Harbhajan reignites racism storm

[Richard]

Of course, who of us knows if Harb said it, but it certainly appears from looking at the video that Symonds believed he said it.
Have a look at Symonds' reaction and you can see when his head turns around he appears to mouth the words "So I'm a monkey now am I?" or some words which marry up closely with that phrase.
Just wish it would end tbh.

There's obviously no doubt Symonds believed he said it. Can't believe anyone is saying otherwise.

The "terra maan ki" or whatever it was outcome seems the likeliest to me.

 

[Richard]

I haven't seen the passage in the rule book where it states if you put your hand on the ground with the ball in it (and the ball's touching the ground) it's not out, but I'd imagine some level of common sense would have to apply. How long do you have to hang on to the ball for it to be deemed a catch? If a player takes it in mid-air, then hits the ground without touching it with the ball, and proceeds to push himself up with the ball in his hand is this then not out?

Not sure if it's relevant, but the player is deemed to have to have "control of the ball and himself" for it to be out. If that's 10 seconds, so be it; if that's 1\15th of a second, so be it.

Time is not of the essence.

 

[silentstriker]

Ramprakash. I thought he would be done making news:

"The only time I've suffered any abuse of a serious racial kind in international cricket is against the Australians so I'm not sure what that says about them," Ramprakash was quoted as saying on the England and Wales Cricket Board website.

 

[silentstriker]

Oh, and why is Mark Ramprakash so good in County Cricket? I've actually never seen him play live - can someone comment?

 

[Richard]

Ramprakash is so much better in domestic cricket (or at least, was, 1991-1995\96) because his temperament let him down in international cricket early in his career (averaged 17). And he never completely convincingly solved that problem despite much-improved performances thereafter (averaged 37 between 1997 and 2001\02, excluding innings as an opener, and only really failed badly in 2 series, both against New Zealand, and both which saw him immediately dropped).

 

[silentstriker]

He averaged over a hundred in the past two seasons, though in his late thirties. Is he in contention for a spot in the English side?

 

[Richard]

Some certainly think so. He's scored that heavily before now, though - scored 2000 runs in 1995 as well.

Personally, I'm completely undecided - some seem to take for granted that he'd have completely banished the temperamental issues which so bedevilled (1991-1995\96) then ghosted (1997-2001\02) him and say the only debar is the "you've got to look to the future" nonsense. I feel he might return a different player (and if he did could conceivably have 3 or 4 more good years in him), but he might return same-old-same-old, which would simply add more disappointment to a disappointing Test career.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Not sure if it's relevant, but the player is deemed to have to have "control of the ball and himself" for it to be out. If that's 10 seconds, so be it; if that's 1\15th of a second, so be it.

Time is not of the essence.

Right, so if a guy's falling after diving for a catch, hits the ground with the ball still in his hand, and then pushes himself up with the ball in hand, it's fair to say the ball hasn't been 'grounded'...applying some level of common sense.

 

[Burgey]

Thought this a pretty balanced piece on Sydney:

http://blogs.abc.net.au/grandstand/2008/01/are-we-too-hast.html?site=cricket#more

 

[Richard]

Right, so if a guy's falling after diving for a catch, hits the ground with the ball still in his hand, and then pushes himself up with the ball in hand, it's fair to say the ball hasn't been 'grounded'...applying some level of common sense.

If that's what happened, seems a bit of a fuss about nothing, but also a bit careless from the fielder. Why not not push yourself up with the ball?

 

[Son Of Coco]

If that's what happened, seems a bit of a fuss about nothing, but also a bit careless from the fielder. Why not not push yourself up with the ball?

Well, maybe because Lance Armstrong did that for years...and look where it got him

 

[Smudge]

Fetch your coat, SOC.

 

[JBH001]

Right, so if a guy's falling after diving for a catch, hits the ground with the ball still in his hand, and then pushes himself up with the ball in hand, it's fair to say the ball hasn't been 'grounded'...applying some level of common sense.

Except that if he hits the grounds with the ball making contact with the ground, then it is plainly not out (even if he is rolling around or whatever). And if he does push himself off the ground with the ball making contact with the ground, its best to claim the catch first and then to do so. That seems common sense to me.

[A]ccording to Fraser Stewart, manager of the MCC's laws department at Lord's in London.

"If the ball touches the ground while the player is still moving following a dive, the correct decision is not out," Stewart told the Sunday Star-Times.

...

"I did not see Mathew Sinclair's catch but I have seen both the Ponting and Harris ones, which have indeed caused considerable controversy," Stewart said..

"The relevant section of Law 32 (caught) states ... The act of making the catch shall start from the time when a fielder first handles the ball and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control both over the ball and over his own movement.

"The vital part here is whether or not the fielder has control of his own movement. In terms of the intentions of the law, the control of the fielder's own movement is not just related to stepping over the boundary, as some think, and is therefore also relevant in the circumstances of both these incidents and no doubt the Sinclair one too."

 

[Son Of Coco]

Fetch your coat, SOC.

 

[silentstriker]

Interesting development here

It has been revealed that Mike Procter, the match referee who found Harbhajan Singh guilty of calling Andrew Symonds a "monkey" during the Sydney Test, relied on the evidence of four Australian players in reaching his decision.

In a leaked copy of the report, Procter says: "I have heard evidence from Andrew Symonds, Michael Clarke and Mathew Hayden that he did say these words. Harbhajan Singh denies saying these words. Both umpires did not hear nor did Ricky Ponting or Sachin Tendulkar. I am satisfied and sure beyond reasonable doubt that Harbhajan Singh did say these words.

"I am satisfied that the words were said and that the complaint to the umpires, which forms this charge, would not have been put forward falsely, I dismiss any suggestion of motive or malice."

It does look like he relied on just the word of the accuser.

Maa ki or monkey. What a ridiculous controversy.

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. Bhajji needs to take that to heart.

 

[pasag]

Interesting development here



It does look like he relied on just the word of the accuser.

Maa ki or monkey. What a ridiculous controversy.

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. Bhajji needs to take that to heart.

It's not really a development though, it's what we knew all along. There was no stump mic evidence so it was always going to be Australians word vs Indian players word.

 

[social]

Interesting development here



It does look like he relied on just the word of the accuser.

Maa ki or monkey. What a ridiculous controversy.

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. Bhajji needs to take that to heart.

3 accusers but, few weeks on, who cares anyway?

 

[duffer]

Posted this in the tour thread but what the hey. Watch this really go loco again. Kudos to the leaker of the document.

 

[silentstriker]

It's not really a development though, it's what we knew all along. There was no stump mic evidence so it was always going to be Australians word vs Indian players word.

Well, Proctor did come out and say that this is not what he did

 

[sideshowtim]

It's not really a development though, it's what we knew all along. There was no stump mic evidence so it was always going to be Australians word vs Indian players word.

But mostly a good dose of common sense and logic. Look at the video, look at the reaction of Symonds and the Australian players, use your brain and ask why the hell would the Australians lie about something so bloody serious as racism? Why wouldn't you make the allegation against a better player, like Tendulkar or Laxman if you were lying and doing it for the sole purpose of getting someone banned? Why wouldn't you do it in the first Test?

There is no bulletproof evidence that Harby said it, but if you use your brain it's pretty clear what happened.