| || ||Thread Tools||Search this Thread|
|30th January 2008, 12:45||#3213|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Thanked: 8 Times
This proves BCCI's mentality is still feudal and all issues are dealt in a feudalistic manner. Whatever the elders (The Buzurg) say it stands. Elders get the family out of trouble in their own way. The elders throw their weight around and get the deals done. Youngsters accept the authority and commands of the buzurg without any question.
|30th January 2008, 12:55||#3214|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Thanked: 0 Times
That was good, Spitfire.
This stage managed hearing (like the 'Bucknor'gate) will set a dangerous precedent.
Much like the Aussies who care a damn to the criticism about their on-field behaviour, Indians are gaining a notorious impression that they can eventually have their own way, no matter what.
It is high time someone put an end to the BCCI antics. I will be very happy, if this case will act as a trigger for that.
|30th January 2008, 12:58||#3215|
Senior - BHPian
Join Date: Jun 2007
Thanked: 23 Times
|30th January 2008, 14:22||#3216|
Senior - BHPian
Hey guys common we are arguing over stuff like this but cant you see who started it. When our player is called a racist then we shout from rooftops and now you are telling its wrong. There was no other way left rather than such antics. Well you should be charged for what you have done and not what you havent and thats my opinion. If bhajji called him a monkey and you have Substantial proof on that then there is no problem. If he called him Teri M@@ and you thought it was a monkey then we cant help. Truth should be given primary criteria. When there is no hearing on both the sides during the initial verdict this is the only way things can go ahead.
Well the Bcci did what it thought right and i support this. If the ozzies cant takle back what they give then let them play interstate cricket. We are not interested to play with sore loosers. They behave worse then those gully cricket bet matches
|30th January 2008, 14:27||#3217|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Thanked: 93 Times
Check out the report submitted by Hansen.
Its available in Judgment of Justice John Hansen
This report makes much sense and mentions more than once that Symonds provoked Harbhajan.See points 12,13,14 and 19 especialy.
This is what we call Rubbing salt into the wounds.I am simply loving this :-)
|30th January 2008, 15:37||#3219|
Senior - BHPian
Join Date: Apr 2005
Thanked: 543 Times
guys read through the judgement at rediff. Judge Hansen did indeed exposed the hollowness of the Aussies
 Mr Symonds appears to be saying that he finds it unacceptable that an opponent makes a gesture that recognises the skill of one of his own team mates. In the transcript he stated:
"MR MANOHAR: You had any objection to that patting on the back?
MR SYMONDS: Did I have an objection to it � my objection was that a test match is no place to be friendly with an opposition player, is my objection."
If that is his view I hope it is not one shared by all international cricketers. It would be a sad day for cricket if it is.
 I accept that Messrs Hayden, Clarke and Symonds are satisfied themselves that they thought they heard the words "big monkey". Indeed it is clear from the audio material they immediately confronted Mr Singh in this regard. I am satisfied that Mr Singh denied this to Umpire Benson. But we are in a situation where there are cultural, accent and language differences and where it is accepted that some of Mr Singh's remarks were in his own language. Mr Hayden and Mr Tendulkar in particular were impressive witnesses. But their evidence as to what was said by Mr Singh is completely at odds.
Mr Tendulkar said there was offensive words in Mr Singh's native tongue and he also heard abusive language in English between the two.
Mr Hayden says he heard the words "big monkey" but could not recall for the court any other words that were said by either party.
I remind myself that an honest witness remains a witness who may be mistaken. In my view there remains the possibility of a misunderstanding in this heated situation.
As well it is not without significance that the Australian players maintain other than Mr Symonds that they did not hear any other words spoken only the ones that are said to be of significance to this hearing.
This is a little surprising in the context where there was a reasonably prolonged heated exchange.
Indeed Mr Clarke went so far as to say that he did not hear Mr Symonds say anything.
Given Mr Symonds' own acceptance that he initiated the exchange and was abusive towards Mr Singh, that is surprising.
This failure to identify any other words could be because some of what they were hearing was not in English.
 As I say the standard to be applied by me is a high one I have to be sure that the words were said. That they were probably said is insufficient. I have not been persuaded to the necessary level required that the words were said. I am not sure they were. I am left with an honest uncertainty as to whether or not they were said given the possibility of misunderstanding through different languages, accents and cultures, and
the fact that none of the Australian players appeared to hear any other words said by Mr Singh. It is quite apparent on any view of the evidence that more than the alleged words were said in the course of the exchange.
 Given that is the view of the complainant it is hard to see how the requisite elements of 3.3 could be satisfied. However, given it is an objective interpretation that is not the end of the matter. I must consider if the "ordinary person" would have been offended in a 3.3 sense. That again requires a look at context.
Mr Singh had innocently, and in the tradition, of the game acknowledged the quality of Mr Lee's bowling.
That interchange had nothing to do with Mr Symonds but he determined to get involved and as a result was abusive towards Mr Singh.
Mr Singh was, not surprisingly, abusive back. He accepts that his language was such as to be offensive under 2.8. But in my view even if he had used the words "alleged" an "ordinary person" standing in the shoes of Mr Symonds who had launched an unprovoked and unnecessary invective laden attack would not be offended or insulted or humiliated in terms of 3.3.
Last edited by rkg : 30th January 2008 at 15:47. Reason: adding to the post
|30th January 2008, 21:57||#3221|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Thanked: 3 Times
I might disagree with most of you here but I feel that India did the right thing.
We have to put an end to the Aussie dominance both on and off the pitch.
|Thread Tools||Search this Thread|
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Cricket: The World Cup 2015 Thread - It's Australia yet again !||Eddy||Shifting gears||603||31st March 2015 10:39|
|The Cricket World Cup 2011 thread. EDIT: India World Champions !!||Eddy||Shifting gears||992||11th April 2011 19:40|
|Worst Cricket Commentator of the Year.||DCEite||Shifting gears||80||6th October 2009 13:02|
|Current Cricket impasse||typeOnegative||Shifting gears||36||28th September 2005 00:34|
|Sidhu : Cricket = Murray Walker : F1||Hatari||Shifting gears||2||26th February 2005 01:38|