Symonds sent home

[Precambrian]

Excerpts from the Hansen judgement.

[7] It is apparent that while there was acceptance that the exchange between the
appellant and Mr Symonds was initiated by Mr Symonds

[12] It is apparent that the heated exchange arose because Mr Symonds took
exception to the appellant patting the bowler Mr Lee on the backside. I have
reviewed the television evidence of what occurred. It is clear that Mr Lee bowled an
excellent yorker to Mr Singh who was fortunate to play the ball to fine leg. As he
passed Mr Lee while completing a single Mr Singh patted Mr Lee on the backside.
Anyone observing this incident would take it to be a clear acknowledgement of “well
bowled”.

MR SYMONDS: Did I have an objection to it – my objection was that a test match is
no place to be friendly with an opposition player, is my objection.”

No wonder Cricket Australia now recommends him for counselling, Judge Hansen had recommended then itself, that "it would be a sad day for cricket if everyone was like Symonds".

 

[four_or_six]

But if no one could be sure what was said and (according to judge Hansen) none of the Aussie players appeared to hear anything (as opposed to their claim in the stump mic recording), doesn't it mean that Harbhajan was innocent ?

The Primary accusers didn't hear anything, according to the Judge, so how can we say that there was any racial abuse ?

It says they didn't hear any other words, not that they didn't hear monkey. And surely that's the point relevant to the question of the current issue, the state of mind of Symonds. If Symonds still believes he did hear the word 'monkey' then he may well feel aggrieved towards CA.

 

[four_or_six]

Anyone observing this incident would take it to be a clear acknowledgement of “well bowled”.

Hmmm... if I saw an opposition batsman patting an opposition bowler on the backside, I would hardly take it to be "well bowled".

 

[Precambrian]

Hmmm... if I saw an opposition batsman patting an opposition bowler on the backside, I would hardly take it to be "well bowled".

There is a difference, in your case, you misunderstood the gesture, but here Symonds understood it was a friendly gesture, and despite that launched a tirade at Bhajji.

 

[four_or_six]

There is a difference, in your case, you misunderstood the gesture, but here Symonds understood it was a friendly gesture, and despite that launched a tirade at Bhajji.

I'm totally not defending Symonds, I think his behaviour on the pitch is pretty boorish, along with one or two others of the Australian side at times.

 

[honestbharani]

You think they'd risk their reputations and credibility going after Harbhajan for something which was ultimately unproveable? I don't know (obviously) but geez, I find it unlikely. Surely, they wouldn't be that stupid.



Yeah, on the field, mate.

Yes, on the field only.


I think you are misunderstanding me here..


I am not saying they planned a huge conspiracy to make sure Harbhajan said something racist and got fined...


They simply were perhaps trying to get on his nerves and provoke him into doing something he wouldn't want to do.. Maybe they just wanted him to get angry and start bowling differently, which would benefit them...


They have targeted players of the opposition in the past (in fact, so have other teams, including India) and perhaps they had chosen Harbhajan as one of those they were going to have a go at, every now and then.. They perhaps saw him as hot-headed and impetuous and perhaps more likely to do something stupid (not just saying stuff, even bowling badly or letting a catch go, stuff like that) when provoked than others..


It would explain Symonds having a go at him needlessly.. Perhaps that was their plan but when Harbhajan said whatever he did (monkey or maa-ki), they thought he had crossed the line and went ahead and charged him..


But once the matter came to an actual judge rather than just the match referee, they must have known that proving that Harbhajan did use the word "monkey" would be a very difficult task. Also, the fact that Symonds went after Bhajji when nothing really happened and provocated him would not go unnoticed must have also been taken into consideration. Add to it the bullying of CA by the Indian Board and the threat to walk out of the tour... Hence, their dropping of the charges and the stupid statement of Clarke that he heard everything Bhajji said but nothing that Symonds said..


I just find it hard to believe that the bullying of CA by the BCCI alone would have made players like Hayden, Ponting, Clarke and Symonds withdraw the charges...

 

[honestbharani]

It says they didn't hear any other words, not that they didn't hear monkey. And surely that's the point relevant to the question of the current issue, the state of mind of Symonds. If Symonds still believes he did hear the word 'monkey' then he may well feel aggrieved towards CA.

He would be and perhaps, that would explain his apparent boorish behaviour even towards his own team mates...


Maybe he felt let down that Clarke, Ponting etc. toed the CA line rather than supporting him..


But then again, from Clarke or Ponting's PoV, they may well feel that the only reason they backed down the charges was because it would have otherwise ended up with some fine/ban for Symonds himself and so, maybe they are just fed up with him still feeling resentment about that issue.



Speculation, obviously, but it is still a possibility.....



Man, I wish I were writing for one of the dailies in Australia... I could sell this off as the truth and make some decent money...

 

[Uppercut]

Yes, on the field only.


I think you are misunderstanding me here..


I am not saying they planned a huge conspiracy to make sure Harbhajan said something racist and got fined...


They simply were perhaps trying to get on his nerves and provoke him into doing something he wouldn't want to do.. Maybe they just wanted him to get angry and start bowling differently, which would benefit them...


They have targeted players of the opposition in the past (in fact, so have other teams, including India) and perhaps they had chosen Harbhajan as one of those they were going to have a go at, every now and then.. They perhaps saw him as hot-headed and impetuous and perhaps more likely to do something stupid (not just saying stuff, even bowling badly or letting a catch go, stuff like that) when provoked than others..


It would explain Symonds having a go at him needlessly.. Perhaps that was their plan but when Harbhajan said whatever he did (monkey or maa-ki), they thought he had crossed the line and went ahead and charged him..


But once the matter came to an actual judge rather than just the match referee, they must have known that proving that Harbhajan did use the word "monkey" would be a very difficult task. Also, the fact that Symonds went after Bhajji when nothing really happened and provocated him would not go unnoticed must have also been taken into consideration. Add to it the bullying of CA by the Indian Board and the threat to walk out of the tour... Hence, their dropping of the charges and the stupid statement of Clarke that he heard everything Bhajji said but nothing that Symonds said..


I just find it hard to believe that the bullying of CA by the BCCI alone would have made players like Hayden, Ponting, Clarke and Symonds withdraw the charges...

Well, they have no obligation to be nice to the other team. There's a line, and the Australian team sometimes push it, but if Harbhajan did call Symonds a monkey then that's a long way over it.

 

[Precambrian]

Well, they have no obligation to be nice to the other team. There's a line, and the Australian team sometimes push it, but if Harbhajan did call Symonds a monkey then that's a long way over it.

Nope, he didn't. (Tendulkar said he didn't)

 

[Uppercut]

Nope, he didn't. (Tendulkar said he didn't)

I think he probably did, it's just hard to prove. How can Tendulkar say categorically that he didn't anyway? He could've done it while Tendulkar was elsewhere.

 

[Precambrian]

I think he probably did, it's just hard to prove. How can Tendulkar say categorically that he didn't anyway? He could've done it while Tendulkar was elsewhere.

No, the point at which Symonds accuses Harby said it, Tendulkar was the closest witness.

And as you said it is hard to prove he said it, rather than he didn't say it. Because, simply he didn't say it.

Heck, Even the victim isn't sure Harby said Monkey, and the closest witness categorically said it was "Teri Maaki". The case is clear cut in favor of Harby

 

[Salamuddin]

Well, they have no obligation to be nice to the other team. There's a line, and the Australian team sometimes push it, but if Harbhajan did call Symonds a monkey then that's a long way over it.

You see I have a problem with that. I think the definition of said line is extremely blurry.
Who's to say that making vulgar comments about a player or his family is less offensive than a racist comment ?

Cricket is game played by players of different backgrounds. What one person may find ok may be extremely offensive to others.

Its quite possible Harbhajan used the alleged racial slur. However its also quite feasible that the AUstralians said something pretty nasty to him in turn as he in fact alleged in India in 2007.
If the racism is unacceptable to the AUssies, then surely their behaviour in targeting him is just as inexcusable.

 

[social]

No, the point at which Symonds accuses Harby said it, Tendulkar was the closest witness.

And as you said it is hard to prove he said it, rather than he didn't say it. Because, simply he didn't say it.

Heck, Even the victim isn't sure Harby said Monkey, and the closest witness categorically said it was "Teri Maaki". The case is clear cut in favor of Harby

Considering Harby changed his story during the process (first excuse was that he didnt say anything, second was that whatever he said was friendly before finally settling on an indian expression that by pure coincidence sounded like the word he was accused of using) there must be considerable doubt over his testimony

 

[Precambrian]

You see I have a problem with that. I think the definition of said line is extremely blurry.
Who's to say that making vulgar comments about a player or his family is less offensive than a racist comment ?

Cricket is game played by players of different backgrounds. What one person may find ok may be extremely offensive to others.

Its quite possible Harbhajan used the alleged racial slur. However its also quite feasible that the AUstralians said something pretty nasty to him in turn as he in fact alleged in India in 2007.
If the racism is unacceptable to the AUssies, then surely their behaviour in targeting him is just as inexcusable.

AWTA. Exactly why I endorse BCCI's proposed move to ban all sort of sledging on field, including all monkeyisms (calling someone monkey in India is not racist, as we have even a monkey god - again not anyway meaning Harby might have called that or justifying that) of Sreesanth.

 

[four_or_six]

AWTA. Exactly why I endorse BCCI's proposed move to ban all sort of sledging on field, including all monkeyisms (calling someone monkey in India is not racist, as we have even a monkey god - again not anyway meaning Harby might have called that or justifying that) of Sreesanth.

I hope not... so dull! I can't imagine the Ashes without sledging - although perhaps if both countries agreed we could have an exception?

 

[Salamuddin]

Considering Harby changed his story during the process (first excuse was that he didnt say anything, second was that whatever he said was friendly before finally settling on an indian expression that by pure coincidence sounded like the word he was accused of using) there must be considerable doubt over his testimony

Harbhajan said "he didn't say anything" - what exactly does that mean ? I didn't say anything racist or I didnt say anything at all ....
Too ambiguous to take it prima facie like you are doing especially considering those comments were made to the media and not at the hearing

It Harbhajan had really changed his story between the Proctor hearing and the hansen hearing, surely that would have done him in bigtime.....
Hansen is no fool...if there was such a huge loophole in Bhajji' story , he would have latched onto it.

 

[honestbharani]

Well, they have no obligation to be nice to the other team. There's a line, and the Australian team sometimes push it, but if Harbhajan did call Symonds a monkey then that's a long way over it.

Of course.. where did I deny that?


My point is, if Bhajji did say it, he obviously deserved censure and punishment... But we still don't know if he did.


And the point still stands that, no matter what Bhajji did say, Symonds deserved action simply because he was the one who started it when there was no provocation at all.... The fact that the Indians let it go obviously suggests it was a compromise.


Aussies pull back charges of racism, India don't press charges on Symonds.. Everyone is happy...


Aussies are happy because otherwise they would have had the very tough task of trying to defend Symonds' behaviour.. Indians are happy because they don't have to face the sensitive issue of one of their team guys' uttering a racist insult......


As I keep saying, I just find it hard to believe that those players backed down simply because CA or BCCI made them to...

 

[Precambrian]

Considering Harby changed his story during the process (first excuse was that he didnt say anything, second was that whatever he said was friendly before finally settling on an indian expression that by pure coincidence sounded like the word he was accused of using) there must be considerable doubt over his testimony

And yet, you talk nothing of the fact that it was Andrew Symonds who started the entire thing? Read into the judgement, it was he who received flak from Hansen for "unsportsman" conduct

 

[Sanz]

Hmmm... if I saw an opposition batsman patting an opposition bowler on the backside, I would hardly take it to be "well bowled".

Even if the bowler himself was okay with it ?

 

[pup11]

Why are we going bonkers over an incident that's well and truly history now, no matter how much we argue over this incident, all we would be doing is speculate, in the end we can give both sides involved in this incident the benefit of doubt, saying that the whole row could have been a result of a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of words between Symonds and Harbhajan.