***Official*** India in Australia

[shankar]

I think these type of matters should be handled by an actual Judge with experience rather than somebody like a match referee who's area of competence is enforcement of the rules of cricket and not deciding a case like this on the basis of conflicting witness accounts.

 

[Burgey]

to be true to all..i did feel Harbhajan did say some thing wrong(i dont like both harbhajan and symmonds charachter wise)..becuse the way hayden was reacting walking back to the slip....may be tendulkar didn't here that thing..but where is the evidance... ?????

and one more thing why was symmonds not even called for reacting to harbhajan for wht he did to lee..lee didn tsay anything...or is it that symmonds take care of all the aussie players..if lee had a problem he could have told it to ponting or the umpires why would symmonds respond back. ???

You make some good points mate. I wonder whether they looked at the footage and the players were able to say the comment was made at such and such a point, and Sachin wasn't in ear shot at that time - not a helpful suggestion really, beacuse once again we just don't know.

I think these type of matters should be handled by an actual Judge with experience rather than somebody like a match referee who's area of competence is enforcement of the rules of cricket and not deciding a case like this on the basis of conflicting witness accounts.

Not a bad point, but if you used a home town judge, imagine the outcry. Good point though.

 

[Top_Cat]

I think these type of matters should be handled by an actual Judge with experience rather than somebody like a match referee who's area of competence is enforcement of the rules of cricket and not deciding a case like this on the basis of conflicting witness accounts.

Whilst it'll bring a greater degree of technical expertise, it won't remove the question of bias. On either side. Won't (and shouldn't) stop appeals either. Whilst we have people who believe that flying drones took down the WTC, we'll always have people believing in conspiracy even if a judge is involved.

EDIT: Burgey, you cheater! You edited!

 

[Laurrz]

what symonds did when harbhajan hit lee was prolly a misunderstanding

irrelevent anyway

 

[shankar]

Whilst it'll bring a greater degree of technical expertise, it won't remove the question of bias. On either side. Won't (and shouldn't) stop appeals either. Whilst we have people who believe that flying drones took down the WTC, we'll always have people believing in conspiracy even if a judge is involved.

EDIT: Burgey, you cheater! You edited!

Shouldn't be very difficult to hire a retired judge from a neutral country for every test series.

 

[Top_Cat]

Shouldn't be very difficult to hire a retired judge from a neutral country for every test series.

Mate, I think you seriously under-estimate the ability of people to find a conspiracy in just about anything! They said the same about neutral umpires! Hey, I know plenty of judges who'd love a junket to another country (geez, who wouldn't?) but I doubt it'd remove the conspiracies. Worth investigating, though.

 

[shankar]

Mate, I think you seriously under-estimate the ability of people to find a conspiracy in just about anything! They said the same about neutral umpires! Hey, I know plenty of judges who'd love a junket to another country (geez, who wouldn't?) but I doubt it'd remove the conspiracies. Worth investigating, though.

Oh I'm not saying it'd remove allegations of bias, but it's just the best that one could do. My main concern is the competence of the referee to judge in these matters - You or I are no less qualified than Proctor in this area!

 

[Salamuddin]

See, this is the part I take issue with. Corroborative evidence is used to convict people in cases up to and including murder. You think everyone there is telling the truth? Good Lord, no. This is only a problem if you don't assess what people are telling you.

I've said it before and maintain it because I used to do it for a job but collusion between people where they're all trying to tell a consistent lie is very difficult to achieve. A few questions out of the ordinary, in my experience, and the stories break down. To co-ordinate 5 people to tell the same lie in every detail is so unlikely as to be virtually impossible. Whether Proctor has the skills training to see this is, as pointed out by JBH100, open to question but still, it's not usually difficult to catch multiple people out in a lie.

But collusion is surely not something that can be totally ruled out simply because there are five of them ?
In any case, how do we know that all of them actually testified to hearing what Bhajji allegedly said....yes they were called to give evidence --- what that evidence was is pure speculation IMO at this juncture e.g Did Ponting actually hear it or did he testify in his capacity as captain ?

In legal settings, wouldn't it be customary for a lawyer to attack the credibility of witnesses ? Given that Ponting, Symonds and Clarke have all been involved in run ins with Bhajji in the past ....surely as an impartial judge you've gotta have reservations about their testimony in the absence of irrefutable, impartial evidence.

And doesn't this open up a whole can of worms in the sense that no "hard
" evidence is needed anymore to indict players ? What about the Brad Hogg case - will the book be thrown at him them for using abusive language because the Indians were offended ?
We are empowering referees to make judgement calls on us versus them scenarios and this could turn potentially ugly IMO.

All this is assuming of course there is no extra evidence against Bhajji - there may well be and if that is the case he deserves to have the book thrown at him. However if not, gee...You can understand why the Indians are upset -- Procter has effectively then called them liars for sticking by Harbhajan.

 

[Dasa]

Bucknor no longer umpiring in the third Test apparently.

 

[Johnners]

According to the cricinfo article, Proctor says it was not a case of taking the Australians word over the Indians. Would love for him to extend on that and tell us why!!

 

[Johnners]

Bucknor no longer umpiring in the third Test apparently.

Probably for the best, I don't think many people will have a problem with that decision.

EDIT:

In regards to the polls mentioned earlier, the poll on ninemsn.com.au is largely in Pontings favour (around 2/3s for him). It seems to me by reading those comments that a lot of people (both for and against) have absolutely no idea and are simply trying to make themselves look patriotic (for Ponting) or make it look like they're some sort of moral hero (against Ponting).

One fellow raised a somewhat contentious point in regards to Indian cricket though. He mentioned how he thought there was a trend in the BCCI never blaming the players for anything, instead the administration (coaches, match refs, umpires etc.). His particular example was Greg Chappell (was his fault, not the players that India was losing etc.) Thoughts from those who know something about Indian cricket (i.e. not me )?

Personally, I can't see much, if any merit in his claims (that said, my knowledge of Indian cricket is somewhat limited, by limited, I mean non-existent), but I thought it was an interesting point.

 

[Turbinator]

Haha oh thank God. Good move, really does ease some tension.

 

[Salamuddin]

Probably for the best, I don't think many people will have a problem with that decision.

EDIT:

In regards to the polls mentioned earlier, the poll on ninemsn.com.au is largely in Pontings favour (around 2/3s for him). It seems to me by reading those comments that a lot of people (both for and against) have absolutely no idea and are simply trying to make themselves look patriotic (for Ponting) or make it look like they're some sort of moral hero (against Ponting).

One fellow raised a somewhat contentious point in regards to Indian cricket though. He mentioned how he thought there was a trend in the BCCI never blaming the players for anything, instead the administration (coaches, match refs, umpires etc.). His particular example was Greg Chappell (was his fault, not the players that India was losing etc.) Thoughts from those who know something about Indian cricket (i.e. not me )?

Personally, I can't see much, if any merit in his claims (that said, my knowledge of Indian cricket is somewhat limited, by limited, I mean non-existent), but I thought it was an interesting point.

Oh the BCCI are a bunch of nincompoops. As an India supporter I will unashamedly admit that.
One of the biggest problems with Indian cricket is the fact that problems with the national team are swept under the carpet.
This team has had a long catalogue of failures in crunch situation in 4th innings - yet no-one has done anything about it.
India have no regular openers
India have a player in Yuvraj SIngh who may not even be the best reserve middle order batsman in India. Is he really in the team on merit ?
India have a wicketkeeper whose batting may not stand the scrutiny of international cricket.
India's star batsman Sachin Tendulkar repeatedly fails to deliver in crunch situations.
Ganguly is incapable of producing a really substantive knock against a decent attack.
India's fielding is substandard and their fitness is poor.
And last but by no means lest, India's cricket administration is corrupt and incomptetent

If India really want to grow as a cricket team and do justice to their talent base, they need to ask some really hard questions of themselves, their players and the administration.
Yes the umpiring was bad in this test but unless the ICC institute technology in matches to assist umpires, those sorts of mistakes will continue to happen.
You've got to accept that.
India may have a minor point on the Harbhajan issue - if he was indicted based purely on the testimony of the Aussie players then yes they have a right to complain.
But there are proper channels for that - India are touring Australia they have an obligation to Cricket Australia to complete the tour.
In the interests of good sportsmanship, they must do so.

India didn't lose the test because of bad umpiring - for goodness sake, they should still have been able to save it. If Yuvraj and Jaffer had batted 20 balls between them, the match would have been a draw.
India's performances dserver criticism and ascrutiny - unfortunately it won't get the attentition it deserves amidst all this other brouhaha.

 

[cameeel]

And yet again the ICC roll over and beg for a member of the Asian bloc....

 

[duffer]

I had no problem with Yuvi starting in Melbourne especially after the way he took his chance againt Pakistan, but I would've hoped they'd find a spot in the squad for Badrinath. I don't know what he's done wrong?

 

[duffer]

And yet again the ICC roll over and beg for a member of the Asian bloc....

At the end of the day I think removing Bucknor was the right decision. I'm disappointed in the drama that was required to make it happen, but I still think the ICC made the right decision in this case.

 

[Salamuddin]

I had no problem with Yuvi starting in Melbourne especially after the way he took his chance againt Pakistan, but I would've hoped they'd find a spot in the squad for Badrinath. I don't know what he's done wrong?

Probably the fact he's from Tamil Nadu went against him .....its well known that players are not always picked on merit in India.

 

[pasag]

And yet again the ICC roll over and beg for a member of the Asian bloc....

He should have been stood down regardless. I feel bad for a guy who obviously didn't mean to do any harm, but this is international cricket at the highest level and his performance was unacceptable.

ICC sending out mixed messages doesn't help matters much either (Bucknor will stand at Perth: ICC - January 7)

 

[biased indian]

just recieved a mail was nice read

(1) Ricky Ponting – (THE TRULY GENUINE CRICKETER OF THE CRICKET ERA AND WHOSE INTEGRITY SHOULD NOT BE DOUBTED) should be considered as the FOURTH UMPIRE. As per the new rules, FOURTH UMPIRE decision is final and will over ride any decisions taken by any other umpires. ON-FIELD umpires can seek the assistance of RICKY PONTING even if he is not on the field. This rule is to be made, so that every team should understand the importance of the FOURTH UMPIRE.

(2) While AUSTRALIAN TEAM is bowling, If the ball flies anywhere close to the AUSTRALIAN FIELDER(WITHIN 5 metre distance), the batsman is to be considered OUT irrelevant of whether the catch was taken cleanly or grassed. Any decision for further clarification should be seeked from the FOURTH UMPIRE. This is made to ensure that the cricket is played with SPORTIVE SPIRIT by all the teams.

(3) While BATTING, AUSTRALIAN players will wait for the ON-FIELD UMPIRE decisions only (even if the catch goes to the FIFTH SLIP as the ball might not have touched the bat). Each AUSTRALIAN batsman has to be out FOUR TIMES (minimum) before he can return to the pavilion. In case of THE CRICKETER WITH INTEGRITY, this can be higher.

(4) UMPIRES should consider a huge bonus if an AUSTRALIAN player scores a century. Any wrong decisions can be ignored as they will be paid huge bonus and will receive the backing of the AUSTRALIAN team and board .

(5) All AUSTRALIAN players are eligible to keep commenting about all players on the field and the OPPONENT TEAM should never comment as they will be spoiling the spirit of the AUSTRALIAN team. Any comments made in any other language are to be considered as RACIALISM only.

(6) MATCH REFREE decisions will be taken purely on the AUSTRALIAN TEAM advices only. Player views from the other teams decisions will not be considered for hearing. MATCH REFREES are to be given huge bonus if this rule is implemented.

(7) NO VISITING TEAM should plan to win in AUSTRALIA. This is to ensure that the sportive spirit of CRICKET is maintained.

(8) THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE: If any bowler gets RICKY PONTING - "THE UNDISPUTED CRICKETER WITH INTEGTIRY IN THE GAME OF CRICKET" more than twice in a series, he will be banned for the REST OF THE SERIES. This is to ensure that the best batsman/Captain will be played to break records and create history in the game of CRICKET.

 

[Bracken]

just recieved a mail was nice read

(1) Ricky Ponting – (THE TRULY GENUINE CRICKETER OF THE CRICKET ERA AND WHOSE INTEGRITY SHOULD NOT BE DOUBTED) should be considered as the FOURTH UMPIRE. As per the new rules, FOURTH UMPIRE decision is final and will over ride any decisions taken by any other umpires. ON-FIELD umpires can seek the assistance of RICKY PONTING even if he is not on the field. This rule is to be made, so that every team should understand the importance of the FOURTH UMPIRE.

(2) While AUSTRALIAN TEAM is bowling, If the ball flies anywhere close to the AUSTRALIAN FIELDER(WITHIN 5 metre distance), the batsman is to be considered OUT irrelevant of whether the catch was taken cleanly or grassed. Any decision for further clarification should be seeked from the FOURTH UMPIRE. This is made to ensure that the cricket is played with SPORTIVE SPIRIT by all the teams.

(3) While BATTING, AUSTRALIAN players will wait for the ON-FIELD UMPIRE decisions only (even if the catch goes to the FIFTH SLIP as the ball might not have touched the bat). Each AUSTRALIAN batsman has to be out FOUR TIMES (minimum) before he can return to the pavilion. In case of THE CRICKETER WITH INTEGRITY, this can be higher.

(4) UMPIRES should consider a huge bonus if an AUSTRALIAN player scores a century. Any wrong decisions can be ignored as they will be paid huge bonus and will receive the backing of the AUSTRALIAN team and board .

(5) All AUSTRALIAN players are eligible to keep commenting about all players on the field and the OPPONENT TEAM should never comment as they will be spoiling the spirit of the AUSTRALIAN team. Any comments made in any other language are to be considered as RACIALISM only.

(6) MATCH REFREE decisions will be taken purely on the AUSTRALIAN TEAM advices only. Player views from the other teams decisions will not be considered for hearing. MATCH REFREES are to be given huge bonus if this rule is implemented.

(7) NO VISITING TEAM should plan to win in AUSTRALIA. This is to ensure that the sportive spirit of CRICKET is maintained.

(8) THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE: If any bowler gets RICKY PONTING - "THE UNDISPUTED CRICKETER WITH INTEGTIRY IN THE GAME OF CRICKET" more than twice in a series, he will be banned for the REST OF THE SERIES. This is to ensure that the best batsman/Captain will be played to break records and create history in the game of CRICKET.

Well, that should make for some constructive discussion...