ICC set to take action against Gavaskar: Reports; and now Cricket Australia snubs Sunny Gavaskar?

[IndianRenegade]

Faisal, I think you're misinterpreting Gavaskar's column the same way Richards or others did. Their misinterpretation can be sort of understood as they have guilt in their mind. But how come you fell for it? Have you read that original column?

It would be great if you can post a link of it here.

[Dravid]

sunnny da man, india need ppl like him :D

[Chandan]

It would be great if you can post a link of it here.

I think someone had already posted the article in some other thread. But I'll post again from the e-paper of Hindustan Times. "Where is the Proof?" By Sunil Gavaskar January 13 2008 The BCCI deserves the fullest praise for standing behind its team in the crisis that has enveloped it after Harbhajan Singh was handed out a three-match ban by the match referee for a ‘racial’ slur at Andrew Symonds. The off-spinner has denied having used the word which has caused offence. The off-spinner has denied having used the word which has caused offence and in the absence of any audio recording and most crucially with both umpires not having heard it, the charge should have been dropped straightaway for lack of corroborating evidence. By accepting the word of the Australian players and not the Indian players, the match referee has exposed himself to the charge of taking a decision based not on facts, but on emotion. Worse still, his decision has incensed millions of Indians, who are quite understandably asking why his decision shouldn’t be considered a racist one considering the charges that were levied on Harbhajan were of a racist remark. Putting it quite simply, if there was no audio evidence nor did the officials hear anything then the charge did not stand. This is what has incensed the millions of Indians who are flabbergasted that the word of one of the greatest players in the history of the game, Sachin Tendulkar was not accepted. In effect, Tendulkar has been branded a liar by the match referee. At the hearing the Indians were represented by the manager Chetan Chauhan, the media manager Dr M. V. Sridhar, the skipper Anil Kumble and the two men at the crease when the incident was said to have happened, Sachin Tendulkar and Harbhajan Singh. The Australians were represented by Ricky Ponting, who lodged the complaint against Harbhajan Singh, Andrew Symonds against whom the remark was supposed to have been made, Matthew Hayden, Michael Clarke and Adam Gilchrist. Ponting claimed he didn’t hear anything nor did Gilchrist, so it all boiled down to the word of Hayden and Clarke and don’t forget Clarke had stood his ground after being caught at first slip and claiming that debatable catch of Ganguly. The BCCI quite rightly respected Tendulkar’s word and asked it’s team not to carry on with the tour. The BCCI also asked that since the team had lost confidence in the umpire Steve Bucknor that he should not be officiating the next Test at Perth. Here the ICC too deserves praise for the swiftness with which it tried to defuse the tension by removing Bucknor from the duties of umpiring at Perth. But the ICC will do well to keep in mind that there were two umpires out there who had a bad game and not to penalize only one or it could be up against a racist charge too. Ironically on the morning that the racism allegation against Harbhajan was made, one paper in Australia had a feature on Bucknor with his photograph with the catch line that he earns $ 440 an hour to make mistakes. Typically it forgot the other umpire Mark Benson who wasn’t exactly blameless in the game or did they really forget? Or was it simply that a black man’s errors were more highlighted than a white man’s? Throughout, as the controversy unfolded it was only Bucknor that the Aussie media was pillorying and not Benson. You form your opinion whether it was racist or not? The moment a charge is upheld without any tangible proof and foolproof substantiation, it leaves the door open for similar charges to be made. Just suppose a team wants to get rid of a player who is a threat to them. The simplest thing to do is to have some players to say that there was a racist taunt directed at them and then its their word against the player who is accused if one goes by the recent verdict. So if Wasim Jaffer who is having a hard time against Brett Lee makes an allegation that he has been racially abused then without any proof he could get Lee out for three tests or more. That is the danger in this verdict and that’s why the BCCI is absolutely right in backing its man. The Australian cricket media, which is almost like the extended support staff of the team, is doing its best to portray the whole issue as that of an umpiring one rather than the slur on Harbhajan Singh and Tendulkar’s integrity. Not one has stopped to think that if it was the reverse case and the word of their team member wasn’t accepted how they would have felt. And now as the charge against Brad Hogg is to be heard, they are now scouring footage to find out where Indians have used any offensive language and have targeted Ishant Sharma for using a Hindi expletive after his appeal for that catch off Symonds was disallowed. The difference is that Ishant’s expletive was not directed at Symonds or the umpire Steve Bucknor but in the direction of backward point and while that is no excuse to use foul language there’s a difference when a player is targeted and when a foul word is used in the air at no one in particular. If that is going to be the Australian defence for Hogg then all the Indians have to do is to crank up footage of every over that Australia bowled and they will find an abuse there just about every time. Every time an Australian team has been cited for their behaviour on the field the standard line of defence that has been trotted out is, ‘what happens on the field should stay on it’. They seem to think that the worst of abusive language directed at a player and his family should stay on the field but when it comes to them getting something back then it’s to be reported. They also say that they play the game hard but fair. One would like to know exactly what is meant by ‘hard’ and what is their concept of ‘fair’ so that the rest of us ignoramuses are better informed than we are at the moment. And yes, while they are at it, also let the rest of the cricketing world know what exactly is the ‘spirit of cricket’ as they see it.

[MundaPakistani]

Faisal, I think you're misinterpreting Gavaskar's column the same way Richards or others did. Their misinterpretation can be sort of understood as they have guilt in their mind. But how come you fell for it? Have you read that original column?

No i have not nor have i read what Richards's said. The only thing i read was that the ICC is going to take action against Sunny for calling proctor a racist.

[Chandan]

ICC Just cannot do anything on the basis of what Sunny wrote. Only guilty men could find him calling Proctor racist. He did question however about how Proctor could hand out the bans without any proof. All of us have been asking this. Does it mean that all of us are racists here? You can read the original column now. I posted it in this thread.

[MundaPakistani]

ICC Just cannot do anything on the basis of what Sunny wrote. Only guilty men could find him calling Proctor racist. He did question however about how Proctor could hand out the bans without any proof. All of us have been asking this. Does it mean that all of us are racists here? You can read the original column now. I posted it in this thread.

Thanks for the column. You are right there is no evidence of him calling Proctor a racist how ever i certainly didn't like the following piece "Ironically on the morning that the racism allegation against Harbhajan was made, one paper in Australia had a feature on Bucknor with his photograph with the catch line that he earns $ 440 an hour to make mistakes. Typically it forgot the other umpire Mark Benson who wasn’t exactly blameless in the game or did they really forget? Or was it simply that a black man’s errors were more highlighted than a white man’s? Throughout, as the controversy unfolded it was only Bucknor that the Aussie media was pillorying and not Benson. You form your opinion whether it was racist or not?"

[Chandan]

What did you not like here Faisal? Benson made more mistakes than Bucknor--fact! Bucknor was pilloried more in Australian media: fact. Now Gavaskar is asking you a question. You might agree or disagree to it, It is not as if he believes that such thing (racism) HAS to be beneath this. He is simply asking you to take your call. Btw, I've merged the whole thread. You can read Richards and Reid's comments as well.

[MundaPakistani]

What did you not like here Faisal? Benson made more mistakes than Bucknor--fact! Bucknor was pilloried more in Australian media: fact. Now Gavaskar is asking you a question. You might agree or disagree to it, It is not as if he believes that such thing (racism) HAS to be beneath this. He is simply asking you to take your call. Btw, I've merged the whole thread. You can read Richards and Reid's comments as well.

that he is clearly accusing them of being racist. It is very very clear.

[Chandan]

He hasn't said so in words. It is your interpretation, isn't it? The same way Richards and co interpreted him calling Protor a racist?

[MundaPakistani]

He hasn't said so in words. It is your interpretation' date=' isn't it? [/quote'] Yes it is and i am very surprised that you don't agree with me. Do you really think that there was a need for a comment like that?

[Chandan]

He wrote the column for the agitated public here and just went on to show how so many things take place which if scrutinized closely would seem as racism. You just have to recall how much anger was there. And that you saw just on one board. I can tell you that people were really agitated everywhere here in India. On the backdrop of that, just tell me what wrong has he written? I've seen him writing a lot of non sense earlier. But this time he was spot on while criticising Australian media.

[IndianRenegade]

So explain why the Australian Media didn't attack Benson but only attacked Bucknor?

[MundaPakistani]

He wrote the column for the agitated public here and just went on to show how so many things take place which if scrutinized closely would seem as racism. You just have to recall how much anger was there. And that you saw just on one board. I can tell you that people were really agitated everywhere here in India. On the backdrop of that, just tell me what wrong has he written? I've seen him writing a lot of non sense earlier. But this time he was spot on while criticising Australian media.

A lot of people were upset at match referee's decision. Any one with an objective point of view knew that the guy got a rough deal. Having said that what Sunny wrote was simply ridiculous. Even on this Indian message baord Bucknor was the main man being questioned(a bit like Hair was during the Oval test match) so if the Aussie media did the same then whats so wrong about that? p.s Here in FL i interact with Indians literally every day.

[MundaPakistani]

So explain why the Australian Media didn't attack Benson but only attacked Bucknor?

None of his decisions were nearly as bad as Bucknor plus Bucknor has been incompetent for the last few years. Lets run through Benson's mistakes - Ponting caught behind off Ganguly- Not given - Ponting with an inside edge on the pad- Given - Sachin LBW off M Clarke- Not given - Laxman LBW off Lee- Not given - Hussey caught behind off Sharma- Not given - Hayden or Hussey LBW- not given ---------------------------------------------------- Ganguly catch- given( based on the agreement between the captains None of those mistakes were as bad as Symonds's caught behind or Dravid's dismissal plus his mistakes weren't one sided .he also had a fairly decent match in Melbourne and overall is an ok umpire.

[Chandan]

No. Had Indian media or Indian public been criticising only Bucknor, then that is kind of understandable. Bucknor has given so many wrong decisions against India in last 5 years that we thought he was biased AGAINST Indian for some reason. But why would Australian media criticise just Bucknor for the poor decisions, when Benson made more than double mistakes? It is a question which each person can answer differently, according to his own interpretations. But it is a valid question nontheless. Why are you (Australian media) sweeping Benson's mistakes under the carpet : is the question?

[beetle]

Faisal, I think you're misinterpreting Gavaskar's column the same way Richards or others did. Their misinterpretation can be sort of understood as they have guilt in their mind. But how come you fell for it? Have you read that original column?

So true... Did he call anyone racist? He just stated the obvious that the whiteman's words had more weight in proctor's(and some other refree's )court.Is that a wrong statement?

[cochise]

The reaction to his comments by the ICC et al smacks of hyper-sensitivity...which of course leads one to suspect that his words carry weight after all. Truth speakers are always persecuted.

[MundaPakistani]

So true... Did he call anyone racist? He just stated the obvious that the whiteman's words had more weight in proctor's(and some other refree's )court.Is that a wrong statement?

What are your thoughts about the following piece. "Ironically on the morning that the racism allegation against Harbhajan was made, one paper in Australia had a feature on Bucknor with his photograph with the catch line that he earns $ 440 an hour to make mistakes. Typically it forgot the other umpire Mark Benson who wasn’t exactly blameless in the game or did they really forget? Or was it simply that a black man’s errors were more highlighted than a white man’s? Throughout, as the controversy unfolded it was only Bucknor that the Aussie media was pillorying and not Benson. You form your opinion whether it was racist or not?" Please also refer to post #94.

[anbuchelvan]

The simple truth is both Barry and Reid are racists.

[King Tendulkar]

The simple truth is both Barry and Reid are racists.

Nail on the head