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 ]

Why India lost at Sydney

There were quite a few reasons actually, not all of them were related to the umpiring.

1. Letting 'The Great B*st@#ds' go from 134/6 to 463. Even if Symonds had been given out on 30 or 48, let's not forget that Hogg, Lee & Johnson made 166 runs between themselves at 4 runs an over.
   
2. Losing Dravid and Laxman an hour before stumps in the first innings. They were batting really well, had just gone past personal milestones. But they played horrible shots (ok, let's give some credit to the bowling!). Both ought to have continued on. 180/1 became 185/3! A 600+ total became 532.
   
3. Ganguly not going on. He has now played 4 innings in the series for scores of 43, 40, 67 & 51 (at a strike rate of ~ 70). The most balls he has faced in an innings so far is 79. Dravid has probably faced that many before he decides to display the on-drive! It's all nice scoring 1000 runs in 2007, including a splendid last few tests. But to beat Australia, like Geoff wrote before last year's Ashes, you need to score big hundreds. You can bat like a millionaire and still get big scores. Ganguly needs to convert those 40s & 50s into 150s. Otherwise the runs are a waste. They help India get some momentum, but he gets out at the wrong time (as if there was ever a right time for a batsman to get out!)
   
4. Yuvraj and Dhoni spectacularly failing. I've never been in favour of Yuvraj's inclusion in the test team, especially when he was going to force Dravid to open. I mentioned to Ganesh after his 169 that I still thought Yuvraj was not ready for test cricket. I reckoned he was probably the best replacement batsman around. But on the evidence he had presented in the past few test series where he'd played 2-3 tests on the trot, he has a long way to go before being considered in the first XI. All his dismissals are boiling down to lack of footwork. Sadly, I'm being proved right about his ability. I could still be proved wrong, with two tests to go. Dhoni's dismissals, barring today's, are all nicks to Gilchrist outside off-stump off short-of-length balls. He can be a very destructive batsman after he has batted around half-an-hour. But you need to guts it out before you get to the half-hour mark. He has not done that at all!
   
5. Letting Australia score at 4 an over this morning. When Kumble threw the ball to Ishant late last evening, I thought it was a superb move. Australia weren't scoring quickly at that time. The fact that they went off for light yesterday meant that they were undecided about what rate to score at and when to declare (for if that were not the case, they'd have opted to stay on). But this morning, after an hour of play, all hell broke loose. Symonds & Hussey scored at will, giving Australia enough overs to bowl in the remaining part of the day.
   
6. Edging to second slip. Like King Cricket brilliantly wrote late last year when Pietersen was given out after a catch was taken very close to the ground at second slip. He wrote: "However, from England’s point of view, as regards this Test match, the main problem was that Kevin Pietersen edged a ball to second slip. As a batsman, if you edge the ball to second slip, there’s a fair chance you’re going to be out." That is exactly what Ganguly did. He edged to second slip. The previous ball had been at his body, and I was waiting for Lee to give him the full ball.
   
7. Dhoni not offering a shot. Steve Bucknor was the umpire. Was it a stupid idea or what, to offer pad with no intention of playing a shot? You have a bat in your hand. It isn't meant to be used as a periscope.

Like the Bard wrote, 'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings'.

Labels: australia, ind v aus 2008, india, sydney, sydney 2008, umpires

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:06 pm | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Australia vs England - Fifth Test - Day 1 & 2

So, after 2 days, we have a fairly evenly poised match. England, collapsing all too predicatbly in the first innings, losing their last 5 wickets for just over 50 runs. Australia now, similarly set at the end of day two, to England at the end of day 1. I'd rather have Hussey in than Collingwood though, and Australia's tail than England's - but there is a certain "pep in the step" of England. They seem a little more determined to at least inflect something in the form of damage on these Aussies - maybe Langer, McGrath and Warne (and maybe some others) losing their last test is just enough motivation for a down and almost out English side. Who knows? Who would be game to predict anything.

It is probably stating the obvious but just about anything could happen yet. It seems a result one way or the other is more likely than a draw given the low first innings total, but with Hussey and Symonds in and Gilchrist to come Australia could yet make 500 - of course, they could also quite conceivably trail on the first innings too, not that that may matter either. Who could say anything confidently really? I would add though, that a run chase by Australia on day 4 and 5 will be somewhat harder in Sydney with Panesar in the side, than Adelaide without him - The POMS will know that and therefore be despearate for early wickets, hopefully Hussey and Symonds have thought of this two, and play them out of the game in the first two session tomorrow. They are the sessions that will set up this match.

If England can get two wickets in the first session tomorrow, it's game on - if not, it could just be slipping away. I am no longer willing to say there is anything that can happen, that will put the Aussies out of the match just yet ;-)

Labels: ashes, ashes 2006, australia, england, hussey, panesar, scg, sydney

Thus spake Stuart Helwig @ 2:37 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]