Harbhajan reignites racism storm

[silentstriker]

I dont have any problem with the sub-continent having the balance of power because, let's face it, they generate most of the cash and without it, places like the WI could never hope to survive and the cricket world would be piss-poor without them

But the constant failure to accept decisions that dont go their way can only end up being detrimental to the game.

I don't disagree obviously. But I don't necessarily think you need to have a balance of power tipped too strongly in any one direction. That's never healthy. Because, in the end, people are people and they're going to tend to do things that benefit them.

 

[BoyBrumby]

He hadn't agreed not to - I$C$C had simply stipulated that his action was legal. I haven't any links for that but surely you must know he was tested following the first instance in 1995\96 and found to be AOK?

That should have been enough, but no, he had to pursue his own theme.

This series was in 1999, wasn't it? I'm pretty sure the chucking rules that pertained at the time didn't include any specific provisions not to call Murali or any other particular bowlers.

But that's a digression, my point is that I don't condone any captain acting in open defiance of the rules, regardless of how justified he feels.

 

[Richard]

In virtually every innings - he was

I assure you, countless hundreds of people have exploited the limits of "proof" throughout cricket's history.

 

[Richard]

This series was in 1999, wasn't it? I'm pretty sure the chucking rules that pertained at the time didn't include any specific provisions not to call Murali or any other particular bowlers.

Well they don't include any specific provisions not to call Bowler X now. Those sorts of things aren't written in the laws. They're just agreed upon and presumably written somewhere (as these things usually need to be). There was biomechanical analysis in 1995\96 (or shortly after), and by the 1998\99 series (as much was written following the ridiculous Lloyd-inspired fiasco in 1998) it had been established beyond reasonable doubt that Muralitharan's action was legal. Emerson then decided he knew better than the biomechanics. He fully deserved any disrespect that came his way.

But that's a digression, my point is that I don't condone any captain acting in open defiance of the rules, regardless of how justified he feels.

As I say - I feel he was actually protesting and attempting to uphold the rules. There's nothing in cricket that says people can't refuse to play for a few minutes if they feel absurdly hard-done-by (which, as I say, I think the Lankans were in that game).

 

[social]

As I say - I feel he was actually protesting and attempting to uphold the rules. There's nothing in cricket that says people can't refuse to play for a few minutes if they feel absurdly hard-done-by (which, as I say, I think the Lankans were in that game).

It's called a forfeit - obviously both you and the Pakistanis had that page torn out of your rule book

 

[BoyBrumby]

There's nothing in cricket that says people can't refuse to play for a few minutes if they feel absurdly hard-done-by (which, as I say, I think the Lankans were in that game).

Of course there is. Law 21, part 3.

3. Umpires awarding a match
(a) A match shall be lost by a side which
either (i) concedes defeat
or (ii) in the opinion of the umpires refuses to play
and the umpires shall award the match to the other side.

(b) If an umpire considers that an action by any player or players might constitute a refusal by either side to play then the umpires together shall ascertain the cause of the action. If they then decide together that this action does constitute a refusal to play by one side, they shall so inform the captain of that side. If the captain persists in the action the umpires shall award the match in accordance with (a)(ii) above.

 

[Richard]

It's called a forfeit - obviously both you and the Pakistanis had that page torn out of your rule book

Nope, you won't and nor should you forfeit the match for refusing to play for a few minutes.

 

[Richard]

Of course there is. Law 21, part 3.

3. Umpires awarding a match
(a) A match shall be lost by a side which
either (i) concedes defeat
or (ii) in the opinion of the umpires refuses to play
and the umpires shall award the match to the other side.

(b) If an umpire considers that an action by any player or players might constitute a refusal by either side to play then the umpires together shall ascertain the cause of the action. If they then decide together that this action does constitute a refusal to play by one side, they shall so inform the captain of that side. If the captain persists in the action the umpires shall award the match in accordance with (a)(ii) above.

As I say above - walking off for a few minutes should never and would never by anyone with an ounce of sense (and let's not forget, it wasn't just Emerson out there) constitute a refusal to play long enough to result in a forfeit.

I notice you didn't respond to the other part BTW - do I take it that you see where I am coming from on that front?

In any case, had I been Ranatunga I'd certainly have considered forfeiting the match in protest. More than worth it.

 

[Sanz]

Sanz, I see that you are viewing this thread. I would like you to read the Gavaskar thread and put your thoughts on it if you can.

Thanks.

Thanks for the link and also for your balanced view on the issue. I read your post a while ago and was going to comment when I had some free time. Already replied in that thread.

 

[social]

Nope, you won't and nor should you forfeit the match for refusing to play for a few minutes.

Firstly, that's in total contradiction with the laws

Secondly, he actually conceded (shook players hands, retreated to the dressing room, etc)

It was only the common sense of the umpires, officials and, most notably, the English players that allowed a game that was effectively done and dusted to resume

 

[Richard]

I'm well aware that a forfeit had almost happened. This is precisely the point - even when it appears absolute, it doesn't have to be. With a bit more luck, the same would have happened in the Oval Test of 2006.

And as I said - had Ranatunga forfeited in protest, I for one would have had total sympathy for him. I'd have blamed Emerson, not Ranatunga, for the crowd being deprived of a game.

 

[social]

I'm well aware that a forfeit had almost happened. This is precisely the point - even when it appears absolute, it doesn't have to be. With a bit more luck, the same would have happened in the Oval Test of 2006.

And as I said - had Ranatunga forfeited in protest, I for one would have had total sympathy for him. I'd have blamed Emerson, not Ranatunga, for the crowd being deprived of a game.

And as has been clearly demonstrated, you'd be wrong

 

[RhyZa]

I'm a bit surprised at all the outrage.

Is the thought process that evidence was covered up? How are people so sure? It seems that people are so shocked at such an outcome, when realistically, it was about 50/50 to go this way. That's what happens in he said/she said cases with little hard evidence. It seems people are so offended that the Aussies weren't given the benefit of the doubt all the way through as they were in the start (which ironically, many people felt was in error to take their word over another). I don't think it's fair to base your justice system on Harbajhan looks like he's the type to do it or he probably did it before so he must have done it again.

Maybe I'm being naive here, but it looks like either side would be crying with any decision that was made. I just don't see how the Aussies (and the media) can be crying more than the Indians with the lack of a smoking gun.

 

[Pratters]

Thanks for the link and also for your balanced view on the issue. I read your post a while ago and was going to comment when I had some free time. Already replied in that thread.

Cheers mate... glad to know your views on the topic.

 

[Richard]

And as has been clearly demonstrated, you'd be wrong

Err, nothing of the sort has been demonstrated.

 

[Majin]

Unfortunately there's not much doubt in my mind that Harbhajan called Symonds a monkey, and got away with it. The man is a ****ing idiot.

Respect for Matt Hayden went up big time after watching the video with the stump mics turned up.

 

[Sanz]

Respect for Matt Hayden went up big time after watching the video with the stump mics turned up.

I haven't watched the video yet but Matty Hayden's word was enough for me to believe that Harbhajan made that remark.

 

[Sanz]

Cheers mate... glad to know your views on the topic.

You did know what I was going to say, didn't you ?

 

[BoyBrumby]

I notice you didn't respond to the other part BTW - do I take it that you see where I am coming from on that front?

No, you admitted there was no law regarding Murali & that Emerson hadn't agreed to make any particular provisions. As you provided no kind of evidence to the contrary I assumed you'd conceded the point.

 

[Engle]

Notwithstanding BCCI interference, this was not a clear cut case, both legally and otherwise IMO.

Defending a racist remark would be to place yourself on the wrong side of the fence, however, Aus had too much going against them.

No direct evidence, Symonds being the provocateur, heat of the moment, possible mishear/misinterpretation of the term, batsmen don’t have as much motive to sledge esp on a decent partnership, Aus having the history of sledging, further weakening a touring side by banning a player against a powerhouse team... etc

Think of this as reducing a 1st degree murder conviction to something much less based on all of the above circumstances.

Having said that, I cant help but think that Harby should consider himself lucky he got off with a tap on the wrist