So is India safe to tour or is it just a media beat-up?

[Sir Alex]

Not knocking Sachin personally, if he wants to do that, power to him I guess. But I think its fair to ask whether its a "good example" or not for others to follow.

Agree with Matt. The assessment of the situation is best left to each one, rather than dictating on the basis of stance adopted by others.

Although i'd toe the Sachin line had I been one of them. I believe in not bowing down to terrorists agendas. What would be the other option? Insist on a convoy to my team hotel and be exposed to attacks much the same? Or staying in the stadium not playing which is about the same risk as staying and playing?

 

[Matt79]

there was a silent on my previous post btw

 

[Matt79]

I guess for me, the concern in staying at the venue, and encouraging the crowd to stay at the venue, and I'm putting this on the authorities and the tournament officials, not the players by the way, the concern is that you by then know that three bombs had been placed in/near the venue, only one of which you had found before it was detonated. Before I invited thousands of people to remain there to watch a game of cricket, I'd want to be absolutely certain there weren't more bombs waiting to be discovered/exploded. I'm no expert, but it would seem surprising that you could be that certain within an hour or two.

I'm honestly much less concerned by the threat to the cricketers - Australian, Indian, South African whatever - and more concerned about the thousands of people in the crowd. The cricketers, as you say, have convoys and on ground security. Mass crowds are too easy a target.

 

[Burgey]

Agree with Matt. The assessment of the situation is best left to each one, rather than dictating on the basis of stance adopted by others.

Although i'd toe the Sachin line had I been one of them. I believe in not bowing down to terrorists agendas. What would be the other option? Insist on a convoy to my team hotel and be exposed to attacks much the same? Or staying in the stadium not playing which is about the same risk as staying and playing?

Well, spank my arse and call me Charlie... Just knocked me over with a feather

Yeah, has to be an individual choice you'd think. You could just sit tight in the shed til the place had been swept thoroughly, or if they cancel the game ask for a helicopter to lift you out, like they did in Pakistan after the attacks on the SL team. Or you could play if you wanted to.

Personally, I wouldn't, others would. But it's rank idiocy for anyone sitting at a computer to bag someone in that position for choosing not to do so. The same thing happened before the SL team was attacked - lots of jokes around about how stupid and cowardly the players were for raising security concerns, how they'd never be targeted etc.

Oops.

 

[honestbharani]

Well, spank my arse and call me Charlie... Just knocked me over with a feather

Yeah, has to be an individual choice you'd think. You could just sit tight in the shed til the place had been swept thoroughly, or if they cancel the game ask for a helicopter to lift you out, like they did in Pakistan after the attacks on the SL team. Or you could play if you wanted to.

Personally, I wouldn't, others would. But it's rank idiocy for anyone sitting at a computer to bag someone in that position for choosing not to do so. The same thing happened before the SL team was attacked - lots of jokes around about how stupid and cowardly the players were for raising security concerns, how they'd never be targeted etc.

Oops.

As Matt said, the worry is that the police could not find it out inspite of so much security being out there.. You seriously wonder if there were some "insiders" involved. As they have said, its not about the cricketers alone... That 40K plus crowd, imagine their plight!!!


And I speak as one who lives as close to an international cricket stadium as anyone here..

 

[Matt79]

I don't think they need insiders. You look at the resources the UK and US have on counter-terrorism, and attacks have still happened there. You look at the challenge facing security forces in India and the resources they have, and with the best will and efforts in the world, they're on a hiding to nothing.

 

[four_or_six]

The point, surely, is that it shouldn't be up to the players to decide if the match goes ahead. It should be up to the police and/or security forces. How are the players meant to know if it's safe or not?

 

[honestbharani]

The point, surely, is that it shouldn't be up to the players to decide if the match goes ahead. It should be up to the police and/or security forces. How are the players meant to know if it's safe or not?

because people do get scared and worried... That is the whole point of this discussion. I mean, there maybe a guy who gets scared of people getting mugged and decide not to come and play in my area because of that... I may scorn at him and call him names, coz its no big deal to me as I am used to it but at the end of the day, you really should not be FORCNG anyone to play against their will...

 

[four_or_six]

because people do get scared and worried... That is the whole point of this discussion. I mean, there maybe a guy who gets scared of people getting mugged and decide not to come and play in my area because of that... I may scorn at him and call him names, coz its no big deal to me as I am used to it but at the end of the day, you really should not be FORCNG anyone to play against their will...

Oh right, yeah, I understand that. It's just that the article I read in the paper yesterday said that the IPL organisers had told the players it was up to them to decide if the match went ahead by having a vote on it. Which seems a bit wrong, I would have thought that is a bit too much pressure to put on the players, doing it that way. The police should say 'yes the match is definitely going ahead' and then if necessary, players should be allowed to pull out.

 

[honestbharani]

Oh right, yeah, I understand that. It's just that the article I read in the paper yesterday said that the IPL organisers had told the players it was up to them to decide if the match went ahead by having a vote on it. Which seems a bit wrong, I would have thought that is a bit too much pressure to put on the players, doing it that way. The police should say 'yes the match is definitely going ahead' and then if necessary, players should be allowed to pull out.

I think "voting" was wrong too.. I mean, if KP really wanted, he should have pulled out and gone home and while he may get scorned, you just gotta accept that is part and parcel of being a celebrity... It is an individual decision and must be left at that. At the same time, people do get a little "holier than thou" in reacting to criticisms against players who leave like that. Flaws on both sets, tbh..

 

[Burgey]

I think "voting" was wrong too.. I mean, if KP really wanted, he should have pulled out and gone home and while he may get scorned, you just gotta accept that is part and parcel of being a celebrity... It is an individual decision and must be left at that. At the same time, people do get a little "holier than thou" in reacting to criticisms against players who leave like that. Flaws on both sets, tbh..

This. 100%.

 

[Top_Cat]

Personally, I wouldn't, others would. But it's rank idiocy for anyone sitting at a computer to bag someone in that position for choosing not to do so. The same thing happened before the SL team was attacked - lots of jokes around about how stupid and cowardly the players were for raising security concerns, how they'd never be targeted etc.

Oops.

The most worrying part of this current problems and terrorism in the past couple of years is that the attacks seem so damn random. From most accounts, it's not idealogues they're dealing with now, just plain old organised crooks in gangs. They may have some loose affiliation with terrorist groups (cash onl,y I reckon) and who knows, maybe some of their number believe it's all just part of a good old fashion holy war but, from my perspective, there's a distinct lack of any real political/idealogical gain with the most recent attacks. Makes them exponentially tougher to target, tbh.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't understand the concept of 'forced'. What does that mean - how can they have been forced to stay?

 

[Top_Cat]

Short of armed guards with chloroform, threats/coercion count as 'forced'.

 

[Sir Alex]

Well, spank my arse and call me Charlie... Just knocked me over with a feather

Yeah, has to be an individual choice you'd think. You could just sit tight in the shed til the place had been swept thoroughly, or if they cancel the game ask for a helicopter to lift you out, like they did in Pakistan after the attacks on the SL team. Or you could play if you wanted to.

Personally, I wouldn't, others would. But it's rank idiocy for anyone sitting at a computer to bag someone in that position for choosing not to do so. The same thing happened before the SL team was attacked - lots of jokes around about how stupid and cowardly the players were for raising security concerns, how they'd never be targeted etc.

Oops.

Lol,

Yeah, but where exactly does this all stop? Where does one get the assurance that it's perfectly safe to conduct cricket? Particularly in a terror affected country like india where cricket is that such a huge thing and hence AS big a target, given the scarcity of counter and preventive measures (due to the huge population and area).

I think those willing to play in the IPL should be following the air travel policy. You know there is that a danger of you not touchin down feetfirst, that pilots and staff will take all effort to assure safe travel, still things can go wrong. Terrorism has controllable and uncontrollable angles. Particularly when indian born and bred guys, who are brainwashed into such things by idealogues do that, it's impossible to have 100 per cent security assurance for such stuff.

It basically comes down to choosing between the huge paypacket and the associated risk.

It's unreal how mildly the issue is reported in papers here. Perhaps not so considering how the massacre of 70 odd policemen by maoist guerillas got coverage. Dire.

 

[Craig]

Obviously India loves their cricket, and as such a guy like Lee or Kallis stands out from the average punter like me, would you consider India to be a safe place to travel through as a normal person (or parts you would stay away from), seeing as though I'm not a target so to speak, as opposed to an international cricketer?

 

[Jono]

I reckon Lee would be safer in India than you Craigos. Even the terrorists would love Binga

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Makes you wonder about the Commonwealth Games later in the year.I doubt the likes of Usain Bolt will bother with it if they think there is a security risk in going to India.

 

[silentstriker]

Short of armed guards with chloroform, threats/coercion count as 'forced'.

Threat of what?

 

[Matt79]

Presumably threats of dismissal from a lucrative contract. Generally most people would consider that a serious threat, if obviously not the same thing as a physical threat. Still an unsubstantiated incident(s) re the Bangalore game, but Modi has made that threat re future tournaments.

That's why in most economies there are workplace safety rules to protect people from dismissal if they refuse to work in a dangerous environment. People should have the right to baulk at doing something unsafe that their boss demands, bar some exceptional roles such as the military etc. And even they have strict procedures etc.