First time poster on one of these boards, but this one seems a bit more reasonable and considered than most on this topic.
You have presented your argument as a debating contest rather than an attempt at balanced commentary. I think there are a number of issues that are above debate - ie the umpiring was bad, and (given the circumstances of the recent Indian tour) calling Symonds a "monkey" is unacceptable.
As to whether or not Bajji called Symonds a "monkey", well no-one one on this site can make a call on that. To try to argue, as you do, that the truth can mathematically be deduced by adding one "truthful" Bajji to one "never lies" Tendulkar and saying this beats 4 "cheating" Australians is not an argument. You pretty much admit this when you claim Symonds has "no evidentiary value" and that you know that only Tendulkar is telling the truth because you "trust" him. Not arguments. The Symonds bit doesn't even make sense. I guess if someone robbed you, you wouldn't report it to the police because, as the victim, you have "no evidentiary value".
Finally, your point about the appeal is misleading. Making an appeal with the threat India will boycott unless they win is not within the spirit (or rules) of the game. It is blackmail, regardless of how strongly it is felt that Bajji is innocent.
India has legitimate grievances about how the match was adjudicated. They can only lose sympathy and respect by trying to unfairly muscle the ICC.
RE:be fair
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 07:02 PM Permalink
india has not been muscling the icc. they are trying their rights. indians feel bhajji has been convicted with zero evidence. the aussie team would have gone to courts if they were bannned.
oh, wait a minute, they have never been convicted for anything without evidence...oh nevermind icc is aussie.
RE:be fair
by on Jan 08, 2008 07:30 PM Permalink
Actually, Darren Lehmann was suspended for racist remarks and rightly so. I'm sure there was no evidence other than the parties involved and there were no cameras or mics in the dressing rooms. He did wrong and faced the music, not try to deny it.
RE:be fair
by on Jan 08, 2008 07:37 PM Permalink
To be honest, I believe Boof (Lehmann) was picked up on TV mics - it also didn't help that at Adelaide, the two dressing rooms are quite close and he was heard by a lot of people!
But the point stands - he got caught and took his punishment on the chin. It's amazing how many Indians refer to this incident as some sort of defence to say "the Aussies did it first" CHeers Michael
RE:be fair
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 07:58 PM Permalink
point is its about citing an example. not aussies did it first. what aussies brought to the game was ugliness of sledging. also, yu might have missed the hypothetical scene i mentioned above - how bhajjie can be banned in the next game , very conveniently. given the way mike proctor handled it.
RE:RE:be fair
by on Jan 08, 2008 08:09 PM Permalink
I don't think anyone missed the point of your hypothetical. It is just a really poor and unhelpful hypothetical. Perhaps it won't even be the Aussies trying to set up Bajji in the next game. It might be those pesky aliens, or maybe even George Bush. Hypothetically Bajji could bring a gun to the next game and shoot Ponting dead - why aren't we debating ways to prevent this horror scenario? Surely there is plenty to debate without this kind of self-serving nonsense, or have you run out of real arguments?
RE:be fair
by on Jan 08, 2008 07:26 PM Permalink
A South African adjudicated after hearing hours of evidence from those involved. Your statement about "no evidence" has no basis. You weren't there. I wasn't there. We can't really argue about what took place. Your comment that "ICC is aussie" is confusing and confused. Even the article above refers to the power of India in the ICC (with 60-70% of revenue from Indians).
Saying the Australians would do he same thing (which may be unlikely given their lack of financial clout and previous acceptance of Lehman's ban) is counter-productive given most bloggers' arguments that Aussies are cheaters who don't play by the spirit of the game. Why would you want to emulate them if this is the case?
When India threatened to boycott, they changed from "trying ther rights" to forcing the result. It is not a trial if only one result will be accepted.
This is not to say that Bajji may have been hard done by, and that any appeal may have cleared him, but I guess we won't know now because any result will be due to political rather than factual considerations.
RE:be fair
by on Jan 08, 2008 07:14 PM Permalink
For the last time - Procter is a South African, we all agree that on the evidence we have he ballsed it up. But honestly, do you really think the ICC would risk giving India the irrits just to help australia win? For example: the ICC is so Aussie they banned Darrell Hair! ICC is so Aussie they change the rules for subcontinental 'bowlers'.
RE:be fair
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 07:25 PM Permalink
for the last time. he needs to be consistent, and have solid evidence. or else, give him a warning.
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 ?
RE:RE:be fair
by on Jan 08, 2008 07:34 PM Permalink
I am NOT saying that Procter's decision is good - I have said many times it is either flawed or we don't have all the evidence in the public eye. What I am trying to point out above is that to say 'the ICC is Aussie' because of procter's decision is ludicrous. Jeremy.
RE:RE:RE:be fair
by on Jan 08, 2008 07:50 PM Permalink
Explain to me then why the ICC dumped the Aussie umpire Mr Hair. I don't think the facts support your argument. A bit more knowledge of the game might help!
RE:be fair
by on Jan 08, 2008 07:48 PM Permalink
Maybe he should have found Yuvraj guilty of dissent in the first test. "Oh, I was just in shock at the decision so I didn't accept your decision." Yeah, right. Yuvraj was out and he was guilty of dissent. So Proctor ruled in India's favour and then against you with Bajji, but somehow he's part of a grand conspiracy. Raj, you really crack me up...
RE:be fair
by on Jan 08, 2008 07:21 PM Permalink
Come on Raj. You seem like a smart guy. Mike Proctor is South African... why would he support Australia. My guess is that he made a call based on his view of who was telling the truth. Remember, Bajji has called Roy a Monkey before. Why so hard to believe he would do it again??? It seems that all the money in the game can't buy you class.
RE:be fair
by Anurag Jain on Jan 09, 2008 12:43 AM Permalink
Read this piece of yours a little late, guess you are a lawyer as you mention elsewhere. What flummoxes me is how could you compare the case of Symonds-Bhajji to that of a 'victim of robbery not filing a complaint'. Reporting a robbery to the police is not the same as police deciding ONLY on the basis of your complaint that the other guy is a robber. Try to differentiate between 'reporting' of a supposed crime, and passing a 'judgement' on that. Lawyers should know this much, I suppose?
