fineleg Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 Stump mikes should be off between overs. So, it is not "legally acceptable" evidence. Link to comment
beetle Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 Aussie fan....cricket in both countries came to a standstill. There was threat of leaving the series midway...but these guys were sitting on evidence?How stupid can they get?....or were they acting too smart? Link to comment
DomainK Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 Channle 90 should be banned first for withholding evidence in the first place. What hypocrites. And then star is paying them money only to find out that they are stealing their share? Is this how they do business in Australia? Link to comment
DomainK Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 prob will...but y sooo late?? could have been tempered with now You delete one or two frames and "maa ki" easily become "monkey". I am sure thats what channel 9 has done. Link to comment
theguyinallblue Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 Proctor should have asked for the recordings at the first place before the hearing...and Umpires did not hear anything..usually they stand near the stumps...so how can any mike can catch ...also....asking for the recordings after so may days..does arouse some suspicion ... first of all...the recordings must be sent to labs for checking..if t has been doctored with... also...there is still a big possibility of australia pulling out the charges... Lets see what happens... Link to comment
coffee_rules Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 Why TF didn't Proctologist use it in the first hearing? After seeing their team cheat and play without any true spirit, how can you trust anybody from that country associated with their cricket team. Good job, BCCI. Link to comment
kablooee87 Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 Stump mikes should be off between overs. So' date=' it is not "legally acceptable" evidence.[/quote'] bull****. If you were certain the he was innocent, you'd be screaming for the tape to be counted as evidence. First people complained that there was "no real evidence"supporting the accusation. Now that something comes up that can clear it up, it should be used? Link to comment
fineleg Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 kablooee, Stump mikes in between overs cannot be used. If used, thats whats really B.S. It means the rules are not being followed. Link to comment
DomainK Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 bull****. If you were certain the he was innocent, you'd be screaming for the tape to be counted as evidence. First people complained that there was "no real evidence"supporting the accusation. Now that something comes up that can clear it up, it should be used? It is ab out law and the procedure to be followed. The delay in producing the evidence only implies foulplay.....specially given that they didnt share the feeds with ESPN which they were legally supposed to do. why did they withheld that feed both from ICC and ESPN? Link to comment
Rajiv Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 I don't see why are they refusing it? Like dk mentioned about, its about finer point of the law now, why is it used in appeal case only? why wasn't it used during the 1st hearing, so Channel 9 ( An Aussie company ) were tight lipped about it and now it suits the Australian case, it will come out as evidence..now this is bullshit This is not a living room drama, it's a court room and lawyers will pick on this point really heavily, Channel 9 can also come in trouble and BCCI can counter-sue Link to comment
theguyinallblue Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 bull****. If you were certain the he was innocent, you'd be screaming for the tape to be counted as evidence. First people complained that there was "no real evidence"supporting the accusation. Now that something comes up that can clear it up, it should be used? Its Like Pak Givt coming up with some footage of the Bhutto killing and showing the killer there..after so many days... if there was any evidence....it should have been produced then and there...and as ICC match refree..Proctor had authority to ask for any type of evidence... its highly suspicious...also if i recollect correctly....some commentators did say that stumps mike did not catch anything...so how come suddenly it has come up again...?? Highly doubtfull... Link to comment
kablooee87 Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 So you guys are honestly telling me that if harbhajan is found guilty after due process, the tapes are deemed unusable because they are "illegal",some tv channel decides to make them public and it proves that bhajji didn't say monkey, you'd be ok with it because the tapes weren't following the rules? And don't give me any of that "he wouldn't be found guilty after due process because he's innocent" bs. He's not a saint. Doesn't mean he's a bad person but just because he plays for your home team doesn't make him a saint. Link to comment
aussiefan Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 i dont wish to see all this stirred up again..... Link to comment
kablooee87 Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 i dont wish to see all this stirred up again..... my feeling is, that neither do CA. BCCI will probably wave cash in front of their faces, CA will back off. And that's that. Doesn't really matter what he did or didn't say. Link to comment
Rajiv Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 So you guys are honestly telling me that if harbhajan is found guilty after due process, the tapes are deemed unusable because they are "illegal",some tv channel decides to make them public and it proves that bhajji didn't say monkey, you'd be ok with it because the tapes weren't following the rules? And don't give me any of that "he wouldn't be found guilty after due process because he's innocent" bs. He's not a saint. Doesn't mean he's a bad person but just because he plays for your home team doesn't make him a saint. Tell me, why weren't they used in the 1st instance? Imagine the same scenario when Pak bowlers were accused of ball tampering and they come up with the evidence at the last moment? without Pakistans Knowledge Point is, it can be tampered with for sure ( its sound, not video ). If it wasn't the proof the 1st time, then it shouldn't be used in the appeals Also, did he say SYMONDS you MONKEY? how can you confirm that from a stump mike Link to comment
kablooee87 Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 Tell me, why weren't they used in the 1st instance? Imagine the same scenario when Pak bowlers were accused of ball tampering and they come up with the evidence at the last moment? without Pakistans Knowledge Point is, it can be tampered with for sure ( its sound, not video ). If it wasn't the proof the 1st time, then it shouldn't be used in the appeals Also, did he say SYMONDS you MONKEY? how can you confirm that from a stump mike Rajeev, please have a look at my posts again. I am not saying that the tapes shouldn't be scrutinized to make absolutely sure they are authentic. I am not denying that the situation is suspicious. My objection was based on dismissing the tapes simply because they "don't follow the rules." Still, even that is a valid point. I just have a difficult time imagining ICFers saying the same thing if they thought the tapes would clear harbhajan. I haven't taken a keen interest in this whole issue. In fact, I'm still surprised that it's been this big of a talking point. But you have to admit, it doesn't look good when new evidence comes forward and all you hear is one side screaming for it to be thrown out. Link to comment
beetle Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 The tapes not being available is extremely suspicious. But if it is proven that the tapes are genuine and harby did "monkey" him....then he deserves to be banned for life for taking his country ,team and fans for a ride.(and for giving everyone a bad name) If it not proven ...then the sham needs to be exposed in a proper court.Not some monkey court like this. Link to comment
aussiefan Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 i understood that initially they were not to be used becuase as others have said, they are meant to be off during balls......if they were on ( which it seems they were ) it was not to be used.. very confused then as to how it has been brought up...... Link to comment
IndianRenegade Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 The tapes not being available is extremely suspicious. But if it is proven that the tapes are genuine and harby did "monkey" him....then he deserves to be banned for life for taking his country ,team and fans for a ride.(and for giving everyone a bad name) If it not proven ...then the sham needs to be exposed in a proper court.Not some monkey court like this. Right! ban him for talking us for a ride..... Link to comment
IndianRenegade Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 i understood that initially they were not to be used becuase as others have said, they are meant to be off during balls......if they were on ( which it seems they were ) it was not to be used.. very confused then as to how it has been brought up...... Fine channel 9 too..... along with Bhajji [if found guilty] or change the rule on mikes being off in between overs.... Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now