Harbhajan reignites racism storm

[luckyeddie]

why is it so had for you indians to understand that swearing is diffrent to making a racist remark? its not hard to work out the diffrence iff you are going to ban players for swearing than half of every international side will be constantly baned, in the heat of the moment players will swear

when a player swears at another player they are not having a go at them because of there skin colour but because they are frustrated

Different cultures are offended to a greater or lesser extent by different things.

For instance, there are some on this forum who are down my throat every time I mention bread, boats or chains.

 

[Anil]

First time I've seen that. Doesn't look too flash, does it?

Might be getting a bit of a reputation for it if he's not careful.

and rightly too...

 

[silentstriker]

If Clarke catches a ball 2 inches from the ground, I'll still always be suspicious after this pathetic claimed catch.

Pretty pathetic.

Haha, "very hard to tell." Ridiculously easy to tell.

 

[Salamuddin]

Kumble (one of the most frequent appealers in world cricket) has reconsidered his position and spent the past week spouting accusations in an attempt to paint the Indian team as martyrs.

Fact 1: Harby has prior form

Fact 2: Ganguly was out and no view from any camera has suggested otherwise

He's failed to mention either

Whether this has been an elaborate scheme to deflect attention from the fact that his team collapsed again under pressure and now cannot win the series, only he can say.

The fact that Harbhajan may have insulted Symonds in MUmbi has absolutely no bearing on what transpired at Sydney.

The " he has previous form" argument is rubbish IMO.
It's pretty simple....is there impartial evidence which suggests Harbhjan racially abused Symonds in Sydney ? If not, then Harbhajan must be acquitted.

 

[Salamuddin]

IMO, this entire situation has come about because the Indians were tired and emotional after losing a test they never should have.

.

Enjoy!

Had India drawn the test, the issue of the racism complaint against Harbhajan would still have remained.
That is undeniably the crux of the fracas that has ensued over the past week.
Any team would be upset if their player was indicted based purely on the testimony of the opposition camp without any supporting, neutral evidence.

THe BCCI may have gone way over the top in issue tour threats BUT IMO if there is no neutral evidence against Bhajji, MIke Procter has handled this extremely badly.

 

[Salamuddin]

One of many reports

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23029955-2722,00.html

Harby is far from an innocent here

Brilliant stuff Social....so the Australian says Harbhajan is guilty, so heh he must be guilty....


THis coming from a paper that is a notoriously one-eyed, conservative publication.

 

[jeevan]

This is curious, the comment that it would've been OK for Symonds' friends to have abused him racially with exactly the same words:

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ausvind/content/current/story/330663.html

Given that apparently, the immediate precursor to the alleged racist
abuse started with Symonds asking Harbhajan how he was friends with some of
the Australian bowlers. Snippet below was reported in several places:

http://i3j3cricket.wordpress.com/2008/01/05/harbhajan-singh-pulled-up-on-a-rascism-charge/

To me, it is appearing quite likely that this whole episode is a cynical application (manipulation?) of the rules around the game. Those of us who had gotten hot and bothered about player behavior (including myself), have been had by a couple of opportunists.

 

[Andrew Pollock]

If Clarke catches a ball 2 inches from the ground, I'll still always be suspicious after this pathetic claimed catch.

Pretty pathetic.

That appalling!

Hope Clark pulls his head in and act's more like Gilly than Ponting

 

[pasag]

Brilliant stuff Social....so the Australian says Harbhajan is guilty, so heh he must be guilty....


THis coming from a paper that is a notoriously one-eyed, conservative publication.

Yeah The Australian's coverage of the issue hasn't been great. But The Age has been excellent and close to balanced, I reckon, with articles defending and critiquing the side and The Herald Sun is The Herald Sun. I think overall the coverage (including what I've seen on TV, heard on the radio) has been pretty balanced here, or much better than I expected anyways, they certainly haven't been the "extended support staff of the team" as Gavaskar had claimed at the outset of this whole thing.

 

[honestbharani]

The things I have against it are:

1. It ignores the fact that Symonds went down the route of seeking an apology from Harby in Mumbai and it basically amounted to zero in Sydney so a more formal complaint was justified

2. Ponting is obviously backing his player in the same way as Kumble is

3. It implies that Ponting broke their agreement by claiming a catch that wasnt - this pointedly ignores all video evidence to the contrary and implies that the opposing captain is a cheat

4. It claims that the Australians appealed when they knew something wasnt out thereby contravening the spirit of the game again - what is the guy a mind reader?

Little wonder the mindless patriots are up in arms when such a one-sided hatchet job is published under the name of the Indian captain

1. The Mumbai incident is yet to be confirmed...


2. Yes, but he is failing to see the other side's PoV and being the instigator of the charge here, he should at least try to hear out the other side. It is called common sense, something that was lacking with Darryl Hair and it seems to be lacking with Ponting too.


3. It doesn't matter. There was no way in earth that any fair person could be sure that he had caught the ball w.r.t Clarke's catch of Ganguly. The fact that he still feigned to be sure about it shows that he was taking advantage of the agreement.


4. Point 3 proves the charge in point 4.

 

[honestbharani]

Kumble (one of the most frequent appealers in world cricket) has reconsidered his position and spent the past week spouting accusations in an attempt to paint the Indian team as martyrs.

Fact 1: Harby has prior form

Fact 2: Ganguly was out and no view from any camera has suggested otherwise

He's failed to mention either

Whether this has been an elaborate scheme to deflect attention from the fact that his team collapsed again under pressure and now cannot win the series, only he can say.

Kumble being one of the frequent appealers in world cricket has nothing to do with the matter here. Ponting, Gilchrist etc. are hardly saints in the matter and having watched as much cricket as I have, they are all equally bad when it comes to appealing for everything.....


1. JUz because he has prior form (which has had no confirmation anyways, as yet) doesn't mean he can get convicted when he hasn' t done anything.


2. Ganguly's catch had more than enough doubt to be given the benefit on. And it was clear from the very first replay.... You have to be incredibly naive to assume that it was out from all angles because it was NOT OUT from all those angles, accoring to the benefit of doubt going to the batsmen doctrine....

 

[archie mac]

1. The Mumbai incident is yet to be confirmed...


2. Yes, but he is failing to see the other side's PoV and being the instigator of the charge here, he should at least try to hear out the other side. It is called common sense, something that was lacking with Darryl Hair and it seems to be lacking with Ponting too.


3. It doesn't matter. There was no way in earth that any fair person could be sure that he had caught the ball w.r.t Clarke's catch of Ganguly. The fact that he still feigned to be sure about it shows that he was taking advantage of the agreement.


4. Point 3 proves the charge in point 4.

1 crap

2 crap

3 he said he took the catch, and that is the end, you can't tell on a replay that has been proved over and over again, he said he caught it and that is good enough for me

4 Point 3 proves that it is sour grapes

 

[archie mac]

This is curious, the comment that it would've been OK for Symonds' friends to have abused him racially with exactly the same words:

.

Tough to explain this, you may have to be an Aussie to understand

There was a song by Joe Jackson (not sure)

'Don't call me a fagot, unless you are a friend'

 

[honestbharani]

1 crap

2 crap

3 he said he took the catch, and that is the end, you can't tell on a replay that has been proved over and over again, he said he caught it and that is good enough for me

4 Point 3 proves that it is sour grapes

1 & 2. well argued. Obviously, when ur side has been at the other end, ur grapes aren't exactly sweet either...


3. Since when is Clarke's word the be all and end all of everything? We have already seen clips in the official tour thread why his word SHOULDN'T be considered in these things. To use Social's parlance, Clarke has prior form... And yes, you COULD tell on the replay that there was no real way he could have taken it cleanly... His bloody fingers were pointed down to the ground when he was taking the catch, no way can anyone take a ball that low that way unless some part of the ball did hit the ground. And even otherwise, when there is so much doubt, it goes to the batsman. And he did ground the ball quite visibly when rolling over when not in full control of the ball. EVen though such catches may have been given out in the past, it doesn't mean they were right. According to law, it wasn't a catch and as such, deserved to be given not out.


4. Again, well argued....

 

[archie mac]

1 & 2. well argued. Obviously, when ur side has been at the other end, ur grapes aren't exactly sweet either...


3. Since when is Clarke's word the be all and end all of everything? We have already seen clips in the official tour thread why his word SHOULDN'T be considered in these things. To use Social's parlance, Clarke has prior form... And yes, you COULD tell on the replay that there was no real way he could have taken it cleanly... His bloody fingers were pointed down to the ground when he was taking the catch, no way can anyone take a ball that low that way unless some part of the ball did hit the ground. And even otherwise, when there is so much doubt, it goes to the batsman. And he did ground the ball quite visibly when rolling over when not in full control of the ball. EVen though such catches may have been given out in the past, it doesn't mean they were right. According to law, it wasn't a catch and as such, deserved to be given not out.


4. Again, well argued....

They had an agreement, because you can't tell on the replay, that is the reason they came up with the agreement. You must have great eyes to tell on the replay

Sour Grapes

 

[jeevan]

1. The Mumbai incident is yet to be confirmed...

The Mumbai incident is only as relevant to this racism allegation as Michael Clarke's clearly not taken catch vs NZ is relevant to his allegedly not taking the Ganguly catch. It may raise suspisions but is not proof in itself. Somebody needs to come up with the hard evidence in either case, except Clarke & Ponting have not been charged with anything - so they automatically get benefit of doubt.

 

[archie mac]

The Mumbai incident is only as relevant to this racism allegation as Michael Clarke's clearly not taken catch vs NZ is relevant to his allegedly not taking the Ganguly catch. It may raise suspisions but is not proof in itself. Somebody needs to come up with the hard evidence in either case, except Clarke & Ponting have not been charged with anything - so they automatically get benefit of doubt.

I for one am very confident that if the Aussies agree to only claim catches they thought they had taken, then that is how they would play the game

 

[honestbharani]

They had an agreement, because you can't tell on the replay, that is the reason they came up with the agreement. You must have great eyes to tell on the replay

Sour Grapes

when you can't tell on the replay and you ground the ball when rolling over, you admit to having doubts...



And again, repeating Sour Grapes again and again isn't going to make it seem as though you ACTUALLY won this match... We were robbed, plain and simple.

 

[archie mac]

when you can't tell on the replay and you ground the ball when rolling over, you admit to having doubts...



And again, repeating Sour Grapes again and again isn't going to make it seem as though you ACTUALLY won this match... We were robbed, plain and simple.

You have lost me on the top one????

Yes you were robbed, I don't think anyone would think otherwise

 

[honestbharani]

You have lost me on the top one????

Yes you were robbed, I don't think anyone would think otherwise

then how in the hell can our grapes be sour????


And what I meant by the first line was that, there was enough doubt on the catch being taken and even if one were to assume it was taken cleanly, he did ground the ball when rolling over and not in complete control of the ball and there is no way he wouldn't have known that, therefore, there was enough grounds for the umpire to NOT take the fielders' word on this one, whatever be the agreement. And Clarke is no angel. To me, he, Dhoni and perhaps Jayawardene are among the top guys when it comes to claiming such catches in world cricket.