RE:Prem Panicker: It is about justice, not world domination
by Hari kiran reddy on Jan 09, 2008 08:11 AM
I am so glad u wrote this aticle prem. cant agree more with venkat v...Bang on target mate.
RE:Prem Panicker: It is about justice, not world domination
by hemant chahar on Jan 09, 2008 07:40 AM
& wt r d uncivilised words??....wrds which australians utter on d field??....wrds which symonds mus hv said to bhajji & thus provoking him...wrds which ponting,mcgrath & co. hv used over d years?? go & sleep in ur quilt...u civilised chap!!!..or bettr...send ur msg to australian captain first & thn sleep!!
RE:Prem Panicker: It is about justice, not world domination
by Mahesh on Jan 09, 2008 08:14 AM
dear mr panicker, the point is there is not use in abusing some australian writer and his culture and his nation and his world at large when the target should be just himself. and who would ever respond to such immature and uninformed write-ups as the one bye Bob. we are civilised and educated now...grow up to it man ...India winning or losing in australia does nothing to u or me except puff up the great INDIAN PRIDE, whatever that is...get on with life...at the end of the day the cricket board and the cricketers get their money and go home and in such cases of course publicity...relax...have a beer....
RE:Prem Panicker: It is about justice, not world domination
by Nilabza Dutta on Jan 09, 2008 08:26 AM
no no...i his diction raping a frog is civilized. thats actually one of the best articles i have read in net journalism. A befitting reply. And Lo! the guru of Civil Dictum is preaching here..!!!
the point in umpiring is: right decision. so now, when technology is good enough to see everything clearly. why Ricky pointing wants to push the world back to human-errors? clearly he has ulterior motives here.
Everybody should ask for ALL UN-clear decisions to go to 3rd umpire.
RE:all decisions should be 3rd umpire.
by pravin on Jan 09, 2008 07:26 AM
I THINK THE ABOVE ARTICEL IS BRILLIANTLY WRITTEN. i AM CURRENTLY RESIDING IN AUSTRALIA AND IT IS HEARTENING TO NOTE THAT AUSSIE PUBLIC OPINION IS PRETTY MUCH PRO BHAJJI AND ANTI BUCKNOR, AND MOST FEEL INDIA DID NOT DESERVE TO LOSE AND A LOT GO TO THE EXTENT OF "AUSTRALIA DID NOT DESERVE TO WIN". qUITE A FEW CALLS FOR RICKY PONTING S HEAD TOO!
RE:all decisions should be 3rd umpire.
by Ford Eals on Jan 09, 2008 07:45 AM
Thanks for the post. Going by Aussie Cricketers' behavior I got an impression impression that the Australia is not worth migrating to. I am in the US now and people here are pretty sensible. Good to know even Aussies are the same.
RE:all decisions should be 3rd umpire.
by Kaliruzzaman Amanullah on Jan 09, 2008 07:18 AM
You are absolutely correct buddy.. Last time during Indian tour of England.. Kevin Peterson given out wrongly by umpire and then later after TV replay.. the decision is withdrawn and he came back to bat.. If Australia continously winning means they are not the best team... they show the utter rubbish sportsmanship to win games.. Australians are thinking they are brilliance in their game..but they have nothing to show off in sportsmanship..
RE:all decisions should be 3rd umpire.
by Michael Mammen on Jan 09, 2008 07:22 AM
Perhaps you should check your sources more thoroughly. 1) Technology Hawkyeye - definitely not accurate - I thought Kumble had his hattrick against Symonds, so did all commentators, but Hawkeye said it was going miles over the top. It clearly can't pick up variations in bounce as a pitch deteriorates.
Snicko - unreliable as it only detects noise. Who will determine if the noise was bat on ball, bat on pad, bat on ground, ball on pad, a bat handle creaking, etc...?
The only guaranteed one is the thermal image hotspot. But only useful in some contexts.
2) Australia Yes, clearly Australia are not the best team when they have won consistently against every country at home and away for the last 15 years and have won the last 3 world cups in South Africa, England and the West Indies.
How about everyone in the world commits to their own team improving its sportsmanship - that might achieve something useful.
RE:all decisions should be 3rd umpire.
by Michael Mammen on Jan 09, 2008 08:20 AM
Food for thought on the Symonds "stumping"
I could see daylight between his heel and the ground as he went to ground his foot behind the line as the stumps were broken. For all intents and purposes this should be out.
BUT, you may have noticed cricketers wear metal spikes on their shoes for grip. Who here is willing to guess the length of Symonds spike, so we can determine "beyond a reasonable doubt" that his spike was not touching the ground?
I'm still amazed that some people are crediting Australia's dominance solely to umpiring and conspiracies. Surely Australia's superb record overseas with umpires of all nations must be acknowledged, not to mention 3 world cups in a row!
Tell the referee that Ponting and Gilchrist called you some racist word.
Will Ponting and Gilchrist be suspended without any evidence just by Indian players' testimony?
Then all teams should adopt this strategy- just make up a story that the best players in the opposing side made a racist remark. NO EVIDENCE NEEDED, those players will be suspended!!!
RE:All teams can make up a story....
by Onlooker on Jan 09, 2008 07:21 AM
It is not simple to lie. You can but with 10 questions, you would admit to lying.
A very well written article that should be circulated to Australian Media so that their public should know what their team can do to dominate the cricket.
From BBC news: The actions of the Australian team in Sydney have led to fierce criticism back home, with Ponting's role in the game coming under intense scrutiny.
The Sydney Morning Herald has called for Ponting to be dismissed, saying that Cricket Australia should not tolerate the "arrogant and abrasive conduct seen from the captain".
And an online poll in Australian newspaper the Daily Telegraph 79% of respondents said the team did not play in the true spirit of the game while 83% said Ponting was not a good ambassador for the game.
BBC News Sydney correspondent Nick Bryant said: "The Aussies love winning but they like winning well, and there's a feeling after 16 straight Test victories that Ricky Ponting's team has just gone too far in the aggressive way in which they play."
1. "never stepped outside the rules or the laws of the game". 2. "We have a great pride in playing for the baggy green cap"
It is funny they don't have anything else to say except these two lines. The best part is they think they can get away by saying these two lines over and over again.
I don't know what it is, may be its the illetracy or the cowboyship behavior, they seem to have run out of vocabulary or perhaps it is too much for them to speak good English.
I've read these two lines in almost all the newspapers from various Australian players. It reminds me of a movie I watched recently where a Don hires a sidey to repeat a particular line infront of others everytime he is asked to do so.
I've never seen Aussies exposed so badly ever before.
Racism is an age old malady in Indian society. India does not have any moral ground on racism since are hierarchical thinking is built into our psyche. We are a society of colonial servitude .
We Indians care so much about caste and clannish mentality . We are pathologically inferiority/superiority complex oriented society. We have no moral grounds to blame Aussies about sledging when we have our own house unclean.
Probably we should take it as a lesson instead of hiding behind denial. Fundamentally we are a very hierarchical society ourselves. A nation cannot call itself a super power unless it faces its own ugliness in the face of international criticism. U.S is learning it the hard way. We are long way from being a super power. But if we even want to entertain such a wish we better get our act together first in the area of class, race , caste etc.
RE:Racism and India
by D S on Jan 09, 2008 06:40 AM
Sikhs, Buddist and Islamic say they don't have hierarchy. Yogic and Vedanta Aryans learnt spicy food, caste and Hinduism from the natives. No problems with Aryans and the mix leaving the baggage customs and still enjoy the native spicy foods.
RE:Racism and India
by Auzzie Mite on Jan 09, 2008 06:57 AM
SB, Even if one were to assume that what you say holds good, there's a few things to consider. Your charge of our own house unclean does not imply that we just keep quiet and put up with Aussie sledging. That is not done. The issue here is about Harbhajan being punished without any evidence. Punishing without evidence based on the Australian player's testimony is again like selective interpretation or shall we say racism. Isn't the verdict racist now? the issue is about the guilty verdict without any evidence. Whether there is racism or not in India has hardly any relevance to that issue.And if the Aussies sledge, they have to be blamed regardless of other facts that are not directly relevant to the issue of sledging.
RE:Racism and India
by Balaji on Jan 09, 2008 11:49 AM
My point is that whether Harbhajan is guilty or not is not not relevant. What is more relevant is that the Aussies are minimizing their guilt (of meting out racial sledging) by blaming us of the same. Its the case of Pot calling Kettle Black !!
Whether Harbhajan is punished or not is merely a side show. Whether Buckner was just or not is a just a red herring. The real show is who is more racial or arrogant - Aussies or Indians?
RE:Racism and India
by Dev Purkayastha on Jan 09, 2008 07:08 AM
What relevance do your comments have to the cricket controversy. Before you weigh in you should read the news. What is at stake here is bad umpiring and unfair suspension of Harbhajan. If people have to clean up their house to protest a manifest injustice, injustice will thrive. When US condemned the Nazis for the massacre of Jews, US was still a segreagated society. Should they have waited until there was perfect equality in the US? Get real man. How long are you going to be awed by the Sahibs? Wake up and smell the coffee.
RE:Racism and India
by JM on Jan 09, 2008 06:57 AM
You mix Racism, Castism and Sledging.
Just because India is not perfect, Indians should keep quiet?
Going by your illogical argument, maybe you will also say India dont have a right to fight militancy in Kashmir as there is street-voilence on the streets of Mumbai!
And what the hell does this have to do with India being a superpower(or not)?
Sorry Balaji, you are incoherent and morbidly retarded! Retarded people like you are the real problem in India!! India is in a bad state and struggling to develop becausde of retards like you being Indian.
News is that Sachin Tendulkar sent SMS when decision to NOT go for 3rd match without Bhajji came from outside. In reality the Captain, Pawar ,Tendulkar and BCCI were moving on to 3rd test. Amazing how they all want to capture credit when the loss of 2nd test is still on records.
RE:Rush to take credit when the injury is still there.
by Dev Purkayastha on Jan 09, 2008 07:14 AM
What second test match are you talking about? Do you mean the one where Bucknor scored a double century for Australia and took at least 3 wickets for 0 runs? That match? BCCI is so afraid of Bucknor the Australian all-rounder, they had to get him suspended from the 3rd. match. But he can play again in the fourth match. Hail to Bucknor the greatest Australian all-rounder, and do not forget he does wicket-keeping too. What a guy.
1) I agree that based on what evidence has been made publicly available, there is no way Proctor could find Harbhajan guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" 2) I disagree that India played "in the true spirit of the game" given its own slow over rates, over appealing, deliberate time wasting, own players not walking 3) I agree that Australia also did not play "in the true spirit of the game" given its slow over rates, over appealing, own players not walking and lack of grace in victory 4) I want the BCCI to allow Sachin to disclose his exact testimony to give transparency to the decision 5) I want Indians to acknowledge and admit that Harbhajan did racially abuse Symonds in India (as proved by Mr. Panicker) and that Harbhajan knew the consequences if it happened again. 6) I want Indians to realise that the umpiring was the root of all evil in this match, as it facilitated the players losing their cool, control and making bad decisions re: appeals, walking and general decency. 7) I want INdians to acknowledge the umpiring was BAD, not BIASED and that umpiring errors happen everywhere and that Australia has also suffered. 8) I want Indians to acknowledge the inconsistency and fallacy of their comments that it is an anti-Indian conspiracy, given Bucknor favoured India with errors in England, given Indian umpires' decisions throughout the recent ODI series in India and past history. 9) I want people to realise it is a game and we all need to grow up!
RE:My Summary
by Onlooker on Jan 09, 2008 06:38 AM
It is the job of defense to create a reasonable doubt in prosecution's witness accounts which forms the evidence in a word against word case. So it appears that the defense didn't do a good job of it in terms of bringing their own witnesses, cross examinations and therefore guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
RE:My Summary
by Auzzie Mite on Jan 09, 2008 07:07 AM
Michael, here's my list. 1.I agree that Ponting and his players behaved in a disgraceful manner. I admired his brilliant knock of 140 in the 2003 WC final, comparable to Viv Richards's. But I have lost respect for him after his childish behavior. 2.I want the Australians to apologize for their disgraceful behavior. 3.I want Mike Proctor to disclose to public how he made his 'beyond reasonable doubt' verdict pending any evidence of Harbhajan having actually uttered the offending words in question. 4.I want the Australian team to come down from their moral high horse which makes them believe they did nothing wrong, going by the statements of Ponting,Gilchrist, Clarke and now Hussey. 5.I want the ICC to acknowledge that the quality of elite umpires is not that great and that Bucknor is not fit to umpire any more. 6.I want Ricky Ponting to apologize for his arrogant behavior towards a member of the Indian media during his press conference. 7.I want the Australian players to acknowledge that their actions did not constitute playing within the spirit of the game. The question is, are they man enough to admit their mistakes ? 8.I want the Australians also to realise that it is a game and that their sledging has been offensive to teams over the years. 9.I would like the Australians to reflect over the way they have treated Murali, and consider whether that does not constitute racism.
RE:My Summary
by Michael Mammen on Jan 09, 2008 07:18 AM
Auzzie Mite 1. Agreed. He needs to learn a lot 2. Apologise - I believe that will come when the dust settles, everyone is far too emotional, wanting everything their way, on their terms without compromise 3. Agreed - I imagine the appeal process will do this anyway. 4. As per point 2. What "statements" are you referring to? The Australian public led a revolt against the Australian team after a nasty series against WI a few years ago, and substantial changes were made as a result. 5. Dropping Bucknor achieves this BUT I still disagree with the process. Clive Lloyd has expressed his disgust with the removal as it gives countries the option to throw a tantrum until they get their preferred umpires. 6. As per 2 - but honestly, you provoke a person who has been through 5 days of emotional and physical strain seeking a reaction - and then act surprised at the result! 7. Agreed, if India also admit they were not in the spirit of the game - slow over rates trying to get bad light on the last day, asking for shin guards on the 6th ball of an over, coming out with 2 left gloves and 9 minutes left, Yuvraj glaring at the umpires the same as Ponting, over-appealing? 8. Agreed - either you need a zero-tolerance approach or clear guidelines as to what is not allowable 9. The Murali situation is peculiar. Some resent him for his bowling action. I don't believe it's racial - Murali got an amazing reception from 90,000 fans at the MCG for the Tsunami fundraiser match.
RE:RE:RE:My Summary
by Michael Mammen on Jan 09, 2008 09:02 AM
8) Murali - based on statistics, Darrell Hair had the highest rate of correct decisions of any umpire in the world. He just interpreted the laws as they were written.
Is it a coincidence that they changed the laws AFTER Hair called Murali for a no-ball.
At the time, the laws of cricket said that if the umpire had any doubt about the bowler's action, it was to be called a no-ball.
Arguably it should have been amended to say if the umpire is convinced the action is illegal, it was to be a no-ball. But instead, they tested Murali and other bowlers (including Lee and Akhtar), determined that everyone straightens a little, and changed the laws to allow 15 degrees.
Doesn't that indicate that Hair was technically correct and not driven by race? Or is it being swept up in the anti-subcontinent conspiracy theory.
And before you bring it out, again right or wrong, Pakistan had no right under the laws of cricket to not come out to restart the match, so Hair was right to call a forfeit (though I think he was wrong in his determination of potential ball tampering which should have been dealt with after stumps).
RE:RE:RE:My Summary
by Michael Mammen on Jan 09, 2008 08:58 AM
4) clearly you don't know how much worse the Australians used to be, in the days of fast bowlers following through and hurling despicable insults, spitting, swearing at the batsmen. Compare that to now, with Brett Lee bowling at 150km/ph, sometimes following through and saying to Laxman "mate, you had no idea where that was, I'm too quick" - to which VVS laughs, smiles and says "remember Kolkata?". What you saw in Sydney was strained and fatigued players on both sides in a hellish environment created by poor umpires with no control. 5) Agreed, but do you drop a batsman just because he pads up and leaves a ball which is going to hit middle stump (Dhoni and M Clarke)? You may say Bucknor has been a long time deterioriation (and I agree), but the umpire should be sacrosanct. 6) Agreed that Harbhajan may have been provoked. But equally Ponting was defensive and was being pushed by the journo. Imagine Ganguly responding to questions like "so Saurav, the 2 left gloves with 9 minutes to play, that was a deliberate time-wasting tactic wasn't it, just like bringing out shinguards for the last ball of the over?" (I'm comparing Saurav to Ponting as they are both emotion-charged cricketers. 7) Wrong - read Roebuck. You can slow overs down on the first 4 days (both teams did) with no real consequence as time is made up. If you slow overs on day 5 and bad light comes, that's it, no more overs. Hence my disgust with the shinguards coming out, over rates and 2 left gloves.
RE:My Summary
by Auzzie Mite on Jan 09, 2008 10:13 AM
Michael, Response to 6. - Agreed that is has been 5 rough days, but bear in mind that Kumble has been fighting for 5 hard days as well. Yet he never snapped at a journalist like a teenager. The great Allan Border never indulged in such despicable behavior. As a captain of a team, you are held to higher standard of behavior as compared to other members of the team. Yelling at a reporter in a press conference ain't done mate. The only other instance of hostility to press that I can remember is Mike Atherton in Pakistan. Ponting had a responsibility to be calm and composed.
What I still don't get is that this whole thing initially was betwene Harbhajan and Lee. When Brett Lee had no issues, why should Symonds play the activist there? Lee never complained to the umpire or to his captain. Why does Symonds havet to rudely barge in and start a confrontation.
Indian fans celebrating their Twenty20 celebration is upto them. Who is Symonds to comment on them not being humble or something? If you don't agree with it fine. Don't go shooting your mouth off and needling your hosts. Symonds started it with his comments and invited the hostility from the Indian fans. Things would have been just fine if he knew when to speak and when to use discretion. I'm not justifying racism here, but highlighting the fact that Symonds is not very innocent. That needs to be taken into account.
RE:RE:My Summary
by Indian on Jan 09, 2008 07:40 AM
Michael:
On your response to point 6:- If Ponting can get provoked in a calm air-conditioned hall with just a question ("did you think you take a clean catch") and is justified to use whatever words he chooses, that shows how tough the Aussies are.
Aussies have used mindless and endless sledging on ground, in conditions that provoke far more, and hit much lower below the belt and tried to "mentally disintegrate" opponents.
Funny how an Aussie can be mentally disintegrated in a couple of seconds, and his defence is that he was provoked!
RE:RE:RE:My Summary
by Michael Mammen on Jan 09, 2008 08:50 AM
It's not about the room he was in - that's like saying, lets take a soldier from the battlefield, put him in a cool room and he should be snapped back to normal!
But this isn't my point, I'm just saying that things will settle down once cooler heads prevail, and people realise that everyone is a little bit (or a lot) at fault and that everyone can change things for the better.
RE:RE:My Summary
by Michael Mammen on Jan 09, 2008 06:48 AM
Again you misinterpret - it must be far easier than logical analysis.
I am not saying the Australians have merit in this matter. I have in fact REPEATEDLY said their behaviour was embarassing and not in the game's best interests.
HOWEVER, I am only saying that the Indians have also got issues, therefore it is a worldwide problem, and perhaps some Indian fans would be better served thinking of unilateral solutions, rather than pointing the finger.
Australians have conducted themselves badly, so have Indians, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, New Zealanders, English and West Indians.
I know India loves playing the victim (I'm Indian, I should know!) - but the true test of character is the growth, not the reaction.
RE:RE:RE:My Summary
by Dev Purkayastha on Jan 09, 2008 07:31 AM
Sir: Let us say you are less than perfect as a person. Does that justify a goonda coming into your house and beating you up? Indian team has many shortcomings and we want them to improve. BCCI should spend money on that. But BCCI also needs to make it clear to the world that winning with the help of umpires and suspending an effective player on no grounds will not be tolerated. If you act like a doormat you will be treated like a doormat.
RE:My Summary
by Michael Mammen on Jan 09, 2008 08:47 AM
Dev
If I am a goonda, and another goonda comes into my house and robs me, yes, I can defend myself. But I can't stand there and say "goonda, how dare you rob me, that is wrong".
Similarly, the BCCI is completely within its rights to appeal Proctor's decision to defend a perceived error against Harbhajan, but to criticise the process itself is unjustifiable!
RE:My Summary
by Indian on Jan 09, 2008 06:43 AM
Mr. Mammen: Firstly wipe it off your mind (and completely wipe it off if you possibly can) that the "monkey" business in India has anything to do with racism.
An average Indian fan doesn't even know that Symonds is black. He is a lot lot fairer than most Indians. For an average Indian fan, he is just an Aussie. I am sure more than 90% of Indian fans won't even know where he originally hails from. So please get that right.
The Indian fans just didn't tolerate his boorish behaviour and arrogance on field, and took to his appearance, especially his white lipstick. And that is (contrary to whoever, wherever believes otherwise) the only explanation for those taunting episodes.
Bhajji probably taunted him with "monkey" in India just to needle him, and he has every right to do that, the same as every Aussie has been needling all opponents post-Bradman era.
It's just that Aussies have devised a fantastic way to block anyone needling one-of-their-own, by labelling as "racist" anybody who makes fun of their precious Roy.
RE:RE:My Summary
by Michael Mammen on Jan 09, 2008 06:58 AM
Indian
As illustrated by India reporting Brad Hogg, your comments are irrelevant I'm afraid.
Harbhajan called Symonds a monkey. Symonds took him aside and told him it was deeply offensive, and not to use it again or he'd report it.
The sole question now is, did he say it again? Leave it to the appeals and the courts to decide, as I'm sure they will.
Similarly, the Indians say b* is a deeply offensive term, so they have reported Hogg. Did Hogg already know this was the case (when in Australia it is affectionate slang)? I doubt it, so he should get the same warning Harbhajan got from Symonds and be suspended if he does it again!
RE:My Summary
by Indian on Jan 09, 2008 07:31 AM
Michael: Now that we are discussing this like two mature people, let me bring another aside to this. Alan Border has magnanimously offered his opinion that this is all just a cultural misunderstanding etc. etc. equating the word monkey (in Indian context) with the B word (in Aussie context).
I find it funny in the wake of Symonds expecting Harbhajan not to repeat the offensive word. Symonds' patience lasted for only 2 instances (assuming Bhajji said it again, which incidentally he DIDN'T, so actually the patience cracked during the first instance itself and then became a vendetta that incidentally also benefits Punter the Bunny).
Whereas Indians have been displaying this maturity for decades now. If Alan knows that B word has always hurted the Indians, yet Aussies keep using it and claim sledging is their birthright, and yet Indians don't report anyone, then its a far far higher maturity that has been on display for anyone to see. Its just a pity that the Aussies won't appreciate it, and express a collective shock when a certain Hogg is eventually reported as a "last straw on camel's back syndrome"; and go further to label the entire Indian race as being sooks and bad losers and what nots.
From Alan Border's perspective Hogg does not have any defence.
RE:RE:My Summary
by Michael Mammen on Jan 09, 2008 07:44 AM
Indian
AB said that it's a cultural misunderstanding. If so, then if there is independent proof that Harbhajan said monkey in India without understanding, then was "enlightened" by Symonds or others yet said it again, then he should be suspended.
If Hogg can be independently proved to have known just how offensive the b word was to the Indians, yet still used it - then Hogg should also be suspended.
If not on either or both of these, then either or both should be warned or just given a suspended sentence.
RE:My Summary
by Indian on Jan 09, 2008 07:55 AM
Mature enough. But not practical enough.
AB being at the helm of the Aussie ship didn't (or couldn't) stop the onslaught of sledging. And he cannot now say that HE did not know which words were offensive.
I suspect our mature discussion is not going to be enough to change the way Aussies sledge. I'm afraid Indians will still have to go on displaying their maturity. I'm also sure Aussies are going to hail them as being sporting enough and being great people etc. etc. till Indians show another streak of winning (or until another Sourav comes along)..
Till then: Lord forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.
RE:My Summary
by Dev Purkayastha on Jan 09, 2008 07:25 AM
Mr. Marman: Your excellent summary is marred by some obvious flaws. The Umpiring was biased from statistical point of view. If the umpire was unbised the bad decisions will favor both team equally. When 7 out of 8 bad decisons go against India, the probability of it being an innocent mistake goes down to less than 1%. In most scientific papers 95% confidence is good enough, here we reached 99%. Why do you think it is unbiased?
If Hartbhajan called Symonds a monkey he deserves to be punished. However, as Mr. Panicker points out only three people know what happened - Symonds, Harbhajan and Tendulkar. It is two against one. Since Australians are not known for playing fair, it appears to be a thinly veiled attempt to exclude Harbhajan who is in top form. Mr. Symonds admits that he made a "crack" at Singh. What was that crack? Australia invented sledging and they are proud of it. I have seen it described by Australians as mind game etc. Why are they crying when they get sledged? If Mr. Symmonds is particularly sensitive to being called a monkey, it seems to be an ideal way to sledge him. I find sledging disgusting and it should be totally banned. But Australians cannot complain when they are hoisted by their own petard.
RE:My Summary
by Michael Mammen on Jan 09, 2008 08:37 AM
Mr Purkayastha, With all due respect, I beg to differ and your hypothesis is fundamentally flawed.
You are quoting scientific papers and statistics. Any worthwhile mathematician or scientist will tell you that you cannot derive statistics unless your sample is sufficiently large. If I flip a coin once and get a "head", does that mean this will happen 100% of the time? Of course not - you must have a sufficiently large sample size before calculating statistics. In this sense, over the course of a match, a series, a year, a decade, etc, then analyse if things level out.
I'm willing to admit that statistics over time has indicated that 50/50 decisions favour the home side.
But as for your extended hypothesis, it cannot be sustained and comments like this only serve to muddy the waters.
Mr. Panicker is wrong if he says only 3 people know what happened. 1) Hayden and Clarke heard the comment and relayed it to Gilchrist and Ponting. Therefore it was Symonds, Hayden, Clarke on one side. 2) In some parts of the press, apparently Tendulkar has said he didn't hear the word monkey (not that it was definitively not said) - there is a slight but meaningful difference.
In any event, as I've said perhaps 22 times now - if the ICC determines that sledging is to be banned totally, so be it. Otherwise, turn the microphones up and we'll have to determine what is allowable and what is not.
RE:My Summary
by Michael Mammen on Jan 09, 2008 06:45 AM
How is it biased against India, it's merely an attempt to restore a modicum of balance? The key issues are: 1) the umpires performance 2) the Australians' behaviour 3) the Indians' behaviour 4) the racism claim 5) the hearing process 6) the spirit of the game
Since every allegation here is thrown at the Australians (with scarcely a mention of any potential Indian culpability), it's difficult to portray the situation any other way.
Yesterday, Indians were falling over themselves to quote Roebuck and other British journos.
Today, I give you these quotes: Agnew "They (Australia) can give it, but can't take it. That, of course does not offer any defence for racism" (if proved of course)
Agnew "I am going to throw in Sreesanth's name as an example of an Indian cricketer who has often - and recently - gone well beyond the spirit of cricket: it is not purely an Australian thing"
Roebuck "BY NO means can the Indians escape censure for the unpleasantness that took place in cricket's dark hour at the SCG...India has a right to demand a second hearing, but it is hardly fit and proper for the entire tour to shudder to a halt in the meantime...Of course vociferous fanatics will remain loyal but only fools play to that gallery...India's top-order deficiencies were also anticipated. It also bowled its overs so slowly that the match finished past exhaustion time...None of these matters ought to be forgotten. India must not merely complain about the Australians."
1) monkey is complete and utter racial abuse. It stems from use to describe black people as a sub-human species. In Europe, it led to the "Kick it Out" movement to stamp racism out of football - search for it on the web if you have the time.
2) It is routine in Europe for clubs whose fans do monkey chants or have banners about monkeys to be fined millions of EUROS, to have fans banned FOR LIFE and to be forced to play the next match in an empty stadium as punishment.
3) A number of black footballers have left international and European club games in tears at the abuse they have been receiving from crowds, knowing it is directed at their skin colour.
4) Yes I agree that it is odd for Australia to sledge then claim racial abuse. BUT, the world has determined that some forms of sledging are OK but that racial abuse is unacceptable IN ANY FORM.
5) We know beyond a doubt that Harbhajan said it before, Symonds felt he didn't know how offensive it was, so he warned him that there would be trouble if it was said again.
6) I agree that the evidence made public is insufficient to convict Harbhajan, so the appeal should sort that out easily enough, that's what the appeal is for. Or else Proctor has other evidence which we'll see eventually.
Either way, racism has no place in sport. If the cricket nations prefer, ban all sledging and turn the microphones up. But what will Sreesanth and Andre Nel do??? :)
RE:Monkey Magic
by on on Jan 09, 2008 06:25 AM
yes yes yes.. most of us know that.
40. Only Australia has determined Sledge is ok. And that is unacceptable and should be eliminated. This incident was due for year and it finally happened
5). Only you know beyond the doubt that harbhajan said it before. We don't..
Please take a break and read Peter Roebuck or Aggers.. I hope you know who they are..
RE:Monkey Magic
by Michael Mammen on Jan 09, 2008 06:39 AM
See the problem is that people are reading my comments and mistaking it for some pro-Australia defence of their actions.
As I've made blatantly clear, I also found the Australians' behaviour churlish, childish, without grace, without humility and outside the spirit of the game.
Quote from Agnew "They can give it, but can't take it. That, of course does not offer any defence for racism" (if proved of course)
Agnew then says "I am going to throw in Sreesanth's name as an example of an Indian cricketer who has often - and recently - gone well beyond the spirit of cricket: it is not purely an Australian thing"
Roebuck today "BY NO means can the Indians escape censure for the unpleasantness that took place in cricket's dark hour at the SCG...India has a right to demand a second hearing, but it is hardly fit and proper for the entire tour to shudder to a halt in the meantime...Of course vociferous fanatics will remain loyal but only fools play to that gallery...India's top-order deficiencies were also anticipated. It also bowled its overs so slowly that the match finished past exhaustion time...None of these matters ought to be forgotten. India must not merely complain about the Australians."
As for Harbhajan - I'm willing to trust the Australians' word when it is corroborated by Mr. Panicker who has written with a fair degree of vitriol on the matter.
RE:Monkey Magic
by himadri chakraborty on Jan 09, 2008 07:10 AM
Michael , I can agree to you on some counts and you have presented a more or less rational debate . However , I think all of us are missing a very simple point which has nothing to do with Cricketing laws as such . Even a person who has definitely committed murder cannot be prosecuted or sentenced unless his crime is proved beyond all reasonable doubts on the basis of irrefutable evidence . Here we are stunned by the fact that Mike Procter has taken a decision based on no such solid evidence ,not even a lip reading clue ,let alone audio clips . His decision is based on Hayden and Ponting's claims whose integrity is no more than a toilet full of shit , while choosing to indicate that Sachin is a liar . The question is not whether Bhajji is guilty or not , the question is whether the trial was fair . As any man of justice will say to you , it is always better to ensure that you are not punishing an innocent even if that means that you might be letting some offenders free . Regarding the use of the phrase 'Monkey' , working in UK our European colleagues often refer to friends and other colleagues as 'Cheeky monkey' or 'stop monkeying around ' . Do I feel racially insulted coming from a white colleague , definitely not , as I perfectly understand that it has been said in friendly banter . Hence the circumstances of a comment are also to be judged at the same time and taken into proper perspective . I think if we had all heard Bhajji making the comment then we would not have stood
RE:Monkey Magic
by Michael Mammen on Jan 09, 2008 06:55 AM
Dear Risky Proposition
In latin there is a phrase - res ipsa loquitor. The evidence speaks for itself. You, my friend, speak for yourself.
And I'd be hoping that at least 600,000,000 of your counterparts are cringing reading your words.
There are many on this forum who are here because we love the game and want what's best for it (differing opinions notwithstanding) - heaven help India if your way of thinking takes hold!
RE:Monkey Magic
by Indian on Jan 09, 2008 06:46 AM
Mr. Mammen: Firstly wipe it off your mind (and completely wipe it off if you possibly can) that the "monkey" business in India has anything to do with racism.
An average Indian fan doesn't even know that Symonds is black. He is a lot lot fairer than most Indians. For an average Indian fan, he is just an Aussie. I am sure more than 90% of Indian fans won't even know where he originally hails from. So please get that right.
The Indian fans just didn't tolerate his boorish behaviour and arrogance on field, and took to his appearance, especially his white lipstick. And that is (contrary to whoever, wherever believes otherwise) the only explanation for those taunting episodes.
Bhajji probably taunted him with "monkey" in India just to needle him, and he has every right to do that, the same as every Aussie has been needling all opponents post-Bradman era.
It's just that Aussies have devised a fantastic way to block anyone needling one-of-their-own, by labelling as "racist" anybody who makes fun of their precious Roy.
