Harbhajan reignites racism storm

[silentstriker]

Maybe because Harby's action werent so friendly?

Well, then they lied in saying they were, considering that part is on 'agreed statement of facts.' But then its a weird thing to lie about.

 

[Matt79]

Perhaps I long for the village green but if you think patting someone on the back after a good delivery is out of place in cricket, than I think its a sad state of affairs. Lee patted Tendulkar on the helmet after his innings, and no one gave an earful to Lee, did they? It's a ridiculous thing that Symonds believes.

Well this is one element of the stupid minutae of this case that I haven't personally debated to bits here yet, but I guess there's maybe a difference between touching the back, as you suggest, and the buttock, as Bhajji did to Lee, and the head as Lee did to Sachin. The latter two are more likely to produce a negative reaction if you don't know, or aren't a friend of, the person you're patting. Plus it would depend on what was said etc. I think the general rule of "If I wouldn't do this to a stranger in a pub over a game of pool, I shouldn't do it to an opponent on the cricket field" isn't a bad one.

 

[silentstriker]

Well this is one element of the stupid minutae of this case that I haven't personally debated to bits here yet, but I guess there's maybe a difference between touching the back, as you suggest, and the buttock, as Bhajji did to Lee, and the head as Lee did to Sachin. The latter two are more likely to produce a negative reaction if you don't know, or aren't a friend of, the person you're patting. Plus it would depend on what was said etc. I think the general rule of "If I wouldn't do this to a stranger in a pub over a game of pool, I shouldn't do it to an opponent on the cricket field" isn't a bad one.

The reaction is what troubles me, starting with profanity laced language and saying you've no friends here and its not a time to congratulate someone is a ridiculous thing to do. Especially as Lee himself didn't seem to mind and they both agreed that it was a friendly thing (all the players signed a statement which were the agreed upon facts.

 

[Matt79]

Oh, for sure. Stupid overreaction by Symonds - I don't think that's ever been in question though has it. You might say something, but what he said was an overreaction.

The fact that Lee didn't mind sort of goes with the fact that he patted Sachin as well - Lee is one bloke who does seem to genuinely get on well with most opponents, and he obviously has a less strained relationship with the Indian team than a lot of the other guys in the Aussie team - hence him giving and receiving pats is a bit less fraught - unless one of his more argumentative and less bright mates decides to take umbrage on his behalf.

 

[Bracken]

But again I ask, if the Indians felt that, with the evidences and stuff available to them, there was no way any adjudicator in the world could indict Harbhajan, then surely, in that scenario, they can say with confidence that IF Harbhajan still gets indicted, it is surely injustice and therefore, they will walk out?????

Nope. In my view, there is absolutely no way to justify threatening to pull out should the appeal not make a finding that matched their own. The process was known before the incident, and the arbiter (in the appeal, at least) was extraordinarily well qualified and absolutely independent. There was nothing that would suggest that the findings would be anything other than a true reflection of the evidence presented.

If you help form rules and a procedure to enforce them, and then you agree to be bound by those same rules and procedures, then there is no justification for publicly declaring that you will financially penalise everyone involved if the procedure isn't subservient to your wishes.

 

[shankar]

This sums up the legal aspects of the case (particularly the applicable standards of proof for each offence) fairly succinctly, and highlights why Singh was never likely going to be found guilty.

Hansen seems to be saying that even in Symonds had not downgraded the charges, he would not have found Harbhajan guilty of 3.3.

[57] Given that is the view of the complainant it is hard to see how the requisite elements of 3.3 could be satisfied. However, given it is an objective interpretation that is not the end of the matter. I must consider if the "ordinary person" would have been offended in a 3.3 sense. That again requires a look at context. Mr Singh had innocently, and in the tradition, of the game acknowledged the quality of Mr Lee's bowling. That interchange had nothing to do with Mr Symonds but he determined to get involved and as a result was abusive towards Mr Singh. Mr Singh was, not surprisingly, abusive back. He accepts that his language was such as to be offensive under 2.8. But in my view even if he had used the words "alleged" an "ordinary person" standing in the shoes of Mr Symonds who had launched an unprovoked and unnecessary invective laden attack would not be offended or insulted or humiliated in terms of 3.3.

 

[silentstriker]

Nope. In my view, there is absolutely no way to justify threatening to pull out should the appeal not make a finding that matched their own. The process was known before the incident, and the arbiter (in the appeal, at least) was extraordinarily well qualified and absolutely independent. There was nothing that would suggest that the findings would be anything other than a true reflection of the evidence presented.

If you help form rules and a procedure to enforce them, and then you agree to be bound by those same rules and procedures, then there is no justification for publicly declaring that you will financially penalise everyone involved if the procedure isn't subservient to your wishes.

Can't really agree with this more. India knew the rules, they agreed for them and the guy overseeing the appeal was independent and qualified in legal matters (instead of a cricket referee). If he gives you a decision you don't like - thats really tough cookies for you.

You can't pick and choose when you'll follow the law. You agreed to follow the rules when you joined the ICC, and if you don't like a particular rule, you can lobby to have it changed later, but they can't even claim that in this case because you're not ever going to get better than an impartial judge who is well versed in legal matters. Threatening to pull out was childish and utterly unjustified.

 

[silentstriker]

Hansen seems to be saying that even in Symonds had not downgraded the charges, he would not have found Harbhajan guilty of 3.3.

[57] Given that is the view of the complainant it is hard to see how the requisite elements of 3.3 could be satisfied. However, given it is an objective interpretation that is not the end of the matter. I must consider if the "ordinary person" would have been offended in a 3.3 sense. That again requires a look at context. Mr Singh had innocently, and in the tradition, of the game acknowledged the quality of Mr Lee's bowling. That interchange had nothing to do with Mr Symonds but he determined to get involved and as a result was abusive towards Mr Singh. Mr Singh was, not surprisingly, abusive back. He accepts that his language was such as to be offensive under 2.8. But in my view even if he had used the words "alleged" an "ordinary person" standing in the shoes of Mr Symonds who had launched an unprovoked and unnecessary invective laden attack would not be offended or insulted or humiliated in terms of 3.3.

Very interesting - he seems to paint Symonds as the bad guy here. He is basically saying that Symonds got involved where he shouldn't have and started to use profane language, and Harbhajan was just responding in kind, also using profane language. I don't agree with him that if a racist term is used in retaliation, that it would be justified (assuming obviously it was proven).

 

[Pratters]

Well this is one element of the stupid minutae of this case that I haven't personally debated to bits here yet, but I guess there's maybe a difference between touching the back, as you suggest, and the buttock, as Bhajji did to Lee, and the head as Lee did to Sachin. The latter two are more likely to produce a negative reaction if you don't know, or aren't a friend of, the person you're patting. Plus it would depend on what was said etc. I think the general rule of "If I wouldn't do this to a stranger in a pub over a game of pool, I shouldn't do it to an opponent on the cricket field" isn't a bad one.

This is what Symonds said about the incident which I am sure you have read:

"This is what happened before our confrontation," Symonds said in the Herald Sun. "Brett Lee had just sent down a delivery and Harbhajan took off down the wicket. When he was returning to his crease, he decided to hit Brett on the backside. I have no idea why he did it.

"I was standing nearby and when I saw what happened, I thought, 'Hold on, that's not on'. I'm a firm believer in sticking up for your team-mate so I stepped in and had a bit of a crack at Harbhajan, telling him exactly what I thought of his antics. He then had a shot back, which brings us to the situation we're facing."

"I must admit the incident was pretty surprising, because relations between the two sides so far have been very good," Symonds said. "It's been a series played in really good spirit. There's been no sledging or bad blood."

Now, as he himself says, the relations between the two sides were pretty cordial upto then. Australia were losing momentum and it was frustrating from an Australian point of view and Symonds decided to let this Harbhajan patting Lee be an opportunity to mouth off Harbhajan Singh. As you say, it was very much an over reaction from Symonds.

If Harbhajan Singh did go on to say monkey after that, he is very much wrong and committed some thing far more serious than the Symonds reaction. That is about Harbhajan but if we talk about the Symonds reaction earlier, he was being a bit stupid reacting the way he was. An incident in the next test comes to mind. At Perth, a batsman just collided into Tait as he was not looking. They didn't just start mouthing off at each other. The difference between Sydney and Perth was exactly that - things were blown out of proportion at Sydney while at Perth both teams played the game the way it should be played.

 

[shankar]

Very interesting - he seems to paint Symonds as the bad guy here. He is basically saying that Symonds got involved where he shouldn't have and started to use profane language, and Harbhajan was just responding in kind, also using profane language. I don't agree with him that if a racist term is used in retaliation, that it would be justified (assuming obviously it was proven).

Yeah, this has been missed in all the fuss (justified) about the BCCI.

I agree with him though. Given that the two had entered into a pact at the end of the ODIs in India that Harbhajan wouldn't use the word and Symonds in turn wouldn't abuse him. So they've both clearly conveyed to each other what they find offensive.

 

[Bracken]

Can't really agree with this more. India knew the rules, they agreed for them and the guy overseeing the appeal was independent and qualified in legal matters (instead of a cricket referee). If he gives you a decision you don't like - thats really tough cookies for you.

The one good thing that may come out of this mess is that the ICC will surely have to realise that a guy with no greater qualification that being a former player is simply not qualified to make a considered judgment on these sorts of issues. It simply baffles me that the players in these hearings have experienced, highly qualified legal representation making intricate arguments on their behalf, only to leave the decision in the hands of someone with absolutely no experience or expertise in analysing legal argument simply because he may have been handy with a bat a few decades ago.

 

[social]

The one good thing that may come out of this mess is that the ICC will surely have to realise that a guy with no greater qualification that being a former player is simply not qualified to make a considered judgment on these sorts of issues. It simply baffles me that the players in these hearings have experienced, highly qualified legal representation making intricate arguments on their behalf, only to leave the decision in the hands of someone with absolutely no experience or expertise in analysing legal argument simply because he may have been handy with a bat a few decades ago.

Proctor was advised in the hearing by a QC, so he wasnt on his own

The case turned on the definition of "beyond reasonable doubt."

In the first, they disregarded Tendulkar and obviously found Harby unreliable therefore no doubt

In the second, they took Tendulkar's testimony into account and Symonds admitted that he might have misheard, therefore doubt

 

[social]

Well, then they lied in saying they were, considering that part is on 'agreed statement of facts.' But then its a weird thing to lie about.

It's all about the history between the two - it wasnt violent and might've been a mark of respect but guys like Symonds justifiably have no time for Harby and dont want him to think things have suddenly changed just because he starts playing the nice guy.

 

[silentstriker]

It's all about the history between the two - it wasnt violent and might've been a mark of respect but guys like Symonds justifiably have no time for Harby and dont want him to think things have suddenly changed just because he starts playing the nice guy.

But its not like Harbhajan was even talking to Symonds. Now no one can be nice to any Australian?

 

[social]

But its not like Harbhajan was even talking to Symonds. Now no one can be nice to any Australian?

I think it's more a case of not wanting anyone to think that Harby's previous indiscretions have been forgotten

 

[pasag]

Mukul Kesavan saying something similar to one of my arguments earlier in the thread.

Left to itself, the Board would have hung Harbhajan up to dry (as it had sacrificed Bishan Bedi over the 'Vaseline' affair decades ago) and gone on with the tour....

http://blogs.cricinfo.com/meninwhite/archives/2008/01/shock_and_awe_1.php

 

[social]

Mukul Kesavan saying something similar to one of my arguments earlier in the thread.

Left to itself, the Board would have hung Harbhajan up to dry (as it had sacrificed Bishan Bedi over the 'Vaseline' affair decades ago) and gone on with the tour....

http://blogs.cricinfo.com/meninwhite/archives/2008/01/shock_and_awe_1.php

I agree with his sentiments on the BCCI but it's hard to take an article seriously when it makes the following statement

"No. On the evidence of the third and fourth Tests, it feels more like the dawn of a new age of civility on the ground and a possible end to sledging."

Obviously didnt see Karthik's spitting, Dhoni's mindless appealing or Ganguly's standing his ground when clearly caught

Unfortunately, I feel relations between the 2 sides have a long way to go before a new dawn is declared

Australians will feel that they have been shafted and it could get much uglier

 

[silentstriker]

I agree with his sentiments on the BCCI but it's hard to take an article seriously when it makes the following statement

"No. On the evidence of the third and fourth Tests, it feels more like the dawn of a new age of civility on the ground and a possible end to sledging."

Obviously didnt see Karthik's spitting, Dhoni's mindless appealing or Ganguly's standing his ground when clearly caught

Unfortunately, I feel relations between the 2 sides have a long way to go before a new dawn is declared

Australians will feel that they have been shafted and it could get much uglier

Third and fourth Tests were fine in terms of civility on both sides. Re: appealing, both sides had some crazy appeals.

 

[ColdSnow]

Look at this exchange between Afridi and Gambhir. It was MUCH MUCH more offensive than any "monkey" insult. It had things about mothers, sisters, pimping, etc. And al caught on the mic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SQ9TRuLwU4

 

[jeevan]

I agree with his sentiments on the BCCI but it's hard to take an article seriously when it makes the following statement

"No. On the evidence of the third and fourth Tests, it feels more like the dawn of a new age of civility on the ground and a possible end to sledging."

Obviously didnt see Karthik's spitting, Dhoni's mindless appealing or Ganguly's standing his ground when clearly caught

Unfortunately, I feel relations between the 2 sides have a long way to go before a new dawn is declared

Australians will feel that they have been shafted and it could get much uglier

Fourth test: Harbhajan bumping into Stuart Clark while running between wickets. Immediately apologizing as an accident. Indian team applauding Gilchirst on way in and out on his last innings and at the end of the test. Lee patting Tendulkar on his fine knock.

Except for those who want acerbity and sledging to continue, the glass is most definitely half full.