Shock and Awe - What a Beautiful Piece

[Lurker]

So where was the arm twisting? How did the BCCI arm twist Judge Hansen into giving a verdict in favor of Bhajji? How would BCCI quiting from the series affect Judge hansean?

Arm twisting was clear message that anything short of HS exonerated would mean India pulling out. Please feel free to read any number of articles on how this was conveyed directly to CAB. As for you argument about BCCI arm twisting Hansen you are clearly putting words in my mouth. I had clearly mentioned before, and I quote - Look it this way, had Bhajji would have come out unscathed(and looks to me it would have been the case anyway) without any arm twisting by BCCI would this be as bad a situation as it is right now? I dont think so. You had agreed to it then but followed it with a what-if.

And which Court says that one should not act in protest against a judgement?

The operative word is protest. How do you think the protest was done? By Sharad Pawar going on hunger strife? No. The protest was simple and direct - exonerate HS or we pull out. Now tell me which Court says thats the way one should protest?

Bhajji was charged under Level 2.8 of the code, which was for offensive language. Harbhajjan did agree he used an offensive language. A level 2.8 offense means, at the minimum you get fined from your match fees or at the maximum you get banned for one or two ODI's. Hansean let him off with a fine because he wasn't aware of his previous record. It doesn't mean Harbhajan would have been convicted of racism, had Hansean had access to his previous records.

Harbhajan Singh would have been banned for using expletives on a cricket field. Please go ahead and show me how many cricketers have been banned till date for that offence. And if none why would that not be an issue that would bother both HS & BCCI.

I am afraid both are not the same. To prove procter was biased one needs to prove that he gave more importance to what the aussies said rather than what the Indians said for no good reason. That is what happened.

Sorry it doesnt work that way. Mike Procter is a match referee, he is NOT a professional judge. Hansen is and that clearly shows in his judgement. You can raise all the hue and cry about procter being "biased" or you can simply say it was a wrong judgement, India appealed and won its case. End of story. I am not a big fan of going about casting other person with allegation unless I have evidence to back it up.

Had there been evidence that Harbhjan had indeed said so, I would agree that there was no stance against injustice. But there was none.

How do you know? I find it funny that you admit yourself you do not know what was said in the middle, neither do I for that matter, and still keep saying how "injustice" was done! It brings me to the next point.

Judicary doesn't work on chance. To prove any charge against a person, the burden of proof must be met, if anyone is convicted without the burden of proof being met, it is injustice by definition. It is rather a lack of understanding of how judiciary works that has led to all the fuss starting from procter.

You dodged my question, even though it was rather simple. Let me repeat it again - Is there a chance, howsoever remote, that HS did say the words and has gone free? Just a simple yes and no shall suffice. As for the Judiciary you are mixing the issues. I have never mentioned any issues against Judiciary or Hansen(not sure why you think I do). My issue has been the way BCCI approaching this whole thing and flexing its economic muscle to get the favoured judgement. xxx

[DravidDaBest]

Had BCCI not flexed its muscle, it would have been Chris Broad or Mike Denness instead of Judge Hansen who would be hearing the final appeal.....We all know what would have been the verdict

[DesiChap]

CA asks Symonds to explain behaviour, to monitor him in ODIs PTI MELBOURNE, January 31: Cricket Australia (CA) has sought an explanation from Andrew Symonds on his actions during the infamous Sydney Test and is also planning to keep a close eye on the all-rounder's on-field conduct during the upcoming tri-series against India and Sri Lanka. According to a report in the The Daily Telegraph , Symonds, who has been blamed for starting the spat with Harbhajan Singh in Sydney that almost derailed India's ongoing tour here, will meet CA boss James Sutherland to explain his actions. "Absolutely, we will take the opportunity to talk at the right time to Andrew and other players and the players as a group about some of the circumstances and some of the things that are reported in the judgement," Sutherland was quoted as saying by the newspaper. However, the CA chief asserted that the all-rounder was a tough but fair playing cricketer. "Andrew Symonds is a brilliant cricketer. He is a tough, uncompromising cricketer in terms of the way he plays the game," Sutherland said. "He plays the game like most Australians are brought up to play. (But) no doubt with Andrew - as with many other people - there are some things for him to reflect on," he added. Symonds has refused to speak on the matter after ICC appointed Appeals Commissioner John Hansen overturned the three-Test ban on Harbhajan by downgrading the racist abuse charges against the Indian. Hansen blamed Symonds for sparking the furore by provoking Harbhajan and observed that the Indian off-spinner only reacted to the the Aussie's verbal attack.

[DesiChap]

Roy's conduct to be examined By Jon Pierik and Ben Dorries February 01, 2008 ANDREW Symonds will have his on-field behaviour scrutinised by Cricket Australia as the man at the centre of the sport's race row refuses to defend himself. Blamed by Justice John Hansen for initiating the ugly spat with Harbhajan Singh that almost forced India to abandon their tour, Symonds is set to meet Cricket Australia chief executive James Sutherland to explain his actions. Harbhajan's alleged "big monkey" gibe at Symonds was sparked after Symonds took offence to the Indian batsman patting Brett Lee on the bottom after he had hit the fast bowler to the boundary during the Sydney Test. As the fallout of a fiery month of cricket continues, Sutherland confirmed he would discuss with Symonds the all-rounder's on-field behaviour as soon as possible. "Absolutely, we will take the opportunity to talk at the right time to Andrew and other players and the players as a group about some of the circumstances and some of the things that are reported in the judgement," he said. Cricket Australia meanwhile made a bid to soften any public backlash towards Symonds, making a point of handing out copies of the players' spirit of cricket pact before Sutherland's press conference in the hope of proving the team was committed to tough but fair cricket. Symonds had declared in his evidence to Justice Hansen that there was no room for friendship on the field - prompting a terse response from the appeals chairman. "Andrew Symonds is a brilliant cricketer," Sutherland said. "He is a tough, uncompromising cricketer in terms of the way he plays the game. "He plays the game like most Australians are brought up to play. (But) no doubt with Andrew - as with many other people - there are some things for him to reflect on." This revelation came after International Cricket Council chief executive Malcolm Speed ordered Indian and Australian players to improve their behaviour - an issue which will officially be tabled at an ICC board meeting. "One thing that has come out of this is the need for players to review their on-field behaviour," Speed said after of the Twenty20 international between Australia and India at the MCG. "In this case, it is clear that Harbhajan verbally abused an opponent having been provoked to do so by that opponent. This is not acceptable behaviour on the cricket field. "I expect all players to use this as a wake-up call that on-field behaviour must improve. "There are a number of issues that have arisen from this case and, once we have time to reflect fully on Justice Hansen's report, we will address them. The issues will be raised directly with both the BCCI and Cricket Australia in this regard and a paper will be prepared for consideration by the ICC Board." Symonds refused to comment, but his Australia captain, Ricky Ponting, defended the man he helped turn into an international force. "I think any sort of character assassination on Andrew Symonds as a result of this would be completely unfair," he said. "He is someone that doesn't want this stuff happening, obviously. It is the second time he has been through this stuff and the last thing he wants. "But what I know is he is a terrific bloke, a very honest bloke, and he is a great teammate of mine." The ICC has accepted the blame for not providing Justice Hansen with all of Harbhajan's past misdemeanours, which could have resulted in a greater penalty for abusing Symonds than a meagre $3000 fine. Justice Hansen had tried to change his decision after learning that Harbhajan had abused an umpire in 2001, but it was too late. "It is very unfortunate that human error led to Justice Hansen not having the full history of Harbhajan's previous Code of Conduct breaches and the ICC accepts responsibility for this mistake," Speed said. News Limited newspapers http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,23139473-23212,00.html

[yoda]

"He plays the game like most Australians are brought up to play. "

:D

[anbuchelvan]

Now I am so HAPPY that at least we Indians are able to flex muscles.If all the episode show that we could get justice because we have flexed the muscles in the form of BCCI or Sachin ,Kumble etc.it is a Proud moment for Indians.

[IndianRenegade]

Arm twisting was clear message that anything short of HS exonerated would mean India pulling out. Please feel free to read any number of articles on how this was conveyed directly to CAB.

No one denies that was the message sent to CA, but how did that influence Hansean? If there was no way that could influence Hansean, Then BCCI was not arm twisting the judiciary.

As for you argument about BCCI arm twisting Hansen you are clearly putting words in my mouth. I had clearly mentioned before, and I quote - Look it this way, had Bhajji would have come out unscathed(and looks to me it would have been the case anyway) without any arm twisting by BCCI would this be as bad a situation as it is right now? I dont think so. You had agreed to it then but followed it with a what-if.

There you go so BCCI was not putting any pressure on the judiciary!

The operative word is protest. How do you think the protest was done? By Sharad Pawar going on hunger strife? No. The protest was simple and direct - exonerate HS or we pull out.

Yes!

Now tell me which Court says thats the way one should protest?

No court says that is not the way to protest.

Harbhajan Singh would have been banned for using expletives on a cricket field. Please go ahead and show me how many cricketers have been banned till date for that offence. And if none why would that not be an issue that would bother both HS & BCCI.

That was because he was a repeat offender. BCCI's demand was to remove the racist tag, not that he should not be punished.

Sorry it doesnt work that way. Mike Procter is a match referee, he is NOT a professional judge. Hansen is and that clearly shows in his judgement. You can raise all the hue and cry about procter being "biased" or you can simply say it was a wrong judgement, India appealed and won its case. End of story. I am not a big fan of going about casting other person with allegation unless I have evidence to back it up.

We should better understand what the term biased means:

biased - favoring one person or side over another; "a biased account of the trial"; "a decision that was partial to the defendant"

Did procter do it? Yes, he favored aussie opinion over the Indian opinion on the issue. Him being a trained judge or not has got nothing to with this. I am not castigating Proter that he was biased because of so and so reason then I need to back it up, not for pointing out the obvious. I even said that in my previous post:

But If I am to point out specific reasons for his bias, like aussie foul play, then I will have to prove that the aussies had managed to coerce Proter to rule in their favor. This I can't and I don't intend to.

it pretty much says what I meant.

How do you know? I find it funny that you admit yourself you do not know what was said in the middle, neither do I for that matter, and still keep saying how "injustice" was done! It brings me to the next point.

How do I know what? It is again the lack of understanding of how the judiciary works. You need to meet the burden of proof to prove that some one did something. To convict a person without the burden of proof being met is Injustice. What part of this don't you understand?

You dodged my question, even though it was rather simple. Let me repeat it again - Is there a chance, howsoever remote, that HS did say the words and has gone free? Just a simple yes and no shall suffice.

I didn't. the most important question there was this:

I am amused that you admit you don't know what HS said still think BCCI was fighting against injustice?

The next question about whether there was a chance that HS said what he is being accused of. This question in part seems to be answering the previous question. Harbhajan may or may not have said that. Yes, there was a chance the Harbhajan could have said so and gone free. Yet Judiciary doesn't work on Chance. The burden of proof has to be met. To convict some one without the burden of proof being met is Injustice. DO YOU AGREE OR NOT? A simple yes or no would suffice.

As for the Judiciary you are mixing the issues. I have never mentioned any issues against Judiciary or Hansen(not sure why you think I do). My issue has been the way BCCI approaching this whole thing and flexing its economic muscle to get the favoured judgement. xxx

Where did I say you had issues with Judiciary or hansean? How did BCCI flexing its economic muscle got it a favorable judgement? Assuming BCCI hadn't said anything about quitting the series before the jusgement, and had judge Hansean ruled Bhajji guilty again on the evidence of nothing but the aussie players, & had BCCI quit the series after this. Would BCCI's action still be seen as arm-twisting or a protest against injustice? How does giving out the course of action before had become arm-twisting? - Given that probably the action wouldn't be considered so, if harbhajan was indeed been convicted. So, the only reason would be that BCCI claiming to quit the series before the judgement would have some effect on the judgment. But that begets the question what possible effect could it have on the judiciary. If people could agree there was none what so ever, they can see that BCCI wasn't arm-twisting.

[Chandan]

Hansen has clearly mentioned that his punishment would not have been different even if Harbhajan had called Symonds a mon***, given the circumstances. So what is the confusion?