Jump to content

News 8th Jan: Team may not play Canberra, Bucknor out, Madugalle in as "co-referee"

theguyinallblue

By theguyinallblue
in Cricket Talk

Recommended Posts

theguyinallblue Newbie

theguyinallblue

Posted
Posted

Please posters...Post all the breaking news and other related news here..instead of opening a new thread for every opinion...and discuss in this thread unless there is something for which there already is a thread... its really difficult to open so many threads to read just one comment.. Mods Please cleanup the forum a bit..Thanks in advance..

Link to comment
arkay Newbie

arkay

Posted
Posted

[h1]Bowler found guilty but Australia stand condemned[/h1] Harbhajan Singh's assault did not come without provocation from his abrasive hosts If Harbhajan Singh is banned for three Tests because he called Andrew Symonds "a monkey" then that is how it must be. In sport, as in life, racism must be challenged at every opportunity. Admittedly, "monkey" would not qualify in the top hundred racist insults. Ian Botham used to revel in the nickname "Guy The Gorilla". When all is said and done, we are all simian primates. But the word "monkey" had form, as everybody knew that Symonds had supposedly suffered such insults last year from Indian crowds. So case proven, the Indian spinner was guilty as charged. The Indian board should stop its posturing, accept what must be a galling reminder that it is the International Cricket Council that still runs the game, and get on with the tour. Do not delude yourself, though, that in punishing Harbhajan cricket is punishing a sinner. It is punishing a victim. It is punishing a player who, it might be concluded, mentally disintegrated. Remember mental disintegration? It is Australia's nauseatingly self-congratulatory phrase for sledging. And it worked. It worked so well that Harbhajan cracked and Australia have not stopped bleating about their shoddy little victory ever since. Australia complain that Harbhajan crossed the line. On one side of the line supposedly are the supremely talented, peerless, combative Australians who, in the words of their fast bowler, Brett Lee, pride themselves in playing "tough competitive cricket, fairly and squarely". On the other side of the line is an Indian spinner, known by the Australians to have a volatile temperament, who temporarily lost it. He lost his temper, lost his reputation, lost the match. The problem is that Australia's dividing line is not a reliable division between the morally upstanding and the indefensible. Australia's dividing line is repugnant, enabling the condemnation of the likes of Harbhajan whilst legitimising obnoxious behaviour that cricket should have had the bravery to root out a generation ago. Racism cannot be countenanced. But it is a rum old world that bans a man for three Tests for calling someone a monkey, yet allows the sort of boorish behaviour that allows first slip to drone to a batsman that he is shagging his wife, or that convinces any fast bowler with half a brain that personal insults every time a batsman plays and misses are essential for any cricketer of spirit. As long as you are careful not to refer to the colour of his skin. It needs to be remembered that Harbhajan's assault did not come without provocation. Before he was abused as a monkey, Symonds had been indulging in a phrase or two out of the corner of his mouth. Australia and Harbhajan have been at each other for years. But Australia have been obsessed with "reverse racism" ever since Darren Lehmann, their batsman, became the first international player to be banned for the racial abuse of Sri Lankan players five years ago. They have been intent upon revenge and now they have gained it. What is deeply instructive in all this is Australia's wisest cricket writers have saved the bulk of their condemnation not for Harbhajan but for Australia. At the moment they matched their own record of 16 successive Test victories, it is clear that once again they have won little affection. Greg Baum, although critical of Harbhajan in the Melbourne Age, wrote: "Opponents, most not as naturally confrontational, seek to match Australia, but clumsily. Perversely, this gives the Australians the high moral ground." Peter Roebuck, in the Sydney Morning Herald, was incensed enough to call for Australia's captain, Ricky Ponting, to be sacked, accusing his side of "the ugliest performance an Australian side has put up for 20 years". To punish Harbhajan for his overreaction, he suggested, would impress only "barrack-room lawyers". Peter English may one day be regarded as their equal. His response to a fractious final day on CricInfo was to reflect upon the Australians' supposed loyalty towards the Spirit of Cricket, a document drawn up by their former captain, Steve Waugh, which seeks to encapsulate their "hard but fair" approach to the game. "They are shocked whenever their outlook is challenged," remarked English. "After emotional days like this it is hard to sympathise with their complaints." Equally culpable in this is the international umpiring fraternity. For too long at Test level, they have done little to quell personal abuse, pleading only that the stump mics are turned down so that the public does not know the full story. The umpires in Sydney, Mark Benson and Steve Bucknor, would have ignored Harbhajan's outburst, too, had not Ponting laid an official complaint. The difference between personal abuse and a racist outburst is often smaller than many suppose. For too long, in abdicating their responsibility, umpires have played with fire. Now cricket is burning with resentment. Who said what in the race abuse argument India spinner Harbhajan Singh criticises Australian sledging in a one-day international, October 2 "I don't have any problem with chit-chat, but not when it is personal and vulgar. If they want to play like that, they'll get it back from us." Cricket Australia chairman, Creagh O'Connor, on alleged monkey chanting by India fans, October 18 "All cricket nations have to be on guard to ensure that the fun does not cross the boundary into unacceptable behaviour." The ICC chief executive, Malcolm Speed, after Yuvraj Singh is cleared of dissent, January 3 "If a batsman waits at the crease after being given out then it's dissent, not disappointment." The Australia captain, Ricky Ponting, accuses Harbhajan Singh of racial abuse, January 4 "Racism is unacceptable anywhere in the world. You don't expect it to happen when you step out on the field." The match referee, Mike Procter, after banning Harbhajan for three Test matches, January 7 "I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Harbhajan Singh directed that word [monkey] at Andrew Symonds and also that he meant it to offend on the basis of Symonds's race or ethnic origin,"" The BCCI spokesman Ratnakar Shetty's reaction to Harbhajan's punishment, January 7 "Harbhajan says he did not say what has been alleged. The match referee has made his case based on hearsay. I don't understand how he arrived at his conclusion."

Link to comment
suraj Newbie

suraj

Posted
Posted

Geez the way ICC works!!!!!!!!!!! In the absence of a transcript of the proceedings, the process so far lacks transparency SYDNEY: An appeal against match referee Mike Proctor’s three-Test ban on Harbhajan Singh for calling Andrew Symonds a “monkey” has, as per International Cricket Council (ICC) provisions, to be heard within nine days. This means, technically, the matter can be disposed off — one way or another — before the 3rd India-Australia Test, scheduled to start at Perth on 16 January, unless deferred after consultation between authorities concerned, which is not unlikely. A postponement will enable Harbhajan to be eligible for selection for the remaining two Tests in the current series against Australia. After such an appeal is lodged by or on behalf of Harbhajan to the ICC (expected to have been submitted by Monday evening), this body is required to appoint a commissioner to consider an appeal within two days; and the application must be heard within another week. It is incredible, though, that there is no accurate record of the hearing that took place on 6 January night, at the end of which Proctor deemed Harbhajan to be guilty. James Fitzgerald, an official spokesman of the ICC, admitted there is no transcript available. According to Fitzgerald, Proctor read out his verdict to the players and officials who attended the hearing. A copy of this “judgement”, as he put it, has been sent to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). This document has not been made public by the ICC, either. The key question that arises is on what basis Proctor found Harbhajan to be culpable? The umpires, apparently, did not pick up anything, neither did the stump microphones. Harbhajan was batting when the alleged incident occurred. In other words, he could not have been too far away from the pitch area. There was, therefore, every possibility that one of the mikes would have recorded any exchange that took place between Harbhajan and Symonds, the complainant, even if this wasn’t broadcast. From all indications so far, this wasn’t the case or there is, thus, no independent corroboration. Unconfirmed reports indicate Mathew Hayden and Michael Clarke presented evidence in support of Symonds, while Sachin Tendulkar defended Harbhajan. On the 4th day of the 2nd test, Clarke shamelessly waited for umpire Steve Bucknor to give him out — perhaps taking a chance — even after manifestly cutting a ball to slip. On the final day, he claimed a catch at 2nd slip against Sourav Ganguly, which, if referred to the 3rd umpire, would probably not have been accepted. The same Clarke is said to have substantiated Symonds’ charge at the hearing. Is his word more trustworthy than Tendulkar’s? Clarke, Hayden and Symonds are reported to be buddies. Could they have conspired to entrap Harbhajan? In the absence of a transcript of the hearing — a clumsy oversight on the part of the ICC — the process adopted so far lacks transparency. Consequently, Proctor’s conclusion lacks credibility, unless he or the ICC can provide details of the procedure undertaken, the evidence received and the reasons for reaching the decision he has. The last aspect was, hopefully, been addressed in the statement he read out to the concerned parties on Sunday night and has now, presumably, been incorporated in the document sent to the BCCI and the Indian team management. It is in the ICC’s interests to share this with media, so that the world at large is able to take an informed view of the vexed issue. http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1143659

Link to comment
Chandan Newbie

Chandan

Posted
Posted
No longer interested in the series ... Iam looking at the bigger picture .. one in which there is a fairy tale ending and ICC is forced to look into some sort of technology to avoid such future muckups .... afterall in their scheme of things umpires come below $$$$ regardless of what they want us to beleive. If there is a price that has to be paid so be it.
I think the umpiring muck-ups have been forgotten amidst this racism charge. I'm not interested in the series either. And I certainly won't be watching the next matches if they're played at all!!
Link to comment

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...