Micheal, It felt good that you are debating points logically. I agree with your point about Brad Hogg calling the Indians bas*tards as "bas*tard" may be a term of endearment in Australia and no one told him that it was a highly offensive in India. The point of contention here, however, is if at all Bhajjo called him a "monkey" at all. It is basically the words of Indians against the Australians. And without any conclusive evidence, it shouldn't have been decided the way it was decided. These things apart, I will be interested to know what you have to say about the so called "spirit" of the game that the Australians displayed during the match. What with Ricky Ponting claiming a catch that he clearly grounded (conclusive visual evidence availble) and then vehemenently and aggressivly insisting that he took the catch in a post match conference? Also, what about Gilly appealing wrongly for Dravid's dismissal when he was in the best position to see (and hear) that Dravid did not knick the ball. And finally, with Ricky Ponting arrognatly giving out, when asked by the umpire, to Ganguly on a seemingly dubious catch taken by Clarke. All these instances show that Australians were cheating and wanted to win the match even at the risk of being called cheats. Mohit
RE:Micheal, reply to this please
by on Jan 08, 2008 09:52 PM Permalink
Mohit, it's 3:20AM here so I'm on my way out, so apologies if I don't make sense! 1) Thank you for at least seeing that I'm trying to use some logic in what is otherwise an emotion-driven debate 2) I agree that Proctor is wrong if he found "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Harbhajan said it AGAIN simply based on the words of the Indians and Australians. That is the purpose of the appeal system and further judicial review if required - there is no reason to jump up and down and threaten boycotts/etc 3) Spirit of the Game - my position is that NEITHER team played by the right spirit (as discussed earlier). Overriding this is my view that the Australians did not show any humility or grace in victory, but equally the Indians were hardly graceful in their 20/20 celebrations, nor was Harbhajan graceful in his celebration of the Ponting dismissal (mind you I have no problem with his exuberance). 4) As for Ponting - I agree that he grounded the ball before gaining control of his own body making it not out, but I can also see that he did grasp the ball cleanly in mid-air, and with the speed he got up to appeal (holding the ball all the time), I can excuse his failure to realise that he needed to control the ball until he controlled his body completely. As for his response in a terse post-match conference, everyone was on edge, I don't take too much from it.
RE:RE:Micheal, reply to this please
by on Jan 08, 2008 09:57 PM Permalink
5) Gilchrist - I have addressed this in another post entitled Gilchrist! I've played in 3 day grand finals before and they have been hard enough come the final day when you are chasing a victory. Let alone a game where the umpires have lost control and you figure you may as well appeal for everything, with emotions rising and tempers flaring. Don't forget Gilchrist walked after being given NOT OUT in a world cup semi-final. He has said that he won't appeal if he knows its not out, but will appeal if not sure. There was a noise as the ball brushed Dravid's pad and in the blink of an eyelid, without 20 replays, Gilchrist didn't know what it hit, so he appealed. Point the finger at Bucknor, not Gilchrist, again separating emotion from fact. 6) The Clarke catch and Ponting - I have also explained this. Again an agreement was reached to avoid going to the third umpire on contentious low catches (by Kumble and Ponting). In matches without a third umpire, the captain is called on by umpires to confirm if the catch was taken. In every match I have played in, the fielding captain has always put his finger up as a universal sign that the batsman is out as far as the fielding side is concerned. This happend, it was not uncalled for, and the same would have happened if it was Laxman at 2nd slip and Kumble had the final say.
RE:Micheal, reply to this please
by Mohit Jain on Jan 08, 2008 10:09 PM Permalink
Micheal, lets argue more on this when you wake up tomorrow (tpday already for you). I dont want to rob you of your sleep entirely. Though I dont agree with some of your comments, I do however give in that India also (amidst all the controversy) did not show enough grit to bat on for 2 sessions to save the match. We did not play well, but that does not exonerate you guys from not playing the game in spirit. BTW, we are not discussing the Indian celebration for the 20/20 world cup here. A world cup victory is much more than a single series match victory, and, India did not CHEAT in that match either.
RE:Micheal, reply to this please
by on Jan 08, 2008 09:43 PM Permalink
Yeah, and the fact that Bajji knew monkey was off limits, had previously been spoken to about it, the whole issue of "monkey" chants got worldwide coverage and the teams were specifially told to report racial comments is totally irrelevant!
RE:Micheal, reply to this please
by Mohit Jain on Jan 08, 2008 09:46 PM Permalink
But the question is, did he say it at all this time. No conclusive evidence to that. It should not have been decided on someone's word especially if there is someone else refuting it. Is this how the court of law also decides its outcome in Australia, Micheal? You would know, you are a lawyer.
