Harbhajan v/s Hayden & Ponting

Apparently during an India v Australia game at Adelaide ten days ago or so, there was a fair amount of banter between Ponting and Harbhajan, going by this PTI report.

Apparently, Ponting kept having a go at Harbhajan in Adelaide, asking him "to show what he had got" in the middle.

Harbhajan, on his part, had then cheekily remarked: "Mate, whatever I have shown in the middle has been better than yours' in the series so far."

It appeared to have stung the Australian captain who asked Harbhajan to "f... off" after the latter was dismissed.

If the dialogue reported did indeed happen, it is a superb response from Harbhajan! Remember that at that point in time, Ricky Ponting had scored 25 runs from 5 innings, which he duly rectified the moment he got a nice batting track at Sydney to score a century. Harbhajan, in contrast, had 3/74 from 22 overs.

I totally loved that retort. Does anyone else also think that Hayden's comments to the Brisbane radio station on Harbhajan being an 'obnoxious little weed' and about taking on Ishant in a boxing ring should land him in quite a lot of trouble?

As per the ICC's code of conduct, using language that is obscene, offensive or insulting is a level-1 offence (upto 50% of the match fee penalty). Using language that is obscene, offensive or of a seriously insulting nature (barring the verbals that happen during a game) is a level-2 offence (upto 100% of the match fee penalty and a 1 test/2 ODI ban). After the appeal hearing, Harbhajan was found guilty of a level-2 offence.

Obnoxious implies Harbhajan is annoying, offensive or disgustingly objectionable. Little refers to Harbhajan being smaller-built in comparison to Hayden (and the rest of his teammates). This is obviously a case of racial stereotyping, and hence vilification (just like Tony Greig's "Those little Shri Lonkans" chant). Weed again refers to Harbhajan being obnoxious and detrimental.

Clearly this is a case of offensive and seriously insulting language. If someone tells me I'm a weed, I'd be pretty offended and feel insulted about it, since it implies that I shouldn't be existing. Add in the 'little' part and this very clearly qualifies as a racist remark. Actually this also makes for a libel/defamation suit since Hayden said "That is why he's been charged more than anyone that has ever played in the history of cricket." while referring to Harbhajan. That is totally incorrect. As pointed out in an earlier post, Inzamam has been charged the most number of times.

Yet, I have this nagging feeling Hayden will be let off by Cricket Australia and the ICC, despite being charged with breaching the Code of Behaviour, with a minor slap on the wrists and receive a letter that reads something like

Dear Matthew,
I saw your remark on Harbhajan being an 'obnoxious little weed' the other day.

I'd be really grateful if you could tone down your language. We've got tons of problems with those BCCI buggers. We need the money!

We'll be putting out a media release soon charging you under some clause of our code of conduct. Let me know if that is ok with you.

Cheers

James (CEO, just in case you forgot)

PS: I loved your imitation of Ishant's Indian accent *ROFLMAO*

Update at 6.30 pm: Was I clairvoyant or what? Hayden has been 'reprimanded'. Basically, he's got away with it. Perhaps insulting opposition players is acceptable for Cricket Australia.

Labels: australia, Commonwealth Bank Series, harbhajan, hayden, india, ponting, racism, sledging

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:35 pm | Sledge/Read 4 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Hayden is definitely lunatic

What else do I conclude for this comment from him on Ishant Sharma?

He is 19, why doesn't he just worry about his bowling for a while? I like the idea of actually getting into the ring. I like that, let's bring that one.

Labels: australia, Commonwealth Bank Series, harbhajan, hayden, india, ishant, racism, sledging

Thus spake Ganesh @ 3:04 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Can we shut up and move on?

The verdict is out and Harbhajan Singh is not a racist, but still a lot of people believe that the verdict wasn't right and keep harping on it. I happened to read this piece by Prem Panicker and I had a few issues.

• It seems that the Australians are shocked that even Tendulkar lied. I find it absolutely ridiculous to trust an unnamed source and not Tendulkar in a quasi-judicial hearing.
  
• BCCI using its might and getting the verdict shouldn't be a topic of discussion at all. If anything, the BCCI has used its might a little too late. All the time, players from the sub-continent have been at the receiving end and most of the Australian players have been getting away (Jagadish's point: One damning indicator of this is the fact that on the ICC website, under 'Penalties imposed on players for breaches of ICC Code of Conduct', the entries for 2003 do not say anything about the 'immortalized' snarling game between Glenn McGrath and Ramnaresh Sarwan in May 2003) with their on-field behaviour (sample Ponting & Clarke in the Sydney test) and no one even bothers to write about it.
  
• Some writers say that such issues and verdicts don't augur well for the game. Simple - if teams and umpires can cheat blatantly on the field, a financial powerhouse can definitely show its power to help one of its players.
  
• Forgetting my stand on Murali's action, I loved Ranatunga when he walked off the field, just because he was brave enough to protest the Anglo-Australian off-the-field might. I would have been even more delighted if Kumble decided to do it as soon as umpire Ricky Ponting took charge in Sydney - but after all, he is Anil Kumble.

One thing that is striking to me is that most of the writers are shocked that it is team India that has challenged Australia in the game. When everyone expected Australia to finish 3-0, if not 4-0, they just managed a 2-1 scoreline, which could have easily been 1-2, if competence, honesty and efficiency had taken the front seat.

Yes, Australians have been the undisputed champions for long, but the pedestal has been shaken and if you think about it, it actually augurs very well for the game. We have seen a lot of controversies over the years, but the game has carried on, just because it is brilliant.

I am definitely sure that it will go on forever even if more Pontings & Clarkes cheated, more Gilchrists 'walked', more Harbhajans abused, more Symonds provoked opponents, more Bucknors faulted, more boards like the BCCI showed off their might and if more Australian teams lost.

Labels: australia, bcci, harbhajan, icc, ind v aus 2008, india, racism, sydney 2008, symonds

Thus spake Ganesh @ 1:48 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Analyzing Judge Hansen's judgement

When I read the full text of Judge Hansen's decision that Harbhajan Singh did not racially abuse Andrew Symonds at Sydney, a few things were very interesting.

1. The inefficiency of the ICC: Justice Hansen was not informed about Harbhajan Singh having already been previously pulled up by match referees for various offenses. This information would have resulted in a far stricter penalty.
   
2. The statement of agreed facts signed by Harbhajan, Ponting, Symonds, Clarke, Gilchrist and Tedulkar (sic) and presented to Hansen clearly indicates that Symonds initiated the verbals, including using 'fuck'. As per #13 in the judgement, Symonds told Harbhajan that he had no friends amongst the Australians and used the 'fuck' word. Did he mean to tell Harbhajan "You have no fucking friends amongst the Australians" or was it meant to be "You have no friends amongst the fucking Australians"?
   
3. #7 in the judgement says 'It is apparent that while there was acceptance that the exchange between the appellant and Mr Symonds was initiated by Mr Symonds and was heated in that the word 'fuck' was used no other details of the language used was given. However it was accepted by all parties that it was and intended to be offensive to Mr Symonds.' Does this imply that Symonds using abusive language was not offensive to Harbhajan? It is obvious that Harbhajan was offended, for he wouldn't have reacted the way he did.
   
4. Like I wrote in a comment on my first post on the issue, Brett Lee's silence is baffling. Harbhajan patted/hit him. If he didn't have a problem, why on earth did Symonds have a problem? This is a clear indicator that he was itching for a fight. Were the Aussies ganging up on Harbhajan in a conspirational manner to provoke him, knowing fully well that he'd respond in kind, and then accuse him of a racist abuse (regardless of whether he actually said it or not)?
   
5. From #12 and #14 in the judgement, it is obvious that Symonds was the provocateur. I don't understand why he got away without any penalty. Again, if the BCCI is convinced that Symonds provoked Harbhajan, why shouldn't it file a defamation suit on Harbhajan's behalf since its contracted player suffered mental anguish on account of being accused of a racist comment?
   
6. If 'teri maa ki' is offensive to Symonds, 'bastard' was (meant to be) offensive to Dhoni and Kumble. It baffles me why the BCCI/Indian team withdrew charges against Hogg. The only explanation I have is that they didn't want a situation where he wouldn't bowl against them in the series.

Labels: australia, harbhajan, icc, ind v aus 2008, india, racism, sydney, sydney 2008, symonds

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:35 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Harbhajan is an abuser, not a racist

As was expected following the BCCI's belligerent threats to withdraw from the one-day series if Harbhajan was not cleared of racism charges, the racism charge was downgraded to a Level 2 offence ("Using language that is obscene, offensive or of a seriously insulting nature to another Player") during the appeal hearing by Justice John Hansen today.

A few questions are left unanswered at this point in time:

1. Why was Harbhajan fined 50% of his match fees from one test and two ODIs (as per Times Now TV)
   
2. Will the BCCI re-open the charges against Brad Hogg? After all, the original case was that he should also be charged for a racist abuse. Subsequently, the charges were dropped. Can the word 'bastard' be considered to be obscene, offensive or seriously insulting? Of course yes!
   
3. Since there is no evidence that Harbhajan did actually call Symonds a monkey (the transcripts from the stump microphones only had Symonds saying 'You just called me a monkey' or 'What monkey, big monkey, you don't know what you've said.'), is it fair to assume that Harbhajan can file a defamation suit against Symonds, Clarke, Ponting & Hayden? They insinuated that Harbhajan made a racist comment, and he was therefore seen as a racist by a lot of cricket followers, thereby resulting in extreme mental anguish for over three weeks?
   
4. Is the ICC going to do anything about Mike Procter now? He has botched up twice in the span of a little more than a year, the previous instance being at the Oval in August 2006 where he didn't do anything to prevent Pakistan from walking off.

Labels: australia, harbhajan, icc, india, racism, sydney, sydney 2008, symonds

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:24 pm | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The outcome of Sydney 2008

The outcome of the events at Sydney last week, where pathetic umpiring and a charge of racial abuse marred a superb game, will hopefully make international cricket better, for administrators, players, match officials and fans/spectators.

After the game, a chat with Ganesh, went like this:

14:24 me: i see a few benefits coming out of this entire test:
14:25 1. icc could do something about umpiring standards

2. icc could clearly define what constitutes a racial abuse and what doesn't - is bastard racial, for e.g?

3. teams will swear to not agree to ponting's gentleman agreement on catches

14:26 4. players will stop walking [esp. if #1 isn't handled]

Among these, if the ICC can ensure #1 and #2, then a lot of the problems could be solved. Good umpires will refer to the third umpire at the right time and take decisions on the field at the right time. They will get a higher %age of decisions right. Continuing with my tirade against the ICC's repeated claims to umpires getting 94% of their decisions right, the Sydney game was a classic example of what happens when umpires get 100% of all irrelevant decisions right and 0% of all critical decisions wrong.

It is fairly obvious that Symonds and Hussey benefitted significantly from umpiring errors [Symonds went from 30 to 162 while Hussey went from 45 to 145], Ponting had the best worst of both worlds while Dravid and Ganguly suffered significantly.

To my mind Hussey not being given out in the second innings when he edged RP Singh down legside having scored 45 perhaps had as significant an impact on the outcome as the other umpiring cock-ups. It is strange that his let-off is not discussed as widely as Symonds' or Ponting's.

53.4 Singh to Hussey, no run, a big noise, huge appeals for a strangle down the legs, India think they have their man and replays suggest that he did press the face of the bat on to it

It is high time the ICC clamped down on:

1. Umpiring standards: The ridiculously poor umpiring can & should be fixed by expanding the panel and ensuring that the workload is distributed evenly across four qualified umpires rather than the situation currently where two umpires slog it out in the sun and are under tremendous pressure, with the other two enjoying the comforts of an air-conditioned box and called upon only every now and then [especially the fourth umpire!] to do some work. In addition, there must be something done to increase the accountability of umpires. They can't just say sorry to players for bad decisions and get away with it. Players are dropped for poor performance. Why should umpires be handled with kid gloves?
   
   
2. Walking: The act of a batsman walking insults the collective intelligence of umpires, teammates and spectators. It is a great tool to be (ab)used [and there are several instances where it has been] either by players walking selectively (after they have scored a lot of runs, but not if they're on a pair, for e.g.) or by players appealing to the umpire's conscience for the umpire could assume that the 'walker' player's appeal for a catch/lbw was valid since he was inherently honest.
   
   
3. Pre-series agreements on taking the fielder's word for catches: This sort of agreement is total rubbish and I have no idea why Kumble agreed to it when several other captains (Vaughan & Fleming, to name two) have disagreed with Ponting's suggestion. Ricky Ponting got enraged at the post-match press conference when it was suggested that he had actually grounded the ball after 'catching' Dhoni in India's second innings at Sydney. He was affronted enough to take the query as an question about his integrity and advised that the journalist should not even be in the room [I take it that no-one who has any questions about Ponting's conduct should be in the press conference henceforth]. In fact, he held up his conduct in the first innings [where he didn't claim a catch that Dravid had edged since it had bounced] as an example of how he plays the game. It sort of reminds me of the 'walking' business where a player's conduct could be used by umpires to influence their decisions in his favour. That is exactly what seemed to happen with Ganguly dismissal. Clarke caught the ball and rolled over. Ponting asked Clarke (he who edged to first slip and didn't walk) if he caught it. The umpire asked Ponting if Clarke caught it. The umpire took Ponting's word for it. Mr. Ponting is an honourable man. Didn't you see the way he did not appeal after Dravid's edge fell short in the first innings? Thank us for small mercies. Ponting's argument perhaps goes like this: "I didn't appeal for that catch. This shows how I play the game. Hence if I appeal for a catch, it is always a valid appeal and the umpires are duty-bound to adjudicate in my favour."
   
   
4. Sledging/Abuse: There should be a total ban on any sort of sledging, including banter. There's no saying when a comment becomes offensive, and there is a huge difference in the way people see barbs aimed at them. Sad as it might seem, it means that witty & creative comments obviously also become a victim of the tough measures to prevent situations from boiling over.

PS: Steve Waugh, in his column, wrote about the things that Australian cricketers hate.

On the other hand, Australian teams can't stomach time-wasting and perceived manipulation of the rules, including calling for runners, over-appealing and the alleged altering of the condition of the ball.

So let's see how Australia's players fared at Sydney.

• Time wasting: Wasn't Clarke wasting everyone's time by staying at the crease after edging to slip?
  
• Manipulation of the rules through using runners: Let's see what Hayden did. After he'd reached 71 [off 132 balls], Hayden got himself a runner (Ponting), since he had started limping a couple of overs later. When he got out on 123, he had faced 192 balls. In the 60 balls that he played after apparently getting injured, going by Cricinfo's commentary and based on what I saw on TV, he played at least 10 booming drives and 10 sweep shots. Add in a couple of pulls and a couple of reverse sweeps. I don't know too much about sportsmen's bodies, but it seems highly unlikely that a batsman with a serious-enough injury to warrant a runner, would be able to play such shots by placing so much stress on his leg.
  
• Over-appealing: When Ricky Ponting 'catches' the ball, falls down and his appeal is turned down, he mentions at a press conference that he caught the ball. Isn't that carrying on with the appeal a little too long?

Labels: australia, benson, bucknor, icc, ind v aus 2008, india, ponting, racism, sydney, sydney 2008, umpires, walking

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:10 pm | Sledge/Read 6 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Time for the BCCI to ban Harbhajan?

Assuming that Mike Procter was right (and he has got it wrong earlier, miserably fluffing his lines at The Oval in 2006), in announcing a three-test ban on Harbhajan for calling Symonds a 'monkey' during the Sydney test, I think it is now the right time to read the riot act out to Harbhajan.

Even if he uttered the word as a response to provocation, it is unacceptable. There was an enormous amount of coverage in the Indian and Australian media about the behaviour of Indian spectators, in the form of racist chants & gestures, during Australia's seven one-dayers in India late last year.

Harbhajan's act is indefensible. He has to cop the punishment from the ICC, just as Darren Lehmann (5 ODIs) & Herschelle Gibbs (2 tests) did. In addition, the BCCI ought to advise the selectors that he should not picked for the next 5 tests and 10 one-day internationals.

There has to be a strong deterrent on this issue, otherwise players will continue to act like juveniles.

Labels: harbhajan, ind v aus 2008, racism, sydney 2008, symonds

Thus spake Jagadish @ 2:36 am | Sledge/Read 7 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Grin and bear it?

It is totally bizarre and stinks of double-standards. Jason Gillespie's viewpoint is that the abuse that Andrew Symonds copped in India is "totally unacceptable" while he doesn't use the same words in the context of Murali being targetted by Australian spectators.

Instead, he advises Murali to 'grin and bear it'. I am emphatically against the way the crowds targetted Andrew Symonds, but for a minute, I am tempted to ask Symonds to 'grin and bear it' as well. Then again, maybe Gillespie is saying this because he's perhaps not going to return to the international side again, having been first dropped in the post-2005 Ashes cleanup and then not having been picked since April 2006 after scoring a double-century.

In fact, right now, he has the 5th highest final test innings score, behind Sandham, Ponsford, Nurse and Aravinda de Silva. Sangakkara's last test innings was 222, but he's definitely going to play another test. Gillespie? Umm, I think not!

Labels: australia, gillespie, murali, racism, sri lanka, symonds

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:43 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Reality TV and cricket

Simon Hughes writes in 'The Daily Telegraph' about a reality TV-cum-talent hunt show in India called Cricket Star, the prize being a contract with Leicestershire CCC. The judges include Kapil Dev, Sanjay Manjrekar and Ajay Jadeja.

The eviction, involving Manjrekar stepping forward to remove the Cricket Star badge from the doomed player's breast pocket, before he is cast out through the studio door, may sound brutal but it does make great TV.

Simon Hughes also alludes to voting on religious lines.

The first eviction episode threw up another dynamic in Indian cricket – racial bias. It has often been alleged that players of a minority religion have trouble getting recognition in certain states. The left arm quick bowler Zaheer Khan, for instance, a Muslim, initially couldn't get a game for Hindu-orientated Maharashtra. In the studio, two players were up for eviction – Agha Ali Hasan, a Muslim from Hyderabad and Ranjan Singh, a Sikh from Lucknow. They had all got on famously for the two weeks they'd been together. But as his team-mates filed down the Parkinson-style stairs one by one with the name of their nomination written on a card, a strange thing happened.

The first four were all Muslim: they voted to evict the Sikh. Then came three Sikhs and a Hindu. They voted against the Muslim. It was 4-4. The captain, Mohammed Abbas, had the casting vote. Sensitive to the situation and in an impossible position, he closed his eyes and selected one of the two cards at random. The name he picked was the Sikh.

Labels: bias, racism, reality tv, religion

Thus spake Jagadish @ 2:25 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Herschelle Herschelle ...

The moral of the story from Herschelle Gibbs' cricketing career is that you can acknowledge having underperformed for money and make racist comments at provocative spectators and still continue to play the game, only getting banned for six months for his first action and two tests for the latter.

I'm not going to question if the ICC's and Cricket South Africa's prompt action was right, given Gibbs directed his observations about the crowd to his teammates and the stump microphones had been turned on during a break, but again, why is the ban a two test ban when what South Africa would have hated more was a four ODI ban? That'd have hurt South Africa (and Gibbs) in the run-up to the World Cup given that South Africa play a further 5 ODIs before they land in the Caribbean.

Labels: 2007 world cup, ban, comments, gibbs, icc, match fixing, racism, south africa, world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:34 pm | Sledge/Read 5 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

"The wicket has got another terrorist"

Rahul Bhattacharya, writing for The Scoop on Cricinfo, links to our post on Dean Jones' foot-in-mouth disease over his 'The terrorist has got another wicket' comment on television and subsequent proof about the identity of the bowler.

The Scoop says

But it was on World One-day XI captain Shaun Pollock that Jones's remarks had the most devastating effect. Research by cricket24x7 has proved beyond any doubt that it was, in fact, Pollock and not Boje who 'got the wicket' of Kumar Sangakkara on Day Four in the second innings of the momentous Test match following which Jones made his comment, a fact readily confirmed by this scorecard and this video clip. The Scoop understands that Pollock suffered a mental breakdown due to confusion over whether Jones was denying him a Test wicket, obliquely referring to him as a terrorist, or, worst of all, making a shamefully cheap jibe at his recent drop in pace by likening his bowling to Boje's slow left-armers.

Labels: racism

Thus spake Jagadish @ 10:13 am | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Dean Jones puts his money where his foot is

Dean Jones, sacked by TEN Sports last month for uttering the 'T' word on air, claimed a couple of days ago that his distinctly un-funny wisecrack wasn't directed at Hashim Amla. As if his foot were already not firmly in his mouth, he shoved it further in by saying:

In the long run, I wasn't even really referring to him. What was my comment? And who got the wicket? Amla got the catch, Nicky Boje was the bowler. Just listen to the comment. The terrorist got a wicket. Who got the wicket? I'll leave it up to you to work out who I was referring to.

Deano, can you do us all a favour and please stay off the air? Don't bother giving interviews. Don't bother doing commentary.

Like the video shows, the batsman was Kumar Sangakkara and the bowler was Shaun Pollock, not Nicky Boje.

Unless of course, Nicky Boje had started bowling right arm medium pace as part of his master-plan to evade the Delhi police and sneak into India in disguise to play in the ICC Champions Trophy.

The other possibility is of course that Dean Jones actually did refer to Nicky Boje as the terrorist, but that makes it as defamatory as calling Hashim Amla a terrorist!

Labels: racism

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:34 am | Sledge/Read 7 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Dean Jones' remark, now on the internet

Listen carefully to the commentary in the video below. After Sangakkara leaves the field, when the camera focusses on the celebrating South African players, just at the end of the first minute of the clip, you can hear Dean Jones say 'The terrorist has got another wicket'.

Labels: racism

Thus spake Jagadish @ 2:02 am | Sledge/Read 4 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Why Dean Jones got the sack

Dean Jones commentary has always been pathetic. Yesterday, he just plumbed new depths, calling Hashim Amla a terrorist, on air.

'The terrorist has got another wicket', is what he said, when Hashim Amla caught Kumar Sangakkara off Shaun Pollock at Colombo.

While I have no doubt that TEN Sports decision to sack him as a commentator is the right one, I hope it is primarily because he doesn't know his cricket rather than his insensitivity and religious & racial stereotyping.

I can't understand how someone who's played 16 years of first-class cricket, 10 of them at the international level thinks that the catcher gets the wicket.

Deano, repeat after me: Shaun Pollock got the wicket, not Hashim Amla.

Labels: racism

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:38 am | Sledge/Read 7 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Darren Lehmann has been named Cricketer of the Year by Wisden Australia. I assume this is for the year 2003-04, the same one where he made lots of runs and got banned for racial abuse in a game against Sri Lanka. Reward? Punishment?

Labels: racism, wisden

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:39 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]