I decided to take the scenic route from Edinburgh to Oxford, which meant two days offline. During my absence, it emerged that cricket is in danger of imploding after the fall-out from Australia’s victory over India in the second test. Rather than rehash what’s already been said, I’ll point Catallaxians to this excellent but very long thread over at After Grog Blog. Tony the Teacher’s observations are at the bottom of the post, which is in the form of a match report for each day of the test.
In the meantime, I make the following observations:
1. The Indians copped the worst of some very bad umpiring, although Australia by no means escaped.
2. With Jason Gillespie’s departure, Andrew Symonds is now the only black player in the Australian team. Unlike Gillespie (who, at worst, could be cited for crimes against fashion with the most luxuriant mullet in sport), Symonds goes the whole hog with ‘looking black’ – complete with dreadlocks and face paint (the first photograph is a head and shoulders portrait of him).
3. He is clearly disliked in India, and at least some of this animus is racial (the second photograph shows a section of the crowd during Australia’s recent ODI series in India). For those perplexed by the spectacle of one group of non-white people abusing another non-white person, it is perhaps worth pointing out that many members of higher castes in India consider themselves ‘white’, and discrimination against ‘Dalits’ (untouchables) is in part based on their generally darker skin-colour.
4. India has the most money to throw into cricket’s financial pot, but Australia is the best side.
5. India’s board (the BCCI) has repeatedly used its financial clout to intimidate the ICC.
6. Australia’s players have repeatedly used their superior ability to scare the living shit out of touring teams, sometimes in an over-the-top, even ‘unsporting’ fashion.
7. Ricky Ponting is about as diplomatic as a housebrick dropped from thirty thousand feet.
8. Harbhajan Singh is about as a diplomatic as a housebrick dropped from fifty thousand feet.
9. If Mike Proctor says Harbhajan Singh called Andrew Symonds a ‘monkey’, then he’s telling the truth.
10. I live with a black man. I can say with absolute certainty that the ‘M-word’ is worse than the ‘N-word’, the latter of which has been pseudo-legitimized by the likes of 50 Cent and Snoop Dogg getting down wit’ it in da hood.
11. Suspension for three test matches is too harsh (a single test match, the equivalent of Darren Lehmann’s suspension for five one-dayers for a similar indiscretion, would have been sufficient).
12. The BCCI’s threat to scupper the rest of the series is childish petulance of the first water, and has the potential to split the sport in two.
More from CricInfo, the BBC, The Hindu, the SMH and The Australian.
Reaction from around Ozblogistan: Chris at Troppo, Shaun at LP, Tim Blair, Andrew Bartlett, Harry Clarke, Tim Dunlop
The SMH letters page. Wow. Just wow.
190 Comments
what has got up their nose is:
1) ONLY Australians corroborated this. The Harbarnator denied it.
2) Sachin was not called in at all
Hence your 9) obervation is meaningless.
Thus the suspension is due only to the Australian team.
The Aussies are wellknown, including one Andrew Symonds, for making observations littered with expletives.
IF the offence took place it was begun by the Aussies and then exacerbated by them.
The laws of cricket give the captains the resposbility for observing the sspirit of the game.
In this I totally agree with Peter roebeck in today’s SMH
The hearing went for five hours. And Proctor is a Yarpie of the most careful type. I don’t think so, Homer.
Rubbish CL. Lehmann was suspended calling the Sri Lankans “Black Bastards” in similar circumstances except Lehmann didn’t direct it against anyone, in fact just yelled it out in the changerooms after being dismissed and was overheard by the Sri Lankan touring party in the adjacent changeroom. Nobody from the Australian team corroborated anything on that occasion.
“IF the offence took place it was begun by the Aussies and then exacerbated by them.”
It doesn’t matter who begun what, you can’t racially vilify players.
What’s calling Sachin in got to do with anything? He’s not the captain and he wasn’t involved in the incident. His opinion is about as necessary as Brad Hogg’s.
“In this I totally agree with Peter roebeck in today’s SMH ”
Anyone who agrees with peter roebuck about anything is obviously biased and should have their opinion discounted. Roebuck’s job description is “Bag Australia at every opportunity”.
I agree with most of what you wrote SL. One test would have been more appropriate.
Personally I think he did call him a monkey as they are pretty keen to try and say it isn’t derogatory term, a pointless defense if you didn’t say it. Also complete garbage given the history of this being used against Symonds previously in India. There is no doubt Harbajan new it was offensive. I don’t doubt that Harbajan did this thinking he could get away with it.
Once again I am annoyed that we have sub continental teams doing this boycott crap when decisions go against them. There is nothing more against the spirit of the game than this.
I also think that the Indians could call whoever they like to testify. If they didn’t call Tendulkar its probably because he didn’t have anything to contribute.
My understanding is that Tendulkar was called – he was batting at the time, so fair enough. I think part of the Indian angst is based on irritation at Proctor ‘believing the white man’, but Symonds isn’t white, so the whole business just gets into pointless name-calling go-round mode once again.
Yobbo,
you are incoorect in terms of boof however I agree nothing should have been done. Racial slurring is at people not inanmate objects.
Sachin was there and in hearing distance if what was alleged to have been said was said
He was not called.
What is grating on the indians is that the word of Australians is being taken when evidence supporting the Harbarnator wasn’t called for.
I would also add why would anyone take the word of cheats.
It is about time ALL types of abuse is not allowed.
Homer you are flat our wrong about Sachin.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23015099-661,00.html?from=mostpop
There are so many separate issues in all this it’s hard to know what to concentrate on. But I’ll pick just one – the so-called incompetent umpiring. I’m heartily sick of the likes of Ian Chappell’s and Tony Greig’s expertise on umpiring decisions after viewing six or seven replays slow-motion replays from as many different angles and five minutes to think about it, pronouncing ex cathedra what the umpire’s decision should have been. The umpire has one real-time viewing from 22 metres away and sometimes in retrospect may call it wrong.
I’ve been following cricket since before most of you were born and I can tell you that before live TV technology umpires may or may not have made mistakes but nobody really knew except the batsman (and then only in cases of catches behind). Umpires rarely make mistakes that are detectable without hi-tech 20-20 hindsight except in kids’ cricket.
I’m heartly sick of the present day sitting of judgment on umpires, from the disgraceful treatment of Darrel Hair for simply doing his job, to the changing of the rules to allow a particular player to throw while bowling, to forbidding umpires to call no-ball for illegal bowling actions, to the vilification and dummy-spitting accompanying a very calmly deliberate verdict by Mike Proctor.
This tour has had it. It can’t be rescued. The sooner the Indians retreat from this country never to return the better. And the same goes for the Pakistanis.
Steve,
I would be wary of that. for a start Kumble wasn’t there so couldn’tbe a witness and I have heard it numerous times from Indian Journalists that Sachin was there but wasn’t called. If he was and said the word wasn’t mentioned then the tension is exacerbated.
The problem of the umpires is compounded by this silly practice of staying two yeards back from the stumps. why they do it I do not know.
I do find it strange when one hears a snick as spectator but somehow the umpire doesn’t.
What was unusual in this instance was the umpiring decisions favoured the Asutralians by the bucketload. Indeed if Symonds was given out India could well have won the game!
I actually wouldnt use technology in any decisions. One of the great parts of cricket is accepting the umpire’s decision even when you know it is wrong.
what i find profoundly dissapointing in all of this is that my 7 year old sson apparently knows the laws of cricket and the Australian captain does not.
He also observes that appealing for decisions when the ball hasn’t hit the bat is cheating.
Any close in fiekdsman knows the difference between the ball hitting the bat and hitting the pad.
I would love it one day to be able to say to young kiddies watch the Australian team asthat is how you should paly cricket unfortunatelt all too often it is the opposite
The rule changing point is very fair, whyisitso. Part of the reason I only made a few observations is because I simply don’t have time to thrash through all the issues – which you quite rightly point out are multifarious.
Part of the reason – apart from his daily reports – Tony the Teacher’s post is so long is because there is so much in this. All the ugly carbuncles present in the game of cricket (and, I might add, its administration) have come to a head in this one test match. We either fix it now or the game may well be broken for all time.
The daily telegraph says Tendulkar was called and I always believe everything they write..
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23016753-5006069,00.html?id=
I disagree that you always know, particularly bat pad in quick succession. I also disagree with walking for the same reason. As Gilchrist demonstrated once by walking when he hadn’t hit the ball. The batsman doesn’t always know, neither do the fielders. I don’t doubt that appeals are made by players who think that its not out, but really I think the threshold is that they should appeal if they think it might be out.
As for the umpiring being appalling I do agree.
Steve a close in fieldsman cansee whether that bat is in line with the bat or behind it.
The sound is completely different for a start.
The Australians knew how bad the umpires were and took it to the nth degree.
If you have nicked it you know it. Watch the head. you are putting umpires under too much pressure and that is when bad decisions start.
So if Sachin did give evidence his was discarded but the Aussies weren’t.
I know whom I would be puttimg more import on
Interesting mix of comments over at Blair’s, mainly in response to Roebuck’s effusions. Interesting, too, how many people want to blame Symonds for any racism he cops based on his dreadlocks and zinc cream!
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/arrogant_and_abrasive/
If I was managing the Indian cricket team, they’d be home already. The Aussie cricket team are world famous for what Australians call ‘sledging’ and what everyone else calls smart-arse behaviour. Yet they can’t take it. The young Indian bowler has humiliated Ponting at every outing and then, all of a sudden, the same Ponting lays a charge of racism. Puh-Leeze.
There is something else everyone loses sight of; these guys are professionals and we can expect professional behaviour. Falling apart at the knees because someone called you a ‘monkey’ is taking preciousness to a new level.
As Yobbo pointed out Australia has grounds to be aggrieved after Malcolm Speed made an example of Lehmann. It was dumb then, it is dumb now. Insulting people is boorish behaviour – but most of the team would be gone.
The other point to make is that this whole episode distracts from Ponting himself. He is not playing well and he nearly drew a game that should ahve been easily won. But for dodgy umpiring decisions it would have been a draw.
There is something to be said for leaving all this crap on the field (although what to do about spectators? It can be downright dangerous to play in the subcontinent). Somehow I think the crap is well and truly everywhere now, and probably has to be dealt with.
You mean the paying customers?
I should say Symonds is a fantastic player and how he has gone about improving his game is inspirational, but this incident reflects poorly on him and the Australian cricket community (and of course on that anti-free speech organisation the ICC and Malcolm Speed).
Sorry, wasn’t being clear… players can agree to leave insults on the field (indeedy, it’s what Australians used to do), but do you think anything should be done about spectators making ‘monkey’ gestures, or yelling ‘kaffir’ at visiting Saffie players etc. Much as I hate the fun police, I think that’s grounds to throw people out – at least streakers back in the day were funny!
The cricket grounds are private property. I’m a bit more sympathetic to throwing people out who shout “kaffir” or “nigger” or whatever than those who make “monkey” gestures. But I wouldn’t prosecute anyone. The other distinction is that boorish behaviour should be dealt with differently to other manifestations of rascism.
Rdward Glaeser had a nice paper on this sort of thing.
Umm as a know nothing on cricket let me take this discussion a knotch down. How is ‘monkey’ racist? And it isn’t a particularly effective insult anyway since many Indians have hairier backs than whites
Whoaaaah, Jason, let the free speech fly
Tony the Teacher’s comments:
what is particularly interesting is thatthese chants are not directed to the West Indies when they are there.
What goes round comes round. it is the Asussies that stoked the fires of abuse.
you cannot ban one form of abuse and leave other forms in. you must ban all forms
I agree that whatever rule is adopted must be consistent. It’s either all out or all in. I must say I think some journo at the Crawling Snail is having fun here:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23016355-10389,00.html
My thoughts…
Symonds doe look like a monkey and that has nothing to do with his ethnicity as he isn’t particularly black looking. If anything, he more of an Al Jolson impersonator. Swanee! How I love ya! Symonds playing the race card is pathetic.
Australia is famous for it good sportsmen (and women) but is more famous for its poor sportsmanship (ungracious winners and bad losers). This alleged vilification should have been left on the field. Ponting is a tosser for highlighting the whole incident and Symonds will cop the monkey slur for the rest of his career as a result..but the Australian team weren’t selected for their intelligence.
A few points regarding Mike Procter’s finding against Harbhajan:
1. If the evidentiary basis consists solely of Symonds’ word (supported by his teammates) against Harbhajan’s (supported by Tendulkar) without independent corroboration of one or other version, it is not surprising that the Indians are feeling hard done by. That said, in cases of one person’s word against another it is still conceivable that a suitably skilled arbiter/inquisitor could, after questioning, find that one person’s word was more plausible, logical, internally consistent and/or stood up better under questioning than the other’s. That may be so in this instance, although obviously we can’t know without having the text of Procter’s report in front of us.
2. As the Indian’s have lodged an appeal on Harbhajan’s behalf, they should now be prepared to let the appeals process take its course rather than pressuring it to come to a preconceived position of upholding the appeal to avert a boycott.
3. If the alleged incident had been lodged with an Australian Federal or State anti-discrimination commission, it would have first been referred to conciliation, which allows greater scope for misunderstandings to be ironed out and for apologies and recompense to be made by offending parties without losing face. Only if conciliation fails would it go to a formal public hearing. Perhaps the cricketing authorities could consider a simliar procedure.
4. Was it necessary for Ricky Ponting to lodge a formal complaint the minute the alleged incident happened (thereby locking both sides into positions from which neither could honourably climb down)? Could the current situation have been averted had Ponting, Symonds and the Australians taken the time to consider all their options that evening, and then perhaps made an informal approach to Harbhajan and Kumble the next day to resolve the matter without escalating to a formal complaint? Again, perhaps the cricketing authorities could consider a procedure whereby formal complaints of on-field racial, etc., abuse are lodged after the match is over, thereby allowing, indeed forcing, protagonists to simmer down before deciding how to proceed.
Hmmm.. doe? …. does!
“Indian’s” should read “Indians” in my second par above.
Jason and Sinclair, if black people say “monkey” is extremely offensive then it is. I take SL’s word for it. I agree appealing to authorities is not really a very good behavour but do they do? If they were in a pub they would probably punch their nose but they can’t do that on the field, can they?
DrPaul – apparently both teams had locked themselves into some formal complaints procedure before the game – Punter and Kumble went on record about it in India, after the heckling (from spectators, not players) directed at Symonds in particular. It sounds ridiculous and probably is ridiculous but obviously no-one expected anything to happen, certainly not like this.
People on all sides have definitely ‘unholstered the lawyers’ without thinking – and I say that as a lawyer!
It’s worth noting in this context that the main form of racist abuse by white European soccer crowds against Africans playing for opposing European clubs is to chant “Ook Ook Ook” in imitation of an ape. More generally, using the term “monkey” to describe a person of African ancestry carries the clearly insulting implication that they haven’t fully evolved.
The Al Jolson point was made over at Blair’s, too. The general rule is that you can get away with ‘jokes on your own kind’, which is PC but also seems to be the way of the world these days. ie Symonds is black so he can ‘paint up’ like that. My partner once did the Al Jolson look for a fancy dress party, which he can get away with but I can’t. Like Jewish comedians telling Jewish jokes etc. It’s a double standard but I don’t know how you get round it.
Boris -
You’re right, it is extremely offensive. I sure monkeys are incredibly upset at being associated with Australian cricketers and deserve an apology.
Translation of Nanue:
It’s ok to call black people monkeys as long as they are Australian Cricketers. Because Australian cricketers are arseholes and therefore can’t be victims.
Presumably under this rule then it’d perfectly fine to call Michael Long or George Gregan a monkey too.
The same people coming up with this bullshit are the same people who’d be calling for the gallows if Ricky Ponting called Brian Lara a monkey.
The message is the same message we get all the time – Australians, as the undeserving descendants of evil white colonialists, are always in the wrong, and those who disagree with us are always in the right.
I did not even know Symonds was black. And I have seen him many times (on TV).
yobbo,
if you abuse people aand then they come back and abuse then you shouldn’t be surprised.
This all stems from boorish behaviour in the first place.
It is the captains who have the responsibility and I have no confidence in ‘punter’!
Sinkers,
if the decisions had gone the other way India would have won not drawn!
Poem by Barrie from Blair’s:
I wonder Sinclair if your position has at least something to do with your SA background? Not the racial aspect of it, but the cricketing aspect. I know a number of former South Africans and they always admire Aus cricketers as masters of the game, but decry their behavour on the field. Although I would have thought the most notorious ones have retired.
Homer, it wasn’t Australia’s idea to bring in the racial vilification laws, however we were the first country to have a player charged under them.
What you think about the laws is irrelevant. There are ICC laws against sledging based on race/religion/ethnicity and Harbajahn broke them.
Symonds is from a prominent FNQ family (Townsville & Charters Towers) so quite a few of us have seen him ‘for real’. He looks a lot darker in person than on telly, for some reason.
Yobbo -
“Translation of Nanue” – What are you on about?
Interesting piece from last year on the experiences of Africans in India – including a bit of an exposition on how “monkey” is routinely used to describe them and not in an affectionate way, it seems……
http://www.shivamvij.com/2007/02/the-stain-that-just-wont-wash.html
India is a very racially complex country to say the least. A lot of these hangups are I dare say a legacy of their being so racially mixed. The caste system was essentially an early form of apartheid which was imposed to maintain racial purity among the upper castes:
http://www.genetics.utah.edu/news/sc6press11.html
new study of genetic data shows that the ancestors of Indian men came from different parts of the world than those of Indian women and produced modern upper caste Indian populations that are genetically more similar to Europeans and lower caste populations that are more similar to Asians. These findings support historical data suggesting that West Eurasians migrating into India during the last 10,000 years more often left descendants in the higher rather than lower castes. The study is to be published in the June 1 edition of the journal Genome Research.
“The dispersal and subsequent growth of Indian populations during the Neolithic age is one of the most important events to have shaped the history of South Asia. Thus, it is an obvious question to ask who are the closest relatives of Indians and are the different castes more or less similar to the same relatives,” says lead study author Michael Bamshad, M.D., a geneticist at the University of Utah.
Previous studies by other scientists analyzing either Y-chromosome or mitochondrial genetic data of Indian populations have often produced conflicting results, suggesting stronger similarity to either Europeans or Asians. The new study analyzed both types of data in more than 1000 people and showed that ancestors of Indian men and women came from different parts of the world. The differences likely account for the different genetic relationships shown by looking at the gender-specific Y-chromosome and mitochondrial genetic data.
Bamshad’s study showed that each caste’s mitochondrial DNA, which derives from the mother only, has a greater similarity to Asians than to Europeans, but the upper castes show less similarity than do the lower castes. Conversely, Y-chromosome data, derived from the father only, show each caste more similar to Europeans, with the upper castes being most similar, probably because more Eurasian males migrated to India than did Eurasian females.
To increase the power of the study, Bamshad and his co-authors also examined 40 additional genes that are inherited from the father and the mother. All of these data strongly supported the conclusion that upper castes have a higher genetic similarity to Europeans than do lower castes.
Overall, the study indicates that Indian caste populations are likely to be of Asian origin with greater West Eurasian influence on the upper castes than lower castes. These results demonstrate the power of using genetic tools to dissect human history and suggest that such complex patterns of relationship between genders and social groups may be more usual than scientists had previously thought.
Boris – maybe. Mrs D tells me that South Africans are very polite, but have no manners.
Yobbo – I hear what you and often I would even agree. Not in this case. I realise two wrongs don’t make a right and all that … but what goes around comes around.
SL – poem at 36 is a bit unfair. Symonds is a superstar. I get the same feeling now when he walks up to bat as a I used to when Gilchrist came in. But Ponting should go. Mind you dropping him from the team would improve the batting.
let he who is racist caste the first stone?
Homer, if you start with the bad puns, I will get VERY ANNOYED. A whole thread of Homer commenting normally, and then he reverts…
Sinkers: The Saffies have the worst chirper of them all – Andre Nel. Mind you, he’s so bad, he’s funny
Barrie (who wrote that poem) was actually defending Symonds throughout the Blair thread, and used it to have a go at people blaming racism on Symonds’ hairstyle and zinc-cream choices (ie the ‘she asked for it’ argument).
SL my caste jokes are untouchable!!
You cannot light a fire and then complain about the heat.
I would add Gideon Haigh’s piece together with Roer’s as well.
I might add as well the ABC radio team were wel balanced in their commentary on the game as opposed to 9
Don’t know him – I didn’t follow cricket when I lived in SA.
it is now being alleged this has been brought on by the little master who assures the BCCI the Harbarnator said no such thing.
If true I would take his word before any of the Aussies
Nel’s a current SAF player – quick bowler, and wow, what a mouth!
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=andre+nel&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
“Boris – maybe. ”
“I didn’t follow cricket when I lived in SA.”
I think these are two incompatible statements. The whole point of my suggestion is that you viewed Aus cricketers behaviour from SA cricketing perspective. If you did not follow cricket you couldn’t possibly have that perspective.
Quite aside from that I think yout references to the quality of play are totally irrelevant to the issue of bad behavour.
Interesting comment from Steve Waugh:
More here: http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ausvind/content/current/story/329710.html
Whenever I read about sports and bad behaviour, I remember this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/letter_from_america/464752.stm
Its interesting to contrast Roebuck’s article on this today, where he dismisses Harbhajan’s comment as merely rude over reaction by “an intemperate Sikh warrior”, with his attitude in this article, in reference to the Lehmann incident.
Apparently advice that only applies to Australia.
Just say no to speech codes. Everyone has the right to hold and express racist views if they choose to. It’s staggering to me the number of libertarian poseurs here who think that violence is an acceptable response to speech they disagree with.
As every good plane wreck investigator knows only too well, this one will be a combination of factors, where all the bad planets aligned and down she went.
Go way back to the controversial sanctions against Aparthied South Africa and the black and brown countries all barracking for politics in sport, presumably against those recalcitrant white colonials who couldn’t see the light, through their slippery slope sunnies that sport and politics should never mix. Fast forward to the obvious similarities with Mugabe’s Zimbawe and how quickly the caps changed.
Fresh from their off field victory with Aparthied, the black and brown countries then began to flex their muscles over umpiring. Clearly some affirmative action was called for here. Never mind the fact that the Dickie Birds were clearly selected on merit, quotas became the order of the day, despite the disgraceful LBW home town decisions on the Continent. No matter, that could be papered over with neutral umpires at least and the prickly Daryl Hehirs quickly despatched. How their own folly must have seethed beneath the surface as one of their own, Steve Bucknor, snatched a great triumph on white soil, from their eager grasp. And all this, after they’d managed to push through draconian new racial vilification laws in cricket. No more sticks and stones, etc for them now, the white opressors like Lehman would be hauled kicking and screaming before almighty justice at long last. They couldn’t explode against one of their own in Bucknor, but as chance would have it and as every plane wreck investigator knows, it was monkey boy that just happened to be the object of their wrath and frustration. Hoisted on their own petard for all the world to see and now they want to take their bat and ball and go home. That petard was of course their very own mandatory reporting obligation now. Ponting would be damned if he didn’t and damned if he did, so he did what any teacher, etc would do and reported it under their rules. In that respect, Harby needs to consider himself lucky the test wasn’t in Melbourne and some Catch the Fire Minister didn’t report him under Victoria’s vilification laws too.
Well here we all are gazing at the smouldering wreck of international cricket, and the call goes up that this Mexican standoff should be resolved quietly and soberly between the two captains, so we can all let bygones be bygones and move on. Bloody priceless that all their PC laws and affirmative action have all come back down to leaving it on the field between the captains. Some would say, we bloody well told you so, way back dickheads.
..Mexican standoff between plane wreck investigators..
Steve Bucknor has been sacked from the series. I agree that he made some bad decisions but worry about the fact that it encourages teams to make this kind of threats if they don’t get their way.
Surely there is a more formal review process they can do to assess bad umpiring rather than responding to threats to cancel the series.
Jason: Monkey is derogatory due to Social Darwinism connotations. I was initially incensed when I saw footage of the ODI in Mumbai showing fans chanting monkey and imitating monkeys when Symonds came into bat.
I’ve since had a discussion with an Indian friend and am pretty convinced that, for the most part, the taunts have nothing to do with Symonds race.
Having said that Harbhajan had been warned in the past that this was not on so he really has no recourse to claim innocence (if he did call Symonds a monkey this time)
Timothy, What violence are you talking about? Don’t the ICC have the right to say what can and can’t go on in their tournaments?
#31 Its a bit like going to a fancy dress party and finding out that the guy dressed as a heavily tattooed chains and leather rock-n-roll bikie is really a heavily tattooed chains and leather rock-n-roll bikie and he doesnt appreciate your comments about his make up.
A coupla things. I went to high school for five years with Andrew Symonds. We gave him crap all the time – eg little mocking chants of “I want to be like Andrew Symonds” – because he was so much fking better at sport than the rest of us combined. One of the boys once got done by our senior master, who happened to be Symonds’ adoptive father, for calling him “Simbo” (ie combining the nickname Symmo with the epithet “sambo”), but that was the one and only time anyone ever ever said anything that related to his colour. And in any case, the boy/man was one of his good mates, so yes, it was all in fun.
We all used to put the zinc on our lips during cricket matches. It’s Qld – you’re mad if you don’t if you’re out in the sun for half the day. Symonds still does it – so what? I remember back in 1995 or 96 during an interstate match at the WACA (after I left Qld) that some of the crowd called him “Milko”. Big deal. Andrew got used to taking a lot of crap from everyone and I’m pretty convinced that if it had been anyone from any team other than one from the grossly sanctimonious and hypocritical Indian subcontinent who had “villified” him we’d not be hearing anything of it. As it is, and as others have pointed out, Indians are very quick to be calling the kettle blacker than the pot.
Still, Ponting’s a little twerp – as holier-than-thou as the Indians in many ways.
Steve,
Did you notice that in one breath Roebuck dismisses Harbhajan’s behavior due to his religion and then complains about Hayden crossing himself in the catholic fashion in another? That article was simply the ramblings of a tired old never was with a penchant for caning little kiddies.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/1608831.stm
I used to go to school with a Symonds, too, and we called him Simbo because he was an imbo.
Wouter Bos, the deputy prime minister of the Netherlands-
“In a democracy, we do not recognise the right not to be insulted.â€
It’s a rather quaint notion Wouter
observa: We’re not talking about Free Speech here. This is a tournament run by a private body who have the right to draw up the rules of engagement as they see fit.
“This is a tournament run by a private body who have the right to draw up the rules of engagement as they see fit.”
Bwahahahahahahahahahaahahaha!
Interesting discussion by Skeptic.
“Nigger” obviously retains some degree of offensiveness by the sheer fact it was a slave-name, although it’s rehabilitation in rap-culture (and even apparent embracing by blacks themselves) isn’t the first time a slur has actually been worn as a badge of pride by the victims. For example, “Tory” actually came from the old Irish word for “robber” (as supporters of the British monarchy were, with justification, seen). But given that many black people publicly use the word “nigger” so often, I think it’s lost a lot of its sting (as other swear words tend to do when used too often).
Monkey, on the other hand, is clearly a blatant attempt to dehumanise someone – I don’t think you’ll ever hear hip-hop enthusiasts saying “Yo, Monkey!”
The only thing funnier is that Indians get so fired up over engaging in a former imperialist culture’s culture. As some famous men got mangled and said- ‘This is not about liberty or death, it’s more important than that!’
” The message is the same message we get all the time – Australians, as the undeserving descendants of evil white colonialists, are always in the wrong, and those who disagree with us are always in the right. ”
Ah, so that’s their escape clause! Simbo is the Uncle Tom, and therefore can be legimately insulted due to his “white-privilege-by-association”.
And Bucknor can be sutteed with him.
This is such a trivial set of issues to discuss, it is hardly worth the effort. I just wish they’d get on with playing the damn game.
Sinclair: There’s not really any doubt that Ponting is the best batsman in the world. You obviously haven’t followed cricket ever if you believe otherwise.
Ponting averages over 59 in test cricket, only 3 men (Bradman, Mike Hussey and Graeme Pollock) have averaged more in history and Pollock and Hussey only played 20 tests (Hussey will likely finish with a lower average than he has now).
The ICC has rolled on the Bucknor issue – he’s been pulled from the next test. I feel sorry for the bastard who gets to fill in for him:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23020332-661,00.html
Call me the angel’s advocate, but to me it’s clear that each side has disgraced itself and much of what each purports to uphold in relation to the traditions of cricket. The last 30 mins of the match were absolutely thrilling (said as an Australian) but no-one can walk out with his head held high. A necessary failing perhaps, if only in the sense that something like this – a confluence of emotions and events – demands discussion and debate; but if cricket, especially Test cricket, follows the path trodden in the past few days, it will die.
Die? They’ll pack the WACA to the rafters and who the hell wants bloody robots umpiring now? Certainly not the sponsors.
The formal Hogg ‘bastard’ charge:
http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ausvind/content/current/story/329815.html
Apparently Ponting told Hogg to pull his head in at the time. This is looking sillier and sillier, and also like Steve Waugh’s ‘cultural difference’ comments writ large.
That wouldn’t be the same Steve War that made choo choo train noises to a Seth Efriken that had a close relly killed in a train accident, now would it?
“but to me it’s clear that each side has disgraced itself”
Good point. I think the debate is largely going around of who is right. But actually both are very wrong and neither side will come out clean. The difference of course is that in Australia the controversy will linger while in India the supporters will back the team no matter what. Well, up to a point (remember Pakistan and the world cup).
Look, I know it’s preposterous to suggest this, but is GMB actually Brad Hogg’s secret identity? The drooling [tongue], the offensive language, the whole “Chinaman”/left-handed “molly-dooker” thing? Fractional reserve, anyone? Wait, wait, I have it! GMB is actually the Aus XII’s No.8!
Pretty unlikely, although it is odd that GMB never seems to post when the games are on.
Fair point. There are some incredible pictures of Indians going OTT over at AGB. There’s one incredibly pythonesque effigy graphic, for a start.
This is such a beatup of a non issue by a bunch of pussies – GWB has been called “chimp” (and satan, adolf, stupid etc) for over 8 years and hasn’t baulked once.
“on the basis of that person’s race, religion, gender, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin”.
How does Hogg’s offence measure up to this aspect of the charge, Helen? Pretend you are the prosecutor and let’s hear the arguments supporting that proposition.
It doesn’t, unless the referee is expected to take cultural peculiarities into account – ie, that in India (a more conservative country than Australia, particularly on matters of gender) a slur on legitimacy/parenthood is viewed now as it was 50-100 years ago in Australia.
Everyone has missed the point.
My parents in lawwho are in India at present confirm the REASON for India’s hostility is that Mr Proctor tookthe word of the Aussies but not of the Indians in particular one Sachin Tendulkar.
To my mind I would ALWAYS take theword of Sachin over any Aussie cricketer.
Thealleged incident did not origianlly involve Mr Symonds but he wanted to go on with it.
1) there should be no abuse at all
2) people who do abuse another person ssuch as Mr Symonds in thiscase can hardly squeal if someone says something back.
Tendulkar was so incensed by the decision he was a prime mover in India’s reaction. considering how he behaves I am led to speculate that the Harbarnator did not use the word monkey. It would seem silly as Sachin thought Symonds was being provoctive however the Aussies heard something.
Surely the intent of the perp must be taken into account. Hogg obviously intended to insult the Indian playes by the use of the word “bastard”, a common insult word in Oz. It’s also used as a term of endearment, but context is everything and in this case, it was meant to insult. However the original meaning has been totally lost and Hogg’s intent would have been a million miles away from illegitimate parenthood when he uttered the word. Unlike the Singh utterance which was obviously meant to racially abuse Symonds.
Sorry about the double comment. I’m having trouble logging in to comments and in getting a response after I click Submit.
My reading of the charge would rule out mere insult as an indictable crime unless it was associated with “race, religion, gender, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin” So I guess to say “you’re an Indian bastard” would come within the charge, but simply to call a man a bastard would have no reference to his ethnicity or nationality.
For Homer to admit “To my mind I would ALWAYS take the word of Sachin over any Aussie cricketer” is showing sheer mindless prejudice and reveals his almost total lack of intelligence. Heaven help us if he ever got onto a tribunal of any sort.
What was his score in the last test? Who won the 2005 Ashes – he should have been sacked as captain then. I have no doubt he was the best batsman, but when you’re reduced to beating your bowling nemesis with rascism allegations then you’re past it. No nostalgia Yobbo, you have to move on.
Sinkers, who won the 2006 Ashes? Did you check Ponting’s contribution to Australia’s performance?
And apart from that, England won the 2005 Ashes because they played better cricket. End. Of. Story. They then partied too hard while Punter went home and figured out how to clean them up next time.
Just as a curiosity, why didn’t you follow cricket in SAF? You obviously know the rules and have familiarity with the game… not taking the piss at all here, just genuinely curious.
I’ll fix the double post, whyisitso.
Sure they on the 2006. They lost the 2005 when 5 minutes before the second test Ponting said “we’ll have a bowl” after winning the toss. Now when a casual observer such as myself sits up and says “big mistake” then it was a stuff up. Poor judgement cost them the 2005 Ashes and Ponting showed it again in the Sydney test. I’m sure I could think up other examples too. The big problem, I think, is that cricket has a producer orientation and not a consumer orientation. It is not about the game, it is about the paying customers.
This is an extract from an email I recently sent to Rafe. I’m sure he won’t mind me relating part of my side of the discussion.
… I, on the other hand, loathed cricket in my youth and have only come to appreciate the contest between bowler and batsman as I grew older. I never even saw a cricket game until I was 12* when my parents moved to the city and I went to the Christian Brothers. The Brothers took the view that all boys had a desire to play cricket and speak Latin. For all those ‘poor chaps’ who just couldn’t make the first team, they organised a ‘Thursday League’. A limited 20 over game, where batsmen were required to retire at 20 runs (so max individual score was 25 – hit 19 then a six) and the number of players was the number of boys (less the first team) divided by the number of cricket fields divided by two – so about 15 or so per team.
We played for points. So the batsmen who hit 20 got a point, if the entire team arrived you got a point, another point if they were all wearing white, if you won the game you got point, and so on. The batting team provided the umpires – so you can imagine how that went. No LBW, lots of ‘no balls’ and the like.
Anyway, it was compulsory to play right up until year 12. So I did. Hating it all along. I can say with confidence that I scored two leg byes in all that time (maybe four). …
* Just to explain that point – TV came late to South Africa and sport was televised on a Saturday afternoon only. I seldom watched. My parents lived in a small mining village and the local primary school did not play cricket. It was an Afrikaans school and as an ‘engelsman’ or ‘rooineck’ I wasn’t expected play rugby as that was a game for the masterrace – so I don’t really know the rules of rugby (union) at all. So I grew up in South Africa not knowing the rules of rugby (the Brothers didn’t play rugby either – it is, apparently, a game suitable for Afrikaaners
) and not liking cricket.
Whyisitso,
pray tell me the last time Sachin Tendulkar was EVER involved with the boorish behaviour that Australians so proudly display.
He is a softly spoken man who has a well deserved reputation through out the cricketing world.
Indeed he does not get involved in the heat of the moment when some of his teammates do.
If you do not recognise that then you are both blind and deaf.
For Homer to admit “To my mind I would ALWAYS take the word of Sachin over any Aussie cricketer†is showing sheer mindless prejudice and reveals his almost total lack of intelligence. Heaven help us if he ever got onto a tribunal of any sort.
I’ll say. Truer words have never been spoken.
I couldn’t contemplate the horror of the idiot on some tribunal. The mere suggestion is too painful.
Sinkers, that’s an amazing story. The idea of playing Rugby without input from people of English heritage…
That part’s even more amazing than the cricket aspects, although I’ve heard before about how strictly the ‘no sport on Sunday’ rule was enforced in apartheid SAF.
I think when they were in South Africa in 2001. Sachin got done for ball tampering. Should we trust the word of a convicted cheat? Way worse than anything the Aussies did. Of course the whole team was involved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Denness_and_Indian_cricket_team_incident
Steve – this is where Steve Waugh’s cultural difference points come into play, I think. A good way to piss off Australians is to bowl your overs slowly and mess with the ball, as well as engage in off-field ‘gamesmanship’. A good way to piss off Indians and Pakistanis is to sledge them, especially by calling their sexual honour into doubt.
Unfortunately, both sides have trouble seeing what the other side is complaining about. This makes the whole situation worse.
once 7 years ago compared to……
I do onte you have ignored the comment of whom is more respected in world cricket.
Another absurdity is the thought Tendulkur would light the fire of this knowing the word was said.
What we have here is merely another form of belligerent nationalism.
We are right and they are wrong.
This completely ignores any behaviour of Australian players up to the alleged incident.
My Symonds did not merely ‘talk’ to the Harbarnator once but quite a few times in what language?
SL – if the ‘values’ of each team are so different, then secession is a solution. I got that impression from Waugh’s piece too – he wasn’t saying that, of course. Would it be such a tragedy if some countries did leave the ICC? I don’t know – all the commentary seems to suggest that it would be a tragedy.
In the eyes of people currently making disgusting amounts of money out of the game, yes. Cricket is huge in global terms thanks to India, with its vast population, followed by Pakistan and now Bangladesh.
The Deshis were welcomed into global test-match cricket before they were ready simply because there’s more than 100 million of them, and they’re cricket obsessives. Now China is starting to get into cricket – God knows what’ll happen when they get to the top of the tree. Some pretty amazing growth hormones, I suspect. Eight foot tall opening bowlers…
I see, so EVER only means the last 6 years.
So do we trust the word of Tendulkar and Harbhajan who have had suspensions for misconduct or Symonds who has nothing? Or is batting average how you determine truth in cricket?
You see the Australians as flawed (which they are) but apparently overlook similar behaviour of the Indians.
Harbhajan has had multiple disciplinary charges against him throughout his career. He was expelled from the Indian cricket academy, has been fined for abusing umpires and players, but you have some fantasy that he could do nothing wrong.
Or that Tendulkar wouldn’t engage in belligerent nationalism. Did he even hear every word of the exchange?
Steve, you do not seem to understnd plain english.
Tendulkar did something out of character and has never been near there ssince hence his grwat stature in the game.
Whilst Mr Symonds has been known to go ovetrboard in getting in the face of opponents something Australians seem to have a competitive advantage in.
He did hear it and indeed told the Harbarnator ( how interesting that Aussies turn on someone that merely apes their behaviour!) he was being provoked.
Remember your own Mr Symonds should not have been involved in the first place as the orignal incident did not concern him!
Steve, you do not seem to understand plain english
Steve, he means you don’t understand Eastwoodlish. Please forgive him for he knows not what he does
Homer, I’m astounded the way you make up facts, base opinions on them and then when they are shown to be wrong stubbornly maintain the same opinion.
Thus far we’ve seen you assert that Sachin wasn’t called into the hearing. Which was WRONG, and then that Sachin had not EVER done anything to reduce his greatness which was WRONG.
The remarkable thing is that despite you basing your opinion on facts that were not correct, you haven’t changed your opinion an inch.
What did Keynes say “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
#95 Steve Edney:
Thanks for that Wikipedia link. I’d forgotten about that incident. So it appears that India has been bullying the ICC for quite some time and this latest episope is just the recurrent behaviour of a mob with form.
It’s about time the ICC called India’s bluff and banned them from cricket. Sure it will hurt financially but cricket is bigger than Indian (and Pakistani) money.
“Homer, I’m astounded at the way you make up facts, base opinions on them and then when they are shown to be wrong stubbornly maintain the same opinion.”
And you’ve been commenting here how long, Steve?
Steve,
I said I thought he wasn’t called. I do recall saying we were not sure.
That he was called I do recall saying made the Indian case stronger.
I also just said Tendulkar’s record ssince then has been very good hence his reputation in world cricket.
Quite the opposite of Australia.
The facts in this case makes my argument even stronger.
This is evidenced by the behaviour of the Australian cricket team during the match.
I do note your complete silence on this.
For someone who has only a very superficial interest in cricket, it is interesting to see that some comments are perfectly predictable. I could say on which side Homer or Yobbo would be without reading their comments. More difficult with Sicnlair though.
The worst in the Indian team behaviour is their blackmail. People should accept the official verdicts, whether on or off the field.
I do not know whether this comes from the legacy of an ‘oppressed’ nation or the financial might of their cricket audience.
“This is evidenced by the behaviour of the Australian cricket team during the match.”
This has absolutely nothing to do with the incident in question.
I also question whether we can blame Sachin for not saying the truth even if he heard the word. I think testifying against your teammate would be cosidered treason throughout India. It wll be suicidal. Maybe even litterally. I think his manners are one thing, but I don’t think he had a choice in this case. His record is irrelevant.
It’s highly predictable now that Brad Hogg will be suspended for the remaining two tests for using the non-racial insult “bastard” while Singh will be let off scot-free. What a total travesty.
For all their righteous indignation, surely the Indians are just laughing at us for our naivety in blaming ourselves for their faults.
Boris,
Tendulkar could have said he did not hear anything.
For heavens sake this is the bloke who texted the BCCI and told them to do something.
do you really think he would go tothat extent if he heard the word said!
The behaviour is relevant.
Who was it who came storming in and wouldn’t stop sledging Singh! He wasn’t eveen involved in the ‘incident’ with Lee.
This allegedly happeded sometime after that.
There is rank hypocrisy here.
Shut up, homer . The only rank hypocrite and distorter here is you, you fool.
Here’s the solution. Make every player wear a mike receiver when they’ re playing. Any abuse and they are out of the game with long term suspensions.
These idiots are out there to play a game with a bat and ball, they shouldn’t be out there thinking they can fuck with other players minds.by abusing them.
Anyone gets caught abusing on a mike and they’re thrown off the field.
That stops morons like Homer always batting or the wrong side.
“So it appears that India has been bullying the ICC for quite some time and this latest episope is just the recurrent behaviour of a mob with form.
It’s about time the ICC called India’s bluff and banned them from cricket. Sure it will hurt financially but cricket is bigger than Indian (and Pakistani) money.”
What the you have to understand is the ICC is now beholding to its membership constituency. The brown and black countries now dominate proceedings, sorta like the gaggle of gangsters in the UN. Now its fine to say the officials of the ICC like Speed should go for India’s jugular here, but they’re only too acutely aware of the politics involved. If the black and brown bloc back India, rightly or wrongly, then that leaves cricket split like World Series perhaps. You wanna play the Kiwis and Poms all the time, or eat crow off the field and keep kicking black and brown bum regularly on the field? A no-brainer, so it’s the latest ongoing example of-’In Speed we trust!’ Seeya Bucknor and by the time Harbijan faces the ICC appeal tribunal, the series is over. Win, win.
Unlike the UN its the “black and brown bloc” as Observa puts it who hold the purse strings. India alone accounts for more than half of all revenues from international cricket and the share is growing as they become wealthier.
This is why the ICC bows to their demands.
“keep kicking black and brown bum regularly on the field? ”
Not for much longer! Umpires and adjudicators can now see the signs. Hair, Bucknor, Denness and soon Proctor. Umpires are human and have a human sense of self-preservation. They won’t cheat od course but they certainly give the benefit of even the slightest benefit to the sub-continent sides in all cases, whether they are batting or bowling. The old statistical law that umpiring errors in due course even themselves out has just been repealed.
Some, like Roebuck, of course will applaud the new handicapping system, but the game of cricket has henceforth changed.
Yeah Steve, but as the Us has found in the UN, it’s not much good paying the piper if the gaggle of gangsters and their sycophants aren’t playing your tune. Mind you it’s comforting to know that all those Indians burning effigies over cricket, have their priorities in order http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/Asia/STIStory_194028.html
You know Australia is fucked when they bring back Billy Bowden and Alim Dar.
It makes no sense for several Australian cricketers to make up the “monkey” incident. It would be quite bizare.
It makes a lot of sense for Tendulkar to defend his friend even if he did say “monkey”. In the context, most people would do the same.
I think the laws are stupid and if you can call somebody a “fucking cunt” then you should be able to make racist comments. If comments are found excessively offensive then the captains should get together at a break and try to work it out.
Australia shouldn’t have complained. And now they should condemn Harbijan as a racist bastard, but call on the ICC not to ban him for any games because we want to beat the best Indian team and because people shouldn’t be banned for such petty reasons.
The Indians are being wankers with their pointless complaining (they have had good luck with umpires before and didn’t complain then) and their blackmail. Their behaviour has been worse than the Australian behaviour.
But the worst behaviour comes from people who excuse Harbijan’s comments but would condemn a white person if they ever said the same thing. Typical anti-white racist bigots. Is there any question about what the reaction would be if a white Australian called a Windies or Saffer player as a “monkey” or “nigger”? It would take Homer-level delusions not to see the double-standards at work here.
Spot on John and we’d like to see Ponting take it right up to the hypocritical dummy spitting Indians and their sanctimonious PC sycophants here in Oz. Take em all on Ponting and dare our weak kneed administrators to sack our cricket captain for it and we’ll show them who’s running this bloody game in the streets and the chicken shits will run a country mile. Then we’ll settle this with the curry munchers at the WACA.
Let’s keep this in perspective…
Why the discourse?. Australia’s attitude has sucked for a while. Was Simbo called a monkey…probably yes. Was it meant as a purely a racial insult because he was of indirect African decent probably not…I would think it was because he knew that would wind him up after the sledging he got in India and was as such a one on one sledge. Ponting the dickhead made it something else of it (not that it was excusable to begin with). There the problem lies, Australia showed poor sportsmanship when simbo didn’t walk and there lies the pathetic / sad outcome caused by the the attitude of the top teams (not just Australia) to wait for an umpires decision before walking. That is just NOT cricket!
As a parent of a young boy I see no reason to encourage him to watch cricket as a sport let alone an example of sportmanship.
I agree with John 100%
I see John agrees on the double standards.
Good.
It is ointless to allw any abuse to go on then say one orm of abuse is taboo particularly after it has been provoked.
It is time to get throgh THICKHEADS here. Tendulkar dinot hust defend him it was he that sent the text to the BCCI to provoke their reaction.
Are people seriously suggesting Tendulkar would do this simply to defend a fellow indian.
Gimme a break.
It is time to look at this incident with both eyes.
Too much has been made of the dreadful umpiring which cosst India the match and possibly a win.It happens
I’m not saying Tendulkar defended Harbijan because he’s an Indian. I’m saying he defended him because he’s a friend.
I find the idea of defending your friends very easy to understand… even if your friend may have done something wrong.
The solution is for Australia to call for the ban to be lifted. Come on Ricky… be a good sport.
John ,
get real he is not merely defending him.
Do you really think that of all people Tendulkar would fan these flames if he heard the word monkey said.
Incredibly gutsy Indian perspective:
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/329824.html
Watch your house, mate, or some effigy-maker’ll burn the bloody thing down!
some of it is good but unfortunately he mixes up the different ‘problems’.
with respect he was watching another match in some ways.
The decision of Dravid was both crucial and psychological.
the LBW decision foor clarke’s second wicket was inconsistent to what happened during the match, something only Geoff Lawson seemedto be aware of.
however this is incidental.
What always needed to be explained is why Proctor took the words of the Australians and not of the Indians.
“Do you really think that of all people Tendulkar would fan these flames if he heard the word monkey said.”
Of course he would defend his team-mate, Homer. And the honour of Indian cricket – right or wrong. It doesn’t make him a “bad” man, more a man dealing with cultural and political realities. If you bothered looking beyond the media-generated cartoon images of the saintly Sachin Tendulkar versus the arrogant, graceless Ricky Ponting you would be able to detect that both these guys are a bit more complex than that and both have to negotiate a landscape that’s a bit more complicated than the mythical morality play of a cricket match featured in the Boys Own Annual of 1956.
I find it interesting that although the Australians are mean to be very abusive sledgers the worst thing that they have been accused of is one player calling someone a bastard.
claptrap Geoff.
This is a whole ot more than simply defending a team-mate.
sorry mate if he fans the flames of this knowing the word monkey was said then that is lying and does indeed make him a bad man.
A bit of histroy would tell you he did not have to do this. The BCCI could have come up with such a scenario without him.
your analysis is simply superficial.
political and cultural influences. very PC
Homer
Stop ruining a good thread with crap again
Look, I’ve spent a fair bit of time in courtrooms, Homer, and one thing I can say for a dead cert is that some people are just more believable than others in the witness box. It’s quite possible that Tendulkar is a poor witness, while Symonds is believable.
I’m making these observations independent of their truth-value, of course. I’m happy with Proctor’s findings (but not his ruling, as I’ve made clear). That said, I also believe Tendulkar when he told the BCCI that Harbhajan isn’t racist. He called Symonds a ‘monkey’ because it was his last best hope for a good niggle, and – unlike Tendulkar – Harby isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed. Tendulkar is now in the most awful and invidious position, and what he’s doing is perfectly explicable, if not excusable.
FWIW, I don’t think any of the Australian players (bar possibly Gilchrist) would ‘dob’ a mate either, and that this situation blew up because both teams had lost faith in the umpire. I’ve played a lot of sport, and when you lose faith in the umpire/referee, you start doubting everything. In cricket, you appeal for everything, in the hope that the roulette wheel spins your way. I’ve done that myself.
Homer I am sure that Harbhajan’s history as an intermperate abuser of umpires, coaches, players and pretty much anyone counted against them believing his denials.
He called him this in india and Harbajan apologised for it, when he did it again they decided to take action.
I was also interested in this which probably counted against Harby
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,23030835-23212,00.html
How on earth does that make Australia “boorish”, Homer?
SL,
I am sorry to disagree wiith you but the Harbarnator is a lot of things but stupid is not one of them.
What happened in India is thus. He wouldn’t take anymore crap from the Australians. He was perplexed as anyone whne apparently being called a f.. c.. rated well below monkey.
Hes imply gave the Aussies back what he was recieving and then with some interest.
Unfortunately it is ever thus which is why I believe all abuse should be not accepted.
when it was explained to him why it was offensive he apologised
I do believe he was antagonistic towards Symonds in Sydney however given he was warned by Tendulkar not to be provoked I do not believe he would be as stupid enough as to say monkey. Remember Symonds butt his head into something that wasn’t his business and thenstarted to mouth off to the Harbarnator.
Mark, sledging is boorish behaviour. Any swearing or abuse towards people is boorish behaviour. Ungraciousness in winning is boorish. Compare Flintoff’s behaviour in winning the 2nd test in 2005 with any of the Australians.
Several posters have brought up the canard that CA (or the ICC or the cricket grounds) are private bodies and can therefore do as they like. Are they private? CA for one accepts money taken at gunpoint by the state, most recently $17.5M for the redevelopment of their “centre of excellence”. I agree with the reasoning of SCotUS in striking down speech codes at American universities because such bodies, though nominally private, are in receipt of government subsidies. Along with the right to take money at gunpoint comes certain ethical responsibilities, such as not denying freedom of speech. For this to be effective it must also extend to those organisations the state funds, for otherwise the state could use the taxation power to oppress by proxy.
“The solution is for Australia to call for the ban to be lifted.”
Won’t happen and is probably not possible. Both captains need to sit down with Harbhajan & Symonds to find resolution for the sake of the game more than the series. Then the complaint/statements need to be withdrawn leaving the appeal board with no option but to uphold the appeal followed by public apology made by both captains together in relation to the poor sportsmanship of both teams. This whole incident has the potential to be a turning point and good for cricket at grass roots & international level.
Don’t get me started on just how East German Australia’s relationship with sport is – sure, I like us to win – the amount of state money sloshing around Australian sport is amazing. Not just cricket, either – how do you think we win all those Olympic medals, completely out of proportion to our population?
it is correct that the Captains do something as the laws of cricket give the Captains the resposibilty to uphold the spirit of the game.
I might say I am sick ad tired of having to say to 10 year olds and one eightyear old no you are not allowed do that and nor should the Asutraalian team do that as well.
“I do believe he was antagonistic towards Symonds in Sydney however given he was warned by Tendulkar not to be provoked I do not believe he would be as stupid enough as to say monkey.”
Well, Mike Proctor did, it seems and on the face of it, he is much better placed than you to form a balanced view. Unusually, you don’t seem to have an opinion on the BCCI’s seeming insistence that Harbhajan be cleared of any wrongdoing (regardless of what he may or may not have done) as a precursor to continuing the series. This would seem to be a bit boorish, (among other things) wouldn’t you think?
“Sledging was always going to put the game on slippery slope”
[see link]
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/simon_barnes/article3149148.ece?openComment=true
I think Timothy Can raises a fair point. I am a bit uncomfortable by the argument that just because the government buy goods and services from you that they then own your soul. But the same result can be derived however from the subsequent banning of players from playing – that constitutes restraint of trade and the state can intervene on those grounds.
unfortunately Geoff neither you nor I know why he made that decision. it would be helpful if we did rather relying on unhelpful carictures
I have never suported the BCCI attitude, behaviour onr approach so I do not know what you are on about there.
It doesn’t constitute restraint of trade at all. Players banned by the ICC are quite free to play for alternate cricket organisations like this one.
Kerry Packer’s original world series league and the Indian Premier league are 2 such examples.
sorry link http://premierleaguecricket.in/
Sinkers, I think you are confusing two different abilities here. Ponting’s ability as a captain is quite unrelated to his batting ability. Great batsman quite frequently make poor captains – look at Brian Lara for example.
There’s no doubt that Ponting is the best batsman currently playing the game and the 2nd best batsman in the history of test cricket – his average and conversion rate are the key indicators.
The only possible challenger is Michael Hussey, but it’s too early in his career to tell yet.
if a cricket has good/great bowlers anyone can be a great captain all you do is give them the ball and catch.
Poor captains are associated with poor bowling sides
Good point. He should have been sacked as captain after the ashes 2005, and dropped after his performance last week and have to compete for his spot in the team.
Well, we now have a new rule for cricket – “Indian cricketers are not to be inconvenienced by any umpires’ decision”. Once again we see that the Golden Rule is that he who has the gold makes the rules (something that ought to be food for thought for all you rule libertarians out there).
I wonder how many LBW decisions will now go India’s way in the rest of the series? It won’t make much difference to the result of course – all that smoke by India can’t obscure the fact that the Aussies are far the better team. Now there’s a thought: maybe the BCCI should use its monetary clout to develop better players rather than play politics.
They’ve got the players- it’s just that they don’t play as a team. This does them in time and again.
It’s ridiculous to suggest he should be dropped Sincers. Completely ridiculous.
Ponting is the best batsman in the world and dropping him would be idiotic. You don’t drop a great player just because he makes 3 ducks in a row.
If ponting had just come into the team and nobody knew if he was any good then you’d have a case. But he’s been the best batsman in the world for 10 years and averages 60 in test cricket.
There is a thing called luck in cricket, even Bradman got ducks on occasion.
Ponting went through a similar period here in test series about 12 years ago against (I Think it was Pakistan) when he was still batting at #6. He made 4 ducks in 5 innings, most of them off 1 or 2 balls. Then in the 4th test he made 198.
I’ll defer to your judgement and watch for the performance where all is forgiven.
Ponting should clearly remain in the Australian side.
“Ponting is the best batsman in the world and dropping him would be idiotic.”
Definitely a good batsman and by default a successful captain but he’s still a bit of a tosser. He needs to brush up on his media skills to improve his public image as captain (although I’m surprised by the amount of flack he getting at the moment.)
DD , the poor umpiring was never the problem.
It was whether the harbarnator called Symonds a monkey. Tendulkar said he didn’t and his reputation is far grweater than any of the Australians he also appears to be closer then most of them as well.
Apparently Indian newspapers are now saying the Harbarnator said something to Symonds in hindi.
This makes sense to me.
It seems to me the ICC has appointed someone who can determine this case. Everyone should abide by his decision.
By the way Steve read todays Australian about Tendulkar allegedly ball tampering.
The Two captains need to publicaly kiss and make up and ensure both teams play in the spirit of the game for the next two games
I am a bit uncomfortable by the argument that just because the government buy goods and services from you that they then own your soul.
That’s considerably further than I went. The state isn’t engaging in some sort of market transaction with CA, it’s handing it large wads of taxpayers’ money at ministerial discretion because it perceives it to be politically advantageous to do so. Under a regime of high taxes and discretionary grants the state has untoward arm twisting power, as was seen in the drugs in sport imbroglio. The government used its financial leverage to coerce the sports into adopting oppressive policies. The fact that you can be denied access to your occupation because you smoked cannabis in Amsterdam over the layoff is not just a private matter, it’s government oppression by proxy.
Yes, I understand that’s further than you went, but where do we draw the line between a transaction and ownership when dealing with the state? That is a broader philosophical issue, I realise.
now this is a good start to cut spendiing.
Why should any sport get money from the government?
I have a somewhat humorous piece in the next IPA review showing how $28 billion could easily be cut out of the federal budget without even blinking and before I give vent to my ideological preferences – I did cut money to culture and recreation.
well Sinkers if they do not cut deep then their ‘sticky’ wicket will be theirown concoction
“Why should any sport get money from the government?”
Quite so, Homer. And for the arts.
LOL. Yes – Swann has argued that Treasurers’ should take responsibility for interest rate hikes and inflation.
And business.
Sinkers,
I think we can add a caveat to that on a change of government for a short period of time.
We have established there is no reassonable case for sport, the arts and business to get any money.
sounds like if Swanny can’t bring in a tight budget he should be sent to India
Exactly.
Sinclair> Yes, I understand that’s further than you went, but where do we draw the line between a transaction and ownership when dealing with the state?
Ultimately it probably can’t be drawn and the taxation power is therefore illegitimate. Hence I am an anarchist.
Homer> Why should any sport get money from the government?
The conventional justification is that it is for public health. Joe Sixpack, the argument goes, wont get off the couch and exercise until he’s inspired by watching elite aussie sportsmen on the box. This argument is obviously unacceptably paternalistic as well as being more than a little absurd. One of the reasons Joe spends so much time on the couch is all those elite aussie sportsmen on the box.
Is this a record?
164165 posts and it’s still on topic.That’s definitely a segue for interglacial heat records and carbon nano-rods.
Must say I’ve been impressed with the on-topic-ness of this thread. Shows single mindedness of purpose when it comes to sport, I suspect.
BTW Kumble is still stirring the pot. This piece ran in today’s Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/cricket/article3168220.ece
I didn’t see the Michael Clarke “standing there” incident. Was he just waiting for the umpire to put his finger up or did he stand his ground in protest after the umpire gave his verdict?
He edged a legspinner straight to first slip and then stood and waited for the decision.
It was awfully embarassing.
Who knows why he did that however given the ‘agreement’ by the captains it was very provocative and either very silly or childish or both.
What, a sportsman waiting for the umpire/referee’s decision – monstrous!
Oh give us a break, Homer. What the hell are umpires there for?
The agreement you talk about has to do with catches taken close to the ground where there is some doubt as to carry.
It would be a lot different if Clarke stood his ground AFTER the umpire’s decision. Something sub-continentals have a habit of doing.
Sheer double standard hysteria.
gimme a break,
it was a clear thick edge.
what was he waiting for, Christmas,
Why did he wait as there wasn’t any doubt at all.
Homer, why didn’t you reply to Steve at #131?
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,23030835-23212,00.html
Blows your argument out of the water – do you have the grace to admit it?
no he didn’t.
The Video shows the aftermath.
Moreover if you and he observe quite closely you might wonder how certain Asutralain players heard the word yet the umpire whp was nearer didn’t hear a thing.
Tendulkar said the word was not said.
I am willing to believe him.
I am still mytsified how callling someoine a f… c… is okay but monkey is nogo.
Why would Symonds say “so I’m a monkey am I?”
Why would Ponting say “That’s the second time you call him that”?
he thought he heard that.
This is not the same as he heard that.
He was expecting to hear given his provocations
Tendulkar warned Singh he was being provoked. IF you have examined thew TV coverage you will have noted the close proximity of Tendulkar to Sing throughout this period.
This happened when he scored 50 odd and it didn’t involve Symonds at all.
“gimme a break,
it was a clear thick edge.”
No it wasn’t. It came off his glove.
I’m prepared to wait until the NZ judge hears the appeal. As this stage I’d rather give a lot more credence to Mike Proctor’s 5-hear examination than Homer’s prejudices. Unfortunately the hearing was behind closed doors.
Helen, I know these proceedings are not courts of law. My understanding of an appeal in a legal system is that they do not re-examine evidence re facts (unless new facts have emerged since the original hearing), concentrating on points of law and procedural fairness and correctness. Is that so? Will the NZ judge in effect re-hear the case? Can you comment?
The other thing I’d like is know is whether the degree of certainty for a guilty find is “beyond a reasonable doubt” or “on the balance of probabilities”. Do we know which it is? I think the answer is important. The problem is that all the witnesses other than the umpires would be affected by the “Mandy Rice Davies” syndrome.
See #130. A judge/magistrate often has to decide on his reading of the demeanor of witnesses, despite the MDR syndrome.
Proctor used the ‘BRD’ standard, which surprised me. Unless he’s a lawyer (or served on a jury), he may not be aware of the persuasive gulf between the criminal and civil standards (the latter is BOP).
As the first hearing was a closed tribunal (not a court – which means the rule against hearsay doesn’t apply), the nature of Hansen J’s hearing is up in the air. Generally, when a tribunal matter is reviewed, it will not be reviewed ‘on the merits’ (which would involve reopening all evidence), but rather is submitted to judicial review, which focuses on procedural justice (rule against bias; rules of natural justice). However, the impression I get from reading around this case (and digging around the ICC website) is that Hansen J’s hearing will involve a full review ‘on the merits’, with significant inquisitorial powers attached – much like a coroner would have or the Australian Crime Commission. That means he’ll have:
1. A full transcript of the first hearing.
2. Will be able to recall the same witnesses (or others).
3. While the witnesses and ‘accused’ (for want of a better word) will have legal representatives present, he will be able to bypass the lawyers and ask questions of the witnesses directly (just found this on the ICC website – he can also refuse, at his discretion, to admit legal practitioners).
4. He may also have ‘star chamber’ powers (once again like the ACC); that is, he can ask questions which his interlocutors must answer. The ICC website is vague on this point.
More here: http://icc-cricket.yahoo.com/about-icc/rules-regulations.html
Go to the ‘principles of natural justice’ link – it’s a PDF file. The racism code is also useful. Would like to know who drafted their codes; they’re pretty shocking! Hey, ICC, want a cricket tragic who’s also a lawyer to fix up your shitty drafting?
/runs away
whyisitso you are as prejudiced as anyone here.
I have never said I wasn’t.
I would put Tendulkar’s word above the others.
Remeber too it is tendulkar too that pusged this to the brink because he percieved the unfairness of the situation.
I am prepared to accept the Former NZ judge as the last word in this.
I am still waiting for an explanation of why calling someone a f..c… is acceptable whilst monkey is not.
We have a situation here of accepting the half pregnant rule which is clearly stupid.
Also playing hard but fair is an inane saying.
One is in conflict with the other.
Tony T, we heard in the stand with everyone else. no-one understood why he stood like a statue instead of walking off immediately
“am still waiting for an explanation of why calling someone a f..c… is acceptable whilst monkey is not.”
You know as well as I do, Homer, that the former is abusive and the latter is racist. The former is thus far less serious than the latter. I know you’re not so dense that you don’t understand this, you’re just saying it to stir shit as usual.
And thanks Helen, for your intelligent, knowledgeable and informative reply (as usual). Makes up (well sort of) for having to churn through Homer’s spew.
whyisitso comes down on the postmodernist view.
all abuse is not wrong only one sort of abuse.
it is interesting that comments could be made by Goeff Honnor that the indians were only supporting each other for cultural reasons and as such Tendulkar wasn’t a bad person for doing thiss.
It didn’t occur to Geoff that Australians have a reutation for supporting each other and have been found to lie to do just that in other sports.
SL made the peculiar remark that Sing wasn’t the smartwers man in cricket yet said nothing about Symonds. Are we to assume he is a rhodes Scholar?
Now finally we have Whyisitso showing all the qualities that make the Aussie cricket team so boorish.
Nothing wrog wrong with swearing your head off at the opposition but do not dare say aaything at all with regard to race if provoked.
Only a lawyer could say that hyprocisy with a straight face.
The Aussie team are mortified when anyone ever brings up what is said on the filed as we saw with Graeme Smith.
If the ICC has any sense at all they should ban ALL forms of abuse
Homer, I don’t know whether you think it’s clever to present comments loaded with spelling and typographical errors, or whether it’s because you are bone lazy or ignorant or simply bad mannered. The result is that your writing pollutes the site and all the other sites you comment on.
it is called time pressures.
I do note yet again you ignore then main issues
“it is called time pressures.”
Come off it Homer. You spend most of your time on the computer.
Homer, I’d appreciate it too if you were more careful about spelling and punctuation. On less busy threads I’ve been known to go in and fix Graeme, JC and you where you’ve become difficult to understand. This one’s too big for that. It would be nice if people stepped up and wrote clearly off their own backs.
And if it’s time pressures, write fewer comments more clearly. Simple.
“it is interesting that comments could be made by Goeff Honnor that the indians were only supporting each other for cultural reasons and as such Tendulkar wasn’t a bad person for doing thiss.”
My point, Homer, was that Tendulkar’s support for Harbhajan could be seen in the context of “my team-mate right or wrong.” Your case seems to be that Tendulkar would never under any circumstances say anything that wasn’t “truthful,” regardless of the circumstances. I think life and Cricket is a bit more complex that that.
“It didn’t occur to Geoff that Australians have a reutation for supporting each other and have been found to lie to do just that in other sports.”
It did.
I’ll second that, Geoff. This doesn’t lesson my view of Tendulkar one bit. Making a choice between ‘telling the truth’ and ‘standing by your mates’ is sometimes a lot more ethically complex than people (including sundry cricket writers) would have you believe.
Geoff,
As ip ointed out before but which you ignored it was Tendulkar who porvoked the whole thing and insisted the BCCI do something.
He was so enraged with the whole process.
contrast that to SA where he was accussed by Denness of ball tampering yet allowed the TV replays to show how baseless the charge was and also how mute hw was when the BCCI tried one on over playing Sehwag there.
moreover Tendulkar has an unimpeachable reputation amongst the players of ALL nations.
Do you wish to make a comparison with any Aussie cricketers.
I can understnd telling the truth might be ‘complex’ for libertarians but it isn’t for anyone else.
When Australians have been caught out lying to help out other players in other sports they acknowledge they were lying they just thought it was worth it.
to be honest I find it terribly interesting that Ponting was very quick to sat this was the second time.