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".
Only time will tell, though my views on the BCCI position will follow shortly.
RE:What is the (educated) world coming to?
by Adnan on Jan 08, 2008 06:42 PM Permalink
This is not ROCKET SCIENCE: PROCTOR IS NOT PROFESSIONAL THE 2 UMPIRES ARE NOT PROFESSIONALS PONTING EITHER DOESN'T KNOW HOW A CATCH IS CLAIMED OR HE IS A CHEAT!
RE:What is the (educated) world coming to?
by on Jan 08, 2008 06:49 PM Permalink
It's funny... Proctor is not an Australian. And God knows, Sth Africans have little reasons to love Australians. Bucknor is not Australian. This must be just one big conspiracy against India. All of the indepenent umpires, the ICC, and everyone else in the world are just out to get you poor Indians. Grow up you twit. Harbhajan is a guy who has thrown this slur at Symonds before. Why is it so hard to think he would have done it again?
RE:What is the (educated) world coming to?
by on Jan 09, 2008 08:38 AM Permalink
Listen you twit there is no proof that Harbhajan used that term - just Symonds word against his. Procter has a history of bias against Asian teams Bucknor has a history of bias against India Why don't you get your peanut brain around the real facts
RE:What is the (educated) world coming to?
by Adnan on Jan 08, 2008 06:53 PM Permalink
This is not ROCKET SCIENCE: PROCTOR IS NOT PROFESSIONAL THE 2 UMPIRES ARE NOT PROFESSIONALS PONTING EITHER DOESN'T KNOW HOW A CATCH IS CLAIMED OR HE IS A CHEAT!
I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORD UNPROFESSIONAL MR.LAWYER!
PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT PROFESSIONAL, DO NOT CONSPIRE...THEY ARE JUST INCOMPETENT!
RE:What is the (educated) world coming to?
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 06:56 PM Permalink
"Harbhajan is a guy who has thrown this slur at Symonds before. Why is it so hard to think he would have done it again?"
exactly the reason why he was framed. cant think too much of your captain who lies infront of the camera, and says he held a catch cleanly. same with clarke who clearly grassed it.
we dont need to be reminded of the nationality of those gentlemen. bucknor's been consistent with his bad decisions to india. its like we dread when bucknor's around, and its almost inevitable that he has to give a lot more bad decisions to india. the worst was in the last test. bucknor even mimicked dravid on air. now we dont need to say anything more about his neutrality. about proctor, his decision might be consistent with vague icc rules. there's simply no evidence for him to prove, when only sachin, the other person who's heard it. the aussie team can claim anything in the next test, because bhajji's now be convicted twice!!!
RE:What is the (educated) world coming to?
by on Jan 08, 2008 06:55 PM Permalink
Well put. Ponting has only said he believes his player and would like the appropriate body to deal with the situation as they see fit. If the ICC then botches it this is not his fault. It is worth remembering the Procter grew up in apartheid S. Africa, he has possibly let other issues cloud his judgment, an appeal is the way to resolve the issue and I would be very surprised (on the evidence we have in the public) if they did not say we can't prove it either way, so no ban, but you be very careful about the M word in future. Which would be fair.
RE:What is the (educated) world coming to?
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 07:00 PM Permalink
i'd say ban bhajji if they have the evidence. ban him for 5 matches. if not let him go, and get that blasted symonds for character assasination. that chap is no saint. he's the head of the pack of dogs that the aussies have transformed into. i dont like any of the sledging that aussies do.
if sledging is the bone of contention. let it be banned.
RE:What is the (educated) world coming to?
by on Jan 08, 2008 07:02 PM Permalink
Lack of evidence to convict is not the same as Symonds making it up. If we were in a room alone (or where nobody else could hear) I could call you what I like until I was blue in the face. If you reported me I could hide behind my 'trustworthy profession' and would never get convicted as it would be my word on yours and that is not enough proof. Wouldn't mean I didn't say it though.
Some people term the West Indies to be courteous, sincere, honest, etc. Please note that in the 5th Day's play against South Africa, West Indies and the umpires (includes simon tauffel) played a great part of their honesty. Amla;s catch gymnastically taken by Gayle (that's what they claim) was of a no ball and no one noticed it. Secondly, Smith's catch taken by Gayle in second slip was grassed by Gayle in similar fashion of Michael Clarke's however, it was given out and no one went inside this sh1t.
In fact, least anyone bothered about these instances, as South Africa were cruising towards a solid victory and relied on the other batsmen to come for their rescue. West Indies enjoyed their slice of luck as any wicket that had come in their way was a jackpot for themselves!!
RE:Who are the West Indies??
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 06:50 PM Permalink
west indies were great crickters, the team clive lloyd had was solid and nowhere as abusive as the aussie team. they were hostile and max glared at the batsmen. but the aussies are cheap, known for their "mental disintegration" they say yu that yu are not your parent's offspring. now thats hitting below the belt. australia started it all.
RE:Who are the West Indies??
by TJ on Jan 08, 2008 06:52 PM Permalink
you answered none of my queries, indicates you don't have a genuine argument within yourself.
Ponting may end up as one of the best to have played the game when he hangs his boots. But he will be remebered more for his onfiled cheating habbits rather than the manner inwhich he scored the runs. If not for support from umpires like Buknor, he wouldn't have made the runs what he is making now. If he cannot negotiate Bajji's spin on Australian tracks, he is not going to play the spinners in sub continental pitches...which is his "waterloo" already....I can hardly imagine him playing for a Ranji Team. He is using the dirty tricks to keep Bajji away from the playing eleven. He will probably end up as the "dirtiest cricketer in the history of the game", Shame on you Ponting. Shame on You Aussies.
RE:Ponting and his tricks
by on Jan 08, 2008 06:47 PM Permalink
Yeah, I am sure Ponting really wanted to keep Singh away from the WACA ground. Ponting played well the last time he was in India. The fact is you would feel better if it was dirty tricks and umpiring that cost India the games rather than their simply not being good enough (nobody seems to be blaming Jaffer or Yuvraj Singh for their pathetic batting).
RE:Ponting and his tricks
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 06:51 PM Permalink
i dont mind yuvraj and dhoni playing badly. if not for ganguly's and dravid's decision in the second innings. the match would have been a draw. simple as that.
RE:Ponting and his tricks
by TJ on Jan 08, 2008 06:57 PM Permalink
Some people term the West Indies to be courteous, sincere, honest, etc. Please note that in the 5th Day's play against South Africa, West Indies and the umpires (includes simon tauffel) played a great part of their honesty. Amla;s catch gymnastically taken by Gayle (that's what they claim) was of a no ball and no one noticed it. Secondly, Smith's catch taken by Gayle in second slip was grassed by Gayle in similar fashion of Michael Clarke's however, it was given out and no one went inside this sh1t.
In fact, least anyone bothered about these instances, as South Africa were cruising towards a solid victory and relied on the other batsmen to come for their rescue. West Indies enjoyed their slice of luck as any wicket that had come in their way was a jackpot for themselves!!
RE:RE:Ponting and his tricks
by on Jan 08, 2008 07:05 PM Permalink
I am NOT the lawyer, but I just realised I can't seem to get my name to appear, sorry, it is Jeremy.
RE:Ponting and his tricks
by on Jan 08, 2008 07:18 PM Permalink
Sorry - i don't get the joke below and I hate not understanding things...Most of the 'anonymous' posts above are mine though.
Ponting admitted quite plainly he had nothing but Symonds' account of what was said to go on at the hearing, however, as captain it was still his duty (as dictated by the ICC and refereee at the beginnning of the game) that any potentially racist comment be reported.
I agree with you, there is no way to prove that Singh said anything so he should be let off. However, it is Procter that made the decision to ban him, not Australians/Ponting! Be angry at him, not us. I have no doubt that Symonds believes Singh made racist comments, it is possible that what he believes is not true as people mishear things all the time when accents/other noises are involved, ergo Singh should be let off. But to accuse Symonds or anyone of deliberately concocting a racism charge is libellious - you have even less proof than Procter does of that!
Anyway - Australia does not need to make up stories to beat India - it is a shame for you that a country with 1b people and one national sport can't beat a nation of 21m who have numerous world champions in other sports. But that is not our fault. Kumble was no doubt frustrated and disappointed at failing and we all know what happens to Indian captains who fail - why you have 3 previos captains in the team! If I were him I would be looking for something to distract the media too, after all, it could be MY effigy on the pyre.
I note too, that Australia's ways were okay when you appointed Chappell (a man infamous for bad sportsmanship) as coach.
RE:Ponting banned - for telling the truth?
by Adnan on Jan 08, 2008 06:27 PM Permalink
You bad need to read what Peter Reubouk has said about your Ponting...."He is leading a bunch of Wild dogs"
RE:Ponting banned - for telling the truth?
by on Jan 08, 2008 06:38 PM Permalink
I have of course read that and disagree with him - his condemnation of Hayden at the very least is perplexing - he wasn't doing a lot of sledging from the rooms. Look at any team which is utterly dominant in a sport for a period of years Liverpool then Man U in football, for example, people always accuse them of being too tough or too hard or getting the favour of umpires (which, admittedly, Australia certainly got lucky with in Sydney). However, Australia does not sledge any more than other players (like RSA's Nel/Smith or India's Sreesanth or Eng's Pietersen), we just win more and so attract the ire of other nations.
The only player who walks in world cricket is an Australian - and he did so in a World Cup semi-final. Ponting in this very game declined to appeal for a 'catch' he could easily have removed Ganguly with if he'd tried. The fact is Kumble agreed to an honour code with fielding then it potentially cost his team. I note that just as their is no evidence to convict Singh their is no evidence to convict Michael Clarke, replays are equivocal at worst. Wlaking and catches are different and should not be muddled together. As a batsman you only have the option to give yourself out, you can't give yourself in, so it is better to let things balance out and rely on the umpire. Catches you are able to declare both decisions as a player so no balance is necessary. Though, it ought to be remembered that Benson gave Ganguly out, not Ponting.
RE:RE:Ponting banned - for telling the truth?
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 06:48 PM Permalink
not so. west indies were much better than the aussie team in terms of behaviour. only the aussie team is celebrated ones for theier "gamesmanship" "friendlt banter"
RE:Ponting banned - for telling the truth?
by on Jan 08, 2008 07:22 PM Permalink
Always, winning is not the only thing in the gmae world, there is a word called honest & respect too. If it was all about winning than BCCI never able to raise such fund (700% than Cricket Asutrelia. In international game sector players are diplomat, Host country must understand this. when touring members charged without any true evidence than first embessy starts working towards damage control. But Here I not see any damage control by Cricket australia??
one person, whose is a leader of the side make a agreement prior to series to play honest & with the spirit of the game & in the middle of the series he says no one can ask his integrity.
You know once Chandrapaul told in interview if some of 50-50 or 60-40 decision will be given opposite side than beating Astralia in Astralia is not a big thing Now it looks pretty clear. Over the year It is made clear that touring to australia means playing againest 12 where 12th man is umpire. I don't know Why only in Australia touring players are come under scaner for wrong side.
When their own heros are condemning their behaviour australian players behaving like nothing has happend. Which is in India Called Shame.
I think Australian Media also is in awe of their player, In india Media lamblasted against its player when their onfield behaviours come ounder scrunity, but Australian media is silent about their players on field behaviours.
RE:Ponting banned - for telling the truth?
by Rishi Poddar on Jan 08, 2008 06:38 PM Permalink
Ponting has lost his integrity much before this test match and Sydney proved why. He grassed a catch of Dhoni and claimed that he caught it cleanly. He asked for Sourav's dismissal when he saw Clarke not taking the catch cleanly. There is no sportsmanship left in your team which wants to win at all costs. Just take a look at the opinion poll conduct by Fox News and many other newspapers in the last two days - majority of your countrymen Australians denounced their national cricketers for their behaviour and cheating.
RE:RE:Ponting banned - for telling the truth?
by on Jan 08, 2008 06:41 PM Permalink
You have no proof at all that Ponting knew he probably touched the ball to the grass off Dhoni. I have seen the replay of Ganguly's dismissal m,any times and am still convinced that at the very least the replay is unclear, so why immediately think the worst of a player?
As for the polls, this is not an election, only people who really care will vote,i.e, people who feel they behaved badly, no credence is to be given to them though many polls (and people I spoke to today) agree with me.
RE:Ponting banned - for telling the truth?
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 06:46 PM Permalink
ponting's eyes were directed at the ball when he was on the ground. thats more than enough evidence. watch the replays on the indian tv when the freeze it at the right time. when in doubt, the batsmen get the benefit of doubt.
RE:Ponting banned - for telling the truth?
by on Jan 08, 2008 06:51 PM Permalink
I have not seen any Indian TV, so I can't comment. But was Dhoni given out - no, he got the benefit.
RE:Ponting banned - for telling the truth?
by on Jan 08, 2008 06:53 PM Permalink
At last, some one with a balanced view. I'm no Ponting fan, but I don't think he would claim a catch he knew was grassed. He proved that in the first innings, a fact many of you seem to have conveniently forgotten.
RE:RE:RE:Ponting banned - for telling the truth?
by TJ on Jan 08, 2008 07:03 PM Permalink
Yeah his expressions were so genuine when he didn't accept a catch in first innings though he had many reasons to do so as India was building a tough lead.
