Bhajji 'slaps' Sreesanth, leaves him cryin

[Top_Cat]

As regards the Ranatunga incident, let's not forget that stringent penalties were attempted to be imposed, but the Match-Referee (whether anti-Asina biased or not - probably the latter) was forced to back down by Ranatunga's lawyers. TBH, I was glad, as I thought Ranatunga acted against Emerson for the best, but there's no doubt the legal and cricket interface is often an uneasy one.

And Mike Procter is a poor Match-Referee and it astonishes me that he's still on the panel there. His announced policy on the exchange of words between players is prejudiced. Allied to his obviously poor ruling in the Symonds-Harbhajan case.

Incompetent != biased. Honestly, I can barely think of a match referee who is thought of well universally or even by the majority of countries. And when those who holler the loudest are those who happened to have been hard done-by, it reeks of sour grapes. It's a tough job because when you make a right call (such as in taking no action), no-one notices but if you make a poor call through mistake or getting out of the bed on the wrong side that morning, you're biased.

 

[Craig]

Why not get rid of the both of them?

 

[honestbharani]

Incompetent != biased. Honestly, I can barely think of a match referee who is thought of well universally or even by the majority of countries. And when those who holler the loudest are those who happened to have been hard done-by, it reeks of sour grapes. It's a tough job because when you make a right call (such as in taking no action), no-one notices but if you make a poor call through mistake or getting out of the bed on the wrong side that morning, you're biased.

I think the 3 that I mentioned were extremely incompetent and quite possibly biased. I have watched other matches that these guys have referee'd and for me, it looked like they were biased. You are free to hold your opinion based on your judgement and honestly I am not gonna contest that and insist that these guys were indeed biased over here... This is obviously a matter of perception and for me, those 3 seemed to be biased. Or to put it better, I feel there is reasonable grounds to suspect that they were slightly biased. To reitrate, I feel that a number of Aussies and probably South Africans and New Zealanders and English players generally know the boundaries in terms of behaviour very well and stay within the line even while playing in an aggressive manner. But I also think that for a good part of the 90s and to a pretty reduced extent in the 2000s, most of these guys got away with pretty light to no punishment for a number of minor offences when for similar offences, some of the other guys had to pay harsher prices.

 

[Dasa]

Whether you want to deny it or not, there's not doubt a lot of people hold people of different descent to different standards. When an Aussies sledges or acts in a manner that can be classified as dissent, it's not seen as anything out of the ordinary. When an Indian does the same thing, it's seen as unusual and is more likely to be punished. People have these subconscious biases as to appropriate behaviour, and I think many of those who have been involved in the ICC (including Match Referees and Umpires) are of this ilk.

 

[honestbharani]

Whether you want to deny it or not, there's not doubt a lot of people hold people of different descent to different standards. When an Aussies sledges or acts in a manner that can be classified as dissent, it's not seen as anything out of the ordinary. When an Indian does the same thing, it's seen as unusual and is more likely to be punished. People have these subconscious biases as to appropriate behaviour, and I think many of those who have been involved in the ICC (including Match Referees and Umpires) are of this ilk.

Exactly. This doesn't mean the ICC itself is biased or that even those guys are biased consciously. But it has been pretty obvious that at least with the minor offences, some guys were treated differently to others, mainly based on where they come from.

 

[Richard]

Incompetent != biased. Honestly, I can barely think of a match referee who is thought of well universally or even by the majority of countries. And when those who holler the loudest are those who happened to have been hard done-by, it reeks of sour grapes. It's a tough job because when you make a right call (such as in taking no action), no-one notices but if you make a poor call through mistake or getting out of the bed on the wrong side that morning, you're biased.

That's not what I mean. Procter has specifically said "people from New Zealand, South Africa and Australia generally play the game harder so this must be taken account of when incidents involving word-exchange are under consideration" or something very close to that. Which, frankly, is the biggest load of nonsense I've ever heard someone in an official position come-out with, and I'm amazed he wasn't taken off the Referee list immediately.

And no, there aren't a particularly large number of Referees who are thought of highly by the whole international cricket community - Madugalle is the only one who immediately comes to mind.

But none of them, even Chris Broad, who isn't exactly popular either, have said things as stupid as Procter has.

The Symonds-Harbhajan affair was more an example of incompetence - his findings wouldn't have stood-up for a second legally, hence the judicial fellow who was brought in afterwards finding differently from Procter. But the thing about "players from some teams must be treated differently" is totally different.

 

[silentstriker]

Incompetent != biased. Honestly, I can barely think of a match referee who is thought of well universally or even by the majority of countries. And when those who holler the loudest are those who happened to have been hard done-by, it reeks of sour grapes. It's a tough job because when you make a right call (such as in taking no action), no-one notices but if you make a poor call through mistake or getting out of the bed on the wrong side that morning, you're biased.

I'm not going to opine here, but have you ever looked into the reports he writes and the rationale he gives for his decisions?

 

[shankar]

Yeah, you get the feeling that the BCCI have really backed the wrong horses with Sree and Hanbi in the past by lionising them in the press. Coming home to roost now, they really look a bit foolish as it's being acknowledged that this has been a long time coming for both players.

Don't know when BCCI 'lionised' Sreesanth in the press. And while they are at fault for not dealing with Harbhajan's behaviour earlier, they were vindicated in their stand to defend him against the racism charge by the judgement delivered.

 

[R_D]

while we are at it.. number of times Warne bullied the umpire and got away with pretty much everytime was quite extra-ordinary. Any other player would've goten booked for deccent but he got off nearly every time.
Just watch Warne's appeals throughout his career.
I agree with HB that players from Aus, Eng, SA and NZ have goten away with some of these minor things while players from sub-cont have often been called upto to match refree's office.

 

[Sanz]

I hope it doesn't become a subcontinent Vs. non-subcontinent argument again.

 

[Sanz]

Don't know when BCCI 'lionised' Sreesanth in the press. And while they are at fault for not dealing with Harbhajan's behaviour earlier, they were vindicated in their stand to defend him against the racism charge by the judgement delivered.

They may have been vindicated and all that. I guess that's not the point here. The point was Harbhajan was involved in a verbal abuse, which may not have been racial in nature but almost equally insulting.

Harbhajan was treated somewhat like a national Hero for standing upto the evil Aussie. Agree ICC fined him and all that but the BCCI didn't even consider speaking to him, counselling him. This must have encouraged Harbhajan and boosted his ego in thinking that he can get away with anything he does on the field.

 

[shankar]

They may have been vindicated and all that. I guess that's not the point here. The point was Harbhajan was involved in a verbal abuse, which may not have been racial in nature but almost equally insulting.

Harbhajan was treated somewhat like a national Hero for standing upto the evil Aussie. Agree ICC fined him and all that but the BCCI didn't even consider speaking to him, counselling him. This must have encouraged Harbhajan and boosted his ego in thinking that he can get away with anything he does on the field.

Did you miss the part about '..at fault for not dealing with his behaviour...' ?

 

[Richard]

I agree with HB that players from Aus, Eng, SA and NZ have goten away with some of these minor things while players from sub-cont have often been called upto to match refree's office.

By some Match-Referees, yes. But certainly not all.

 

[Burgey]

Whether you want to deny it or not, there's not doubt a lot of people hold people of different descent to different standards. When an Aussies sledges or acts in a manner that can be classified as dissent, it's not seen as anything out of the ordinary. When an Indian does the same thing, it's seen as unusual and is more likely to be punished. People have these subconscious biases as to appropriate behaviour, and I think many of those who have been involved in the ICC (including Match Referees and Umpires) are of this ilk.

Very good point imo. Likewise, one often sees in sport a situation where a young, less established player is either formally or informally chastised by fellow players or officials for conduct which more senior and established players get away with.

Certainly Procter's proclamation about certain nationalities playing the game a certain way was ill informed and, I would have thought, worthy of significant sanction. However, I blame him less for his findings on the HBS/ Symonds thing principally because he was asked to make a finding to a legal standard (beyond reasonable doubt) when he doesn't have legal training (to the best of my knowledge anyway).

 

[Burgey]

Don't know when BCCI 'lionised' Sreesanth in the press. And while they are at fault for not dealing with Harbhajan's behaviour earlier, they were vindicated in their stand to defend him against the racism charge by the judgement delivered.

Don't forget the racism charge was withdrawn before the appeal (rightly so, imo).

 

[shankar]

Don't forget the racism charge was withdrawn before the appeal (rightly so, imo).

Yes. But Hansen still gave his judgement on that aspect:

3.3 is the racist gestures clause..

[56] In the course of submissions I raised directly with counsel for Cricket Australia Mr Ward what was the level of offence that Mr Symonds took from what was said to him. He confirmed that Mr Symonds took the language to be offensive and seriously insulting but did not consider it fell under the requirements 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.

[58] So on that alternative basis I would also have been satisfied that the requirements of 3.3 were not met. So as to summarise that ground. Firstly, Mr Symonds through counsel accepts he was not offended in a 3.3 sense. Secondly on an objective basis I do not consider the response transgressed against 3.3.

 

[Top_Cat]

Speaking of media bias;

http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/...-for-daredevils/2008/05/01/1209234997888.html

How DARE they call McGrath a 'fast' bowler!

 

[NZTailender]

So, for someone who can't be bothered to read articles, what did Sreesanth do to provoke violence from Singh?

 

[Flem274*]

So, for someone who can't be bothered to read articles, what did Sreesanth do to provoke violence from Singh?

Sreesanth doesn't have to do anything really, except be himself.

Tbh I don't know either, though whatever he did I would bet didn't warrant a slap.

 

[sirdj]

Are you 10 years old? ppl cry, men, women, everyone

sometimes for the strangest reasons too.. get used to it, it's part of life and it doesn't make you any less a man....or woman for that matter

I was talking about crying in public like that. No-one said it is not part of life. Just said that you look stupid crying after someone has hit you when you have been shouting abuses the whole evening.