India Vs Australia 2007/8 Race Row

[ZoraxDoom]

Its is basically the Aussie word vs. the Indians word in Australia. And Bhajji got the ban. Now any team visitng Australia will feel if they sledge the Aussies, they could face a ban. This is just rubbish. No proof, just ban him anyways cause the Aussies said so. Pathetic.

 

[.::Stevo::.]

Its is basically the Aussie word vs. the Indians word in Australia. And Bhajji got the ban. Now any team visitng Australia will feel if they sledge the Aussies, they could face a ban. This is just rubbish. No proof, just ban him anyways cause the Aussies said so. Pathetic.

How do you know there is no proof? Nothing has been leaked from the hearing so i dont see how anyone can comment about it.

 

[King Cricket]

Harbhajan is innocent, simply innocent. There are no prooves, no evidences(Channel 9 have told the media that there are audio evidences of that abusement) NOTHING!!! Why did Mr referee ban Vajji??? Only because Mr Ponting and other aussies told him to do so! Why??? Is he a slave of Ponting???? If hogg says something it is OK, if Vajji says something it is a crime !! WHY WHY WHY

 

[manee]

Harbhajan is innocent, simply innocent. There are no prooves, no evidences(Channel 9 have told the media that there are audio evidences of that abusement) NOTHING!!! Why did Mr referee ban Vajji??? Only because Mr Ponting and other aussies told him to do so! Why??? Is he a slave of Ponting???? If hogg says something it is OK, if Vajji says something it is a crime !! WHY WHY WHY

Calling him as innocent will also be taking Harbhajan's view over that of the Australians. I believe that there should have been an enquiry rather than three hours of court case with nothing preceding it.

Having pieced together all the reports and rumours, I have come to the conclusion that this happened.

Harbhajan Singh hit Brett Lee for four and tapped Brett Lee on the arse. It is a slightly derogatory but not malicious gesture. It is the equivalent of "better luck next time", but delivered in a smarmy way.

Andrew Symonds, always up for an arguement, interpreted Harbhajan's tap as a sign of physical agression and shouted something (I have not found information as to what this it).

Harbhajan Singh takes offense to the remark and calls Symonds over. The two exchange heated words with Harbhajan Singh calling Symonds a monkey. I believe that there was intention to offend here, but he did not realise the significence of the phrase, he just understands it as an insult toward black people.

Ricky Ponting asks Symonds what was said and Symonds mentions the word 'monkey'. Symonds is 'smarting' but not highly offended by the remark. However, Ponting finds an opportunity to eliminate his number one rival by crying to some visibly weak umpires and takes it and reports the issue.

Mike Proctor sees no proof that Harbhajan called Symonds a monkey but yet concludes that Harbhajan probably did say it. Consequently, following the no tolerance policy on racism, Harbhajan gets a three match ban.

 

[King Pietersen]

Monkey is a derogatory word that is highly offensive to the black community. If Harbhajan called Symonds that he deserves a 3 match ban at least. I honestly believe Symonds, as i see him as quite an honest and nice bloke. Using the term Monkey in any type of sledging is just stepping over the line.

Also, Manee, i normally consider you one of the more intellectual members of the forums, and normally offer an unbiased look on the cricketing world, but you've taken a step back with that "statement". Using phrases such as "visibly weak umpires", "owned" and then making the point that Ponting sees this racist remark as an oppurtunity to eliminate a rival. The fact is, if Harbhajan used the term "monkey" when aimed at Symonds, he deserves all the punishment he gets, and is a complete idiot.

 

[manee]

Also, Manee, i normally consider you one of the more intellectual members of the forums, and normally offer an unbiased look on the cricketing world, but you've taken a step back with that "statement". Using phrases such as "visibly weak umpires", "owned" and then making the point that Ponting sees this racist remark as an oppurtunity to eliminate a rival. The fact is, if Harbhajan used the term "monkey" when aimed at Symonds, he deserves all the punishment he gets, and is a complete idiot.

"Visibly weak umpires", even the best umpires would be visibly weakened after such bad decisions and would be more prone to accept allegations and take them to the match referee rather than shake them off quickly.

"Owned" is probably not the right term - I meant a light feeling of anger (you got a better word?). Smarting may be a better term. He was smarting, but not emotionally crippled.

As for the last bit of your post, I have not intended to comment whatsoever on the decision to ban him, I just gave a recollection of what several sources have said.

 

[angryangy]

i cant believe the aussies of all people are having a whinge

WHATS HAPPENS ON THE FIELD
STAYS ON THE FIELD

its that simple

I'm disappointed that people are this naive. Before every series the ICC referees advise both captains that they are to report any racism and indeed with televised matches, the captains' duty to uphold the code of conduct is under much scrutiny.

I'm also disappointed that people are suggesting that if such an event is not directly evidenced, then it is ok.

Gibbs was heard cursing the Pakistan fans as animals who belonged at the zoo, in regards to taunts aimed at his team mate, Paul Harris. The situation for Herschelle Gibbs was that he did not intend for the comment to be broadcast, but it was, through pitch mikes that should have been turned off during while the ball was dead. Nevertheless, he copped a penalty because it did get out. Whatever happened in this incident, it has gotten out and there is no way the ICC is happy with it just being a mysterious event.

One thing is certain, an incident did take place and the actions of the players in standard sledges are usually quicker than this. Symonds did not get all "leave my wife alone" ala McGrath and Sarwan, but it did seem along the lines of "go back where you came from". Hayden's reaction was very interesting, he is curious at first and then the gestures seem to show disappointment; his gestures are very negative, it looks like "I don't put up with that". Tendulkar is very conciliatory, he is doing a lot of talking, but Harbhajan isn't saying much, he isn't saying "oh, he misunderstood me, I am very sorry", but rather he is keeping his mouth shut while Tendulkar says "look it's just Bhaji you know, he didn't mean it".

That's just what I read from it, but the point is that there is enough evidence there for an expert such as a lip reader.

Perhaps more interesting is that the details we have all assumed are not being verified by anyone. Is the word 'monkey'? It may be the case, but we know less about that than anything else.

Finally; and I admit this is probably going to just fuel the fire; but I've read some people think Australia is just untouchable and want to raise a point of fairness. Turn back 5 years and you will find Darren Lehmann was found guilty of firing a racist comment in earshot of the Sri Lankan dressing room, after being run out. Lehmann served a ban of 5 ODIs and it was certainly something that would have been worth defending tooth and nail, as it spelt the beginning of the end; the lad to receive a call up was a newcomer named Michael Clarke.

The respective board statements for the events are amazingly different.
The statement by James Sutherland;
"I have expressed to Darren the ACB's disappointment in the incident and organised immediate counselling for him. It is clear that he has acted in an undesirable manner and steps will be taken to see that behaviour such as this is not repeated."

and the recent one from the BCCI;
"The Indian Board realises the game of cricket is paramount but so too is the honour of the Indian team and for that matter every Indian. To vindicate its position, the Board will fight the blatantly false and unfair slur on an Indian player. The board will appeal to the ICC to review the decision of the match referee and suspend its operation until the appeal is disposed of."

Now, I know it's perfectly reasonable that they should defend him, but is every Indian's honour now at stake because of this? When Ganguly was bleeding match fees for poor over-rates, was that a slur on the entire nation, or did they accept that it was that one player's responsibility? I wonder if they are defending this solely because of pride and not at all because they actually believe Harbhajan's innocence.

 

[barmyarmy]

Harbhajan is innocent, simply innocent. There are no prooves, no evidences(Channel 9 have told the media that there are audio evidences of that abusement) NOTHING!!! Why did Mr referee ban Vajji??? Only because Mr Ponting and other aussies told him to do so! Why??? Is he a slave of Ponting???? If hogg says something it is OK, if Vajji says something it is a crime !! WHY WHY WHY

I don't buy this at all. There were three Aussie witnesses - Ponting, Symonds and Hayden - and there was recent history regarding Symonds being racially abused.
I agree with you about Hogg. If he said something that was offensive to an Indian he should definitely have been punished regardless of how acceptable the term is in Australia.

 

[Harrypotter_fan]

All these things about track record of harbhajan................. Is that (track record) the reason why Aussies are not allowed to lose a test match at all costs?

 

[barmyarmy]

All these things about track record of harbhajan................. Is that (track record) the reason why Aussies are not allowed to lose a test match at all costs?

I think my personal track record is clear on the fact that I'm always happy for Aussies to lose test matches...
As a neutral leaning towards India my enjoyment of the series has been ruined by the dodgy umpiring but that really has nothing to do with whether or not Harbhahjan Singh should be allowed to get away with making racist remarks.

 

[Pat]

How do you know there is no proof? Nothing has been leaked from the hearing so i dont see how anyone can comment about it.

Both the umpires and match-referee had previously mentioned that they had no evidence to suggest that harbhajan indeed used that word.Apart from that,channel 9 team were also not able to gather any video/audio evidence.So I guess its only fair to comment on it that way.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

From a neutral view, if Harbhajan was considered racist and banned, so should Hogg.

And what really made the Aussies look bad is their celebrations after the match and the way Clarke stood his ground after edging to slip.


BTW - Read this somewhere, we don't call Sachin a monkey cause he doesn't act like one. Sreesanth however...

 

[Pat]

I don't buy this at all. There were three Aussie witnesses - Ponting, Symonds and Hayden - and there was recent history regarding Symonds being racially abused.
I agree with you about Hogg. If he said something that was offensive to an Indian he should definitely have been punished regardless of how acceptable the term is in Australia.

Ponting was not the witness.And symonds cannot be counted as a witness as he is the complainant.The names that have come up in media are Mathew Hayden and Michael Clarke.And if you see the videos carefully,you will find that clarke was nowhere near to where the incident occured.

Sachin was the person who was in the best position to hear the conversation and he indeed put his point across the match referee.Then why did Mr.Mike Procter had to take the word from Australians and not from the universally respected Sachin Tendulkar ?

And you mention about recent history ? Who has made those claims about racist comments made by Harbhajan Singh in the past? Its the same people again - Mr. Ricky Ponting and Co.

 

[barmyarmy]

Ponting was not the witness.And symonds cannot be counted as a witness as he is the complainant.The names that have come up in media are Mathew Hayden and Michael Clarke.And if you see the videos carefully,you will find that clarke was nowhere near to where the incident occured.

Sachin was the person who was in the best position to hear the conversation and he indeed put his point across the match referee.Then why did Mr.Mike Procter had to take the word from Australians and not from the universally respected Sachin Tendulkar ?

And you mention about recent history ? Who has made those claims about racist comments made by Harbhajan Singh in the past? Its the same people again - Mr. Ricky Ponting and Co.

"I am South African, and I understand the word racism," Procter told the Sydney Morning Herald. "I have lived with it for much of my life. This was not a case of just taking the word of an Australian over an Indian. I stand by my decision. I believe the process was a fair one. I intend to carry on for the rest of the series, because I don't have a problem with India. I have always had a good rapport with Indian players."

Without knowing the contents of the hearing it's hard to have an informed debate.

 

[sohum]

Now, I know it's perfectly reasonable that they should defend him, but is every Indian's honour now at stake because of this? When Ganguly was bleeding match fees for poor over-rates, was that a slur on the entire nation, or did they accept that it was that one player's responsibility? I wonder if they are defending this solely because of pride and not at all because they actually believe Harbhajan's innocence.

Good post, there. Again, the key is evidence. Don't you feel that there is any conflict of interest involved if the only evidence that is immediately obvious is from Symonds and Ponting? If neither of the umpires heard it, the stump mics didn't pick it up, etc., how can we be certain it wasn't a bit of gamesmanship by the Aussies? It seems horrible to brand the two liars but the only problem I have is that Kumble and Tendulkar gave a conflicting description of the events. If Tendulkar had been tightlipped or unwilling to talk about the incident, I would have understood from that that Harbhajan may have wronged.

As it happens, how do we really know Symonds didn't hear Harbhajan incorrectly? After all, it seems only 3 people really heard what happened, which hasn't been the case in all the other examples you pull up. It really boils down to evidence in any case. If you don't have evidence, you can't get a verdict. It sucks sometimes because the guilty get through the system. At the same time, an innocent man being dealt a verdict of guilty is INFINITELY worse than that.

Without knowing the contents of the hearing it's hard to have an informed debate.

That's the key. But you are going to continue to have arguments if both sides vehemently claim that Harbhajan is guilty/innocent.