[MERGED] Sledging threads: Symonds/Harbhajan/etc

[Rajan]

Are you serious? That is a pretty backwards law.

Whether it is backward or forward, That is the law as per the Indian Judicial system. every one has to abide by it, if some one wants to live in India. Thats the cultural and social perspective. The law was written by Britishers and is adopted and implemented in India.

[chunky_lafanga]

From what I understand homosexuality is a crime in India. Probably not enforced though. It is based on some 18th century law. Indian needs to get with it and amend such idiotic law.

[Desi Cartman]

Monkey Vs Bastard Just wondering what will we all achieve if we are able to prove that its ok to call someone a monkey or its ok to call people bastards. I have seen a lot of posts and threads where people get to the level of calling all Indians Monkeys and all Australians as bastards. What will this name calling get us? Apart from few people like me who have seen both the countries I bet most of you people don’t even know anybody in person from the other country. How different are we that we pick on each other? In one country people are justifying that its ok to call bastard and in the other they are saying that calling a man of African heritage a monkey is ok. We are picking on each other on the basis of : "people are so dumb that they are burning effigies " in one country and on the other hand some aussie fans are calling Ponting's parents to abuse them. Are we really different ? Cant we just learn what we expect the players to follow and that is "mutual respect" :hatsoff:

[PatAU]

Agreed Agree with your sentiment regarding race and name calling! However, there is a difference between us. Australia wins, India loses. Simple :hysterical:

[Chandan]

Sledging: a convert writes used to enjoy sledging because it mirrored life. Not anymore. There is only so much trouble everybody can stomach Rahul Bhattacharya January 11, 2008 McGrath v Sarwan in 2003: 'sledges involving wives and Brian Lara get a bit out of hand' © Getty Images The other day Tim de Lisle called in these pages for the end of sledging, as he has done before, as have many other respected commentators and cricketers for a while now. It was not a sentiment I ever agreed with. I was foolish. I felt it unwarranted because sportsmen, as we are reminded often, are products of the world around them. It is to our benefit that they mirror it, as art - which sport is - should. Not to advocate nastiness, but I felt it was not absurd, or even out of place, for cricket to contain the less edifying aspects of our behaviour, to occasionally disturb. Besides, much of cricket's bad behaviour is kind of Tom-and-Jerry amusing. I did not find Andre Nel offensive; I found him silly, endearing and entertaining. To take him seriously was to miss something. I felt, too, the onus on sportsmen to set an example while throwing themselves into the most competitive, over-hyped, ego-fuelled of endeavours was not entirely fair. This was wishful and misguided reasoning. As we have now seen too often, there is no containing the flames. One moment it is a cricketer mouthing off, the next there are hundreds of thousands going at each other on message boards. One moment a confrontation has added to the viewing drama, the next entire communities have drawn battle lines against one another. It is patently not worth the price. What a useless spiral it all is. The Australian team's demeanour has generally been obnoxious, the response of Indian crowds to Andrew Symonds was deplorable, the Australian provocation of Harbhajan Singh was petty, Harbhajan's alleged response woeful. Most pointless of all have been the debates emerging out of the affair. One man's pig is another man's monkey. How far down this road do we want to go? More jingoism, more rabble-rousing, more unpleasantness. As it is, watching cricket, at least in India, is an increasingly disagreeable affair. The more the supposed confidence of the nation grows, the more graceless it becomes in acknowledging the efforts of opponents, the more hungry it becomes to beat its own chest. Every new controversy brings fresh rage, fresh ego, fresh delusions. This is bigger than "a few idiots". Players could help by taking the lead. Often they miss the wood. As Peter English illustrated beautifully, Ricky Ponting's inability to connect with anything outside the mood in the Australian dressing room was startling. So is his hypocrisy. The contrast with Anil Kumble has been embarrassing. No lover of the game wants a sport stimulated by,

[Chandan]

Cricket has no option but to ban chatter By: Harsha Bhogle Wednesday January 09, 2008 And so, inevitably, the tour moves on. It had to. The world of cricket is too small for the best and the richest to eyeball each other for too long. It is not over yet but everybody has an opportunity to take a backward step, so underrated and so crucial in a standoff. Cricket is, effectively, an eight country sport, a small family, and there is no alternative to living together. Like good arranged marriages, we will have to swallow the odd moment of discontent, take sides and draw comparisons, but a divorce is not an option. There were no more than three issues in this hullaballoo. The umpiring set the tone and really, there is little anyone can do about it other than to intensify the search for the best and have stringent reviews. By the end of the match they, Mark Benson in particular, looked rattled. He took the fielder’s word since there had been an agreement to that effect when, in hindsight, he could have followed his own instincts given the volatility of the situation. And sadly, Steve Bucknor had to go. The moment comes for everyone as it will for you and me. The second issue was the spirit of the game, a much disguised entity whom no one really recognizes. I suspect the Australians have been forced, for corporate reasons, to take the moral high ground. But their players are not equipped to follow it at all times. It is difficult, in the heat of battle, to remember a mission statement and pull back. And so, I believe, they are confused and nowhere is the confusion more manifest in the statements they think they should make; or maybe are trained to make. Player after player, including the short-tempered captain, said they did nothing that violated the spirit of the game and continued making claims of integrity. And some were forced to say that integrity means different things when batting and when fielding. So, it is alright to stand and wait for the umpire’s decision when you know you are out but you should still be trusted to speak the truth with catches. In fact trust is becoming too much of a burden to carry for it cannot be interpreted conveniently. The old Australian system was easier for the players to follow. We do our job and the umpire does his, they said, and while it did not always look good, it was consistent. Now with many stakeholders in the game they are having to posture, to say the right things, to seek the moral high ground. It was always going to be naïve to expect a fielder’s word to be taken for they do not have a tradition in that area. Even the mighty Steve Waugh claimed a bump ball in the West Indies and certainly it would be ridiculous to take Ponting’s word. Even Gilchrist, who walks, feels the need to appeal when a player is clearly not out. Now, everyone does that, the Indians did too, but the problem lies in claiming the moral high ground. Rarely has it been more slippery. So too, it is felt that it is fine to be abusive, often on deeply personal issues, but not fine to be racist. Neither should be allowed but you cannot have a situation where it is okay to appear wounded on one count and be completely over the top on another. When the English left after the Ashes, some of them were in shock at the intensity of personal abuse. Sadly, there is now only one way out and that is to ban chatter completely. Cricketers might scoff at this suggestion but they have lost the right to live any other way. And with all the debate over the usage of the word monkey, the definition of what is offensive and what isn’t will become impossible to recognize. Anil Kumble thinks the word 'bastard' is offensive, and it is, but a group of lads in a bar might freely use it and wonder what the fuss is all about. What is acceptable in one culture may not be in another. So, I’m afraid, no chatter. And that might just be the best thing to happen to the game. A lot of great players didn’t need to use their lips and the game will lose nothing. The third issue is the judgment of the match referee. And this is where the ICC has a major decision to take. It is generally felt that the referee’s job is a good retirement posting. You continue to meet old friends, fly the world and watch cricket and don’t really do anything. And sadly, cricketing stature has often been equated with being worldly wise and intelligent. Most cricketers are good at hurling a ball and belting it. They may have many other skills but to assume that they do is dangerous and indeed, we often expect too much from our cricketers, expecting them to have a considered point of view on most matters. Indeed, few have exposure to other facets of life and certainly very few are equipped to handle a volatile, near-legal hearing. A lawyer can’t bat and a cricketer cannot interpret law unless they have been trained in both professions. And so, a confused Mike Procter ends up accepting one man’s word over another. Unless that is swiftly squashed, the game will be mired in petty squabbles over whose word to accept. So far only mothers have been able to figure that out. Now Procter has no option but to hand Brad Hogg a three game ban and at this rate there will be more three game bans than traffic violations. Cricket will become impossible to police and we will all spend more time playing us and them rather than enjoying a beautiful sport. Cricket has no option but to ban chatter completely and who knows, in doing so, it might become the hard and pleasant game that all of us seek it to be. ------------------------------------------- Well what is your view on this?

[Chandan]

And now this is a code the players themselves are supposed to have authored:

The Players' Spirit of Australian Cricket

As cricketers who represent Australia we acknowledge and embrace .The Spirit of

Cricket. and the laws of our game.

This Players' Spirit of Australian Cricket serves as a guide to the shared standards of behaviour that we expect of ourselves and of the values we hold.

Our on-field behaviour

We play our cricket hard but fair and accept all umpiring decisions as a mark of respect for our opponents, the umpires, ourselves and the game. We view positive play, pressure, body language and banter between opponents and ourselves as legitimate tactics and integral parts of the competitive nature of cricket. We do not condone or engage in sledging or any other conduct that constitutes personal abuse. We encourage the display of passion and emotion as a sign of our enjoyment and pride in the game, as a celebration of our achievements and as a sign of respect for our opponents.

Our off-field behaviour

It is acknowledged that we have a private life to lead but understand our off-field conduct has the potential to reflect either positively or adversely on us as individuals and also on the game of cricket. We consider off field conduct that may be likely to warrant legitimate public criticism to be unacceptable conduct.

Our team

We take pride in our sense of the importance of the team and acknowledge the role of the team captain and our direct support staff. We demonstrate this by displaying loyalty and compassion to each other, by accepting our role as mentors and by supporting each other to abide by these values. We value honesty and accept that every member of the team has a role to play in shaping, and abiding by our shared standards and expectations. We strive to be regarded as the best team in the world. We measure this by our on field achievements and by exploring ways in which we might continue to .raise the

bar. in respect of our own professionalism.

We acknowledge and follow the traditions of our game while encouraging and accepting experimentation that will enable us to create our own traditions and history. We do this in the expectation that we will leave the game in a better shape than it

was before we arrived.

[arkay]

The Age article : Symonds started all the mess The low down on the show downChloe Saltau January 12, 2008 How did all this begin? The race scandal that has split the cricket world had its origins long before Harbhajan Singh tapped Brett Lee on the behind with his bat during the Sydney Test. The bad blood began to bubble before even the acrimonious one-day series in India, where Andrew Symonds was racially abused by crowds in Vadadora and Nagpur and, in Mumbai, by the Punjabi spinner at the heart of the controversy. It began when Australia and India clashed in a semi-final of the Twenty20 world championship in Durban, a South African city with a big Indian population and a rambunctious crowd. The Australian and Indian dug-outs were side by side and the Australians were irritated by the noise emanating from the Indian bench, and apparently by the presence of BCCI vice-president Lalit Modi, who had ensconced himself among the Indian players. Yuvraj Singh had pounded six sixes in an over against England earlier in the tournament. When Yuvraj went out to bat against the Australians, Brad Hogg, who was not playing, reportedly called out after him: "Wonder who's going to hit six sixes today." When the first shot sailed over the boundary rope, the Indian bench, well within earshot of the Australians, counted down. "Five, four, three …" All harmless banter between opponents, but it gained an edge after India had conquered Pakistan in the Twenty20 final. Before the first game of the Australians' subsequent tour of India, Symonds criticised the extravagant celebrations laid on by Indian politicians after Mahendra Dhoni had led the Indian team to victory over Pakistan. "We have had a very successful side and I think watching how we celebrate and how they celebrate, I think we have been pretty humble in the way we have gone about it," Symonds said. "Personally, I think they have got far too carried away with their celebrations. It has definitely sparked passion inside of us." In India, the jousting escalated, and Harbhajan became Australia's enemy No. 1. Both sides agree a meeting took place between Harbhajan and Symonds after the seventh ODI in Mumbai but differ over the agreement that was struck. The Australians claim Harbhajan called Symonds a "monkey", and that Symonds insisted on sorting the matter out privately. According to Australian team sources, both men agreed the word was unacceptable and it was this unwritten agreement that was broken by Harbhajan in Sydney. Indian team manager Chetan Chauhan, however, claimed they simply agreed not to sledge each other, and that it was Symonds who broke the pact. The Australians' response is that the meeting would not have taken place if Harbhajan had not racially abused Symonds in the first place. Meantime, the Indian board failed to investigate the monkey chants from the crowd until it came under pressure from the International Cricket Council to do so, and released a joint statement with Cricket Australia condemning racism. What happened in Sydney? During the 116th over of India's first innings, Harbhajan rocked onto the back foot and slashed Australian paceman Brett Lee over the slips for four. Lee has a warm relationship with many of the Indian players, including Harbhajan, through his off-field association with the country he first visited as a teenager. When Harbhajan tapped him on the bottom, he is believed to have said something like "hard luck" to the fast bowler, who was straining for his wicket. Symonds intervened. "I'm a firm believer in sticking up for your teammate, so I stepped in and had a bit of a crack at Harbhajan, telling him exactly what I thought of his antics," the Queenslander said in his paid newspaper column. "He then had a shot back, which brings us to the situation we're facing." At the end of the over, Harbhajan appears to call the Australian towards him. Channel Nine and ESPN footage shows them walking across the pitch together, talking all the while. There does not seem to be any great display of anger, but Symonds continues to chirp at Harbhajan over his shoulder as he walks away. Matthew Hayden approaches from behind, and Harbhajan's batting partner Sachin Tendulkar attempts to defuse the confrontation. Ricky Ponting becomes involved and, in footage understood to have been made available to the ICC, can be seen holding two fingers up to indicate that this is the second time Harbhajan has called Symonds a monkey, including the Mumbai incident. Symonds, Hayden and Michael Clarke all said they heard the offending remark, but it was not detected by umpires Mark Benson and Steve Bucknor, nor by Channel Nine's stump microphones. All that is captured are the reactions of Clarke and Hayden. What was it about the Australians' behaviour that moved Anil Kumble to protest that only one team was playing in the spirit of the game? Kumble is one of the few captains in world cricket to have struck an agreement with Ponting to accept the fielder's word on contentious catches. The Australians believe the spirit of the agreement was upheld, because Ponting did not claim to have caught Rahul Dravid in the first innings and Michael Clarke was certain he got his fingers beneath a ball to catch Sourav Ganguly in the slips in the second, moving Ponting to gesture towards Benson to raise his finger. "In my mind we lived that agreement," said an Australian team source. However, the captains' deal was threatened when Clarke stood his ground after edging a ball to first slip in the second innings. Kumble did not see why he should accept the word of a player who did not walk in such circumstances. "Someone edged the ball to slips in the second innings of the Sydney Test and stood there even when there was not an iota of doubt over the dismissal," Kumble wrote in his Hindustan Times column. "He then claimed a catch that showed more than reasonable doubt and said he was 100% certain it was clean." What would have happened if the match was drawn? It is possible that Indian teenager Ishant Sharma would be at the centre of a time-wasting controversy, having walked out to face Clarke's hat-trick ball in the closing stages of the Test with two right gloves. Kumble would be a national hero, having resisted the Australians for more than two hours. Ponting would have been criticised for conservative captaincy, having left his declaration too late. Steve Bucknor might have kept his job. This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/01/11/1199988590203.html

[Guest dada_rocks]

"Personally, I think they have got far too carried away with their celebrations. It has definitely sparked passion inside of us." So now this monkey Symonds will dictate how indians should celebrate their victory..

[arkay]

During the 116th over of India's first innings, Harbhajan rocked onto the back foot and slashed Australian paceman Brett Lee over the slips for four. Lee has a warm relationship with many of the Indian players, including Harbhajan, through his off-field association with the country he first visited as a teenager. When Harbhajan tapped him on the bottom, he is believed to have said something like "hard luck" to the fast bowler, who was straining for his wicket.

This a$$hole is the culprit. Not only did he get to bat more than 4 times after he was out, he abused Harbhajan and top of that, this f$ucker went on be the man of the match. He should banned for bringing this game for being unsporting behavior.

[dial_100]

Sehwag says, we will give it back. Sehwag said that he will not be quite if sledged. I will give it back to them.... http://broadband.indiatimes.com/popupvideo/2694762.cms

[guju24]

first let him make it to final11 and then he give whtever he wants to give back to them

[Dirty_South]

first let him make it to final11 and then he give whtever he wants to give back to them

I think he'll be in .. YS may sit out

[Dhoni's English]

"Maa ki" This is what apparently Harbhajan muttered and Symonds interpreted as monkey. Maa ki in itself is apparently an incomplete sentence bit simply translates to - mother's. the complete expression generally is "maa ki ****" (crude and sounds awful i know but hey i'm only clarifying here) which means "mother's ****". many times hindi speaking people just stop at "mother's" without uttering the abusive word (****) and the recipient usually is able to correctly guess what is being alluded to.

[MundaPakistani]

Strange world! so it is ok to dish out such hedious abuse at some one's mother in a language which they don't understand as long as there aren't any racist comments. anyways i think Bhajji will be busted if he uses this excuse.

[preemo]

Sourav Ganguly leads bad-boy race with 12 call-ups from the Herald Sun Peter Badel January 13, 2008 12:00am THEY have protested their innocence throughout the racism saga, but besieged India is the worst behaved team in world cricket - according to official ICC data. As the tourists persist with threats to abort their tour, official ICC data shows the Indians have faced more sanctions than any Test-playing rival over the past 10 years. Former Indian captain Sourav Ganguly is the game's undisputed problem child, being hauled over the coals by the governing body a record 12 times. Overall, Indian players have been charged for 43 infringements since 1997 for offences including intimidating umpires, abusing rival players, ball tampering, time wasting and dissent. Of the touring party, five Indians have copped fines or suspensions -- Ganguly, Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Virender Sehwag and Harbhajan Singh. The rap sheet is damning evidence the Indians are anything but choirboys as they continue to vehemently deny spinner Harbhajan is guilty of racially abusing Australian all-rounder Andrew Symonds. Despite the raft of indiscretions, Indian cricket board vice-president Lalit Modi said the sub-continent powerhouse did not have an attitude problem. "Sometimes you see sides carry on when the stakes are high, but we are not one of them," Modi said from India. "I am sure there have been incidents with the Indian team in the past, but in the two years I have been on the board, I have not seen such behaviour problems with our team. "I am not privy to the facts you have. We have not done such research, but our boys are generally well behaved. "Most of our players are very good. In the past, there was some incidents involving Ganguly, but he has not had an issue for some time. "If our players are fined or reprimanded, what is it for? Sometimes it can be wasting time or misconduct towards umpires. Not every offence is serious." Analysis of the ICC's code of conduct breaches over the past decade show: ONLY Pakistan came close to India's ill-discipline with 39 offences, led by retired batsman Inzamam-ul-Haq, who was hauled up 11 times. DESPITE claims they have worse conduct issues than India, Australia is ranked fourth with 25 infringements. Glenn McGrath (six), Ricky Ponting (four), Adam Gilchrist (four) and Brett Lee (three) are the serial offenders. HARBHAJAN has a history of poor conduct. The first of his five offences came in 1998, when he was fined 50 per cent of his match fee for abusing Ponting after having him stumped. INDIAN pace bowler Shanth Sreesanth is emerging as cricket's next bad boy. Ruled out of the Test series with injury, Sreesanth was charged four times in nine months between December 2006 and September 2007. DRAVID and Tendulkar, regarded as two of the most squeaky-clean figures in world cricket, have been caught ball tampering. Tendulkar was fined 75 per cent of his match fee in 2001, while Dravid was fined 50 per cent for altering the ball's condition in a one-dayer against Zimbabwe in Brisbane in 2004. However the main culprit is Ganguly. The former skipper has forked out about $50,000 in fines for offences ranging from abusing players and umpires to bringing the game into disrepute for failing to control his team. In a 15-month period between 2004 and '05, Ganguly committed a staggering five breaches -- his final act was for unfair play for time wasting that saw him banned for four one-day games. Since his return to the Test side last year, Ganguly has kept a clean slate, but he flagged India's mindset last month when he said his side would not be bullied by the home team. "That is not a worry for us," said Ganguly following a drama-charged seven-match one-day series in India. "What happened in India for me is in the past, but for Australia, maybe not. They will try to pressure us and they may say some things but we have many senior players who can handle that. "Winning in Australia is always difficult, but we are confident. "This is probably the most experienced Indian team to come to Australia in quite a while. We know what to expect from them." West Indies great Michael Holding, who travels as a commentator, said India was not the worst behaved team. "I have seen a lot of all the teams and I don't find India to be the worst, not at all," he said. "When I played against India, with their top spinners, they were quite aggressive. "I wouldn't say they are well behaved, but they are not the worst. These days there are not too many well behaved teams in world cricket. "Unfortunately, the game has become win at all costs."

[arkay]

ICC has not been consistent with their rulings. Asian teams have taken the brunt of ICC wrath. If ICC has been consistent, ozzie would be the first one with their antics. Of the Indians, the following players are the only who are worst from the Indians. Sreeshanth & Harbhy are the offenders. As far as accusing Dravid & Tendulkar for ball tampering, this is how ICC has been. Turning a blind eye of massacre and charging players like Dravid & Tendulkar basically following the rule without looking at intent.

[maaki]

Aussies and Symonds are cry babies.. They are sour losers.. They cry when the lose.. T20 world cup was the best example.. They were upset with the celebration in india... So also is their sledging.. When they get it back they cant take it.. Aussies pussies Go run for ur mommies... and learn to shut ur mouths when u play cricket...

[maaki]

Monkey is a derogatory word if a white person says it to a black person... If a black person says it to a black person it does not become a racist word.. Kind of like Nigger.. The problem here was 1> Judge Mike Proctor was white who got a bad hand due to racism in his country 2> Symonds does not like his aborginal heritage.. Look at his girl friend... Now thats what i call Tere Maa Ki...

[Guest dada_rocks]

Latest news Symonds says if a friend or tema-mate calls him monkey it;s not racist.. I fail to understand one things so these bloody whites have been calling black's monkeys and suddenly one day they decided it;s racist term and the non-white population which was using these terms as a general cesnure suddenly has to fal in line and stop using that term.. Being called bandar as nauughty child is so common-place in india no freaking body even associates it with any racismm.. bottom-linesymo when your white team-mate callyou monkey that is acist.. indians never used that term with racist undertone against anyone.. PS: Point remains since bhajji says he didn't say then that's how it's if anybody has any proof of otherwise please produce it..