Procter took 'Australia's word for it'

[Cricketman]

Not to stir up any old feelings, but...

It has been revealed that Mike Procter, the match referee who found Harbhajan Singh guilty of calling Andrew Symonds a "monkey" during the Sydney Test, relied on the evidence of three Australian players in reaching his decision. Harbhajan was banned for three Tests for that offence but the sentence was suspended following an appeal, by the Indian team, which will be heard next week.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ausvind/content/current/story/333381.html

 

[Insomniac]

Procter is dead meat now...

All I can say.

 

[SciD]

If this is a leaked report then I read this the next day only.

 

[Sureshot]

Procter is dead meat now...

All I can say.

Why? For using the evidence available to him?

 

[SciD]

Why? For using the evidence available to him?

No for going by his gut instinct.

 

[FreddieFan]

I feel strongly that an ICC Match Referee taking the word of 1 player over another is a shocking state of affairs. I think Proctor will be exteremly lucky if he keeps his job after this.

 

[Adarsh]

Why? For using the evidence available to him?

By using, unjustifiably, one piece of evidence over another to reach his verdict.

 

[Kev]

Well at the end of the day, an incident like this is always going to come down to one persons word against another. Someone has to make tough decisions and sometimes they are unpopular decisions with some. If the situation had been reversed and it was Harbhajan accusing Symonds of a racist insult would you expect Procter to do nothing about that?

Get over it, move on, threads here are just going over and over and over the same ground and nothing different is ever said. Its pathetic.

 

[SaiSrini]

Why? For using the evidence available to him?

How was he sure that the Australians were saying the truth? With one side saying it happened and the other denying that it didnt happen, the fair way OBVIOUSLY is to rely on evidence (in this case, there wasnt any evidence).

That Australian players say that it happened is not evidence. On India's side, Sachin Tendulkar said that it didnt happen.

Well at the end of the day, an incident like this is always going to come down to one persons word against another. Someone has to make tough decisions and sometimes they are unpopular decisions with some. If the situation had been reversed and it was Harbhajan accusing Symonds of a racist insult would you expect Procter to do nothing about that?

The fair thing would be to give the benefit of the doubt to Harbhajan because they dont have any video or audio evidence that Harbhajan called Symonds a word thats racist.

 

[evertonfan]

I'm with Kev on this. If Symonds had racially abused Bhaji then you'd want the ICC to slam down hard on him and ban/fine him. Such is the fickle nature of some of you lot.

Can we just stop these pathetic arguments please.

 

[barmyarmy]

The whole system breaks down if racist remarks have to actually be caught on tape for the perpetrator to be punished. You can say what you like.

 

[.::Stevo::.]

Oh god, India are going to go nuts now.

The evidence is there and he acted, fair enough! What more do Indians want. Do they want the ICC to set up microphones over every square metre of the field???

Harbijhan called Symonds a monkey, end of story.

 

[Cricketman]

It's unlawful. That's all I can say.
Evidence is not 'a person's word for it'.

I still fail to see why he would call him a monkey. My money is on the "teri maa ki..." (Yo MAMA-translation )

 

[Sureshot]

Evidence isn't a persons word?

So why do courts bother having people testify?

 

[tutsipoppy2]

In a neutral opinion,

Proctor's way of reaching a conclusion was a stupid one.

I mean no matter what team, the opposition will never admit their own wrong doing, they will never say that they didnt took the catch cleanly...

Its just plain common sense.