ICC failed to tell Hansen of Harbhajan's previous misdemeanours

Well what fun all this is, eh? Comments left overnight by Edmund Hillary, Billy Idol, Nelson Mandela and a song by Burt Bacharach to boot. Much as it depresses me that far more comments have been made about Harbhajan's trial than were made about the four Tests combined, it is good to welcome so many new readers to Line and Length. Keep popping back. But let's try to keep our views to real people only, such as the strangely silent Andre Nel or Humphrey B Bear.

The ICC published Justice John Hansen's written report on the trial earlier today (I've been out of the office so apologies for not posting earlier) and some thoughts occur to me. Feel free to let me know what you think or just to call me a vile India/Australia hater (delete as applicable).

1) The most important thought was actually the last, buried on page 20 of the 22. Justice Hansen says the ICC had informed him of only one previous transgression of the Code of Conduct by Harbhajan Singh and that he discovered after announcing his verdict that there were three others, one serious. These were not passed to him because of administrative errors by the ICC (errors that somehow seem to have been ironed out once he had reduced the ban to a slap on the wrist). None of the other transgressions were to do with racial allegations, but Hansen says he would have handed a tougher penalty, possibly a ban, on Harbhajan if he had known.

While cock-ups are part of the ICC's usual modus operandi (excuse the Latin, it's all this legal talk getting to me), it seems strange they should come to light so quickly after Hansen's verdict. Given that he had seven days to consider his verdict (see point 4 below), why couldn't he have taken the time to do a cuttings search to see if there was anything else to consider?

2) Andrew Symonds alleged that he was called "a monkey or a big monkey". Why is the size of the monkey relevant? If Harbhajan had called him a "little monkey", would that have been ok? I've heard an Indian friend of mine call his nephew a "little monkey" and it was quite affectionate. Perhaps, from now on, players could specify exactly what sort of monkey they mean when insulting an opponent. Call him a baboon, orang-utang or lemur if you want. Anyway, quite clearly the member of the Australia team who looks most like a monkey is Ricky Ponting. Just look at that George W Bush-style mouth.

3) Mike Procter was satisfied "beyond reasonable doubt" that the words had been used. Justice Hansen felt there was doubt and that the burden of proof lay with Australia not India, which is fair enough. But can Procter continue as an ICC referee if he does not have that understanding of law - or rather, if he is not provided with the legal counsel and breadth of evidence that Justice Hansen was? Perhaps there is an argument that in future cases of this nature, a claim should only be heard by a legally-qualified adjudicator and that the referee should not have a role.

4) The hearing was delayed because the Justice said that having six days before the Perth Test would not have been sufficient (he was allowed seven by ICC regulation). Yet he delivered his verdict on day 1 of the delayed hearing. Obviously he will have been reading up on this and considering his own view (although he wasn't doing any research into Harbhajan's former misdemeanours), but if no official witness testimony was heard until the hearing started, why could it not have been held within a week of his appointment, and thus before the Perth Test? Australia is a big country but everyone relevant was out there, there could surely have been little logistical problem in getting them all together for a one-day hearing. If it is impossible to organise lawyers and a room within seven days, then the ICC should not have a rule setting a limit.

5) Love the euphemism "Harbhajan made friendly contact" with Brett Lee. He patted him on the bottom. Could any of us get away with fondling a lady's rump and claiming it was only friendly contact?

6) Symonds said "a Test match is no place to be friendly with an opposition player". How sad a statement that is. There is no reason why cricket cannot be played in a friendly atmosphere, with batsmen saying "well bowled" and fielders applauding a good shot by the batsmen. Call me a weak Englishman if you want, but there is a difference between toughness and crassness. I know Australia feel that their niceness cost them the 2005 Ashes, but it is sad that they feel friendship should be put aside.

7) Justice Hansen finds it surprising that the only words the Australian witnesses could recall hearing were "big monkey" in Harbhajan's tirade and Symonds's response. Why is this surprising? I can barely recall what a colleague said to me five minutes ago, let alone the precise wording of any argument I had with my wife three weeks ago. Yet clearly, and undeniably because of the post-match hoo-haa, "big monkey" stuck in the mind. That surely does not mean that more foul language was not used by both participants or that they did not genuinely think that was what was said.

8) If Harbhajan had actually said "teri maki" (or motherf***er), is it possible that the Indians misheard Symonds's alleged stream of f-words and what he was really saying was something like "I say, you there, stop that now you rogue" in his native brummie?

Comments

[Peter McGuinness]

Hi Kap et al.

Glad you want to get to know me. Can't have too many mates. Who am I? Maybe it will help if I give you a 'Player Profile'.

NAME: Peter McGuinness (note: two names)
OCCUPATION: Cricket Tragic
RESIDES: Qld
SEX: Yes
AGE: Any
HOBBIES: Cricket, International Relations
HEALTH: n/a
HEROES: Steve Waugh, Simon Barnes, Bertrand Russell, Stephen Hawking, Russ Hinze, Arthur Beetson.

Anyway, that's about it. Hope it helps. Too bad about the current situation. Yep, let's hope something comes out of it. Nice to let off some steam in a 'frank and open' exchange amongst friends. Even if a lot of it is tongue in cheek. No hard feelings.

I don't really watch ODIs or T20s, but for what it's worth coming from me, good luck. I apologise in advance, because I expect there may be some crowd misbehaviour in the briefer formats, given that they draw a different demographic. That will be a pity, but I guess it's been that kind of summer.

Catch up where we left off, when the tours are reversed later in the year hey? Probably won't be any more tranquil though, unfortunately. Our versions of recent cricket history are two different books, alas. Here's hoping that some common ground may be found. Incidentally, how the hell did you know about my ulcer? You might be surprised at where it's located though.

Take it easy guys...

[Rusty]

One thing that seems to escaped the collective intelligence of this blog, except Mr Cosgrove, is that if Symonds is the one guilty of abusive language and Singh is just responding to provocation, why was it that it was Singh who got the fine and another black mark against him, instead of Symonds?

A lot of hot air from Hanson about Symonds - but no penalty. An excuse for Singh because he acted the way any normal person would - but then charged with abuse?

Did Hanson get his lines mixed up? Or did he actually already know about Singh's four previous convictions already but was instructed by the ICC to be lenient? And why would the ICC allow themselves to look incompetent, yet again? This information has been accessible for weeks yet suddenly disappears just before the hearing then mysteriouly reappears just after. And to top it off, Malcolm Speed then wags his finger at the players and tells them that they really should improve their act. Don't the ICC ever want to appear competent?

I think Oscar the Grouch has the right idea.
Next circus act - Roy vs. Sree

[John Jorrocks]

Peter McGuinness? This is arrant rubbish. And worse, for a manly Australian, this is inexcusably self-pitying. You must be very blinkered indeed if you think that it is only Indians who are irked by the way Ponting's men play cricket. And for the record: the Indians have never raised such a fuss over anyone other than the Australians. And whatever you think of the Indian board's behaviour, Australian cricket needs a serious dose of self-examination.

[Peter McGuinness]

Masterful rebuttal.

'You are a child'. Crushing stuff. Thanks for the hyprocrisy lecture, but I'll think I'll take my ethics coaching from elsewhere pal. Just pointing out a couple facts and perceptions, while Australians are copping such an outpouring of hatred over a game of sport. Forgive the testiness. Sometimes 'turning the other cheek' simply reaches a limit.

My point is proven. Criticism of Indian cricket culture = racism. It is Check Mate.

The implication is absurd in my case, considering my best mate is Indian as are my extended family of in-laws.

At least you've used your name, which I commend you for, few people on any side of the debate do. Take care, thanks for tips and do enjoy your cricket won't you. Truly, it will be a great relief when this tour is complete, don't you think?

[Kap]

Peter, sorry but who are you again? It really is rather amusing how 2 matches without a win and the Aussie public and press have made an about turn on their boys. Clearly tis better to win ugly than play fair (and lose and draw.) I enjoyed your vitriol, be careful it doesn't give you an ulcer though.

This Indian propensity for half truths you write of will hopefully rub off on Symonds, Hayden and Clarke if they get the gigs they were wishing for in April. Based on the testimonies they gave clearly they need all the help they can get.

Why not ask the likes of Lee, Warne, Gilchrist and Waugh what sort of reception they get in India? Those are real champions unlike your the majority of your current shower.

[Sunil Julka]

Mcguiness,

A curious post. You start by bemoaning the comments from India fans saying that they are denigrating Australians. However you then go on to produce an essay-length bilious rant, replete with sweeping generalisations, that denigrates Indians. Are you really so arrogant that you are unable to see your own hypocrisy?

Death threats and such excessive behaviour are deplored by the vast majority of India fans but, with the simplicity of a child, you ascribe the behaviour of the uneducated to Kap and all Indians. It is sad to see you conform to your national stereotype.

Sunil

[Humphrey B Bear]

Gday Pat.

Thanks for the concern boys.

I'm alive and reasonably well. I got stuck right into the turps with Gilly and the lads after the Test, and wound up in the dogcave with Mrs Bear. Sutherland ran out of honey at the after-match 'do', so I wound up enjoying my Blue Label straight. How people put coke in the good stuff is beyond this fun-loving old bear.

Anyway, I sorted the Mrs out with some 'just right' porridge and a pic-a-nic basket. Back in the good books, and back on the blog.

I've been holding back on voicing my opinion for a couple of reasons.

First, I'm mute.

Second is that, as a bear, the human propensity to hate their own species confounds me. In this case, there is nothing - absolutely nothing - that the Aussies could have done to avoid a blow-up during this series. You may recall that the dung had hit the fan about 'cheating' and 'umpire bias' before any racial stuff even surfaced.

There was always - always - going to be a stink on. India and Indians were hell bent on demonising Australia and Australians before they even got here. Look at what happened over there a few months back. Fellas, if the Aussies were the 4th best team in the world rather than the best, and if India were beating us easy, none of this would've happened. Guaranteed.

This garbage sells papers and makes for good tele. That's what it's all about. Take it from me, I'm in the industry. The BCCI is in the media business, not the cricket business. Do you reckon they're gonna turn the drama up or down? Do you reckon they're gonna find themselves a 'Public Enemy #1' to promote or not? This is 'Cricket as Wrestling', presented by the BCCI.

Some other country will take the 'Great Enemy of the Indian People' role down the track.

Maybe I should shave down and take on Karthik? I'd like that. One hug outta do it. No biting I promise. Sorry, I digress. Anyhow, it's all a crock of galah poop. Don't let the whiners get you down. There's blokes out there who'd complain about being hard done by if they swallowed a genie and started crapping gold nuggets.

This summer'll be over soon, thank the Great Spirit, and our current guests will be gone. By the time Hibernation's over, Carlton will be in the top 8, Nel will be jockeying for a spot in SA's touring party and events of the last 5 weeks will be nothing but a bad memory. Too bad a bear's got such an acute sense of smell. The scent of bullsh*t brought to these parts over the last few weeks is going to take a long time to shake outta the snout.

Know what I mean Pat? Take it easy China Plate.

[Kap]

The “tera maki” excuse was on Indian news sites within hours of the incident so I’m not sure why you think Harbhajan waited a few weeks before bringing it up.

On Harbhajan having “form” for using racially offensive language. My understanding is he did use the term in India and when it was explained why Symonds found it offensive, apologised and agreed not to use it again. Hardly a repeat offender then.

I agree that Symonds’ actions might bear a foul tasting fruit when he next tours India. I hope not, but to use a line from elsewhere: one rarely loses money under estimating the mob mentality.

Regarding whether all this would have kicked off if India had save the match: I think it would have. Ponting had already reported the matter and set the wheels in motion. It seems Tendulkar was adamant that Singh was innocent and it was he that sent the text home requesting strong support.

I just hope some good can come out of this whole sorry affair. Sadly I doubt it though.

[Oscar the Grouch]

Patrick - I should give this away, it's turning my green fur prematurely grey, but another little bit of the whole damn puzzle has just dropped into place courtesy of an Indian gentleman (I assume male, no gender bias intended) which I would hope will give added perspective to what transpired in the Hansen hearing. This is from a blog on another site:

Can someone please send an audio clip of how a true Punjabi yells "Teri Maaki .." to Australia?

Maaki is pronounced "Maun-kee" similar to Monkey -- "muhng-kee"

If he was really racist, he'd say "Bun-der" or "Bun-der ke Aulaad"..

The uninitiated can please look these words up.

Satya mev jayate.

So what was put forward in evidence by the BCCI attorney and agreed by both Harbhajan and Tendulkar was that Harbhajan used a word that was phoenetically so close to identical to 'monkey' that - in the circumstances of the previous Indian chants against Symonds - confusion by the Australians was at the very least highly likely.

As far as we understand, Mike Procter was not informed of the actual words used by Harbhajan but simply a statement that he had not used the term 'monkey'. Had he been made aware of the use of Maaki and its pronunciation I suggest he would probably also have found 'unproven' rather than guilty.

This whole mess has been badly handled by both sides and one suspects that embarrassment on the part of the Indian team at Harbhajan's actual comments plus an overdeveloped sense of outrage by the Australians led to the original hearing being notable for heat rather than light. Now, if the fans from both countries can just put away their Bic lighters and drink their beer instead of spitting their dummies, we could continue to have good cricket matches. Or we could have Australia vs. England and India vs. Bangladesh ad infinitum.
Puhleeze...

[Patrick Kidd]

Kap,
Now that is a nicer email. I am happy to accept the "tera maki" explanation, although it seems odd that Harbhajan did not remember that was what he said until a couple of weeks later. But as I said in my earlier comment, people are fallible in their recollections.

Whether or not he said "monkey", I personally agree with you that this was all a storm in a teacup. Australia over-reacted and refused Kumble's peace entreaties. I wish they had shown a bit more willingness to forgive and forget, even though there had been "form". I'm sure Symonds has been called far worse, even if it wasn't racial. Sadly he is probably in for far worse from the Indian fans next time he is in India as a result of this.

It does sadden me that Ponting felt the need to go running off the field the next over to complain rather than settle it with his fellow captain, who is a reasonable man. The stump-microphone transcripts do not present some of the Australia players too well either. "Oooh you're for it now, you said a bad word", or whatever Hayden said, just sounds pathetically school-yardy.

Of course, if India's tail-enders had been able to keep out one of three balls from a part-time spinner, would there have been such a row?

[Clint]

We won the Series 2-1.

Read it and weep India.

[Kap]

Kidd, if you invite opinions on your writing maybe you shouldn’t be so precious if it is critical.

There is no doubt the Australians thought they heard monkey or big monkey. However Singh was explicitly asked by umpire Benson (with lips covered for some bizarre reason) and he denied it. He denied it again at the first hearing with Proctor. He denied it again at the appeal and he also refused to apologise for it as part of the back room plea bargaining process that the BCCI, Cricket Australia, Ponting and the lawyers were involved in.

Singh’s consistent denials, the lack of any corroborating evidence from the TV coverage and the three Aussies' inconsistent testimony (including Symonds accepting the possibility that he might have misheard) meant the appeal was always going to be successful. Your attempt to excuse the inconsistencies in the Aussies evidence is naïve, at best. Courts of law (as this effectively was) do not accept the hectic lifestyles of witnesses as excuses for their differing versions of truth. Would I have rather they lied in court? Of course not but reading between the lines Hansen virtually accused Clarke of doing so.

Based on Hansen’s judgement it appears that the whole thing was a storm in a teacup stemming from a misunderstanding. If Ponting would have accepted Kumble’s suggestion to sort it out amongst them it would have taken 1 minute for the Indians to explain the similarity between a Punjabi cuss and the English monkey. The fact the Australians went running to the umpire is hard to reconcile with their oft used "what goes on the pitch stays on the pitch" mantra.

And a comment on the posturing of the BCCI and their attempt to bully the ICC. I am no fan of the BCCI. Infact until the last few weeks I doubt many of the Indian players were either. It should not be forgotten that the threat of going home came not from the Indian admin but directly from Tendulkar and Kumble who backed their team mate against what they saw as an unfiar charge. And they backed the right horse, not because of the financial superpower of the BCCI but because of the rule of law.

[Peter McGuinness]

Hi Kap!

You're the bloke who comments ferociously on games you didn't even bother watching, right? Great to hear from you again!

What readers? The influx of 'readership' is from people who want to spew hatred toward Australia. I don't see too many of Patrick's new found buddies commenting on anything other than posts that give them an opportunity to denigrate Australians, or to claim predictable 'victimised martyr' status for their poor-hard-done-by little angels on the cricket field.

If this is how you and your mates enjoy the game of cricket, you must be a real barrel o' laughs. Don't worry mate, the Aussies are headed your way soon, so you'll get a chance to break out the old monkey mask, the effigies and the lighter fluid, and have yourself some real good natured cricketing fun. That'll cheer you up. You can warm up by setting fire to Jaffer's house for failing in Melbourne and Sydney. Or maybe phone Ricky's Mum with more death threats? That was a hoot. Really something to be proud of.

Or maybe rally a few thousand schoolboys together to march down the street screaming 'Death To Australia'. Nice touch.

None of this beastly, 'standing ovation for opposition champions' stuff for you. No, best leave that vile conduct to Australians, hey mate? You blokes really know how to enjoy a cricket match with class, I'll give you that. Maybe we Aussies may learn a thing or two about that before the One-Dayers. Certainly, your gracious team is breaking popularity records down here, what with the heart warming respect it's showing to it's host country and all. You can only roll the welcome mat out so often. We have been spat upon. In fact, that is true literally!

I don't know why you're all so upset. You should be skipping down the street with glee. Sure, you lost the series but the world now has a new set of rules to play cricket by (yours), you get to select your own umpires, you can threaten to abandon a tour when things don't go your way on the field and your players are allowed to spit at their opponents and man-handle umpires. Not only that, but it is now a proven fact that Indians are physiologically and psychologically incapable of half-truths or subtle manipulation; and - all things being equal - Australians are more likely to lie than Indians.

It is now a scientific fact that an Indian may give four different accounts of the same event, all of which are true.

It is now impossible for Indians to simply lose a cricket match to a team who is better at playing cricket than they. Teams that are better than India are cheats. They are 'unsporting'. They are unsporting to appeal. They are unsporting to celebrate. They are unsporting to play defensively. They are unsporting to play adventurously. They are unsporting not to walk (of course Indian batsmen all walk). They must be punished.

Umpires make mistakes in one direction only. They are cheats too. The whole world is seething with cheats and liars, hell bent on destroying poor little Indian cricket in an arcane plot to ensure that Australia remains atop the world. England is - naturally - complicit, such is its well known sporting love of all things Australian.

Even better, everyone who disagrees with an Indian is officially a racist. Therefore, in order not to be racists, the rest of the world must quietly abide by whatever India's famously pure politicians and TV executives see fit for cricket. This is relevant to Australians, because of matters concerning the reign of Britain's Queen Victoria in the century before last. Poms and Aussies being so cosily aligned about imperialism and all. Hooray!

Oh, happy, happy days Kap. You OWN the game, and now you own on-field outcomes to boot. What more do you want? Turn that frown upside down fella!!

With so much to look forward to, why waste your precious emotional positivity on mentoring poor, humble Patrick on matters of intellect and prose? You've got a whole one day series to enjoy being victimised by, and that you can be almost certain of winning, lest you go home early. And we can't have that can we?

Come on - things have never looked so bright for Indian cricket. There's a hell of a lot to be thankful for...

Enjoy playing T20 against yourselves boys - what a blast.

[Oscar the Grouch]

Like, I suspect, the illustrious Bear and the big Mac, I have been wishing that this thing would just quietly sink into the general morass of boys behaving badly and everybody on both sides would quietly go away and make a short prayer that cricket rather than pan-nationalistic point-scoring would return to the planet. Obviously a pious hope; however the ICC Appeal judge's statement of findings is such a wondrous work of imagination that it's difficult to restrain oneself.

The ICC have come out of this looking like a bunch of pompous arse-brains (gee, who would have thought it?) and the Hon. Justice John Hansen has demonstrated a singular appreciation of precedent and an amazing lack of perspecacity. One can, however, perhaps applaud his flexibility.

There is no dispute that the initiating action was Harbhajan's
'pat on the backside' to Lee. That is a Level 2 offence under the ICC Code of Conduct: "Inappropriate and deliberate physical contact between players during play". One wonders whether the whole damn thing would have never happened had either of the umpires chipped Harbhajan there and then. Hansen considers that - although it IS palpably a breach of the ICC Code - that it was simply a playful gesture - and indeed, I think there is no doubt that was not meant with malicious intent at all. Hansen chooses not to enforce the ICC Code.

Now we have Symonds taking it upon himself to give Harbhajan a spray - unnecessary in anybody's terms and damn unfortunate. Another Level 2 offence, admitted before and accepted as fact by Hansen, yet also gone unpunished. Two wrongs making a right? Surely a right turn-up for legal precedent.

Then we get to moments of pure farce. We have John Jordan, SC, for Harbhajan, establishing the Harbhajan was truly provoked into his response by Symonds using the word 'f**k'. Well, no linguistic misunderstanding there, umpty-million viewers of YouTube have seen that Harbhajan is extremely well-versed in the use of that word. One would have thought that would not have been a leading argument in a properly-run case...

Jordan mislead Hansen in stating that Harbhajan only had 'one previous offence'. Perhaps Hansen is to be congratulated for remaining blissfully ignorant of the publicity that had surrounded the case.

Indeed, Hansen's judicial ignorance of any matters other than those actually presented in evidence leads to the piece de resistance: (Hansen): "Many reports have suggested that if the appeal is unsuccessful the balance of the tour would be called off or would at least be in jeopardy. Mr Manohar has assured me that that is not the position of the BCCI and it is no more than media speculation and exaggeration. I accept Mr Manohar’s assurance."

A Solomon indeed, overlooking the chartered Jet waiting to return the Indian team at the drop of the judgement had it not been for acquittal of the 3.3 charge. Still, lawyers are honourable gentlemen, are they not?

Cricket would have been better served, I can't help thinking, if the whole matter had been turned over to a 20/20 event: Harbhajan vs. Symonds, 20 rounds in 20 minutes out the back of the sheds. The ICC has proven itself to be stunningly incompetent as an arbiter, judge or law enforcement agency, but then those qualities are not really required of accountants.

[midnight_toker]

Patrick,

Nice blog, hope all the flag-waving isn't wearing you down.

The current situation represents the best deal that could get cricket out of the mess (cloaked in the least amount of mud), so amen to that.

Having said that, to your point about whether the aussies can be expected to remember anything after three weeks, Symonds own repeated usage of it is an obvious culprit (in addition to Harbhajan of course, in whatever language).

I'm wondering if its not impossible for Andrew Symonds to have considered it his patriotic duty to try and hobble Harbhajan if he could. A sort of mental integration perhaps, given Harbhajans hold over Ricky Ponting. Which would explain the way he kept repeating the word 'M****Y', almost like entrapment.

Which would also account for why the other two aussies didnt actually hear anything but '**NK**', the fact that they only heard it from the mouth of Symonds.

Even if he wasn't scheming to shore up his skipper, at the least sounds sounds like a paranoid crazy who looks for fights at the slightest possibility that he may have heard anything remotely sounding like '*O**E*'.

Sounds too contrived ?. Consider his comments for why he felt he had to protect the virtue of Brett Lees derriere. Surely not too indicative of someone smart enough to think through his actions or someone who realizes that the game is not a gladiator death-match.

Its my private theory that good batting pitches have led to flourishing batsmen (and some bowlers) with more biceps than common sense. Exhibit B, Ricky Ponting. Today he lashed out at 77 year old Neil Harvey. If he couldn't muster up the sense to gracefully let that slide, then he is perhaps deserving of all the heat thats been heading his way.

cheers

[Miguel]

Finally a voice of reason amongst all the hysteria.

I know after all of this the Australian team will be able to hold their heads high, which is more than you could Say for the BCCI.

[Mick Dundee]

Hi Patrick,
I thought you got the balance pretty right with this piece.
Anybody who doesn't believe a deal was done is naive in the extreme. The ICC obviously wants the whole thing to go away. They have squirted oil on the squeeky wheel and are now (rightly) counting on the short memory of the chattering classes to have the entire mess forgotten by the time England get home from NZ.
I thought your shot at Punter was a bit harsh but from your previous articles it is obvious that you don't like him very much (a shame because I hear he speaks very highly of you).
It is now pretty obvious that Mike Procter should have hosed the issue down at the time by doing what this judge has now done, but he's a cricketer not a politician. By all accounts he requested legal assistance from the ICC before the first hearing but was turned down.
The only point where I have to disagree with you completely is your reference to judge Hansen's reaction to Roy's comments re friendliness on the pitch.
The quote specifically refers to the time during the game, not friendship between players in general. We regurlarly hear interviews of sporting stars in Tennis, Motor Racing, Football, and others where they talk about being great mates off the court/track/field but bitter rivals on it. Most cricketers play for state or county sides at some point in the year and I'm sure they form freindships and bonds with many players who they subsequently encounter as opponents. Is it appropriate for them to do anything other than treat their own side as freinds and the opposition as enemies during play?
I'm kind of over this now too and would prefer to see India not involved in the triangular series with Sri Lanka next month. A break from playing each other would probably be good for both teams.
I would be interested to know what you thought of the BCCI's decision to lay on a charter plane for their players should they lose the appeal.

P.S.
I too noticed the silence from H.B.B. I hope its a coincidence that large areas of the country are still in drought and there's good eating on a 6 ft tall bear. Here's hoping the funny old fellow pops up again soon.
Cheers

[anon]

Kap said that Patrick's argument would insult the intelligence of a chimp. Is Kap calling Patrick a monkey?

(Some of my best friends are monkeys, and at least one of them agrees with me that this blog offers erudite discussion of the latest happenings in cricket.)

[Mr Cosgrove]

I find your points 5 & 6 to be contradictory. There is a huge difference between fondling and patting someone in a congratulatory manner. It is common in male sports for this to be done. So it seems in point 5 you say its not ok, but in point 6 you say it is ok. I agree with you on point 6, it is a sad day when someone who was not part of it decides to get in and mouth off at someone for doing the sportsman thing and congratulate a bowler.

While I agree what singh said (no matter what it actually was) shouldn’t have been said, but what right did symonds have of getting up in his face to begin with?

and somehow singh gets hauled over the coals and symonds gets nothing, even though he is clearly the one who started the whole thing?

Unfortunately, this has been the way of australian cricket in recent years, they have lost their love of the game and replaced it with a need to win every contest, They have become too professional, There is no doubt they are a great cricketing team, but they are a poor sports team. Which is underlined by symonds own comments you meantioned in point 6.

The worry is their somewhat lack of helping each other out when someone makes an error. If you look at the dropped catch of gilchrist. It really was an easy catch but he muffed it and that is ok, it happens, he is human, but if you look at the first slip fieldsman during and after it, he does not move, does not talk, just keeps chewing on gum. As a team mate, when someone messes up the first thing you should be doing is to make the poor guy feel a little better about himself. Instead he hung him out to dry in my opinion. a simple "dont beat yourself up over it" might have been encouraging to gilchrist.

[cricfan]

And as for your argument about people not remembering anything else about the exchange, sorry, courts deal in this all the time. If the only thing you can remember is two words and you can't remember diddly squat about anything else, any court and jury better look askance at your credibility.

What kind of credibility does Michael Clarke have, according to him Symonds didn't say a thing but was set upon by racist Harbhajan.

Talk about selective reading of the judgement.

[cricfan]

Mr. Kidd,

It is strange how different people find different things to focus on in the judgement.

For myself, it is the place where the judge says that even if Harbhajan had actually said "monkey", that it would not warrant a conviction under section 3.3 because of the provocation.

I quote:

(57) 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.

[Karan Kapoor]

Really!! They knew they would be called to testify, but they conviniently forgot anything else that was said. Its pure BS. I don't think Clarke and Hayden heard anything clearly. They heard Symonds accuse Harbhajan loudly and accepted that for a fact.If the stump microphone did not pick it up there is no way these guys walking in from slip heard it.

Not understanding something said in a language you don't speak is different from mishearing something you understand. Plus Symonds admitted to abusing Harbhajan.

Touching a woman on the rump is different from patting a guy with whom you are friendly. Lee has a good equation with the Indian cricketors and earns a lot of money through ads and music in India. Symonds is a jealous boor, who cannot stand the Indians making more money than him. Well with this he has sealed any chance of him playing in the IPL. I doubt any owner will be willing to piss off supporters by hiring him. Good luck being a spokesman for Fosters

[Mr A Nel]

Kidd,

I'm here. Just observing quietly and calmly, which is my usual method, as you know.

Taking some notes, planning my next campaign against India. Thinking that I may have to adjust my line a bit and try to hit the stumps. Might be the only way without the help of Bucky, Benno, Darrell and Raufy. I guess Simon will be blacklisted too now, for obvious reasons.

Nice to see the new world governing body okaying a revised code of behaviour though. Right up my alley actually.

Getting a bit willing on your blog hey Kidd? Don't worry, I still love you. Not.

I shall have to join the crowd and start using a sudonim or two. Might be a bit of fun. I'm sick of reading Chaucer in my spare time.

[Clint]

It is a very bad day for Cricket. A kagaroo court in many ways and so much lieing by the BCCI, it isn't funny.

[Patrick Kidd]

Thanks Kap. I'm sure that unlike many fans on both sides of the row, you have been considering the whole sad saga with admirable balance and lack of bias. I also imagine that, unlike me, you were standing by the wicket when the exchange was made and can accurately remember every word three weeks later. I'm just going on a loose understanding of human frailties.

Let me clarify something: I do not claim that Harbhajan called Symonds a monkey. I am happy to accept there is no proof that he did. But I think it is taken as read that some Australian players thought he called Symonds a monkey. They did not cook this up at the end of the day because they wanted to get at Harbhajan. They thought they heard it and acted immediately. They will have been asked about it - specifically the word monkey rather than any other part of the exchange - at the next break in play and it is all they will have been asked about for the past three weeks.

In those circumstances, I have no difficulty in accepting that when put on the stand in a court-room and asked for a recollection of precise words from three weeks ago, all that would leap to mind would be the words "big monkey". That does not mean that other words, perhaps as vile and offensive, were not said by players of both sides, but simply that the crux of the issue had purely boiled down to "big monkey". I defy you to remember word for word an argument you had three weeks ago, especially if you had played two draining Test matches in that period.

Would you rather they had just lied in court or gone on rough or imagined recollections? Surely the only thing relevant is what they heard and reported at the time. Anything else is guesswork. I was just surprised that the judge should not accept that.

Anyway, you have every right to call that an unintelligent argument, but I'd prefer a more courteous way of expressing it. I don't call you a thicko or a Brit-hater because you didn't agree with me; I'm happy to accept you have a different view. Perhaps it would have been easier for you to understand if players had continued to make claims without evidence. After all, this is just a soap opera, isn't it, so why shouldn't things be scripted?

[Kap]

Why would anyone call you an aussie hater? Reading this article you come across very much as an Aussie apologist. Your reasoning as to why Hayden and Clarke heard nothing except the big monkey phrase would insult the intelligence of a chimp. Keep up this quality writing and you'll very quickly lose the readers you gained over the past few weeks.