- poor umpiring is the case here. i'd ignore the sledging and other things at dispute. get bucknor out permanently, its not only indians, but he's getting old, he used to be a nice guy, now his vision and perhaps interest isnt up to it.
- proctor should base his ban on solid evidence. hearsay wont do, and please for heaven's sake provide the evidence to public. we are just shot of a war between the 2 nations. worst case, the bad blood is so much, we should stop playing each other for a short period.
i believe we should not engage with the australians more than the icc framework (the border gavaskar series kind of was a good start for a positive ties and increased play between the 2 countries). dont hire their players for advertisements, since they seem to have zero understanding of the ongoing dispute - and term everything as a means of the indian board to have their say, when in fact the people feel hard done by). reduce the interaction between australia and india for lack of understanding. the australians just cant seem to accept the indian point of view. its become a oneupmanship game.
RE:my position
by Bihar Badshah on Jan 08, 2008 09:46 PM Permalink
Raj, each and every word in your article is what I or most of the indians think..great article, good reply to that arrogant writer,somehow I feel your article should reach to aussies and british readers..see if you can use their media..India is not a pushover country..Frankly speaking we are second to none..and that is based on I working in USA for almost 9 years now..c'mmon India we are the emerging powerhouse and these thing are bound to happen..whenever there is power tranfer there is a noise .no one gives/shares the power willingly..Be confident and fight for anything wrong..Support Good.
RE:my position
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 09:50 PM Permalink
oh well, what you say is true. we are pretty good at a lot of things. when most of our people are educated, by sheer numbers we'd be world beaters im sure in a lot of fields. but unfortunately, my point isnt taken. thats ok i guess. its only a point of view, just like theirs :)
RE:RE:my position
by on Jan 08, 2008 10:10 PM Permalink
I am one of those British/Aussie readers - I can understand you guys are upset by the umpires and the result, but how would you feel if every newspaper/website/blogger called the Indian cricket team a bunch of cheaters, called Kumble a bad sport and claimed that India had bribed the umpires or the ICC in order to win? You may get a tad defensive...
Generally we are a pretty open bunch, and most of the Aussie coverage today was against the Aussies for legitimate issues - ie not walking (which is common to all teams, including India), sledging (which is fairly common in other teams, perhaps less so in India), and "over-celebrating" (which really can't be called a horrific crime - see 20/20 final).
We support our cricketers when they do good, and berate them when they do bad.
I have had a look at some of the Indian coverage and, even with legitimate complaints, it is way over the top. We can appreciate sporting passion, but much of what has been written has been personal and, frankly, incorrect.
If a paper complains that Australians don't walk and doesn't mention that Indians also don't walk, that is unfair. The same goes for appeals - the Ponting LBW and Kumble "driven for 2 runs" appeal should be ample evidence in this regard.
We are happy to accept legitimate complaints -and there ceratinly are some - but if you are fair, you can't be inconsistent and only paint the Aussies in a bad light.
RE:RE:RE:my position
by Bihar Badshah on Jan 09, 2008 01:20 AM Permalink
Please check with all the Asian Greats, even English,West Indians and SA on what they think aboout Aussies and the standard of umpring..If India is the only country blaming we will apolozise to any thing that has hurt our great aussie friends, who really are sports lover, but not their team (Pointing is a Cheat, and he has to live with that tag..it should be put beside his record)..Pls check the facts..Sir!
RE:my position
by on Jan 08, 2008 09:08 PM Permalink
You're right that we can't accept your point of view, Raj. I note your previous "hypothetical" view was that, since it is hypothetically possible that the Australians could be out to get Bajji (for reasons not entirely clear), they should never be believed about anything - just in case. Do you actually read your own posts? That one was a doozy.
Hypothetical - Bajji called Symonds a monkey just to cause this whole uproar so the Indian team could cancel the rest of the tour and not go to all the effort of playing. Just as valid as your hypothetical. Hypothetically speaking that is.
RE:my position
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 09:12 PM Permalink
hypothetical situation: ponting bribed bucknor to give more than 10 bad decisions, and just so that it does not seem too unfair, throw in a couple of bad decisions for the aussie team too. (highly possible)
RE:RE:RE:RE:my position
by Bihar Badshah on Jan 08, 2008 10:50 PM Permalink
Fool is also a racist slur..And Mr Jan and Micheal, so far Indians the world 5th largest economical power have accepted all the data that you furnished on your greats..ex Bradman etc...Pls do not make us challenge and open the Pandora box..If we respect your players, try to respect ours or else we have 100 of couter argument that will show the mirror to ur ugly face..Haden your big bully has 29 test 100's, 20 have been in Australia where u have your own umpire and you behave like grey hounds to any visiting side..
RE:RE:my position
by Bihar Badshah on Jan 08, 2008 10:42 PM Permalink
Hypothetically, Aussies PM and foreign ministry got invloved and wrote the script even before indians landed, to save their face on Dr Haneef treatment..That case was so similar where no evidence was producced still govt went ahead and punished him..Very sumch same modulus oprendi that Proctor (an aprthied era product) did...So prove it that is not correct..
RE:my position
by on Jan 08, 2008 09:15 PM Permalink
I assume this means you agree that "hypotheticals" are a silly and childish way to argue. Otherwise you might want to have a cold shower or something.
RE:RE:my position
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 09:17 PM Permalink
thats ok, i wouldnt want to argue with you regarding "childish" or other words you chose to use to undermine my argument or ruffle me.
RE:RE:my position
by Bihar Badshah on Jan 08, 2008 10:05 PM Permalink
Jan don't try to show ur intellect(?) by just raising irrelevant topic..Each and every thing Raj said is what 99% Indians, Pakistani, SriLankans and even 60% aussies readers think..Good job Raj.
RE:RE:my position
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 09:16 PM Permalink
besides, indians never called the tour off, nor did even harbhajan leave OZ in a huff, he stay put. they were waiting for a fair umpiring and unfair racial abuse accusation to be cleared.
hypothetical situation: symonds and ponting wanted a ban on bhajji for a repeat performance after he first used that m word (and since he got warned there), ponting thought he could get rid of his nemesis once and for all by claiming a racial abuse, he even made symonds officially in charge of inciting him (highly possible they plotted it)
RE:my position
by on Jan 08, 2008 09:34 PM Permalink
I think there is a saying that the "most likely explanation is usually correct". In this case, Bajji has admittedly called Symonds a monkey in the past, and 3 Australians now say that they heard him say it again.
Scenario 1 - he slipped up and said it again, regrets it, but clearly things have gone way to far to admit this now.
Scenario 2 - 4 Australians (3 witneses and Ponting) get together and decide that one of the Indian bowlers (not their best bowler, mind you) is a chance of ruinng their lives by maybe helping India win a test match (not even a whole series, mind you) so they get together and formulate a devious plan to sideline this (not quite best) bowler by outright lying, deviously ensuring that no Umpires or microphones were in the vicinity of the conversation, and sticking to their story over hours of hearings and days of press coverage.
Which is more likely? Remembering of course that the Australians involved have no form of reporting/lying in this regard.
RE:my position
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 09:43 PM Permalink
man, im not here to win. im here to place my point. my point first is ... i hate typing :p i'll stop right about here. me posting my point of view wont change your point of view, nor will your point of view be taken in india for sure! i sure had a great conversation here. and i enjoyed a few jokes here. im sorry on behlaf of abusive people here. i might agree with some of those guys , but remember im with them as far as my stand abt india is concerned :)
RE:my position
by on Jan 08, 2008 09:52 PM Permalink
Cheers, always fun to stoush. Personally I am in the "he probably said it by mistake but why oh why report this when so much other stuff is said in the middle" camp. On this view, perhaps a simple apology, dropped complaint and 2 great cricket games would be the best result.
Keep the faith Raj, sport is no fun if there is nothing to argue about!!
RE:my position
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 09:35 PM Permalink
:) for the vast majority they dont even know what a tinfoil hat is. probably only those who'd read slashdot or probably live there. we'd have to import them :p
1) I agree that the BCCI should appeal because on what has been made publicly available, Proctor shouldn't have found Harbhajan guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" 2) I disagree that India played "in the true spirit of the game" as per Kumble given its own slow over rates, over appealing, deliberate time wasting, own players not walking 3) I agree that Australia also did not play "in the true spirit of the game" given its slow over rates, over appealing, own players not walking 4) I want the BCCI to allow Sachin to disclose his exact testimony to give transparency to the decision 5) I want Indians to acknowledge and admit that Harbhajan did racially abuse Symonds in India (as proved by Mr. Panicker) 6) I want Indians to realise that the umpiring was the root of all evil in this match, as it facilitated the players losing their cool, control and making bad decisions re: appeals, walking and general decency. 7) I want INdians to acknowledge the umpiring was BAD, not BIASED, as evidenced by the anti-Australian decisions in Sydney 8) I want Indians to acknowledge the inconsistency and fallacy of their comments that it is an anti-Indian conspiracy, given the decisions by Bucknor at Lords last year, decisions throughout the recent ODI series in India and past history - rather that it is just poor umpiring generally.
RE:My position
by navraj singh on Jan 08, 2008 09:07 PM Permalink
Hello Mister Michael, First of all Please try to explain how calling somebody a monkey is a racial abuse.Do you treat monkeys in australia as a backward human race? if thats what you do then i will agree with you that Harbhajan is a racist. And secondly Please explain how can australians claims to be a victim of sledging when they have abused players all over the world during their past 10 years of domination. its only when you guys start to loose or somebody who dares to look you in the eye and match yor aggression then you use such childish tactics. Its ok you are masters of sledging and now you are getting a dose of your own medicine so why complain? And then tell me how can ricky ponting claim to posses integrity in the game when he so blatantly refuses to admit a mistake rather than gracefully accepting it that yes it was grounded?
RE:My position
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 09:09 PM Permalink
FYI, micheal is a trained lawyer and knows what he speaks, as of now he's spent over 3 hours collecting all sides of the story for him, and his bunch of friends here. i think you should take some time to read his messages earlier. before commenting. well, ive been trying to answer to a lawyer, but my point isnt taken.
RE:RE:My position
by on Jan 08, 2008 09:33 PM Permalink
Dear Nav Raj
I just wrote a highly eloquent response but it was referred for abuse, so in summary: 1) monkey is complete and utter racial abuse. It stems from use to describe black people as a sub-human species. In Europe, it led to the "Kick it Out" movement to stamp racism out of football - search for it on the web if you have the time. It is routine in Europe for clubs whose fans do monkey chants or have banners about monkeys to be fined millions of EUROS, to have fans banned FOR LIFE and to be forced to play the next match in an empty stadium as punishment.
A number of black footballers have left international and European club games in tears at the abuse they have been receiving from crowds, knowing it is directed at their skin colour.
Yes I agree that it is odd for Australia to sledge then claim racial abuse. BUT, the world has determined that some forms of sledging are OK but that racial abuse is unacceptable IN ANY FORM.
As for Ponting, see my other post re: catches in relation to him grasping the ball in the air and never letting go, but grounding the ball before he gained control of his body (which is completely different to Latif who actually dropped the ball, rolled over and picked it up again knowing the umpire couldn't see!). Ponting's catch still was not complete, but when you read the rules and see the difference, you can see why he may have thought he caught it and controlled the ball in mid-air and the landing was irrelevant. Michael
RE:My position
by Sudhir Liberal on Jan 08, 2008 11:17 PM Permalink
@ Michael: Answers to Ur partial Summary: 2. What do u mean by deliberate time wasting? There were 72 overs allocated to India to see the day off...now where is slow over rates coming into picture? Over appealing is one way to pressuize a batsmen & self-encouragement-- World's greatest spin bowler Shame warne did it all the time... 3. The point you missed is that Aussie team not once but twice appealed for wrong catch when it was agreed by captains that fielder decision will be final if captain nods the same.. Ricky himself accepted that he verdicted Ganguly out on the basis of fielders statement...If Ricky himself doesnt seen it, shouldnt he asked for 3rd umpire (I m stating coz this was part of gentleman's agreement)..Also in case of Dhoni he allegedly appealed for catch which was not there... 4. No comments 5. Bhajji called Symo monkey coz he dint knew what is Symo interpreting...Once understood he said sorry. Chapter closed. Let me tell you first that calling someone monkey is not a 'big abuse' in India as u think..May be in Europe it might be but India it isnt. So where is raicsm came into picture...BTW discussion is on current test match not abt past. 6. If at crucial junctures so many bad decisions are given by umpires (including 3rd umpire!!) against one team only then to any sane person it will look biased. I doubt Aus will ever win 1 test match against India in India if umpire behave (suspiciously) that way.
RE:RE:My position
by Sudhir Liberal on Jan 08, 2008 11:24 PM Permalink
Contd.. 7. Anti Aus decision?? -- Ricky out on 10 odd run finally given out at 53 odd runs on LBW! Is it anti Aus decision? Dont blame Indians or any neutral observer if he feels that Umpiring is biased !! 8. I dint understood completely what you meant but my explanantion to 6 & 7 might clear ur thoughts.
Ok now tell me one more thing....why it always happen (in Aus only)..If one batsman is playing well against Australian team they he is always subjected to unfortunate umpiring errors.... This happened with Sachin throughout in yr 2001. & recently in Last series with Sangakara (2007).... Tell me one good reason why I shouldnt call Aussie team as CHEATS, FOUL MOUTHED CRY BABIES !!
RE:My position
by Michael Mammen on Jan 09, 2008 06:18 AM Permalink
Sudhir 2a) Deliberate time wasting. On previous days, the light deterioriated at Sydney. Many international sides are guilty of it, but it was clear India was slowing it down, knowing that if light became an issue later, it would cut the day short.
2b) Over-appealing Shane Warne perfected the art form which was created by the Indians and Sri Lankans and Pakistanis
3) Catches - i'm afraid you have misunderstood the captain's agreement. a) if a low catch is taken and the fielder tells the captain he caught it, that's it, OUT. b) the purpose of this is to avoid going to the 3rd umpire, because there are never sufficient camera angles to determine and anything low is given not out on principle.
5) Monkey - I agree that the chapter should be closed - but it is still relevant to context because people are still claiming that a) Harbhajan would never say monkey and b) Harbhajan wouldn't know it was offensive to Symonds. The past makes it clear that if proved, Harbhajan must be suspended. The issue of proof is dealt with spearately.
6a) You must have a very short memory of Indian umpiring history. Go back to the 70s-90s.
7) I am not saying decisions were biased against Australia, just that they were WRONG.
8) The umpiring wasn't biased against India, it was just incompetent.
9) It only happens in Australia? Think back to the recent ODI series in India and Karthik getting an edge, not given, going on to win the game.
As per his own admission, Symonds "saw" Harbhajan "hit" Brett Lee on the back and hence chose to walk up and give him a mouthfull. How can Proctor allow this to pass? Symonds should be punished first for taking the law into his own hands. He should have referred it to Ponting or the umpires then itself. Indians do not misbehave unprovoked.
The Aussies now what us to forget everything after inflicting damage on our reputation? I think we should fight this to the very end. I commend the Indian team and the BCCI on their actions.
RE:Punish Symonds FIRST!
by sushil on Jan 08, 2008 09:51 PM Permalink
Michael ,
Just to put the things in perspective ..where were all your arguements when ponting abused great srinath after being hit by a bouncer...( here too srinath was concerned about his well being & ricky decided to abuse him ) . That,s case one...second where were you when there was a heated arguement between sarwan & Mc grath , Third where were you you when michael slater had a altercation with drawid on field in full view of umpires...so first do some soul searching instead of pointing fingers on others. as for as sreesanth goes he is just Dishing assusie,s some of their own receipies , yes pls clean your own house of mess before pointing any fingers on others house...hopw better sense will prevail with you assusie,s .
RE:Punish Symonds FIRST!
by on Jan 08, 2008 10:08 PM Permalink
Simply put Sushil,
WHAT DOES THE PAST HAVE TO DO WITH THE PRESENT?
I'm not here to explain or excuse previous incidents. It seems that Indians are very quick to say "oh Australians made racist comments first (Lehmann), Australia sledged first, etc etc"
We have no problem with Sreesanth if he can back it up on the field. What excuse does Sreesanth have to sledge Symonds and Ponting when he is 12th man? He has a lot of promise, but if not careful, he will be disliked by all in world cricket in the same way Andre Nel is a gentleman off the field and an idiot on it!
When the monkey chants and banners were raised in Mumbai, the Indian press fell over itself citing Australia's past human rights record and previous misdemeanours. Was this supposed to excuse India from taking any action? Taken from a person of Indian background overseas (ie me!), India needs to wake up and stop pointing the finger at others so it can focus on fixing its own backyard when problems come up!
RE:Punish Symonds FIRST!
by mmspm on Jan 08, 2008 09:04 PM Permalink
@ michael
have some common sense, if players have any problem or issue with opponent team, he is not authorised to fight directly on opponent team member, he has to report to captain and captain to umpire and umpire to match referee. This is what ICC rules says. as ur some partner here mentioned "put forward above that all countries sometimes benefit and sometimes dont"
RE:Punish Symonds FIRST!
by on Jan 08, 2008 09:24 PM Permalink
MMSPM - just so you know, that wasn't my post!
But incidentally, Indians never behave unprovoked? So Sreesanth was yelling and staring after the first ball of one day matches in India because Australia provoked him as he ran in to bowl?
Yes a player with an issue should report it to his captain first but EVERY TEAM IN THE WORLD (including India) has players who see something happen in the field and react without going through the usual channel. Harbhajan and Sree are just two easy examples. Cheers Michael
RE:michael
by navraj singh on Jan 08, 2008 09:08 PM Permalink
Who is this guy michael dear? i want to know so that i can precisely argument with this guy
RE:michael
by on Jan 08, 2008 10:11 PM Permalink
Navraj
Harbhajan didn't say Baandar - he actually said Monkey in English to Symonds. As admitted by the author of the head article, we now know for a fact that Harbhajan did this during the ODI series and Symonds took him aside and said it was a serious insult and that it shouldn't be repeated.
Navraj, I am an Australian-born mallu with a keen interest in law and an even keener interest in cricket!
RE:michael
by sssss rrrrrr on Jan 08, 2008 08:56 PM Permalink
Just when Bhajji is confirming Ponting's status as his "bunny" comes this ! Unheard , unsupported ! And also: how is it that such controversial decsions - the grey ones - in Australia ALWAYS go AGAINST the touring team !?
RE:michael
by on Jan 08, 2008 08:58 PM Permalink
Killing two birds with the one stone, mmspm, not too sure what you're on about with Catholic missionaries, but I can say that I'm apparently a reasonably proficient lawyer!
More importantly, you should read my response to this matter earlier. But for ease of reference, I'll repeat it:
1. Get your facts straight. Hogg allegedly said "I'm looking forward to running through you b......" 2. It has been proven that Harbhajan called Symonds a monkey in India, that Symonds spoke to him and said it was the worst possible insult to him and that it could not be repeated (which Harbhajan agreed to). 3. If you can prove that Hogg was taken aside by an Indian, told that it is the worst possible insult to an Indian and that it cannot be repeated and that Hogg agreed but still said it, suspend him for 3 matches as well. 4. Given that didn't happen and the fact that b...... is a term of endearment in Australian slang, mmspm, you don't have a leg to stand on I'm afraid.
RE:RE:michael
by navraj singh on Jan 08, 2008 09:20 PM Permalink
Ok Mister Michael given that b---- is a term of endearment in australian slang i also put forward this argument that calling somebody Baandar (Monkey) is a way to shower your love for the beloved naughty boy in Punjabi which is the mother toungue of Harbhajan Singh HE is Not guilty and every indian who knows punjabi can raise his voice in my support. Now Explain Mr. Michael. Whats your Take on this. And mind you i am not a lawyer by profession. Bye
Not sure what you're saying, but just confirming that I haven't reported any of your comments for abuse - they're far too amusing for me to want to deprive others of the joy of reading and trying to comprehend!
As for the 50 crores, I'm afraid that's a bit beyond my bank balance. I did just buy a house for 4 crores in December if that's sufficient for you?
If Sachin's evidence is crucial, I want to know what it is. Either he will affirmatively say "harbhajan didn't say monkey" - in which case I'll take him at his word and believe the Australian's misheard or misunderstood OR he will say he wasn't listening and didn't hear monkey being said.
WHAT a difference three lucky, last-minute wickets and seven unbowled balls make.
Had Anil Kumble's men drawn the Sydney Test, you would have to wonder whether they would have sat in a luxury hotel for the past two days, refusing to continue with the tour.
Surely Kumble would have been hailed a hero for his captain's knock on the final day and the Indians would be heading to Perth with a renewed optimism that they could match the Australians for the rest of the series.
But the truth is, the Indian side lost its nerve and three wickets with two overs left.
So now umpire Steve Bucknor, who made several critical mistakes in the second Test, has been sacrificed to appease the Indians and will not officate in the third Test, and the Board of Control for Cricket in India is expected to announce today that the tour will go ahead.
Had there been a different result, in a sane world, where effigies aren't burnt and columnists didn't seek to make headlines, you would have to wonder if Ricky Ponting would be painted as such a villain.
The Australian captain has been damned for attempting to stamp out racism, rabid Indian fans have called for his death and Fairfax newspapers have called for his head.
Yesterday, Fairfax columnist and expatriate Englishman Peter Roebuck called for Ponting's sacking. His column was picked up by the Indian media as they fanned the fires of discontent on the subcontinent.
But let's get things into focus. The Indian team refused t
RE:RE:Heres an alternative view
by Che Rogers on Jan 08, 2008 08:40 PM Permalink
hah,
I posted an article that expressed an alternate view and maybe highlighted that India are not as innocent as they make out and have also in the passed particuaril in ENgland benefitted from umpiring mistakes
RE:RE:RE:Heres an alternative view
by Che Rogers on Jan 08, 2008 08:43 PM Permalink
I will take it on notice and look into it. i beliee it is when he got suspended but not sure. What has this got to do with the alternative views put forward above that all countries sometimes benefit and sometimes dont.
Are we not allowed to highlight issues above or is any alternative view punished on this forum
RE:RE:RE:RE:Heres an alternative view
by on Jan 09, 2008 08:33 AM Permalink
Australia benefits much more than any other nation while playing in Australia. Imagine the people who invented sledging cannot handle it coming back to them
RE:Heres an alternative view
by vijay P on Jan 08, 2008 08:49 PM Permalink
There%u2019s a Difference between MAAKI and Monkey... Rogers... I think u have never played Cricket in your life... Let me tell u my friend.. When third umpire decisions are going against you... u cant do much and u r bond to loose.. And when a batsman is caught clean in the slip and you have to beg the umpire to give decision (clark%u2019s wicket) then u don%u2019t have much say but to accept the defeat. I BET STEVE WONDER (the Singer) CAN DO MUCH BETTER UMPIRING THAN STEVE BUCKNOR.
RE:Heres an alternative view
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 08:26 PM Permalink
imagine a scenario - next match, when the players are going to drinks. symonds is at it again. a "friendly banter". bhajji is at the drinks trolley alone surrounded by aussie team members and no cameras nearby. suddenly symonds starts shouting, and all the aussie team members run to the umpire and claim bhajjie has shouted at him and abused him racially.
now what stops the umpire from banning permanently, since there has been a precedence in just the previous match ? now, how will people ever know if this is the case in the first palce , thats this match ? since proctor only went by the australian version, much that he says he's trying to be fair and has heard in the indian side too, its totally unfair that he choses to listen to the australian side. thats the bone of contention. its an insult to sachin, since his testimony has been ignored.
RE:Heres an alternative view
by Che Rogers on Jan 08, 2008 08:25 PM Permalink
Rest of article
refused to accept the ICC match referee's decision to ban Harbhajan Singh for three matches for racially slurring Andrew Symonds and wanted to go home, although the visitors yesterday made sure they sampled life on Australia's most famous beach, Bondi, while some of the Australian team immersed themselves in the culture of the subcontinent, taking part in the shooting of a Bollywood film at the SCG.
The Indian team did this because it knew it could. The BCCI controls cricket's income and cricket would be crippled without its co-operation.
Yet it's not the Indians' refusal to play by the rules, or refusal to play full stop, that is being condemned by some. It's the Australian captain, Ponting. What is his crime here? He has stood by Symonds, a black player, who told him he had been called a monkey. He had this confirmed by two other Australian players, as Ponting revealed in The Australian yesterday.
The Australians claim Harbhajan used the slur on the third day of the Test and revealed that he had said it during the racism-marred series in India last October. What would the pontificators have said if it were an Australian player accused of racially abusing an Indian? Hopefully, Australian cricket would have responded with respect for the process, outrage at the crime and shame that we would treat people in such a manner.
Instead, a tired and emotional Indian team spat the dummy and sat in its Sydney hotel refusing to go on.
RE:Heres an alternative view
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 08:32 PM Permalink
imagine a scenario - next match, when the players are going to drinks. symonds is at it again. a "friendly banter". bhajji is at the drinks trolley alone surrounded by aussie team members and no cameras nearby. suddenly symonds starts shouting, and all the aussie team members run to the umpire and claim bhajjie has shouted at him and abused him racially.
now what stops the umpire from banning permanently, since there has been a precedence in just the previous match ? now, how will people ever know if this is the case in the first palce , thats this match ? since proctor only went by the australian version, much that he says he's trying to be fair and has heard in the indian side too, its totally unfair that he choses to listen to the australian side. thats the bone of contention. its an insult to sachin, since his testimony has been ignored.
RE:Heres an alternative view
by Che Rogers on Jan 08, 2008 08:30 PM Permalink
and finally
When Symonds was subjected to shameful monkey chants at three one-day international matches in India, the authorities denied it was happening until shown photographic proof. It now seems that they require a sound recording of this event before acknowledging it. Sachin Tendulkar, who has sparked the controversy by contacting the board and demanding it support Harbhajan, claims he never heard the word used. Does this mean it wasn't used? Would he have us believe that Ponting, Symonds and two teammates orchestrated a fabric of lies and events and even concocted a story dating back four months? The ICC has an appeals process under way and this should be respected, although it remains to be seen whether it will be. As for Bucknor, it is easy to forget just how silent the Indians were last year when the same umpire did not give Sreesanth out in the fading minutes of the first Test against England. Most commentators believed the bowler was LBW, and had he been given out, the English would have won the Test and the series would have finished one-all. India remains silent about that.
India also remains silent about Tendulkar being given not out when apparently LBW early in his first innings in Sydney. Tendulkar made 154 not out, and nobody complained. The Indians complain about two catches claimed by Australians in the match, but remain mute about a catch that captain-in-waiting Mahendra Singh Dhoni claimed in the Test against England. The umpire gav
RE:Heres an alternative view
by Che Rogers on Jan 08, 2008 08:35 PM Permalink
and finally but remain mute about a catch that captain-in-waiting Mahendra Singh Dhoni claimed in the Test against England. The umpire gave batsman Kevin Pietersen out when Dhoni appealed, but the decision had to be changed when replays showed the ball clearly bounced first.
India remains silent about that.
Last night, the ICC buckled to India's demands and sacked Bucknor. "It is important to stress that Steve has not been replaced due to any representations made by any team or individuals," ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed claimed.
"The ICC remains the sole body responsible for the appointment of umpires and no team has the right to object to any appointment. The decision by the ICC to replace Steve for this match was made in the best interests of the game and the series."
Some newspapers yesterday posted polls damning Ponting's captaincy and the Australian team's sportsmanship.
The Australian has seen an email sent around Indian supporter groups urging them to vote against the Australians. Meanwhile, in India the nation is calling on its beaten team to return home.
"Come back home, nation tells its players," The Hindustan Times blazoned across its front page beneath a photograph of Roebuck and an extract from his column, and above a poll showing that 91 per cent of Indians wanted the tour called off.
The poll, in line with others across television, radio and newspapers, reflects searing resentment over both the umpiring in the second Test at th
RE:RE:Heres an alternative view
by Che Rogers on Jan 08, 2008 08:37 PM Permalink
kast bit (sorry from the australia) over to you
the SCG and the ban on Harbhajan, disclosing that 86 per cent of Indians believe that massive damage has been done to their pride as a nation and that the country got "a raw deal" in Sydney.
