Symonds sent home

[social]

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

TBH, Hansen came across as someone who had absolutely no clue about what takes place on a test cricket field

Player A swears at Player B - Oooooh, shock horror

The fact is that it happens in more sports than it doesnt

 

[Sanz]

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 ofcourse you will consider anything and everything but the video evidence and the only time the word 'monkey' is uttered in that video is by an Aussie Player.

 

[Sanz]

TBH, Hansen came across as someone who had absolutely no clue about what takes place on a test cricket field

So now you are attacking Hansen ? Why should it matter if he has any clue about cricket or not ?

 

[Precambrian]

TBH, Hansen came across as someone who had absolutely no clue about what takes place on a test cricket field

Player A swears at Player B - Oooooh, shock horror

The fact is that it happens in more sports than it doesnt

I hope you won't say next "Hansen was appointed by BCCI".

My god, you take one-eyed-ness to Everestian levels! Ignore your comments from now on. It has passed the level of amusement to plain tiring and hurting the brain cells that reason.

 

[four_or_six]

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.

Well said.

 

[four_or_six]

Even if the bowler himself was okay with it ?

Well... if that's what Brett Lee likes, who am I to argue?

 

[social]

So now you are attacking Hansen ? Why should it matter if he has any clue about cricket or not ?

Pretty simple - he made comments concerning what constitutes sportsmanship ON A CRICKET FIELD.

 

[Precambrian]

This whole talk of "Should never look eye-in-eye of opponent while on the cricket field" is pure bollocks imho. You can be superbly competitive without being anywhere like that.
eg - Tendulkar, Muthia Muralitharan (that smile), Courney Walsh - all sportsmen who never resorted to verbal duels but still emerged as the best in the business.

 

[social]

I hope you won't say next "Hansen was appointed by BCCI".

My god, you take one-eyed-ness to Everestian levels! Ignore your comments from now on. It has passed the level of amusement to plain tiring and hurting the brain cells that reason.

What exactly is one-eyed about it?

Have I said I disagreed with the judgement? No

Based on his interpretation of the law and the facts that he had at his disposal (although later proven to be incomplete), he was correct.

However, in my opinion, he should have refrained from commenting that Symonds' behaviour was "boorish" and "unsportsmanlike" because the reality is that whilst it may be to certain spectators, it may not be to the participants

 

[Top_Cat]

However, in my opinion, he should have refrained from commenting that Symonds' behaviour was "boorish" and "unsportsmanlike" because the reality is that whilst it may be to certain spectators, it may not be to the participants

Yeah agree with this. The whole incident was tame compared to what is said virtually every weekend in 1st grade games. Doesn't make it right or sportsmanlike but it's reality. Could have done with Justice Hansen's value judgement.

 

[pup11]

Well... if that's what Brett Lee likes, who am I to argue?

 

[Sanz]

Pretty simple - he made comments concerning what constitutes sportsmanship ON A CRICKET FIELD.

That is his opinion on Symonds statement ("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."). You can certainly agree/disagree with it but how does that cast any doubt over his judgement on the issue esp looking at the evidence he had at hand ?

And according to me, If he felt so strongly about Symonds' statement, then I must say, the man knows his cricket, IMO ofcourse.

 

[Sanz]

However, in my opinion, he should have refrained from commenting that Symonds' behaviour was "boorish" and "unsportsmanlike" because the reality is that whilst it may be to certain spectators, it may not be to the participants

And what did he say to that upsets you so much ?

 

[shankar]

Oh for goodness sake, read the judgement;

http://icc-cricket.yahoo.com/media-release/2008/january/media-release20080130-59.html

[48] As I say the standard to be applied by me is a high one I have to be sure that
the words were said. That they were probably said is insufficient. I have not been
persuaded to the necessary level required that the words were said. I am left with an
honest uncertainty as to whether or not they were said given the possibility of
misunderstanding through different languages, accents and cultures, and the fact that
none of the Australian players appeared to hear any other words said by Mr Singh. It
is quite apparent on any view of the evidence that more than the alleged words were
said in the course of the exchange.

The clearest message from the whole judgement is that the charge fails only because no-one could be sure what Harbhajan said, not that there was no racial abuse involved.

People on both sides on this matter constantly miss the crucial part of the judgement:

[53] In my view it is therefore necessary to determine under 3.3 whether the
“ordinary person” would be “offended, insulted, humiliated, intimidated, threatened,
disparaged or vilified” on the basis of “their race, religion, gender, colour, descent,
or national or ethnic origin” by the words that were said.

[54] Furthermore, the behaviour must be looked at in context. Such events are
always contextual and the language or gestures referred to in 3.3 cannot be looked at
in isolation and need to be considered in the context of the overall behaviour.

[55] I have set out above the agreed statement of facts. There it was accepted by
Mr Singh that he intended to be offensive towards Mr Symonds and Messrs Symonds, Hayden and Clarke were of the view that in the circumstances that
language was offensive.

[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.

The judge considered if 'an “ordinary person” would be offended, insulted etc... on the basis of their race, religion,etc.. if Harbhajan had in fact used the word as alleged. So the insufficient evidence didn't matter at all. Even with conclusive evidence of Harbhajan using the word he wouldn't have transgressed 3.3 according to Hansen.

 

[social]

People on both sides on this matter constantly miss the crucial part of the judgement:

The judge considered if 'an “ordinary person” would be offended, insulted etc... on the basis of their race, religion,etc.. if Harbhajan had in fact used the word as alleged. So the insufficient evidence didn't matter at all. Even with conclusive evidence of Harbhajan using the word he wouldn't have transgressed 3.3 according to Hansen.

Then the guy is ignorant in the extreme

The term "monkey" is almost universally regarded in the western world as a racial slur

For example

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1709912,00.html

 

[Top_Cat]

The judge considered if 'an “ordinary person” would be offended, insulted etc... on the basis of their race, religion,etc.. if Harbhajan had in fact used the word as alleged. So the insufficient evidence didn't matter at all. Even with conclusive evidence of Harbhajan using the word he wouldn't have transgressed 3.3 according to Hansen.

Well Symonds may have said he wasn't ultra offended by it but the word when aimed at a black person, in most countries, fails the ordinary person test. I definitely saw that and can't believe Hansen went that way.

A judge out of touch with the modern world; such a shock.

 

[Burgey]

Ah, so i see, now you are questioning the integrity of the judge himself. BCCI didn't appoint him for sure.

Apart from that, there was no doubt that as honestbharani said, it was Symonds who started the fiasco with an unprovoked and unsavoury remark, to which to his infinite ill judgement, Bhajji responded with a terrible verbal abuse.

I believe that both of them should've got hefty punishment. I do know Bhajji didn't say anything racist, but whatever he said did deserve harsh stuff.

Don't disagree with anything you've said, except I haven't questioned the judge's integrity, just it's a weird way to go about it - you have an agreement to downgrade something and then have a full blown hearing into it anyway.

Made for good press though .

 

[Burgey]

Can confirm that - bumped into Sachin at Adelaide Arcade immediately afterwards and he was wearing an Indian team shirt.

And yes, I only brought this up so I can say I talked to Sachin.

Don't trip over that name you just dropped there mate

 

[Top_Cat]

Don't disagree with anything you've said, except I haven't questioned the judge's integrity, just it's a weird way to go about it - you have an agreement to downgrade something and then have a full blown hearing into it anyway.

Made for good press though .

Yeah exactly, that was a weird aspect of it too. Must have cost CA a heap of dosh too.

Don't trip over that name you just dropped there mate

Don't act like you wouldn't have done the same.

Sachin looked he was in a really, really good mood actually, was bouncing around like a little kid. No-one approached him at all which I'm sure he was pretty happy about. Then as he passed the coffee place I was at, the bloke behind the counter nabbed him and asked for an autograph (heaps of celebrity signatures on plates at this place). I was neaby and joined in the convo. Nice guy.

 

[Burgey]

Ha ha. Would've done exactly the same I reckon.