Harbhajan reignites racism storm

[jeevan]

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

That, plus the inconsistency in Clarke's account.

 

[ColdSnow]

Indian friends tell me that they would actually find "teri maaki" much more offensive than "moneky."

It means "your mother's...." Fill in the blank yourself.

Afridi and Gambhir were really over the top compared to this crap.

 

[JBH001]

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

Really? You must have been watching different test matches, or just selectively looking at one team at certain periods of play.

 

[JBH001]

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

In any case, I dont think Kumbles comments at the end of the second test were about the appealing.

 

[howardj]

A precedent has now been set where you can say anything you like so long as it out of range of the stump mikes (hardly a stretch given that they couldnt pick up what Rashid Latif said whilst standing on the popping crease), earshot of the umps and you have an excuse at the ready

Yeah, but aguably, given that it's one of the worst offences on a cricket field, the burden of proof should be commensurately high - as seems to be the case.

 

[howardj]

Seriously, how?

Gave Harby benefit of doubt in India when he could have filed similar complaint

Didnt change his story or attempt to make mileage out of it in media

Took second example through proper channels

Didnt change his story or attempt to make mileage out of it in media

Gave honest answers to questions even though they did not reflect well upon him nor colour test cricket as being anything other than what it is

The only people that can have a problem with that are those that long for the village green

To me, and I don't know Symonds obviously, but for him to come account in the Sunday Mail up here a week later and say that he doesn't mind and doesn't get offended by racist jibes and banter from his friends....and then claim to be 'hurt and humiliated' by what Singh said...I just find him to be very selectively sensitive.

 

[howardj]

Brown Nose Langer - At It Again

"These guys are supposed to be your mates but, when you play against them, they make you feel like you murdered their mother," he said. "It's not that they abuse you, it's that they don't give you a millimetre.

"I tried to have a laugh with Simon last week and he stared holes in me with his eyes. We'd had dinner together on Saturday night, but on the field he gives you nothing. Punter's the same. He gives you nothing, that's why they are all champions.

"They're great blokes but you reckon I want to play against them? No way, it makes me shiver.

My God, does anyone take this man seriously?

 

[Burgey]

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.

I think someone earlier said that Symonds' history with Harbhajan probably had a heapt to do with it, and that's right.
Symonds' reaction was way OTT, the way he got involved initially.

 

[Top_Cat]

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.

Nah, I think it's been said but the 'not on' part of what Symonds seems to be reacting to is that Harbhajan has been nothing but a wanker to the Aussies in the past and perhaps Symonds thought it's a bit late to pretend he and the Aussie team are best mates when they're not. I know we can only go on what Symonds has actually said to be sure but I'm reading between the lines a bit.

In some ways, I can understand that. I can't stand it when people who have a go at me then try to pretend as if nothing happened before. You deal with it, then move on. You don't just move on. Attempts to do that make me think the person who did it hasn't learned their lesson at all. I wouldn't be surprised if Symonds felt Harbhajan's apology back in India wasn't sincere.

Plus Symonds is a QLD'er. They're extremists when it comes to who is a mate and who isn't, dealing with problems, etc.

 

[jeevan]

Indian friends tell me that they would actually find "teri maaki" much more offensive than "moneky."

It means "your mother's...." Fill in the blank yourself.

Afridi and Gambhir were really over the top compared to this crap.

In this context the racial implication of calling Symonds a monkey were well known.

But in every other respect, Indians would take "monkey" over "teri maa ki" very easily,
there are no undertones to monkey and it is a very common term to refer to kids (E.g. in the 1930's there was a kids organization parallel to the Congress during the civil disobedience movement called "vanar sena" - army of monkeys, run by India Gandhi).

Last weekend, I was telling a couple of friends, Indians in the US who do not follow cricket, about this huge controversy. They vaguely knew of Harbhajan, no idea of Symonds and it took explaning on why this was considered a racial slur.

 

[silentstriker]

Nah, I think it's been said but the 'not on' part of what Symonds seems to be reacting to is that Harbhajan has been nothing but a wanker to the Aussies in the past and perhaps Symonds thought it's a bit late to pretend he and the Aussie team are best mates when they're not. I know we can only go on what Symonds has actually said to be sure but I'm reading between the lines a bit.

In some ways, I can understand that. I can't stand it when people who have a go at me then try to pretend as if nothing happened before. You deal with it, then move on. You don't just move on. Attempts to do that make me think the person who did it hasn't learned their lesson at all. I wouldn't be surprised if Symonds felt Harbhajan's apology back in India wasn't sincere.

Plus Symonds is a QLD'er. They're extremists when it comes to who is a mate and who isn't, dealing with problems, etc.

But to be honest, that's stupid. Harbhajan didn't pat Symonds on the back. He patted Lee, a guy who was probably the nicest and most approachable bloke on the Aussie team, apart from Gilchrist. If you're saying that once you have a problem with the Aussies, you can't ever congratulate them - well that's just insane. He wasn't saying they're the best friends - he was acknowledging some good play.

I have a go at a lot of people on the board, but on a separate thread, I try to go back to square one because its a different argument. I don't see why you're advocating that hostilities have to linger and permeate themselves through all parts of cricket. That's not a good way to go.

 

[Top_Cat]

I have a go at a lot of people on the board, but on a separate thread, I try to go back to square one because its a different argument. I don't see why you're advocating that hostilities have to linger and permeate themselves through all parts of cricket. That's not a good way to go.

It's not my personal philosophy to hold grudges and that's not what I'm advocating. Just that if you have a go at me when I think it's unwarranted (when it's warranted is another thing entirely), then yeah we go back to square one and you have to earn trust again. It's not psychologically healthy for people who have arguments to put it to the side and assume nothing happened. Acknowledgement of the problem and that bridges will need to be re-built and then people making attempts to rebuild those bridges is healthy. But then, people have different standards; maybe it was an attempt by Harbhajan to do so but then maybe Symonds' personal philosophy is that he needs to do more to earn it than just an acknowledgement of a good ball. Who knows? It's all guessing.

 

[silentstriker]

It's not my personal philosophy to hold grudges and that's not what I'm advocating. Just that if you have a go at me when I think it's unwarranted (when it's warranted is another thing entirely), then yeah we go back to square one and you have to earn trust again. It's not psychologically healthy for people who have arguments to put it to the side and assume nothing happened. Acknowledgement of the problem and that bridges will need to be re-built and then people making attempts to rebuild those bridges is healthy. But then, people have different standards; maybe it was an attempt by Harbhajan to do so but then maybe Symonds' personal philosophy is that he needs to do more to earn it than just an acknowledgement of a good ball. Who knows? It's all guessing.

But he wasn't doing any of that. He wasn't trying to build a bridge, or be the best man at his wedding. He was simply acknowledging a good ball...why must that have baggage tied to it?

 

[Ikki]

Well, to be honest, even I don't know how they decided that the justice was biased or not, but even forgetting the bias part, if they felt he was not competent enough and was making mistakes, they could still raise a stink.

And yes, threatening to walk out was cheap, esp. after the neutral judge was appointed. 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????? Again, I am not saying BCCI acted on these lines of thought, but there is still a possibility??? Although, I guess the probability of it basically depends on the person's mind....

Haha, but that's bullcrap. Pardon me, but the Indians could not have POSSIBLY known if indictment was still unfair because besides Harbhajan and Tendulkar there were no other witnesses to the incident on their side. What they threatened to do itself should be reprimanded.

 

[Matt79]

But he wasn't doing any of that. He wasn't trying to build a bridge, or be the best man at his wedding. He was simply acknowledging a good ball...why must that have baggage tied to it?

I can see what TC is saying. If I've had a big blow up with someone where I think they've been in the wrong, and then the next time I see them they try to be chummy and crack a joke or whatever, I'd think they were being a bit fake and trying to paper over the dispute rather than honestly resolve it. Its a different scenario from someone coming to you afterwards and saying "things got out of hand, lets say we move forward and try and put this unpleasantness behind us". Now that seems to be what Symonds is saying took place, but we don't know for sure whether that was the situation - maybe Bhajji thought things had been adequately addressed already. Either way, I wouldn't do what Symonds did.

 

[Burgey]

If Symonds thought that though, he really should have ignored him and mentioned his thoughts to his team mates later, imo.

 

[viktor]

I can see what TC is saying. If I've had a big blow up with someone where I think they've been in the wrong, and then the next time I see them they try to be chummy and crack a joke or whatever, I'd think they were being a bit fake and trying to paper over the dispute rather than honestly resolve it. Its a different scenario from someone coming to you afterwards and saying "things got out of hand, lets say we move forward and try and put this unpleasantness behind us". Now that seems to be what Symonds is saying took place, but we don't know for sure whether that was the situation - maybe Bhajji thought things had been adequately addressed already. Either way, I wouldn't do what Symonds did.

It's not my personal philosophy to hold grudges and that's not what I'm advocating. Just that if you have a go at me when I think it's unwarranted (when it's warranted is another thing entirely), then yeah we go back to square one and you have to earn trust again. It's not psychologically healthy for people who have arguments to put it to the side and assume nothing happened. Acknowledgement of the problem and that bridges will need to be re-built and then people making attempts to rebuild those bridges is healthy. But then, people have different standards; maybe it was an attempt by Harbhajan to do so but then maybe Symonds' personal philosophy is that he needs to do more to earn it than just an acknowledgement of a good ball. Who knows? It's all guessing.

But I don't see where Symonds was involved in the whole thing? Harbhajan patted Lee on the back; he wasn't trying to be friends, be fake, building bridges or anything else with Symonds.
Which is why what Symonds did was, in my opinion, wrong.
If Harbhajan had tried to talk to Symonds and then if Symonds had a go at him, it is justified.
btw, not at all condoning Harbhajan's comments, if he made them.

 

[JASON]

I think this whole saga is absurd , I can't wait for this whole rubbish fiasco to be buried for good and we get back to watching some good decent Cricket without all this goings on about who said what to whom and all the rubbish...

Time to Bury this for good !!

 

[Sanz]

Rumor is that about 80K plus Aussie fans are going to turn up at MCG for the 20/20 match and planning to give Indian team esp Bhajji some real stick from the stands.

 

[FRAZ]

Rumor is that about 80K plus Aussie fans are going to turn up at MCG for the 20/20 match and planning to give Indian team esp Bhajji some real stick from the stands.

nice use of this word i.e. "planning" !