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

[honestbharani]

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.

I am not sure if that applies here though, Matt.. For starters, it is the INDIAN Premier League and obviously will be held in India. And if the players under contract start thinking the whole country is dangerous, then obviously, the franchises will and should hold the rights to dismiss them from the said contract. You don't seriously expect them to be given a contract to sit at home, right?


From the players' perspective, it is again an individual call. You know the money you are getting and the risk you are taking. You just gotta weigh it all up and decide.

 

[four_or_six]

I am not sure if that applies here though, Matt.. For starters, it is the INDIAN Premier League and obviously will be held in India. And if the players under contract start thinking the whole country is dangerous, then obviously, the franchises will and should hold the rights to dismiss them from the said contract. You don't seriously expect them to be given a contract to sit at home, right?


From the players' perspective, it is again an individual call. You know the money you are getting and the risk you are taking. You just gotta weigh it all up and decide.

That's only the case if it's either 'in 100%' or 'out 100%'. There is a possibility that there may be a situation where players, including Indian, feel that on one specific day or in one specific place it isn't safe because of a particular situation - such as a bomb going off at the ground that day. That's not the same as saying you won't play at all. For example if, heaven forbid, a bomb went off inside the ground, you can imagine this being the case and pressure being exerted on players about their contracts would begenerally accepted to be wrong. The issue is where do you draw the line?

 

[honestbharani]

That's only the case if it's either 'in 100%' or 'out 100%'. There is a possibility that there may be a situation where players, including Indian, feel that on one specific day or in one specific place it isn't safe because of a particular situation - such as a bomb going off at the ground that day. That's not the same as saying you won't play at all. For example if, heaven forbid, a bomb went off inside the ground, you can imagine this being the case and pressure being exerted on players about their contracts would begenerally accepted to be wrong. The issue is where do you draw the line?

yeah.. that is understandable.. But I think Modi made the statement when people were being reluctant to travel to India as a whole.. And hence, I think it was a valid one.


Obviously, reg. this particular incident, games have been shifted, so I would like to think those concerns were addressed..

 

[Matt79]

Yeah, I was talking more along the lines f.o.s. said, not refusing to come to India altogether. You're quite right that if you don't play at all, you shouldn't get paid and if you know you don't want to play ahead of time, don't sign.

The safety issue has, as I understand, been complicated because the foreign players have found it hard to get a clear understanding of what the safety arrangements are, the IPL has refused to deal with collective associations who might be able to advocate/interpret the situation, and from what we've seen of what happened in Bangalore, procedures seem a bit ad hoc.

Moving matches on later dates is a bit besides the point if people were unhappy with how things were handled on the day itself. IT actually raises the question that if it is considered prudent to move future matches away as a precaution, why did they proceed with the match there that night?

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, I was talking more along the lines f.o.s. said, not refusing to come to India altogether. You're quite right that if you don't play at all, you shouldn't get paid and if you know you don't want to play ahead of time, don't sign.

The safety issue has, as I understand, been complicated because the foreign players have found it hard to get a clear understanding of what the safety arrangements are, the IPL has refused to deal with collective associations who might be able to advocate/interpret the situation, and from what we've seen of what happened in Bangalore, procedures seem a bit ad hoc.

Moving matches on later dates is a bit besides the point if people were unhappy with how things were handled on the day itself. IT actually raises the question that if it is considered prudent to move future matches away as a precaution, why did they proceed with the match there that night?

I guess that 3rd explosive being found changed things? Plus, it is a question of time, isn't it.. I guess with bombs being found out, the security guys thought the threat of another attack on the same day was lesser than the threat of another attack on another day. Sounds plausible to me..

 

[Sir Alex]

Yeah, I was talking more along the lines f.o.s. said, not refusing to come to India altogether. You're quite right that if you don't play at all, you shouldn't get paid and if you know you don't want to play ahead of time, don't sign.

The safety issue has, as I understand, been complicated because the foreign players have found it hard to get a clear understanding of what the safety arrangements are, the IPL has refused to deal with collective associations who might be able to advocate/interpret the situation, and from what we've seen of what happened in Bangalore, procedures seem a bit ad hoc.

Moving matches on later dates is a bit besides the point if people were unhappy with how things were handled on the day itself. IT actually raises the question that if it is considered prudent to move future matches away as a precaution, why did they proceed with the match there that night?

There were explicit threats of further bombings on today or tomorrow. That with the 3rd Bomb discovered too late, meant there was only one option, to shift the matches to mumbai.

 

[Matt79]

Yeah, look no-one further was hurt as a result of them playing the match there that night, but I don't think it was a particularly sensible decision on basic principles. That said, it's easy to armchair manage events with the benefit of hindsight and it must have been a pretty crazy, pressured situation. Hopefully they use the lessons learnt from this (and there are always lessons to be learnt from any incident) and, for one thing, have clear procedures to be followed in the event of any future security scares/incidents, that have been throughly thought out ahead of time, so the officials on the ground don't have to be trying to decide what to as they go.

 

[GraemeSmith]

People are too security conscious these days. They should not have moved the matches, if anyone changes their behavior in response to terror attacks it means that the terrorists have won.

 

[Sanz]

People are too security conscious these days. They should not have moved the matches, if anyone changes their behavior in response to terror attacks it means that the terrorists have won.

The players/fans are there to play/enjoy the game not to make a statement to the terrorists.

 

[Burgey]

People are too security conscious these days. They should not have moved the matches, if anyone changes their behavior in response to terror attacks it means that the terrorists have won.

They have a much bigger win if you don't move them and the ****s blow you up.

 

[Matt79]

People are too security conscious these days. They should not have moved the matches, if anyone changes their behavior in response to terror attacks it means that the terrorists have won.

After you then. Seriously, saying just go ahead and take the risk is much easier from the safety of your keyboard. Many of these people have children they support and want to see grow up.

Besides, I'd say the small "defeat" of rescheduling/rearranging your life is a preferable option to giving the terrorists a big propaganda victory like a successful attack. This is a long war, and denying them meaningful victories will help. Fight them, whereever possible, on the turf you choose, rather than the turf they want.

 

[honestbharani]

People are too security conscious these days. They should not have moved the matches, if anyone changes their behavior in response to terror attacks it means that the terrorists have won.

Seriously though, mate.. each and every person has a right to value their life... And to NOT play/work/vist places which they think are not safe.