Kumble wants suitable punishment for provocateurs

[JeeraBlade]

Former India captain and India's highest Test-wicket taker, Anil Kumble has said that the ICC's match referees aren't punishing the instigators of on-field altercations severely enough, and that the ones who have provoked incidents escape with a none-too-heavy fine, while players who have been provoked and thus react strongly are heavily penalised. Kumble's views came in a syndicated column after the conclusion of the ill-tempered Perth Test between Australia and West Indies, which saw three Australians reported and fined, but West Indian Sulieman Benn banned for two ODIs. While Benn, Haddin and Johnson even had some physical contact, it appeared that none of the men was at fault for it, since it seemed accidental. However, Haddin had inflamed the situation to its ugly levels by pointing his bat at Benn, when Benn and Johnson had got into a tangle while Benn was going for the ball and Johnson for a run. "There doesn't seem to be any punishment forthcoming for someone who provokes and that to me is against the principles of natural justice," Kumble wrote. "The Australians always seem to get away. Whatever their transgressions on the field, invariably it is their opponents who end up paying a price. Somehow or the other, teams playing against the Aussies seem to invite the match referee's wrath." Shane Watson was the other Aussie fined, and Kumble recalled an incident the bowler had against India, in what turned out to be Kumble's last Test before retiring in Delhi in 2008. Watson had then continuously provoked Gautam Gambhir, and when Gambhir set off for a run, Watson had clearly invaded his personal space by gesturing in front of his face while he was running. In retaliation, Gambhir had elbowed Watson, while turning for his second run, upon which match referee Chris Broad had banned Gambhir for a Test. Gambhir had also had a violent argument with Simon Katich on the field. "In the Delhi Test against us, my last, the one that earned Gautam Gambhir a ban for having a go at Watson, the same umpire and the match referee were officiating," Kumble wrote. "At that time, the umpire Billy Bowden didn't see it fit to report Simon Katich who had later obstructed Gautam and the match referee Chris Broad too didn't bother to act on his own or follow it up with the on-field umpires even though it was very much evident on TV. And as on that occasion, the provocateurs got away in Perth too, with Haddin and Johnson receiving minor reprimands."

http://www.newkerala.com/news/fullnews-16234.html

[Random Aussie]

All together now.....

Indian phir ro rahe hain, shabbash

The irony of the great over appealer commenting on sportsmanship is probably lost on most.....

[mmkextreme_1]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie All together now..... Indian phir ro rahe hain, shabbash The irony of the great over appealer commenting on sportsmanship is probably lost on most.....

gem by u RA bro..I m literally lmao..

[Garuda]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie All together now..... Indian phir ro rahe hain, shabbash The irony of the great over appealer commenting on sportsmanship is probably lost on most.....

RA, try " Indians nahin sudhrenge" onwards.

Other one is getting old now

[Sufi Malang]

Completely agree with Kumble!! Ozs always get away with such incidents and its their opponents who find themselves in all sorts of trouble when found involved!!! Good that Kumble had said it openly!

[moumotta]

Kumble again on target, same as with his bowling.

[Fish]

I think Kumble was talking about Gayle not being punished for sledging Watson and only Watson being fined for reacting.

Thats what he is talking about isnt it?.

[moumotta]

Spinmasters already in the act and it hasn't even started yet.

[abdul2009]

look who is talking?? couldnt win anything under his captaincy and cant even turn the ball an inch!

we know about your spirit Mr kumbe, you are the last one who should be lecturing on this!

[Random Aussie]

Originally Posted by Garuda RA, try " Indians nahin sudhrenge" onwards. Other one is getting old now

Yes is getting old, what makes it old is how often I get to use it Which says something.

But point taken and I will go find something else to annoy you with...

[Romali_rotti]

Man I have been saying this for soooo long, punish the instigator...........

[Romali_rotti]

Originally Posted by Fish I think Kumble was talking about Gayle not being punished for sledging Watson and only Watson being fined for reacting.Thats what he is talking about isnt it?.

Absolutely no proof whatsoever, if you do then show it otherwise tough Watson is just lying. Heck if the Bunny even came out and said he is embarrassed of his team mate's behaviour surely that means that tough guy Watson was guilty..

[s2k]

Originally Posted by abdul2009 look who is talking?? couldnt win anything under his captaincy and cant even turn the ball an inch! we know about your spirit Mr kumbe, you are the last one who should be lecturing on this!

still took more than 600 wickets.....gto lara lbw while bowling with a broken jaw.....couldnt win anything????didnt pakistan lose the test series in india under his captaincy?

and what spirit you talk about?

[abdul2009]

Originally Posted by s2k still took more than 600 wickets.....gto lara lbw while bowling with a broken jaw.....couldnt win anything????didnt pakistan lose the test series in india under his captaincy? and what spirit you talk about?

did he use his jaw to bowl?

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Originally Posted by s2k and what spirit you talk about?

Go to his profile and read his posts. You'll find out.

[Golden arm]

well I see a very valid point in this.
Some how australians instigate the incidents and then they get away because they belong to first world.
and first world people are gentlemen. they cant be punished, as the laws are not for them.
the laws are made for blacks and browns.

[tdigi]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie All together now..... Indian phir ro rahe hain, shabbash The irony of the great over appealer commenting on sportsmanship is probably lost on most.....

On a serious note...why is that the sub continent fans and players have a negative image about Australia when it comes to sledging and getting away with it. Think about this and give me a genuine answer. I expect a good reply from you.

Imran Khan and Gavaskar have said the same on similar issues and now Kumble is saying it...

And come up with something better than "indian phir ro rahe hain"

[khanlala]

just what is wrong with that Ak is saying?

He is right..Aus always get away with it..

watson and haddin are the two biggest moron around...i hope someone will knock their teeth out..

just wait till something like this happen in pak series and most of you will want what Ak is saying..you guys will be out in Ak support...
all it will take is a ban for one of our guy and a 25% fine for aus, even tho aus was the one who started..

[cricjunkie]

Kumble is absolutely right, afterall he is talking from experience. I posted this a while ago on this forum. Time for this to resurface.


1) Instances of Aussies getting away:

a) Remember ICC Champs trophy 2006 ?

Clarke called Gayle a second class citizen, Clarkey was let go & Gayle was dinged

b) Third test at SCG, 1999:

McGrath abuses SRT after a very dubious LBW & gets away

c) Aus-WI 1999 (I think ?):

McGrath's famous outburst against Sarwan.

d) Ian Healy took the bails off & then appealed for a hit wicket in one of the ODIs in the 90s. No action!



http://www.cricketcrowd.com/Play_Video-23-29-29.html

This is the Aus-SA, J'Borg, ODI in 1997 The caption before the video starts clearly states that Ian Healy appeals for hit wicket after removing the bails. The video shows Ian Healy removing the bails intentionally.

e) Langer bail removal incident:

Guess who bailed him out ? You got that right. Yep, Chris "the shameless" Broad.

Justin Langer has been cleared by the match referee, Chris Broad, of a possible breach of the ICC's code of conduct, "Justin was disappointed that the charge was brought and explained his position in a very honest and succinct way," Langer attended a disciplinary inquiry after the close of play on Friday night, following a bizarre incident during the morning session, when Australia belatedly appealed for a hit-wicket decision against Hashan Tillakaratne. The umpires referred the decision to the third umpire to verify how Tillakaratne's bail had been dislodged. The television pictures showed that Langer dislodged the bail with his hand while he crossed over the pitch to take up a new fielding position for the right-handed Thilan Samaraweera.

f) Michael "Honest" Clarke has a habit of claiming bump catches for fun
Two recent instances:

-> 3rd ODI vs NZ in 2007 (6th wicket. Watch closely at 20)

Alrighty, found the Michael Clarke "bump catch" link as well. Ironically the video is on Cricket Australia's website. http://www.cricketaustralia.tv/page/...,12377,00.html Click on "Commonwealth Chappell-Hadlee Trophy". Then click on "Watch" adjacent to the "Aus vs NZ - Hobart, Dec 20" Fast fwd to 09:20. Its the sixth wicket of Hopkins. Its the 3rd ODI at Hobart between Aus & NZ on Dec 20, 2007

-> SCG test vs India 2008

Do you want me to remind you what happened to Rashid Latif when he claimed a bump catch ?

g) Ind-Aus 2001.

Slater took a contarversial catch off Dravid & was abusing Dravid for staying put. The catch was later reviewed by thrid ump & Dravid was ruled not out. Ofcourse, slater got away.

2) Instances of Chris Broad, the agent's shameful abuse of power: (facts borrowed from another forum)

Jan 16, 2005: Shoaib Akhtar, Australia v Pakistan, ODI
Excessive appealing. Fined 25% of match fee and warned about future conduct.
Referee: Chris Broad

Feb 1, 2005: Inzamam-ul-Haq, Pakistan v West Indies, ODI
Fined 100% of match fee and given a final warning about slow decision making and general slow over rate.
Referee: Chris Broad

Mar 8, 2005: Lakshmipathy Balaji, India v Pakistan, Test
Excessive appealing, Fined 30% of match fee.
Referee: Chris Broad

Mar 21, 2005: Harbhajan Singh, India v Pakistan, Test
Reported again for suspect bowling action, after tests due to his earlier report against him 3 months earlier.
Referee: Chris Broad

Mar 24, 2005: Inzamam-ul-Haq, India v Pakistan, Test
Showing dissent at an umpire’s decision by action or verbal abuse. Fined 30% of match fee.
Referee: Chris Broad

Mar 28, 2005: Inzamam-ul-Haq, India v Pakistan, Test
Charging or advancing towards the umpire in an aggressive manner when appealing. Banned for 1 Test match.
Referee: Chris Broad

Apr 5, 2005: Inzamam-ul-Haq, India v Pakistan, ODI
Abuse of cricket equipment or clothing, ground equipment or fixtures and fittings. Official Reprimand.
Referee: Chris Broad

April 9, 2005: Sourav Ganguly, India v Pakistan, ODI
Bowled overs too slowly. Fined 70% of match fee
Referee: Chris Broad

April 12, 2005: Sourav Ganguly, India v Pakistan, ODI
Bowled overs too slowly. Banned for 6 ODIs.
Referee: Chris Broad

Do you see any pattern here ? If you dont you need to see a doctor.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by abdul2009 look who is talking?? couldnt win anything under his captaincy and cant even turn the ball an inch! we know about your spirit Mr kumbe, you are the last one who should be lecturing on this!

He took TEN wickets in an innings against us. TEN wickets! All by himself. He won India a test match which we shouldn't have ever lost. So you don't really have a right to say anything against him really. And I'm saying that because I've read other posts of yours too.

[Paradox]

But I will HAVE to agree Anil Kumble is the fastest bowler India has ever produced.

[Indiafan]

Originally Posted by s2k still took more than 600 wickets.....gto lara lbw while bowling with a broken jaw.....couldnt win anything????didnt pakistan lose the test series in india under his captaincy? and what spirit you talk about?

Ignore him. He is ready to even speak against Pak if he gets a chance to score a point against India

[Indiafan]

Originally Posted by Paradox But I will HAVE to agree Anil Kumble is the fastest bowler India has ever produced.

To be fair he did lose a few mph towards his last few years

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Indiafan To be fair he did lose a few mph towards his last few years

Still faster than Irfan Pathan (slow left arm) and Praveen Kumar (right arm offbreak/legbreak), I guess.

[Indiafan]

Originally Posted by Paradox Still faster than Irfan Pathan (slow left arm) and Praveen Kumar (right arm offbreak/legbreak), I guess.

Yes, but ishant just shades him in his(Ishant's) effort balls

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Indiafan Yes, but ishant just shades him in his(Ishant's) effort balls

We will get along well, Indiafan.

[Yaser]

Originally Posted by Indiafan Yes, but ishant just shades him in his(Ishant's) effort balls

[cricjunkie]

Folks, can you please stop hijacking the thread with this stupid chit chat ? I posted a dossier of evidence in support of Kumble & it is already buried amidst this nonsenscial chitchat.
I thought there is a TimePass forum to discuss such things ?

[moumotta]

Originally Posted by cricjunkie Kumble is absolutely right, afterall he is talking from experience. I posted this a while ago on this forum. Time for this to resurface. 1) Instances of Aussies getting away: a) Remember ICC Champs trophy 2006 ? Clarke called Gayle a second class citizen, Clarkey was let go & Gayle was dinged b) Third test at SCG, 1999: McGrath abuses SRT after a very dubious LBW & gets away c) Aus-WI 1999 (I think ?): McGrath's famous outburst against Sarwan. d) Ian Healy took the bails off & then appealed for a hit wicket in one of the ODIs in the 90s. No action! e) Langer bail removal incident: Guess who bailed him out ? You got that right. Yep, Chris "the shameless" Broad. f) Michael "Honest" Clarke has a habit of claiming bump catches for fun Two recent instances: -> 3rd ODI vs NZ in 2007 (6th wicket. Watch closely at 20) -> SCG test vs India in the recently concluded test series. Do you want me to remind you what happened to Rashid Latif when he claimed a bump catch ? g) Ind-Aus 2001. Slater took a contarversial catch off Dravid & was abusing Dravid for staying put. The catch was later reviewed by thrid ump & Dravid was ruled not out. Ofcourse, slater got away. 2) Instances of Chris Broad, the agent's shameful abuse of power: (facts borrowed from another forum) Jan 16, 2005: Shoaib Akhtar, Australia v Pakistan, ODI Excessive appealing. Fined 25% of match fee and warned about future conduct. Referee: Chris Broad Feb 1, 2005: Inzamam-ul-Haq, Pakistan v West Indies, ODI Fined 100% of match fee and given a final warning about slow decision making and general slow over rate. Referee: Chris Broad Mar 8, 2005: Lakshmipathy Balaji, India v Pakistan, Test Excessive appealing, Fined 30% of match fee. Referee: Chris Broad Mar 21, 2005: Harbhajan Singh, India v Pakistan, Test Reported again for suspect bowling action, after tests due to his earlier report against him 3 months earlier. Referee: Chris Broad Mar 24, 2005: Inzamam-ul-Haq, India v Pakistan, Test Showing dissent at an umpire’s decision by action or verbal abuse. Fined 30% of match fee. Referee: Chris Broad Mar 28, 2005: Inzamam-ul-Haq, India v Pakistan, Test Charging or advancing towards the umpire in an aggressive manner when appealing. Banned for 1 Test match. Referee: Chris Broad Apr 5, 2005: Inzamam-ul-Haq, India v Pakistan, ODI Abuse of cricket equipment or clothing, ground equipment or fixtures and fittings. Official Reprimand. Referee: Chris Broad April 9, 2005: Sourav Ganguly, India v Pakistan, ODI Bowled overs too slowly. Fined 70% of match fee Referee: Chris Broad April 12, 2005: Sourav Ganguly, India v Pakistan, ODI Bowled overs too slowly. Banned for 6 ODIs. Referee: Chris Broad Do you see any pattern here ? If you dont you need to see a doctor.

Ok. here it is. Back from the burrows.

I am not sure (2) proves Broad's bias. To do that you need to contrast with more lenient decisions in similar cases for other countries. A list of punishments to subcontinental players hardly proves anything.

[Black Zero]

Then why BBCI, WICB, and PCB dont get rid of him. Wont be hard.

[Random Aussie]

Originally Posted by tdigi On a serious note...why is that the sub continent fans and players have a negative image about Australia when it comes to sledging and getting away with it. Think about this and give me a genuine answer. I expect a good reply from you. Imran Khan and Gavaskar have said the same on similar issues and now Kumble is saying it... And come up with something better than "indian phir ro rahe hain"

I don't want to give you a decent reply I want to continue baiting you.

But since you asked....I would be interested to see what Imran said, I place zero weight to anything said by Gavaskar or Kumble.

I would think there are a couple of factors at work here, one is jealousy, the other is a bit more complex. When it comes to sledging, there is a very fine line which we are very good at not overstepping and the subcontinent players just go over that line pretty easily when provoked.

And perhaps, as others have mentioned, we are a lot better at the post incident remorse than some others, we just apologise, say nice things and then go and repeat the behaviour next time. There is a tendency for others to either blatantly lie about incidents (Gambhir is one example I can use from recent memory) or to try and take the "well I am in trouble so the other guy should be in trouble too" line which probably does not go over very well with old school referees. I know it never went over well at school, which is what it is an immature and silly way to behave when you have done the wrong thing.

But this is just me speculating, I don't know because I was not there, we don't know what had been said prior or the context, all we see is an incident on TV without hearing the words or context. A succession of match referees (and not all white racists either) seem to make pretty consistent rulings on this - so either big conspiracy or one of the factors above is affecting it.

There is no denying we sledge and play hard but then again, if you want to argue the Indian team (or any other team) do not do the same you are not being truthful. For whatever reason - and obviously I don't believe in the racist conspiracy angle because it is illogical - we get consistently warned and fined but never is the conduct deemed worth of suspension.

There is some thoughts, offered in the spirit of discussion.

Onward and upward.

[Random Aussie]

Originally Posted by cricjunkie Kumble is absolutely right, afterall he is talking from experience. I posted this a while ago on this forum. Time for this to resurface. 1) Instances of Aussies getting away: a) Remember ICC Champs trophy 2006 ? Clarke called Gayle a second class citizen, Clarkey was let go & Gayle was dinged You are making things up here mate. The only talk of "second class citizen" came from an anonymous source in the WI camp. Clarke denied he said it, Gayle did not claim Clarke said it - but you in your bias post it as a fact. Gayle was fined for a protracted tirade aginst Clarke and for nudging him during a run. Clarke was found not guilty in a hearing in a different city. b) Third test at SCG, 1999: McGrath abuses SRT after a very dubious LBW & gets away You mean this match at 2.50? http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=...21/-e2nJIsr8cg Where McGrath does a more restrained "watson" after Tendulkar smashed him all over the ground? This is abuse is it? You just make things up to suit yourself..

Not worth going on with your post, I looked into 2 of the incidents and would be hard to say you are presenting an unbiased view of the facts.....

[cricjunkie]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie Not worth going on with your post, I looked into 2 of the incidents and would be hard to say you are presenting an unbiased view of the facts.....

Yeah, Yeah, not worth it at all. Stop playing this smart a$$ trick with me. Why bother arguing over incidents such as "Langer getting away picking off a bail & appealing" when you can conveniently brush aside everything with intellectually vaccuous rhetorics such as "Oh, those injuns are cryin again", eh!

There is a reason Kumble made those comments. Prove it that you are competent enough to hold your ground or back off passing judgement on Kumble's comments.

Clarke vs Gayle incident

You missed the point as expected. All the incidents i pointed out were to show how Aussies were treated by match referees, just to set the expectations straight. The point is that in equivalent situations non-white players have been punished disproportionate to the crime.

When Bhajji denied calling Symonds with the M-word, no one believed him. There was no TV evidence in that case either. Just some players words vs the others. But when Clarke denies calling Gayle a second class citizen, that has to be the truth, right ? Apparently so, for Mike Proctor, the match referee (who also presided over the Bhajji incident). This is what he had to say:

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/263739.html

"What started off as banter between the two players got out of hand and Chris Gayle went over the top in his reactions," Mike Procter, the ICC match referee, said after the hearing. "We do not want robots on the field and we want to ensure players play with enthusiasm and passion. We saw a great deal of that during an excellent match on Wednesday but there is a line between what is acceptable and what is not and Chris crossed it."

Can you see the hypocrisy or do i have to explain this to you ?

On the SRT incident, i dont have the video evidence to backup my claim. I dont think its the incident that you pointed out. So i'll drop this from my list (only because i cant prove it).

But dont run away using this as your alibi. There is still plenty of other incidents that provide you an opportunity to authoritatively explain why ICC has been fair to players of all skin tone.

Only if you knew anything about this topic...

[cricjunkie]

Originally Posted by moumotta Ok. here it is. Back from the burrows. I am not sure (2) proves Broad's bias. To do that you need to contrast with more lenient decisions in similar cases for other countries. A list of punishments to subcontinental players hardly proves anything.

(2) alone doesnt show any bias from Broad. The point was to show how Broad handled Asian players relative to white players.

On the one hand we have Sehwag being reprimanded and fined for not turning back to appeal or Balaji fined for excessive appealing and on the other hand, we have Justin Langer who picked the bails & appealed for a wicket (if this is not bringing the game into disrepute i dont know what is) getting away because he had "satisfactorily" explained the incident to Broad.

Day light murderer gets away scott free because he has satisfactorily explained the incident, while a speeding driver gets fined his monthly wages. Justice indeed!

Does that prove anything ?

PS: And you should have also noticed that the list of Broad's victims is uniquely Asian.

[cricjunkie]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie I don't want to give you a decent reply I want to continue baiting you. But since you asked....I would be interested to see what Imran said, I place zero weight to anything said by Gavaskar or Kumble. I would think there are a couple of factors at work here, one is jealousy, the other is a bit more complex. When it comes to sledging, there is a very fine line which we are very good at not overstepping and the subcontinent players just go over that line pretty easily when provoked. And perhaps, as others have mentioned, we are a lot better at the post incident remorse than some others, we just apologise, say nice things and then go and repeat the behaviour next time. There is a tendency for others to either blatantly lie about incidents (Gambhir is one example I can use from recent memory) or to try and take the "well I am in trouble so the other guy should be in trouble too" line which probably does not go over very well with old school referees. I know it never went over well at school, which is what it is an immature and silly way to behave when you have done the wrong thing. But this is just me speculating, I don't know because I was not there, we don't know what had been said prior or the context, all we see is an incident on TV without hearing the words or context. A succession of match referees (and not all white racists either) seem to make pretty consistent rulings on this - so either big conspiracy or one of the factors above is affecting it. There is no denying we sledge and play hard but then again, if you want to argue the Indian team (or any other team) do not do the same you are not being truthful. For whatever reason - and obviously I don't believe in the racist conspiracy angle because it is illogical - we get consistently warned and fined but never is the conduct deemed worth of suspension. There is some thoughts, offered in the spirit of discussion. Onward and upward.

This post just sums up your levels of delusion. A perfect 10, I must say
The world thinks about Aussies this way because of the mountains of evidence i posted. Wisen up!

[tdigi]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie But since you asked....I would be interested to see what Imran said, I place zero weight to anything said by Gavaskar or Kumble.

First let me thank you for a nice reply. Appreciate your point of view

The perception of subcontinent players like Imran Khan and Gavaskar on the issue of racial discrimination comes from their playing days. They seem to have experienced it first hand when playing against English and Australian teams. Now what happens is that this experience gets carried on to when such players offer commentary.

Many times I have seen Gavaskar make comments on sensitive issues like..."Oh the white teams get away with things...from unfair umpiring to unfair referee decisions"

There might have been a racist divide years ago and the effects of that still trickle down may be. Watch this video and particularly pay attention to the first half of it --->




You have to understand from a sub continent point of view, that the current crop of Indian players want to dish it out too. Then if a Aussie player gets away with something then it reinforces the belief of bias given such history in the past.. at least that's the perception. It is hard to sometimes accept it as cultural difference.

[USaqaf]

Why is it okay for Michael Clarke to sac Tendulkar without provocation?
Its playful you say? What if the bugger dislocated his shoulder and ended his career 5 years early.

[Random Aussie]

Originally Posted by cricjunkie Yeah, Yeah, not worth it at all. Stop playing this smart a$$ trick with me. Why bother arguing over incidents such as "Langer getting away picking off a bail & appealing" when you can conveniently brush aside everything with intellectually vaccuous rhetorics such as "Oh, those injuns are cryin again", eh! There is a reason Kumble made those comments. Prove it that you are competent enough to hold your ground or back off passing judgement on Kumble's comments. Clarke vs Gayle incident You missed the point as expected. All the incidents i pointed out were to show how Aussies were treated by match referees, just to set the expectations straight. The point is that in equivalent situations non-white players have been punished disproportionate to the crime. Gayle was punished, Clarke was found not guilty. So I fail to see the relevance. If they both pleaded guilty to the same thing and the punishments differed then this would aid your point. But so far it does not. When Bhajji denied calling Symonds with the M-word, no one believed him. There was no TV evidence in that case either. Just some players words vs the others. But when Clarke denies calling Gayle a second class citizen, that has to be the truth, right ? Apparently so, for Mike Proctor, the match referee (who also presided over the Bhajji incident). This is what he had to say: So in essence you are saying that the match referee has no right to make decisions based on what he thinks about the truthfulness of a player? If a player says he is not guilty then all players who say they are not guilty automatically are not guilty. That is illogical. http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/263739.html Can you see the hypocrisy or do i have to explain this to you ? No explain it to me, I don't see your point. Gayle was found guilty as I explained before. On the SRT incident, i dont have the video evidence to backup my claim. I dont think its the incident that you pointed out. So i'll drop this from my list (only because i cant prove it). Well that was the Sydney Test from that tour, Tendulkar was out to McGrath LBW (which looked a little high) and was caught in the second innings. I posted the video evidence and the relevant time at which the incident occurred. Was not a great look from McGrath but I guess over time that has morphed in the minds of some into all out abuse. But dont run away using this as your alibi. There is still plenty of other incidents that provide you an opportunity to authoritatively explain why ICC has been fair to players of all skin tone. You posted a list of incidents, I have looked at 2 of them, one of them you are not able to prove - and unless you come up with something I have shown you to be making things up - and I don't see your point at all in the first. So explain to me why I should bother looking at the rest of your incidents, particularly given your inability to hold a discussion without resorting to personal remarks. Only if you knew anything about this topic... You appear to be an expert in playing the victim card I will grant you that. But so far you have not backed it up.

First of all there is no reason to take that insulting tone with me. I am debating with you, throwing in all these insults just shows your level of civility and class which so far is seriously lacking. Answers in bold above.

[Random Aussie]

Originally Posted by cricjunkie This post just sums up your levels of delusion. A perfect 10, I must say The world thinks about Aussies this way because of the mountains of evidence i posted. Wisen up!

This post was not aimed at you it was aimed at an intelligent Indian supporter. So keep quiet while the adults are talking thanks.

[Howzat]

Originally Posted by cricjunkie Yeah, Yeah, not worth it at all. Stop playing this smart a$$ trick with me. Why bother arguing over incidents such as "Langer getting away picking off a bail & appealing" when you can conveniently brush aside everything with intellectually vaccuous rhetorics such as "Oh, those injuns are cryin again", eh! There is a reason Kumble made those comments. Prove it that you are competent enough to hold your ground or back off passing judgement on Kumble's comments. Clarke vs Gayle incident You missed the point as expected. All the incidents i pointed out were to show how Aussies were treated by match referees, just to set the expectations straight. The point is that in equivalent situations non-white players have been punished disproportionate to the crime. When Bhajji denied calling Symonds with the M-word, no one believed him. There was no TV evidence in that case either. Just some players words vs the others. But when Clarke denies calling Gayle a second class citizen, that has to be the truth, right ? Apparently so, for Mike Proctor, the match referee (who also presided over the Bhajji incident). This is what he had to say: http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/263739.html Can you see the hypocrisy or do i have to explain this to you ? On the SRT incident, i dont have the video evidence to backup my claim. I dont think its the incident that you pointed out. So i'll drop this from my list (only because i cant prove it). But dont run away using this as your alibi. There is still plenty of other incidents that provide you an opportunity to authoritatively explain why ICC has been fair to players of all skin tone. Only if you knew anything about this topic...

Superb posts. I thought Kumble's points would be ridiculed here again. But all your posts have been brilliant.

[Random Aussie]

Originally Posted by tdigi First let me thank you for a nice reply. Appreciate your point of view The perception of subcontinent players like Imran Khan and Gavaskar on the issue of racial discrimination comes from their playing days. They seem to have experienced it first hand when playing against English and Australian teams. Now what happens is that this experience gets carried on to when such players offer commentary. Many times I have seen Gavaskar make comments on sensitive issues like..."Oh the white teams get away with things...from unfair umpiring to unfair referee decisions" There might have been a racist divide years ago and the effects of that still trickle down may be. Watch this video and particularly pay attention to the first half of it ---> You have to understand from a sub continent point of view, that the current crop of Indian players want to dish it out too. Then if a Aussie player gets away with something then it reinforces the belief of bias given such history in the past.. at least that's the perception. It is hard to sometimes accept it as cultural difference.

Cheers. I understand the historical aspect does make a difference. And I understand that we, in general as Aussie cricket fans, would not really be able to understand it from an empathetic point.

For the record, have no issue with the current Indian crop dishing it out in fact would rather see it than not. But it does get annoying when "racism" gets cried everytime a decision goes against sub continent player.

Familiarity breeds contempt in this case, so it is very hard to look at an incident in isolation and see the racism (which arguablyt may be there in some decisions) when every adverse decision gets tagged with the racist label.

[pak-admirer]

Bowl at Boycs 'Haddin and Johnson should have been banned'

"Throughout sport the instigator tends to be dealt with more leniently than the players who retaliate. I don't agree with that. If Benn and Haddin had both been suspended for two ODIs and Johnson for one, I think that would have been fair"

Boycott's views related to this thread topic

http://www.cricinfo.com/talk/content...ia/440743.html

[tdigi]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie ...it does get annoying when "racism" gets cried everytime a decision goes against sub continent player. Familiarity breeds contempt in this case, so it is very hard to look at an incident in isolation and see the racism (which arguablyt may be there in some decisions) when every adverse decision gets tagged with the racist label.

When one hears comments from well respected players (now Kumble), then a pattern seems to emerge. Having said that, I am certainly with you on this. Let bygones be bygones and view current incidents in the context of the modern game.

[Thank God It Is ME]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie All together now..... Indian phir ro rahe hain, shabbash The irony of the great over appealer commenting on sportsmanship is probably lost on most.....

I must say u made me laugh lol.

[tdigi]

Originally Posted by pak-admirer Bowl at Boycs 'Haddin and Johnson should have been banned' "Throughout sport the instigator tends to be dealt with more leniently than the players who retaliate. I don't agree with that. If Benn and Haddin had both been suspended for two ODIs and Johnson for one, I think that would have been fair" Boycott's views related to this thread topic http://www.cricinfo.com/talk/content...ia/440743.html

...and that's exactly what Kumble has said. I fully concur Mr. Boycott.

[Random Aussie]

Originally Posted by tdigi When one hears comments from well respected players (now Kumble), then a pattern seems to emerge. Having said that, I am certainly with you on this. Let bygones be bygones and view current incidents in the context of the modern game.

Indeed and have a merry Christmas mate.

As for Kumble, we might say the level of respect he is given in India is not really matched by the level of respect others have for his public statements. Much respect for his cricket but not his comments on sportsmanship.

And yep, Boycott knows where his bread is buttered....

[pak-admirer]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie Cheers. I understand the historical aspect does make a difference. And I understand that we, in general as Aussie cricket fans, would not really be able to understand it from an empathetic point. For the record, have no issue with the current Indian crop dishing it out in fact would rather see it than not. But it does get annoying when "racism" gets cried everytime a decision goes against sub continent player. Familiarity breeds contempt in this case, so it is very hard to look at an incident in isolation and see the racism (which arguablyt may be there in some decisions) when every adverse decision gets tagged with the racist label.

your obviously wouldn't know it feels that if your a Pak or Ind or subcontinent fanor wi fan, that reality is that your players received inequality when it comes to fines and bans

you can't deny that subcontinent player recieved harsher punishments over the years than white players do. whether it would dissent, excessive appealing, sledging or any other form of bad conduct

[Random Aussie]

Originally Posted by pak-admirer your obviously wouldn't know it feels that if your a Pak or Ind or subcontinent fanor wi fan, that reality is that your players received inequality when it comes to fines and bans you can't deny that subcontinent player recieved harsher punishments over the years than white players do. whether it would dissent, excessive appealing, sledging or any other form of bad conduct

No I don't concede that at all. Prove it.

[tdigi]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie Indeed and have a merry Christmas mate. As for Kumble, we might say the level of respect he is given in India is not really matched by the level of respect others have for his public statements. Much respect for his cricket but not his comments on sportsmanship. And yep, Boycott knows where his bread is buttered....

Merry Christmas to you too RA. Have fun on boxing day and take some pics.
As for Kumble the post Sydney comments from him might have left a sour taste, but he certainly has many supporters...so let's agree to disagree on this one

[cricjunkie]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie Gayle was punished, Clarke was found not guilty. So I fail to see the relevance. If they both pleaded guilty to the same thing and the punishments differed then this would aid your point. But so far it does not. So in essence you are saying that the match referee has no right to make decisions based on what he thinks about the truthfulness of a player? If a player says he is not guilty then all players who say they are not guilty automatically are not guilty. That is illogical.

Who said a match referee does not have any right to judgement ? He ofcourse has such a right, like all judges. After all that is why he is a match referee. But i have just shown you two instances almost identical (in each case one player taunted the other or at least accused of taunting the other). The same match referee handled the two incidents in a bizzarely different manner.

Incident-A: A white player (Clarke) is accused of taunting Gayle.
Incident-B: An Asian player (Bhajji) is accused of taunting an Aussie player.
Both incidents have no TV evidence.
Both incidents were handled by Mike Proctor.

In incident-A, per Proctor's own statement, "What started off as banter between the two players got out of hand and Chris Gayle went over the top in his reactions"... So he is implying that Clarkey may have indulged in a simple banter & its being blown out of proportions.

In incident-B, the same Proctor assumed (after hearing one side of the evidence only, if i may call the supposed victim's & his mates' words evidence!!) Bhajji is guilty & promptly banned him.

Ofcourse, when a qualified judge was appointed to re-examine the case, he overturned Proctor's ludicrous juddgement in a matter of minutes.

If a player says he is not guilty then all players who say they are not guilty automatically are not guilty. That is illogical.

Exactly. However if Clarke says he is not guilty he is not. When Bhajji says he is not guilty, the only thing that matters is what Symonds or Haydos thinks of Bhajji.

Do you still need anymore explanation ?

Originally Posted by Random Aussie No explain it to me, I don't see your point. Gayle was found guilty as I explained before.

Now that i have, any more questions ?

You explained why Gayle was guilty above. But you missed the more important point, also the central theme of my argument. Which is, how or why did the SAME match referee, when presented with SIMILAR situations, make TWO DIFFERENT conclusions. If you are still warped around Clarke-Gayle incident without simultaneously examining Bhajji-Symmo scandal you will never get this.

Well that was the Sydney Test from that tour, Tendulkar was out to McGrath LBW (which looked a little high) and was caught in the second innings. I posted the video evidence and the relevant time at which the incident occurred. Was not a great look from McGrath but I guess over time that has morphed in the minds of some into all out abuse.

I already admitted i dont have any proof on this, so i offered to withdraw this. Its my bad. I must have had the test or the incident mixed up with something else.

You posted a list of incidents, I have looked at 2 of them, one of them you are not able to prove - and unless you come up with something I have shown you to be making things up - and I don't see your point at all in the first. So explain to me why I should bother looking at the rest of your incidents, particularly given your inability to hold a discussion without resorting to personal remarks.

Ha, how convenient!!
You looked at the two that you thought you could easily argue against. After all, how can you argue against Langer removing the bail incident ? Or Clarke claiming the bump catch ? Even out of the two, i have already shown you that one of them is clearly not what you thought it is. Instead of getting stuck on some thing that does not advance any arguments, why not focus on the ones that do ?

On the needling remarks, I thought you said Aussies are masters at handling seldging (just two posts ago!) ? Or is that only applicable to your cricket players ? Anyways i dont want you to run away citing any silly reasons, until you accept defeat or concede that your assertions that "Racism in cricket is a fantasy" is at best uninformed or at worst naive! So I'll honor the protocol. If that means addressing you as a "Perfect Aussie" instead of "Random Aussie" I'll do so.

You appear to be an expert in playing the victim card I will grant you that. But so far you have not backed it up.

Of course i have. It is you who havent made a single logical argument yet.

[Howzat]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie Indeed and have a merry Christmas mate. As for Kumble, we might say the level of respect he is given in India is not really matched by the level of respect others have for his public statements. Much respect for his cricket but not his comments on sportsmanship. And yep, Boycott knows where his bread is buttered....

Speak for yourself. You do not constitute the rest of the world.

And yes, Boycott knows right from wrong. He is a wise old man.

[Howzat]

Originally Posted by cricjunkie Who said a match referee does not have any right to judgement ? He ofcourse has such a right, like all judges. After all that is why he is a match referee. But i have just shown you two instances almost identical (in each case one player taunted the other or at least accused of taunting the other). The same match referee handled the two incidents in a bizzarely different manner. Incident-A: A white player (Clarke) is accused of taunting Gayle. Incident-B: An Asian player (Bhajji) is accused of taunting an Aussie player. Both incidents have no TV evidence. Both incidents were handled by Mike Proctor. In incident-A, per Proctor's own statement, "What started off as banter between the two players got out of hand and Chris Gayle went over the top in his reactions"... So he is implying that Clarkey may have indulged in a simple banter & its being blown out of proportions. In incident-B, the same Proctor assumed (after hearing one side of the evidence only, if i may call the supposed victim's & his mates' words evidence!!) Bhajji is guilty & promptly banned him. Ofcourse, when a qualified judge was appointed to re-examine the case, he overturned Proctor's ludicrous juddgement in a matter of minutes. Exactly. However if Clarke says he is not guilty he is not. When Bhajji says he is not guilty, the only thing that matters is what Symonds or Haydos thinks of Bhajji. Do you still need anymore explanation ? Now that i have, any more questions ? You explained why Gayle was guilty above. But you missed the more important point, also the central theme of my argument. Which is, how or why did the SAME match referee, when presented with SIMILAR situations, make TWO DIFFERENT conclusions. If you are still warped around Clarke-Gayle incident without simultaneously examining Bhajji-Symmo scandal you will never get this. I already admitted i dont have any proof on this, so i offered to withdraw this. Its my bad. I must have had the test or the incident mixed up with something else. Ha, how convenient!! You looked at the two that you thought you could easily argue against. After all, how can you argue against Langer removing the bail incident ? Or Clarke claiming the bump catch ? Even out of the two, i have already shown you that one of them is clearly not what you thought it is. Instead of getting stuck on some thing that does not advance any arguments, why not focus on the ones that do ? On the needling remarks, I thought you said Aussies are masters at handling seldging (just two posts ago!) ? Or is that only applicable to your cricket players ? Anyways i dont want you to run away citing any silly reasons, until you accept defeat or concede that your assertions that "Racism in cricket is a fantasy" is at best uninformed or at worst naive! So I'll honor the protocol. If that means addressing you as a "Perfect Aussie" instead of "Random Aussie" I'll do so. Of course i have. It is you who havent made a single logical argument yet.

Another brilliant post.

[pak-admirer]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie No I don't concede that at all. Prove it.

it's quite silly of me, bcoz not gonna bother researching bad cricketing incidents, takes too much time, i'm not for sure it's 100% fact but it's a general perception or feeling as a Pak supporter that Pak/Ind have received the more fines and bans that aussies or saffies do over the years. and also the double standards of the white nations over ball-tanmpering/reverse swing - oval test 06 was scrutinesd while 05 ashes was praised for good bowling and recently the aussie have been reversing the ball in the recent test series

watson for example escaped big time should have been fined more.

[cricjunkie]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie No I don't concede that at all. Prove it.

Did you not see the proof in the dossier I posted (ofcourse there are more than the two that you were stuck on) ? It clearly lists how match referees dealt with white players vs Asian players. Before you go, "This wasnt a question directed at you", I must remind you that the evidence is the same.

You are a funny guy RA. When i list all the facts you run away citing silly reasons (oh the first two incidents that you list are cr@p, so i wont bother reading the rest) and then you ask for the same list from a diff poster.

[Random Aussie]

Originally Posted by cricjunkie Who said a match referee does not have any right to judgement ? He ofcourse has such a right, like all judges. After all that is why he is a match referee. But i have just shown you two instances almost identical (in each case one player taunted the other or at least accused of taunting the other). The same match referee handled the two incidents in a bizzarely different manner. Incident-A: A white player (Clarke) is accused of taunting Gayle. Incident-B: An Asian player (Bhajji) is accused of taunting an Aussie player. Both incidents have no TV evidence. Both incidents were handled by Mike Proctor. In incident-A, per Proctor's own statement, "What started off as banter between the two players got out of hand and Chris Gayle went over the top in his reactions"... So he is implying that Clarkey may have indulged in a simple banter & its being blown out of proportions. In incident-B, the same Proctor assumed (after hearing one side of the evidence only, if i may call the supposed victim's & his mates' words evidence!!) Bhajji is guilty & promptly banned him. Ofcourse, when a qualified judge was appointed to re-examine the case, he overturned Proctor's ludicrous juddgement in a matter of minutes. Why are you attempting to use two totally different incidents in comparision? They are nowhere near the same. For a start, Bhaji was not accused of general misbehaviour he was accused directly by another player of making a racist remark. Are you saying that Gayle reported Clarke to the match referee and alleged Clarke called Gayle a second class citizen - and that match referee found in favour of Clarke? If you are then fine but prove it. And in any event Bhaji changed his evidence at the appeal and admitted he did say a word which sounded like monkey. Nonsensical sorry. You explained why Gayle was guilty above. But you missed the more important point, also the central theme of my argument. Which is, how or why did the SAME match referee, when presented with SIMILAR situations, make TWO DIFFERENT conclusions. If you are still warped around Clarke-Gayle incident without simultaneously examining Bhajji-Symmo scandal you will never get this. Well the central theme of your argument is that the match referee is racist and finds in favour of white people. Standard stuff, seen it a few times before. Ha, how convenient!! You looked at the two that you thought you could easily argue against. After all, how can you argue against Langer removing the bail incident ? Or Clarke claiming the bump catch ? Even out of the two, i have already shown you that one of them is clearly not what you thought it is. Instead of getting stuck on some thing that does not advance any arguments, why not focus on the ones that do ? No I looked at the first 2 incidents on your list. They are the first 2 you listed right? On the needling remarks, I thought you said Aussies are masters at handling seldging (just two posts ago!) ? Or is that only applicable to your cricket players ? Anyways i dont want you to run away citing any silly reasons, until you accept defeat or concede that your assertions that "Racism in cricket is a fantasy" is at best uninformed or at worst naive! So I'll honor the protocol. If that means addressing you as a "Perfect Aussie" instead of "Random Aussie" I'll do so. PP is a forum for discussion, we are not playing backyard cricket. If you insult me then I insult you and pretty soon it becomes a conversation nobody wants to read. Of course i have. It is you who havent made a single logical argument yet.

Ok if you think so, answers in bold above.

[Random Aussie]

Originally Posted by cricjunkie Did you not see the proof in the dossier I posted (ofcourse there are more than the two that you were stuck on) ? It clearly lists how match referees dealt with white players vs Asian players. Before you go, "This wasnt a question directed at you", I must remind you that the evidence is the same. You are a funny guy RA. When i list all the facts you run away citing silly reasons (oh the first two incidents that you list are cr@p, so i wont bother reading the rest) and then you ask for the same list from a diff poster.

So far the second "fact" you posted you have withdrawn, the first "fact" I am still struggling to understand your analogy. So I have doubt about your "facts" as I am entitled to do.

I am happy to look at the other "facts" you have presented, considering you have removed number 2 from your list I will look at number 3 and come back to you.

And you have not provided any proof of anything yet. You have supplied a theory with supporting arguments.

[Random Aussie]

Originally Posted by cricjunkie c) Aus-WI 1999 (I think ?): McGrath's famous outburst against Sarwan. d) Ian Healy took the bails off & then appealed for a hit wicket in one of the ODIs in the 90s. No action!

c) I have no idea why McGrath was not heavily punished for that incident. He should have been and I believe most of Australian cricket followers thought so to. He did make an apology for it later on.

d) That youtube link does not work. Try again if you want to use words like proof.

For the hell of it

e) Langer bail removal incident. So your contention is that Langer was lying to the match referee?

f) First you tube link does not work, the second was not a bump catch it was claimed that Clarke touched the ball to the ground after taking it. The issue was whether that was in the act of taking the catch or not.

Do you really claim those things were the same as this one? Rashid's incident for those who can't be bothered with the clicky clicky.

[Fish]

In incident-B, the same Proctor assumed (after hearing one side of the evidence only, if i may call the supposed victim's & his mates' words evidence!!) Bhajji is guilty & promptly banned him.

This is full of lies, Firstly Harby admitted he called Symonds names but said he called him "mothers genitals" which makes no sense but apparently sounds like monkey. Proctor did not make a judgement after only listening ot one side. Man you have got a real complex making up all this stuff.

[cricjunkie]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie Why are you attempting to use two totally different incidents in comparision? They are nowhere near the same. For a start, Bhaji was not accused of general misbehaviour he was accused directly by another player of making a racist remark. Are you saying that Gayle reported Clarke to the match referee and alleged Clarke called Gayle a second class citizen - and that match referee found in favour of Clarke? If you are then fine but prove it. And in any event Bhaji changed his evidence at the appeal and admitted he did say a word which sounded like monkey. Nonsensical sorry.

Two totally different incidents ? Are you kidding me ? I just took the pains to explain this very clearly in my last post. Are you for real ? Are you suggesting that I shoud cite another Mike Proctor incident directly involving Gayle & Clarke again in opposite roles to bolster my point ? So instead of looking at a real incident for comparison, we should sit here and wait for till Clarke fights with Gayle again ? Beats me! Its apparent to me that you are now clutching at straws.

The incidents are similar because both were a case of how two SIMILAR incidents (of banters between players turning wild) was handled by the SAME match referee. This is the closest to "apples and apples" you are going to see.

FFS, what does Gayle complaining or not complaining have to do with the similarity of the two incidents ? Even had Gayle complained how does this strengthen your point ?

I work with "logic" for my living. You can go round and round, but you will never successfully manage to lose me (if that is the tactic you are employing to get out of jail here!)

Originally Posted by Random Aussie Well the central theme of your argument is that the match referee is racist and finds in favour of white people. Standard stuff, seen it a few times before.

Hilarious, the way you argue.

What is "standard stuff" ? Looks like you are just stereo typing mine with the 1000 other posts you may have read elsewhere. Just incase you havent noticed, I dont post nonsense & then waste my time arguing about it. Usually what i post is pretty well backed up by research (with links, quotes, specific examples and all). I have just presented with gory details, two similar incidents that have been handled by Proctor & here you are dismissing everything without even looking at the evidence staring at you

This type of 'head in sand' symptom is typical of people living in denial. Needless to say, you are living in denial.

Originally Posted by Random Aussie No I looked at the first 2 incidents on your list. They are the first 2 you listed right?

But those arent the only two on the list, right ? If you are dealing with a case and you are offered 20 evidences, would you just look at the two that you feel like examining, ignore the rest & draw your conclusions.

And that btw tells me that you have no defense for the rest & you are simply refusing to acknowledge that racism in cricket is a reality.

Originally Posted by Random Aussie PP is a forum for discussion, we are not playing backyard cricket. If you insult me then I insult you and pretty soon it becomes a conversation nobody wants to read.

Your petty insults wont bother me. If it bothers you to the point you dont feel like rebutting, i guess i can easily avoid that. After all defeating the Aussies fairly (without underhanded tactics) is what Indians take pride on.

[octavian]

Cricjunkie has really owned this thread. Well done dude.

Although it is easy to defend something that is so obviously true. even imran khan thinks so. and you know Imran is never wrong

[cricjunkie]

Originally Posted by Fish This is full of lies, Firstly Harby admitted he called Symonds names but said he called him "mothers genitals" which makes no sense but apparently sounds like monkey. Proctor did not make a judgement after only listening ot one side. Man you have got a real complex making up all this stuff.

If Bhajji did not call Symonds using the M-word you dont have a case! Then what the hell are we arguing about.

Proctor lined up the evidences on the two sides -- Bhajji, Sachin and an Indian manager on one side, Haydos, Symmo & the rest on the other.

Bhajji denied using the M-word. Symmo insisted that Bhajji did.
Sachin supported Bhajji, Haydos and the rest supported Symmo.

So this is a clear case of trusting one set of players vs the other.

Now pray tell, how in the world did Proctor see enough evidence here to ban Bhajji ? Thats why when a qualified judge was appointed he dismissed this ludicrous case promptly.

Mind you am not defending Bhajji. He is one player in India i loathe for being mealy mouthed. And i think he is perfectly capable of saying such things (given that he has a problem with discipline), but Symmo is no saint either. In short, there is no evidence to trust either player in this instance to rule one way or the other

[cricjunkie]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie c) I have no idea why McGrath was not heavily punished for that incident. He should have been and I believe most of Australian cricket followers thought so to. He did make an apology for it later on.

I know you dont. Thats why am taking the pains to explain this to you. Repeat after me, because "McGrath is white"

d) That youtube link does not work. Try again if you want to use words like proof. For the hell of it

This used to work, I'll dig this one up & update it.

e) Langer bail removal incident. So your contention is that Langer was lying to the match referee?

What do you mean my contention ? Here is the official cricinfo link. I dont own cricinfo, so i didnt make this up.

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/140381.html

Langer cleared of disrepute charge Charlie Austin in Colombo March 26, 2004 Text size: A | A Justin Langer chats with Dave Orchard after Australia's appeal against Hashan Tillakaratne © Getty Images Justin Langer has been cleared by the match referee, Chris Broad, of a possible breach of the ICC's code of conduct, after being reported by umpires Steve Bucknor and David Orchard for an on-field incident during the third day of the Colombo Test between Sri Lanka and Australia. Langer attended a disciplinary inquiry after the close of play on Friday night, following a bizarre incident during the morning session, when Australia belatedly appealed for a hit-wicket decision against Hashan Tillakaratne. The umpires referred the decision to the third umpire to verify how Tillakaratne's bail had been dislodged. The television pictures showed that Langer dislodged the bail with his hand while he crossed over the pitch to take up a new fielding position for the right-handed Thilan Samaraweera. Langer insisted that he did not intentionally flick off the bail. "Justin was disappointed that the charge was brought and explained his position in a very honest and succinct way," said Broad, following a hearing attended by Langer, Ricky Ponting, Steve Bernard (Australia's team manager), and the three match umpires. "He was, however, reminded that in future to steer clear of any instances such as this."

Originally Posted by Random Aussie f) First you tube link does not work, the second was not a bump catch it was claimed that Clarke touched the ball to the ground after taking it. The issue was whether that was in the act of taking the catch or not. Do you really claim those things were the same as this one? Rashid's incident for those who can't be bothered with the clicky clicky.

[insaaniyat]

Originally Posted by cricjunkie If Bhajji did not call Symonds using the M-word you dont have a case! Then what the hell are we arguing about. Proctor lined up the evidences on the two sides -- Bhajji, Sachin and an Indian manager on one side, Haydos, Symmo & the rest on the other. Bhajji denied using the M-word. Symmo insisted that Bhajji did. Sachin supported Bhajji, Haydos and the rest supported Symmo. So this is a clear case of trusting one set of players vs the other. Now pray tell, how in the world did Proctor see enough evidence here to ban Bhajji ? Thats why when a qualified judge was appointed he dismissed this ludicrous case promptly. Mind you am not defending Bhajji. He is one player in India i loathe for being mealy mouthed. And i think he is perfectly capable of saying such things (given that he has a problem with discipline), but Symmo is no saint either. In short, there is no evidence to trust either player in this instance to rule one way or the other

If I had to pick one, it would be Bhajji at fault. We all know he used that m word. He got away because BCCI has the power to abuse ICC. To the world BCCI is ICC

[Random Aussie]

Originally Posted by cricjunkie Two totally different incidents ? Are you kidding me ? I just took the pains to explain this very clearly in my last post. Are you for real ? Are you suggesting that I shoud cite another Mike Proctor incident directly involving Gayle & Clarke again in opposite roles to bolster my point ? So instead of looking at a real incident for comparison, we should sit here and wait for till Clarke fights with Gayle again ? Beats me! Its apparent to me that you are now clutching at straws. The incidents are similar because both were a case of how two SIMILAR incidents (of banters between players turning wild) was handled by the SAME match referee. This is the closest to "apples and apples" you are going to see. FFS, what does Gayle complaining or not complaining have to do with the similarity of the two incidents ? Even had Gayle complained how does this strengthen your point ? I work with "logic" for my living. You can go round and round, but you will never successfully manage to lose me (if that is the tactic you are employing to get out of jail here!) Hilarious, the way you argue. What is "standard stuff" ? Looks like you are just stereo typing mine with the 1000 other posts you may have read elsewhere. Just incase you havent noticed, I dont post nonsense & then waste my time arguing about it. Usually what i post is pretty well backed up by research (with links, quotes, specific examples and all). I have just presented with gory details, two similar incidents that have been handled by Proctor & here you are dismissing everything without even looking at the evidence staring at you This type of 'head in sand' symptom is typical of people living in denial. Needless to say, you are living in denial. But those arent the only two on the list, right ? If you are dealing with a case and you are offered 20 evidences, would you just look at the two that you feel like examining, ignore the rest & draw your conclusions. And that btw tells me that you have no defense for the rest & you are simply refusing to acknowledge that racism in cricket is a reality. Your petty insults wont bother me. If it bothers you to the point you dont feel like rebutting, i guess i can easily avoid that. After all defeating the Aussies fairly (without underhanded tactics) is what Indians take pride on.

Because in Bhaji's case one of the players involved was directly accusing the other of saying something? Is that really hard to understand? They were not reported by the umpires, it was a complaint brought by the Australian cricket team alleging one of their players was racially abused.
Good on you if you think the incidents are similar to each other.

To answer your question, if Gayle had complained then your argument would have some merit because you would have a case where Proctor in both instances believed the unsubstantiated word of one player over the word of another.

You say you post things which are backed up, well you have already withdrawn one allegation for lack of proof, the links you provide don't work......and I have addressed a few more of your points as I promised.

What is this stuff about my petty insults won't bother you? You are the one trying to insult people here, I have given your posts a lot more time that I really think they deserve. Especially when you try the old "insult me and then post about me insulting you" posting trick.

If you want to make a case about racism in cricket go ahead and make one. You have not made one so far on the basis of your posting.

So far you have provided a) a very dubious comparision which proves nothing, b) an allegation you withdrew when confronted with the video, c) a fair point, d) an allegation with a broken link for proof, e) a point which I have queried you on, f) a nonsensical comparison....

[Random Aussie]

Originally Posted by cricjunkie I know you dont. Thats why am taking the pains to explain this to you. Repeat after me, because "McGrath is white" Oh ok then. I see. Must be a mean world you live in then. This used to work, I'll dig this one up & update it. Good, please do so. What do you mean my contention ? Here is the official cricinfo link. I dont own cricinfo, so i didnt make this up.

For the Langer one, he argued that is was not deliberate and that was accepted. So are you arguing that he was lying? That is my question.

One more on the bump catches - remember Ganguly in WC 2003 Final? Any action against him or was his skin tone sufficiently light enough to avoid a charge?

[Random Aussie]

Originally Posted by insaaniyat If I had to pick one, it would be Bhajji at fault.

Well then does this mean you are racist?

[cricjunkie]

Originally Posted by insaaniyat If I had to pick one, it would be Bhajji at fault. We all know he used that m word. He got away because BCCI has the power to abuse ICC. To the world BCCI is ICC

But thats hardly the point though. In a judicial process you convict people based on cold hard evidence.

If we assume that this is not a judicial process & Proctor is allowed to simply use his judgement then apparently on these two (similar) incidents he has shown two diff judgements and the reasons are apparent.

[cricjunkie]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie For the Langer one, he argued that is was not deliberate and that was accepted. So are you arguing that he was lying? That is my question. One more on the bump catches - remember Ganguly in WC 2003 Final? Any action against him or was his skin tone sufficiently light enough to avoid a charge?

Duh, am afraid your argument is incredibly naive. Did you even read the cricinfo link ?

Lets say Langer did not deliberately remove the bails. Then why did he not interrupt the rest of the Aussies from appealing ? Ofcourse he was lying.

I have seen myself the "Ian Healy" and the "Justin Langer" clips on youtube. Those links (i had compiled them a while ago) were from a post of mine on Pakpassion an year ago. Unfortunately or fortunately for you, you have lucked out today. With those videos, all these posts would be unnecessary, you just have to see them for yourself and you'll be a changed man forever.

[Random Aussie]

Originally Posted by cricjunkie Duh, am afraid your argument is incredibly naive. Did you even read the cricinfo link ? Lets say Langer did not deliberately remove the bails. Then why did he not interrupt the rest of the Aussies from appealing ? Ofcourse he was lying. I have seen myself the "Ian Healy" and the "Justin Langer" clips on youtube. Those links (i had compiled them a while ago) were from a post of mine on Pakpassion an year ago. Unfortunately or fortunately for you, you have lucked out today. With those videos, all these posts would be unnecessary, you just have to see them for yourself and you'll be a changed man forever.

That's what I asked, not that hard to answer a question is it? I wasn't arguing anything, I asked you a simple question.

[Fish]

I think the racist card has been done to death and there needs to be another excuse for blaming Austrlaia for everything.

[cricjunkie]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie Because in Bhaji's case one of the players involved was directly accusing the other of saying something? Is that really hard to understand? They were not reported by the umpires, it was a complaint brought by the Australian cricket team alleging one of their players was racially abused. Good on you if you think the incidents are similar to each other. To answer your question, if Gayle had complained then your argument would have some merit because you would have a case where Proctor in both instances believed the unsubstantiated word of one player over the word of another.

You are the only one on this thread who does not see the two incidents as similar. The rest who have read this thread have already acked that my pov has more than just merit

You say you post things which are backed up, well you have already withdrawn one allegation for lack of proof, the links you provide don't work......and I have addressed a few more of your points as I promised.

My links dont work because they were a cut-paste of my post (hilariously enough, i argued with you on this topic that time), a while ago, during the monkey gate scandal. Here is the link. They all worked at that time!

Here is the link to that post:
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/sh...7&postcount=42

Here is the link to that thread:
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/sh...7&page=1&pp=80

If you want to make a case about racism in cricket go ahead and make one. You have not made one so far on the basis of your posting.

Yes i have gone ahead & made my points. But you dont and wont see them. You are the only one here who believes that racism doesnt exist in cricket. Former (Asian players), fans etc believe it does.

So far you have provided a) a very dubious comparision which proves nothing, b) an allegation you withdrew when confronted with the video, c) a fair point, d) an allegation with a broken link for proof, e) a point which I have queried you on, f) a nonsensical comparison....

a) The dubious comparison is just dubious to you.
b) This is my mistake, i should have researched it instead of cut-pasting from a previous post
c) Good, there is hope then!
d) I'll research the link
e) Query answered
f) Once again the link is not working. Else it will be apparent where the nonsense lies.

[cricjunkie]

Originally Posted by Fish I think the racist card has been done to death and there needs to be another excuse for blaming Austrlaia for everything.

Who is blaming Australia for everything ?

My favorite fast bowler is McGrath & my fav spinner is Warney. Till Gilly retired i cherished watching every innings of his (except when he used to absolutely murder us).

Aussies are enviable sportsmen, incredibly talented. Which is why they dont need all this unfair support from the ICC & umpires to keep winning.

But all this has got nothing to do with racism. While i admire the Aussies for the talent they possess, i also loathe them for being despicable at times. If after all this, you guys still live in denial, then that explains why racism still prevails. After all, acknowledging that the problem exists is the essential first step in solving the same.

[cricjunkie]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie That's what I asked, not that hard to answer a question is it? I wasn't arguing anything, I asked you a simple question.

If Langer did not have any malicious intent in flipping the bails (you would know you have flipped the bails alright) and this was purely unintentional, then why did he let his team mates appeal ? Ouch!

[OZGOD]

I'm on a really show connection here but wanted to say keep it up and keep it real RA!!

[cricjunkie]

Alright RA i found some evidence for you. Here is the link to your post from that thread:

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/sh...7&postcount=45

For the Michael Clarke video this is your comment:

Originally Posted by Random Aussie Yep he is building a history - but the second one is not conclusive, there was long debate about it and how the rules apply in that case

So the first link worked back then & you did ack that it was a bump catch. There goes the "nonsense"!

[Fish]

Originally Posted by cricjunkie If Langer did not have any malicious intent in flipping the bails (you would know you have flipped the bails alright) and this was purely unintentional, then why did he let his team mates appeal ? Ouch!

You claimed to have watched this but I'm not so sure, Langer brushed past the stumps and knocked a bail off and when one of the fielders saw the bail lying on the ground asked the umpire if the batsman had stepped on his wicket. The umpire checked upstairs and thats when they found out that the bails had been knocked off by Langer. But I understand that because Langer is white he must be lying.

[Fish]

Oh and one more thing you are lying every time you say Clarke called Gayle a second class citizen.

[cricjunkie]

Originally Posted by Fish You claimed to have watched this but I'm not so sure, Langer brushed past the stumps and knocked a bail off and when one of the fielders saw the bail lying on the ground asked the umpire if the batsman had stepped on his wicket. The umpire checked upstairs and thats when they found out that the bails had been knocked off by Langer. But I understand that because Langer is white he must be lying.

Thanks first, for acknowledging that such an incident really happened. At least with you i feel like am making progress. In RA's world all these are fantasies and never happened.

1) My question is why didnt Langer stop his team mates from appealing.

2) How do you reckon Broad would have handled the incident had an Asian player (lets say Jayasuriya) been in Langer's place ?

You reckon Jayasuriya would have been able to "satisfactorily" explain his "honest" mistake ?

3) Why do you reckon Broad's CV shows a dozen penalties of Asian players while drawing a blank on non Asians ? You think the white nations have been surprisingly well behaved ?

[cricjunkie]

Originally Posted by Fish Oh and one more thing you are lying every time you say Clarke called Gayle a second class citizen.

Duh, where did i say Clarke called Gayle a second class citizen.

For the 100th time, its about how Proctor handled two similar incidents given the same uncertainities in the case. Clarke denied making such comments, he got away whereas Bhajji did not. If Clarke getting away is fair, so should Bhajji. I dont know why this is hard to understand. Dont you guys get some logic lessons Down Under ?

[Fish]

Originally Posted by cricjunkie Duh, where did i say Clarke called Gayle a second class citizen. For the 100th time, its about how Proctor handled two similar incidents given the same uncertainities in the case. Clarke denied making such comments, he got away whereas Bhajji did not. If Clarke getting away is fair, so should Bhajji. I dont know why this is hard to understand. Dont you guys get some logic lessons Down Under ?

Dude you didnt see the incident.

Clarke never denied to Proctor he made the comments because that was never an issue. This claim only came up after Gayle had been fined by proctor. Gayle never claimed that Clarke called him anything. It was never bought up by Gayle, Clarke or Proctor.

You dont understand that Clarke never told Proctor anything because the person (who nobody can identify anyway) who claimed Clarke said it only made the claim days later. How could Clarke have told Proctor he didnt say it two days before Proctor even knew about it.