feel the ball hit their hands and instinct suggests the ball carried.
4) I agree Clarke shouldn't have stood there, but mind you, it was his first ball and I don't think he was quite thinking straight. Most batsmen hit the crease with a lot of adrenalin, and given I've seen Clarke walk on some previous occasions, I believe it was just out of character. Given Yuvraj was cleared for standing at the crease and showing obvious dissent (whereas Clarke just stood there), it's a bit rich to suggest he should be cited.
2 similar catches to Ponting were taken in the WI vs SA test - noone seems to be concerned?
Looks like prem panicker is also paid for writing this column. Dear its about justice. We as an indian does not wan't to rule anybody all are freebies. What we asking is for justice to Harbhajan & sacking of umpires and some action to be taken against Ponting
I was in australia for week and truly speaking they are very bad natured.. on similar kind of conferebce we also call people from all around the world but we give lots of respect to them, its in our blood... these people looks like as they have living in jail... veryy cunning and money minded, more than indians, i assure you!!!! will never ever got o australia.. dont know how those punajbi drivers live there (there are so many)... kya bhuka pet kucch bhi karwata hai insaan ko!!!! go to hell australia and ponting,...
What other reason can you have for Ponting accusing Bhajji and trying to get him banned for the rest of the series.. Ponting can't score a run against Bhajji and still gets out to him whenever he comes in to bowl. .Infact Ponting can't survive more than 5 overs with Bhajji operating and through those overs, Bhajji makes him look like a pathetic number 11 batsman.. This looks more like a ploy by Ponting to use Symmonds as a trup card to get Bhajji out of the game by using their past relations against him
It has been seen over time that it is the White population that defines what should be termed as a racist remark and what shouldn't. It is convenient to ban Harbhanjan for calling Symmonds a monkey (of which there is no evidence) but it is fine for McGrath and Lehmann to call Jayasurya a " Black Monkey ". I have nothing agianst being called a monkey, infact monkeys and all humans share common ancestory, what I would have a problem agianst is someone branding me a turbanator - which is mocking my culture (I acutally have nothing against being called anything). But i think it is ridiculous to be called a curry... Is that a racist term?? Is being called a jackass a racist term???? What I do know, is that claiming a catch which you haven't caught (especially when you know you haven;t caught it) is unsprotsman like and accd to ICC's code of conduct for cricketers, it should be a ban served up for those two cricketers - Ponting and Clarke.. anything short of a 5 match ban is racism by the match refree..
AMERICA CONTROLS THE WORLD OF ARMS AND CAN DO ANYTHING AND INDIA CONTROLS THE GAME OF CRICKET AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING,,,But surely no wrong has been done so far, just a bot of arm twisting to get justice.
RE:CRICKET AND INDIA
by extreme on Jan 09, 2008 12:42 AM Permalink
if australia was the richest cricket board what they would be doing and how they would treating asians!!!! just imagine man....
Mr Panicker, you echo my point which I have been making on Aussie blogosphere which seems like a waste of time now. ALl of Australia has judged Bhajji to be guilty and are incensed if you question that because that would mean Aussies are liars. They have no problem or see any hypocrisy when one points out that India is incensed when Bhajji is called a liar which is Procter's conclusion here.
My main point is this: instead of saying "I believed the Australians", why didn't Procter use some logic. Look at video evidence. Where was the incident ? Where were the umpires and involved players relative to it ? Is it possible that Gilchrist et al heard it and Sachin and umpires didn't because of different distances involved. No thinking along this line occurred. So its word of Aussies against Bhajji and that is no evidence for a 3 match ban.
I feel that by agreeing to having the tour go forward after the sacking of Bucknor, the BCCI is sending the wrong signal out about its priorities on this matter. For me, the bigger issues were the Aussie behavior on & off the field & Harbhajan's ban - both of which were deliberate actions designed to humiliate the Indian team. Bucknor on the other hand was a case of sheer incompetence. While he deserved to be sacked, I think that the perception now will be that all that the BCCI really was after was to get Bucknor sacked because they somehow blame him for their defeat. This was a great opportunity to make the Aussies pay for their behavior, instead we have let them off the hook again. Prem - would love to get your take on this.
