1) I agree that based on what evidence has been made publicly available, there is no way Proctor could find Harbhajan guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" 2) I disagree that India played "in the true spirit of the game" 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 and lack of grace in victory 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) and that Harbhajan knew the consequences if it happened again. 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 and that umpiring errors happen everywhere and that Australia has also suffered. 8) I want Indians to acknowledge the inconsistency and fallacy of their comments that it is an anti-Indian conspiracy, given Bucknor favoured India with errors in England, given Indian umpires' decisions throughout the recent ODI series in India and past history. 9) I want people to realise it is a game and we all need to grow up!
RE:My Summary
by Onlooker on Jan 09, 2008 06:38 AM Permalink
It is the job of defense to create a reasonable doubt in prosecution's witness accounts which forms the evidence in a word against word case. So it appears that the defense didn't do a good job of it in terms of bringing their own witnesses, cross examinations and therefore guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
RE:My Summary
by Auzzie Mite on Jan 09, 2008 07:07 AM Permalink
Michael, here's my list. 1.I agree that Ponting and his players behaved in a disgraceful manner. I admired his brilliant knock of 140 in the 2003 WC final, comparable to Viv Richards's. But I have lost respect for him after his childish behavior. 2.I want the Australians to apologize for their disgraceful behavior. 3.I want Mike Proctor to disclose to public how he made his 'beyond reasonable doubt' verdict pending any evidence of Harbhajan having actually uttered the offending words in question. 4.I want the Australian team to come down from their moral high horse which makes them believe they did nothing wrong, going by the statements of Ponting,Gilchrist, Clarke and now Hussey. 5.I want the ICC to acknowledge that the quality of elite umpires is not that great and that Bucknor is not fit to umpire any more. 6.I want Ricky Ponting to apologize for his arrogant behavior towards a member of the Indian media during his press conference. 7.I want the Australian players to acknowledge that their actions did not constitute playing within the spirit of the game. The question is, are they man enough to admit their mistakes ? 8.I want the Australians also to realise that it is a game and that their sledging has been offensive to teams over the years. 9.I would like the Australians to reflect over the way they have treated Murali, and consider whether that does not constitute racism.
RE:My Summary
by Michael Mammen on Jan 09, 2008 07:18 AM Permalink
Auzzie Mite 1. Agreed. He needs to learn a lot 2. Apologise - I believe that will come when the dust settles, everyone is far too emotional, wanting everything their way, on their terms without compromise 3. Agreed - I imagine the appeal process will do this anyway. 4. As per point 2. What "statements" are you referring to? The Australian public led a revolt against the Australian team after a nasty series against WI a few years ago, and substantial changes were made as a result. 5. Dropping Bucknor achieves this BUT I still disagree with the process. Clive Lloyd has expressed his disgust with the removal as it gives countries the option to throw a tantrum until they get their preferred umpires. 6. As per 2 - but honestly, you provoke a person who has been through 5 days of emotional and physical strain seeking a reaction - and then act surprised at the result! 7. Agreed, if India also admit they were not in the spirit of the game - slow over rates trying to get bad light on the last day, asking for shin guards on the 6th ball of an over, coming out with 2 left gloves and 9 minutes left, Yuvraj glaring at the umpires the same as Ponting, over-appealing? 8. Agreed - either you need a zero-tolerance approach or clear guidelines as to what is not allowable 9. The Murali situation is peculiar. Some resent him for his bowling action. I don't believe it's racial - Murali got an amazing reception from 90,000 fans at the MCG for the Tsunami fundraiser match.
RE:RE:RE:My Summary
by Michael Mammen on Jan 09, 2008 09:02 AM Permalink
8) Murali - based on statistics, Darrell Hair had the highest rate of correct decisions of any umpire in the world. He just interpreted the laws as they were written.
Is it a coincidence that they changed the laws AFTER Hair called Murali for a no-ball.
At the time, the laws of cricket said that if the umpire had any doubt about the bowler's action, it was to be called a no-ball.
Arguably it should have been amended to say if the umpire is convinced the action is illegal, it was to be a no-ball. But instead, they tested Murali and other bowlers (including Lee and Akhtar), determined that everyone straightens a little, and changed the laws to allow 15 degrees.
Doesn't that indicate that Hair was technically correct and not driven by race? Or is it being swept up in the anti-subcontinent conspiracy theory.
And before you bring it out, again right or wrong, Pakistan had no right under the laws of cricket to not come out to restart the match, so Hair was right to call a forfeit (though I think he was wrong in his determination of potential ball tampering which should have been dealt with after stumps).
RE:RE:RE:My Summary
by Michael Mammen on Jan 09, 2008 08:58 AM Permalink
4) clearly you don't know how much worse the Australians used to be, in the days of fast bowlers following through and hurling despicable insults, spitting, swearing at the batsmen. Compare that to now, with Brett Lee bowling at 150km/ph, sometimes following through and saying to Laxman "mate, you had no idea where that was, I'm too quick" - to which VVS laughs, smiles and says "remember Kolkata?". What you saw in Sydney was strained and fatigued players on both sides in a hellish environment created by poor umpires with no control. 5) Agreed, but do you drop a batsman just because he pads up and leaves a ball which is going to hit middle stump (Dhoni and M Clarke)? You may say Bucknor has been a long time deterioriation (and I agree), but the umpire should be sacrosanct. 6) Agreed that Harbhajan may have been provoked. But equally Ponting was defensive and was being pushed by the journo. Imagine Ganguly responding to questions like "so Saurav, the 2 left gloves with 9 minutes to play, that was a deliberate time-wasting tactic wasn't it, just like bringing out shinguards for the last ball of the over?" (I'm comparing Saurav to Ponting as they are both emotion-charged cricketers. 7) Wrong - read Roebuck. You can slow overs down on the first 4 days (both teams did) with no real consequence as time is made up. If you slow overs on day 5 and bad light comes, that's it, no more overs. Hence my disgust with the shinguards coming out, over rates and 2 left gloves.
RE:My Summary
by Auzzie Mite on Jan 09, 2008 10:13 AM Permalink
Michael, Response to 6. - Agreed that is has been 5 rough days, but bear in mind that Kumble has been fighting for 5 hard days as well. Yet he never snapped at a journalist like a teenager. The great Allan Border never indulged in such despicable behavior. As a captain of a team, you are held to higher standard of behavior as compared to other members of the team. Yelling at a reporter in a press conference ain't done mate. The only other instance of hostility to press that I can remember is Mike Atherton in Pakistan. Ponting had a responsibility to be calm and composed.
What I still don't get is that this whole thing initially was betwene Harbhajan and Lee. When Brett Lee had no issues, why should Symonds play the activist there? Lee never complained to the umpire or to his captain. Why does Symonds havet to rudely barge in and start a confrontation.
Indian fans celebrating their Twenty20 celebration is upto them. Who is Symonds to comment on them not being humble or something? If you don't agree with it fine. Don't go shooting your mouth off and needling your hosts. Symonds started it with his comments and invited the hostility from the Indian fans. Things would have been just fine if he knew when to speak and when to use discretion. I'm not justifying racism here, but highlighting the fact that Symonds is not very innocent. That needs to be taken into account.
RE:RE:My Summary
by Indian on Jan 09, 2008 07:40 AM Permalink
Michael:
On your response to point 6:- If Ponting can get provoked in a calm air-conditioned hall with just a question ("did you think you take a clean catch") and is justified to use whatever words he chooses, that shows how tough the Aussies are.
Aussies have used mindless and endless sledging on ground, in conditions that provoke far more, and hit much lower below the belt and tried to "mentally disintegrate" opponents.
Funny how an Aussie can be mentally disintegrated in a couple of seconds, and his defence is that he was provoked!
RE:RE:RE:My Summary
by Michael Mammen on Jan 09, 2008 08:50 AM Permalink
It's not about the room he was in - that's like saying, lets take a soldier from the battlefield, put him in a cool room and he should be snapped back to normal!
But this isn't my point, I'm just saying that things will settle down once cooler heads prevail, and people realise that everyone is a little bit (or a lot) at fault and that everyone can change things for the better.
RE:RE:My Summary
by Michael Mammen on Jan 09, 2008 06:48 AM Permalink
Again you misinterpret - it must be far easier than logical analysis.
I am not saying the Australians have merit in this matter. I have in fact REPEATEDLY said their behaviour was embarassing and not in the game's best interests.
HOWEVER, I am only saying that the Indians have also got issues, therefore it is a worldwide problem, and perhaps some Indian fans would be better served thinking of unilateral solutions, rather than pointing the finger.
Australians have conducted themselves badly, so have Indians, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, New Zealanders, English and West Indians.
I know India loves playing the victim (I'm Indian, I should know!) - but the true test of character is the growth, not the reaction.
RE:RE:RE:My Summary
by Dev Purkayastha on Jan 09, 2008 07:31 AM Permalink
Sir: Let us say you are less than perfect as a person. Does that justify a goonda coming into your house and beating you up? Indian team has many shortcomings and we want them to improve. BCCI should spend money on that. But BCCI also needs to make it clear to the world that winning with the help of umpires and suspending an effective player on no grounds will not be tolerated. If you act like a doormat you will be treated like a doormat.
If I am a goonda, and another goonda comes into my house and robs me, yes, I can defend myself. But I can't stand there and say "goonda, how dare you rob me, that is wrong".
Similarly, the BCCI is completely within its rights to appeal Proctor's decision to defend a perceived error against Harbhajan, but to criticise the process itself is unjustifiable!
RE:My Summary
by Indian on Jan 09, 2008 06:43 AM Permalink
Mr. Mammen: Firstly wipe it off your mind (and completely wipe it off if you possibly can) that the "monkey" business in India has anything to do with racism.
An average Indian fan doesn't even know that Symonds is black. He is a lot lot fairer than most Indians. For an average Indian fan, he is just an Aussie. I am sure more than 90% of Indian fans won't even know where he originally hails from. So please get that right.
The Indian fans just didn't tolerate his boorish behaviour and arrogance on field, and took to his appearance, especially his white lipstick. And that is (contrary to whoever, wherever believes otherwise) the only explanation for those taunting episodes.
Bhajji probably taunted him with "monkey" in India just to needle him, and he has every right to do that, the same as every Aussie has been needling all opponents post-Bradman era.
It's just that Aussies have devised a fantastic way to block anyone needling one-of-their-own, by labelling as "racist" anybody who makes fun of their precious Roy.
As illustrated by India reporting Brad Hogg, your comments are irrelevant I'm afraid.
Harbhajan called Symonds a monkey. Symonds took him aside and told him it was deeply offensive, and not to use it again or he'd report it.
The sole question now is, did he say it again? Leave it to the appeals and the courts to decide, as I'm sure they will.
Similarly, the Indians say b* is a deeply offensive term, so they have reported Hogg. Did Hogg already know this was the case (when in Australia it is affectionate slang)? I doubt it, so he should get the same warning Harbhajan got from Symonds and be suspended if he does it again!
RE:My Summary
by Indian on Jan 09, 2008 07:31 AM Permalink
Michael: Now that we are discussing this like two mature people, let me bring another aside to this. Alan Border has magnanimously offered his opinion that this is all just a cultural misunderstanding etc. etc. equating the word monkey (in Indian context) with the B word (in Aussie context).
I find it funny in the wake of Symonds expecting Harbhajan not to repeat the offensive word. Symonds' patience lasted for only 2 instances (assuming Bhajji said it again, which incidentally he DIDN'T, so actually the patience cracked during the first instance itself and then became a vendetta that incidentally also benefits Punter the Bunny).
Whereas Indians have been displaying this maturity for decades now. If Alan knows that B word has always hurted the Indians, yet Aussies keep using it and claim sledging is their birthright, and yet Indians don't report anyone, then its a far far higher maturity that has been on display for anyone to see. Its just a pity that the Aussies won't appreciate it, and express a collective shock when a certain Hogg is eventually reported as a "last straw on camel's back syndrome"; and go further to label the entire Indian race as being sooks and bad losers and what nots.
From Alan Border's perspective Hogg does not have any defence.
AB said that it's a cultural misunderstanding. If so, then if there is independent proof that Harbhajan said monkey in India without understanding, then was "enlightened" by Symonds or others yet said it again, then he should be suspended.
If Hogg can be independently proved to have known just how offensive the b word was to the Indians, yet still used it - then Hogg should also be suspended.
If not on either or both of these, then either or both should be warned or just given a suspended sentence.
RE:My Summary
by Indian on Jan 09, 2008 07:55 AM Permalink
Mature enough. But not practical enough.
AB being at the helm of the Aussie ship didn't (or couldn't) stop the onslaught of sledging. And he cannot now say that HE did not know which words were offensive.
I suspect our mature discussion is not going to be enough to change the way Aussies sledge. I'm afraid Indians will still have to go on displaying their maturity. I'm also sure Aussies are going to hail them as being sporting enough and being great people etc. etc. till Indians show another streak of winning (or until another Sourav comes along)..
Till then: Lord forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.
RE:My Summary
by Dev Purkayastha on Jan 09, 2008 07:25 AM Permalink
Mr. Marman: Your excellent summary is marred by some obvious flaws. The Umpiring was biased from statistical point of view. If the umpire was unbised the bad decisions will favor both team equally. When 7 out of 8 bad decisons go against India, the probability of it being an innocent mistake goes down to less than 1%. In most scientific papers 95% confidence is good enough, here we reached 99%. Why do you think it is unbiased?
If Hartbhajan called Symonds a monkey he deserves to be punished. However, as Mr. Panicker points out only three people know what happened - Symonds, Harbhajan and Tendulkar. It is two against one. Since Australians are not known for playing fair, it appears to be a thinly veiled attempt to exclude Harbhajan who is in top form. Mr. Symonds admits that he made a "crack" at Singh. What was that crack? Australia invented sledging and they are proud of it. I have seen it described by Australians as mind game etc. Why are they crying when they get sledged? If Mr. Symmonds is particularly sensitive to being called a monkey, it seems to be an ideal way to sledge him. I find sledging disgusting and it should be totally banned. But Australians cannot complain when they are hoisted by their own petard.
RE:My Summary
by Michael Mammen on Jan 09, 2008 08:37 AM Permalink
Mr Purkayastha, With all due respect, I beg to differ and your hypothesis is fundamentally flawed.
You are quoting scientific papers and statistics. Any worthwhile mathematician or scientist will tell you that you cannot derive statistics unless your sample is sufficiently large. If I flip a coin once and get a "head", does that mean this will happen 100% of the time? Of course not - you must have a sufficiently large sample size before calculating statistics. In this sense, over the course of a match, a series, a year, a decade, etc, then analyse if things level out.
I'm willing to admit that statistics over time has indicated that 50/50 decisions favour the home side.
But as for your extended hypothesis, it cannot be sustained and comments like this only serve to muddy the waters.
Mr. Panicker is wrong if he says only 3 people know what happened. 1) Hayden and Clarke heard the comment and relayed it to Gilchrist and Ponting. Therefore it was Symonds, Hayden, Clarke on one side. 2) In some parts of the press, apparently Tendulkar has said he didn't hear the word monkey (not that it was definitively not said) - there is a slight but meaningful difference.
In any event, as I've said perhaps 22 times now - if the ICC determines that sledging is to be banned totally, so be it. Otherwise, turn the microphones up and we'll have to determine what is allowable and what is not.
RE:My Summary
by Michael Mammen on Jan 09, 2008 06:45 AM Permalink
How is it biased against India, it's merely an attempt to restore a modicum of balance? The key issues are: 1) the umpires performance 2) the Australians' behaviour 3) the Indians' behaviour 4) the racism claim 5) the hearing process 6) the spirit of the game
Since every allegation here is thrown at the Australians (with scarcely a mention of any potential Indian culpability), it's difficult to portray the situation any other way.
Yesterday, Indians were falling over themselves to quote Roebuck and other British journos.
Today, I give you these quotes: Agnew "They (Australia) can give it, but can't take it. That, of course does not offer any defence for racism" (if proved of course)
Agnew "I am going to throw in Sreesanth's name as an example of an Indian cricketer who has often - and recently - gone well beyond the spirit of cricket: it is not purely an Australian thing"
Roebuck "BY NO means can the Indians escape censure for the unpleasantness that took place in cricket's dark hour at the SCG...India has a right to demand a second hearing, but it is hardly fit and proper for the entire tour to shudder to a halt in the meantime...Of course vociferous fanatics will remain loyal but only fools play to that gallery...India's top-order deficiencies were also anticipated. It also bowled its overs so slowly that the match finished past exhaustion time...None of these matters ought to be forgotten. India must not merely complain about the Australians."
