There's more to all this than meets the eye

There's more to all this than meets the eye

Between the lies
Bobilli Vijay Kumar

On the face of it, it seems like the sulk of a particularly bull-headed girlfriend. After all the ICC has already made Steve Bucknor disappear from the Perth test: it has also given eough rope for Harbhajan Singh to escape too. (So is the racism charge an insurance against the players exposing ICC and match-fixing ? Is this what is being alluded as not being in th spirit of the game ?)

So why is the Indian team still holding the tour to ransom ? Why is it not giving the wound enough time to heal? For the tension to melt away so that Australia can resume their dirty games on the cricket field again ?

The players' anger and their reluctance to hit the ground until their star off-spinner is absolved completely can only mean on thing: they know something that we don't know. Maybe, it's so deep and sinister they can't even bring it out into the public domain.

The fact is everything that could have gone wrong did go wrong during the Sydney Test. If India entertained thoughts of a victory on the first day of the match, they can't be faulted. but in the end, they lost the game because they couldn't survive a c ouple of sessions on the final day.

Yes, Anil Kumble was right: the Australians didn't play within the spirit of the game. Andrew Symonds nicked the ball but didn't walk; Ricky Ponting and Mike Hussey didn't budge despite knowing they were out. Worse, Michael Clarke stood his ground even though the ball had blown a hole into his bat. In normal circumstances there was nothing wrong with their ploy: they were simply exercising their right to wait til the umpires' verdict. But these were not normal circumstances: the two captains had agreed they would take the word of the fielder in case of any doubt over the legitimacy of a catch.

One assumes both, Ponting and Kumble, had arrived at this deal after discussing it with their mates; or at the least that they shared their secret with everybody concerned once the pact was sealed. If that was the case isn't it logical to assume that the pact would apply even while they were batting ?

In other words, if any of them nicked the ball it was their bounden duty to walk, Symonds didn't, Ponting didn't, Hussey didn't, Clarke didn't. Symonds was in fact was nice enough to come and confess he was actually out. Kumble and the rest of the team have every right to believe their trust had been betrayed.

Worse, they would even be justifiedf in thinking the Australians had conned them into something and affectively used it at crucial junctures,. One just wishes Kumble had cornered Ponting with the pact at the end of the first day itself. As if that was not enough, the Aussies made a complete mockery of the understanding on the last day, yanking off their sporing masks and showing their ugly faces.

India could have survived all this but for another external power: the umpires. Almost by a strange co-incidence, Steve Bucknor (who anyway doesn't seem to like the Indians) and Mark Benson chose to wear their most incompetent clothes during this Test. Even more funnily, almost each one of their mistakes went against you-know-who. At times, it almost looked like they were in a hurry to wrap up the match. Quite a few suspect, there is a lot more to it than meets the eye or the TV. Was some mysterious force hell-bent on ensuring Australia's great victory streak would not be halted? Is it just incidental that rumours of match-fixing too started swirling at the same time?

More importantly, has the Indian team got wind of something ? Does it believe, perth or not, it just doesn't have any chance in this series? Is that why BCCI is also playing along with the sulking girlfriend ? Otherwise, there's no reason why despity the severeity of the racial charges against Harbhajan especially after it's really false, it would take a stance that might shatter the world of cricket.

Something is brewing and it doesn't smell good.

bobbili.vijay@timesgroup.com

Give it a rest FFS! This article is a pile of poo.

the next article exposes BCCI's supposed concern for Harbhajan Singh.

BCCI botched up Bhajji's case

Manoj Mitta | TNN

Amidst all allegations against Australia, one curious but untold story is BCCI's own failure to provide Harbhajan Singh with necessary legal assistance in the January 6 hearing before Mike Proctor.

This is despite the fact that, u nder the ICC code of conduct, Harbhajan was entitled to legal representation, specially because Proctor obtained the help of a senior advocate from Britain, Nigel Peters, who was present at the four hour hearing in Sydney. BCCI is, however, loathe to admit its vital omission in helping Harbhajan to cross-examine the three Aussie players who deposed against him, and preventing Procter from being "satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt" merely on their testimony.

BCCI vice president Shashank Manohar, when contacted by ToI, denied that harbhajan had a right to legal representation at that crucial hearing. In reality, Proctor was obliged under ICC Code to allow Harbhajan such a right since he had himself taken the help of a legally qualified person in the course of the hearing.

This is of course up there in the Buckeroo sphere is paranoia but it should be noted that the fundamental premise of the whole article - that Ponting and Kumble agreed that players should walk - is of course rubbish.

Need I remind you Bucky, that the series score is 2-0 to Australia (B-G trophy is gawn). Are you seeking some form of moral victory? Because where I'm from, moral victories don't get scored in the official score pages. Stop you whinging, and start encouraging your side to show more heart (something they lacked on the last day in Sydney).

third article shows BCCI again dithering and being evasive when talking about Harbhajan's right to have legal defence to represent him.

Procter took the help of a lawyer
TNN / Manoj Mitta
PrintSaveWrite to EditorMail


NEW DELHI: BCCI vice-president Shashank Manohar told TOI on Saturday that Harbhajan Singh had no right to legal assistance during the January 6 hearing. When pointed out that ICC laws in fact allow a defendant to take the help of a lawyer, Manohar, who is himself a lawyer from Nagpur, asserted that the official records did not bear out the presence of ICC lawyer Nigel Peters at Procter's hearing. (So Harbhajan is being stabbed from both sides, this is the main reason why the players are standing with him .. they know they could be next) "The lawyer's name appeared only in media reports. We can't cry foul going by the claim of journalists," Manohar said.

Again, the truth is, ICC's own media release announcing the three-Test ban on Harbhajan gives a list of all those who were "present at the hearing" and it very much includes the name of Peters, "who assisted in legal and procedural matters."

Since BCCI did not field a lawyer to counter Peters, it allowed Procter to get away with the claim, even in the absence of independent corroborative evidence, that he arrived at his conclusion on the basis of the highest standard of proof known to law: "beyond a reasonable doubt". (this is a very important charge, BCCI will not be able to stand scrutiny in any court of law because of this omission in case they wish to go against Proctor's claims) Manohar's attempt to discount BCCI's failure flies in the face of Section G(11) of the ICC Code which, in a bid to ensure a fair hearing, confers the adjudicator with "absolute discretion" to allow a lawyer to be present at the hearing "to make representations on behalf of the person charged."

Further, a separate chapter on principles of natural justice, attached to the ICC Code, makes it clear that if the adjudicator himself obtains legal advice, whether before or during the hearing, then he "should not refuse the request" of the person charged to allow his lawyer too to attend the hearing and make representations on his behalf. The need for a lawyer to espouse Harbhajan's cause is equally necessary at the forthcoming appeal hearing as the decision at that stage is to be made by a high court judge from New Zealand, Justice John Hansen.

The next vital evidence comes from the mouth of the joker himself. Apparently racist comments for him is ok. It is a tacit acceptance that his song and drama were for public consumption only.

Racist comment OK, but only from friends: Symonds
PTI
PrintSaveWrite to EditorMail


MELBOURNE, January 13: Andrew Symonds does not mind the odd racist comment at his expense, but only from people he is friendly with, the Australian all-rounder said on Saturday.

Symonds labelled Harbhajan Singh's alleged racial taunt as "unacceptable" and vowed not to cop remarks from rival players with whom he has no friendship.

Ahead of the Perth Test against India, Symonds declared he could tolerate racism - but only from those he knew. (what BS is this, but this loudmouth has exposed himelf and a devious plot by this acceptance, racist charges for his employers are just a tool to get ahead in the game)

"I'm not a sensitive person about it," he said. "If you know me well you can have a joke to me about anything and any part of racism and I'll laugh," he was quoted as saying by The Daily Telegraph .

"I mean, I'm not sensitive about it but if I'm not your friend, if you're an opposition player or something like that, it is unacceptable."

However, Symonds said some rival cricketers could afford to make a racist comment without raising his ire.

"Even with opposition players, if I do know them well and they want to joke about something like that, it doesn't stir me up so what's happened is something I and the Australian boys have taken very seriously."

"It (the racism affair) is a really difficult thing for me to comment on as it hasn't been totally resolved," he said.

"Obviously, people are very interested in what's happened but they probably won't actually know exactly what's happened for quite some time, until the dust has settled," Symonds said.

But he claimed Harbhajan's actions, during a Test match, had annoyed him because it breached the boundaries of social acceptability.

"I'm very relaxed about life and I understand there are many different types of people," he said.

"You know, I used to have a bit of fun and people used to have a bit of fun with me in the playground when I was at school so I understand that kids are very blunt about that sort of thing.

"But it (racism) is one of those things that, in the modern day, is obviously very publicly unacceptable," Symonds added.

Didn't Yuvraj fail to walk in the Melb Test?

And surely one of the Indians noticed the inside edge that Punter got on his LBW ?

Bring on T3 to enhance Bucky's paranoid delusions, I say. Only 3 more sleeps Bucky.

from the first article:

India could have survived all this but for another external power: the umpires. Almost by a strange co-incidence, Steve Bucknor (who anyway doesn't seem to like the Indians) and Mark Benson chose to wear their most incompetent clothes during this Test. Even more funnily, almost each one of their mistakes went against you-know-who. At times, it almost looked like they were in a hurry to wrap up the match. Quite a few suspect, there is a lot more to it than meets the eye or the TV. Was some mysterious force hell-bent on ensuring Australia's great victory streak would not be halted? Is it just incidental that rumours of match-fixing too started swirling at the same time?

More importantly, has the Indian team got wind of something ? Does it believe, perth or not, it just doesn't have any chance in this series? Is that why BCCI is also playing along with the sulking girlfriend ? Otherwise, there's no reason why despity the severeity of the racial charges against Harbhajan especially after it's really false, it would take a stance that might shatter the world of cricket.

this is a very important observation, even I felt something like this while watching the final day. That there was an unseemly hurry to wrap up the proceedings. Appointment of Bucknor and Benson as umpires esp when former has a previous history against India not being opposed by BCCi is also indicative that something was up.

Secondly squarely failing to give support Harbhajan and not giving him legal counsel during the hearing while the Australians and ICC were represented

Since BCCI did not field a lawyer to counter Peters, it allowed Procter to get away with the claim, even in the absence of independent corroborative evidence, that he arrived at his conclusion on the basis of the highest standard of proof known to law: "beyond a reasonable doubt".

The British lawyer was present on the scene just to nail Bhajji and give respectability to Proctor's vindictive claims. BCCI is an active accomplice in all this exposes it's concern as mere fraud. They were all along with ICC and CA in coverup of a potential situation. Probably a pre-fixed match and tournament. And it also aids CA and ICC in dangling a sword over Harbhajan and rest of the team for the rest of the series and thus obtaining their compliance in case any future decisions go against them and the pre-determined outcome of the series.

You must have two dicks, Dogger, you could not possibly be this silly just playing with one . . .

Bucky, you are a riot. Do you actually care about cricket? Or are you simply on some retard quest to expose conspiracies?

On second thoughts, I think we need to be greatful to Symonds for exposing the utter cynicism in the racism charge executed by Australia. I feel Symonds is doing people a big favor and helping the cause of truth in whatever small way he can. As a single person he is doing his bit to stand up towards 'the murky establishment called ICC' and world cricket.

*Buckaroo* wrote:On second thoughts, I think we need to be greatful to Symonds for exposing the utter cynicism in the racism charge executed by Australia. I feel Symonds is doing people a big favor and helping the cause of truth in whatever small way he can. As a single person he is doing his bit to stand up towards 'the murky establishment called ICC' and world cricket.

Bwahahahahaha. Bucky in "changing his story because he's suddenly thought of a better defence rather than the lies previously concocted" shock. Credible, very credible. Straight jacket anyone?

I am serious about what I said. Cant' anyone speak from the heart anymore. And plz do not trivialize this thread because I wrote what I did in utmost seriousness.

I don't think people have a problem with you posting your own thread with your strange theories, Buckaroo. It's when you deliberately go out of your way to post this sort of stuff on every thread that it becomes irritating.

I suggest you make a pact with the other forummers on here. You'll stop posting wild theories and long articles on other threads and in return you won't be ridiculed and you can say what you like on your own bespoke threads.

Something fishy Down Under
published: Sunday | January 13, 2008

THE SECOND Test between Australia and India ended in Sydney last Sunday in an exciting finish with just seven deliveries to go. ((that's not correct, there were atleast 4 more overs to go .. which could be extended as per requirements of Aus victory)

However, it will not be remembered for the fairytale efforts of part-time bowler Michael Clarke, who picked up three wickets in the penultimate over, but rather for the umpiring mistakes, the eventual sacking of umpire Steve Bucknor and the banning of India's Harbhajan Singh for three Test matches.

Change in stance

Although the umpiring was terrible, it is strange that the International Cricket Council (ICC) - the usually conservative ICC, the ICC that always defends its umpires and the ICC that in the past refused to remove and to replace umpires - should remove and replace Bucknor for the third Test.

Remembering the many com-plaints against umpires and umpiring in the past; remembering, as president Julian Hunte has reminded, that the West Indies complained about the standard of umpiring during their tour of Australia in 2005 and were told, by the ICC, that nothing could be done about it, one is left to wonder if there are different types of justice in the world of cricket - one for the blacks and one for the whites, especially so one for the poor in cricket and one for the rich in cricket.

In the past, the ICC defended its stance in not removing and replacing umpires who made mistakes and they did so on the basis that it would be setting a precedent - that it would be opening the door for every loser to cry foul and to demand a change in officials.

All of a sudden, however, the ICC has changed its stance. This time around, the ICC has said that the decision to remove and to replace an umpire, to remove and replace its most senior umpire, is in the best interest of the game.

All of a sudden, the removal and replacement of an umpire is not setting precedence; all of a sudden it is in the best interest of cricket.

"It is important to stress that Steve has not been replaced due to any representations made by any team or individuals," said ICC chief executive officer, Malcolm Speed. "The ICC remains the sole body responsible for the appoint-ment of umpires and no team has the right to object to any appoint-ment. The decision by the ICC to replace Steve for this match was made in the nest interests of the game and the series."

I sincerely hope that Speed really believes that - especially as I am almost positive that Bucknor does not.

Bucknor and Mark Benson did not make a few mistakes: they made many mistakes and there can be no questioning that.

Image of the game

To be fair to the ICC, however, based on the tension between the two teams and especially so the anger of the Indians, it had to do something to protect the third Test - to protect the image of the game.

Instead of going against its principles, however, instead of saying, tongue in cheek, that it was acting in the best interest of the game, instead of really setting a precedence which it may well regret, all the ICC had to do, and especially so if it did not wish to be seen as a set of hypocrites catering, this time around, to its richest member, was to sit the two captains down before the third Test, remind them that, right or wrong and according to its dictate, the umpires decision is final, tell them to go and play the game, and then, hopefully, deal with Bucknor, and also Benson, afterwards.

That, however, was not the only fishy thing in Sydney. There was also the banning of Harbhajan Singh for a breach of level three of the ICC's Code of Conduct.

There is no place in sport, in cricket, for racial slurs, and regardless of the circumstances, if Harbhajan did call Andrew Symonds a monkey, he deserves to be punished.

Questions to answer

Apart from the rush in dealing with Harbhajan and the delay in dealing with Australian Brad Hogg who has been reported for breaches under the same code of conduct, there are, however, two questions which match referee Mike Procter, the man who chaired the hearing on Harbhajan and who handed down the sentence, should answer.

Question number one is this: Did Symonds say anything to irritate Harbhajan and, if so, what did he say?

Question number two is this: Did any one on the field hear anything concerning what was reported?

According to Symonds himself, he saw Harbhajan 'hit' Brett Lee on his buttocks with his bat after completing a run. He did not like it, and with Australians always defending Australians, as an Australian he decided to defend his colleague and he had some words with Harbhajan.

Based on what I have seen on cricket fields around the world, based on the fact that many players always touch each other on the buttocks in a friendly gesture or while encouraging them, unless it was an aggressive move by Harbhajan, that hardly seems reason for a confrontation.

According to captain Ricky Ponting (who was fielding in the slips), according to Adam Gilchrist (who was the wicketkeeper), according to Sachin Tendulkar (who was batting with Harbhajan), and according to umpires Bucknor and Benson, they did not hear and did not see anything between Harbahjan and Symonds, and according to Procter, there was no record, visual or audio, of the incident.

According to Bucknor and Benson, the first time they knew about any incident taking place was when Ponting reported it to them.

Apart from the problem of what Symonds said to Harbhajan - if indeed he did say anything - it all came down to Symonds' word against Harbhajan's word.

It is strange that Procter, the man who was the match referee at The Oval in 2006 during the abandoned Test match between England and Pakistan, the match referee who is known to do nothing when things are happening around him, could, after eight hours of evidence and contemplation, rule against Singh and then say "I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Harbhajan Singh directed that word at Andrew Symonds and also that he meant it to offend on the basis of Symonds' race or ethnic origin".

Procter also said after the hearing, "I believe that one group was telling the truth".

It does not take a genius to work out which group, according to Procter, was telling the truth and, obviously, which one was telling lies.

After the fireworks in Sydney, Bucknor was removed and replaced, and Harbhajan was banned for three Test matches.

One who got away

There was one, however, who got away. Apart from those who appealed for catches when the bat had not touched the ball or when the ball had touched the ground, there was one, with his champion team in trouble, who touched the ball, stood his ground and waited for the umpire's decision, and when the umpire ruled him not out, went on to bat undefeated to the end of the innings.

He then, boldly and without remorse, told the media, for all the world to hear, that he had cheated - that he had hit the ball.

The world of cricket is not fair - not when a man is embarrassed because he makes a few mistakes, and not when a man is embarrassed on the word of another man.

Not when a man who is clearly out caught, continues batting, tells the world he knew he was out, and gets away, not only without even a rap on his knuckles, not only with his teammates supporting him, but also with the chief executive officer of Cricket Australia defending him on the basis that "Test cricket is what is being played here, it's not tiddlywinks", that "the Australian cricket team plays the game tough, tough and uncompromising", that "it's the way Australian cricket teams have played the game since 1877", and that "that is the way Australians have expected their teams to play".

Buck

Can you show me anywhere in the Laws of Cricket , The Spirit of Cricket or the Code of Conduct where a batsman is required to "walk"?

Bucky, nobody reads you tripe if it goes beyond 4 lines. Learn to be concise, witty, and convincing. But I'm sure that is hard to do when the CIA agents are watching your every move.

embee wrote:Buck

Can you show me anywhere in the Laws of Cricket , The Spirit of Cricket or the Code of Conduct where a batsman is required to "walk"?

I eagerly await posting every instance of his virtuous Indian players standing their ground upon hitting the cover off the ball. No doubt, it will be all "Well, Australia didn't walk in Sydney".

embee wrote:Buck

Can you show me anywhere in the Laws of Cricket , The Spirit of Cricket or the Code of Conduct where a batsman is required to "walk"?

the 'spirit of cricket' claim involves much more than the pre-series pact between Ponting and Kumble. The war by subterfuge unleashed by Ponting with active connivance of Proctor/Peters/ICC against the touring Indian team is the biggest assault on the so-called 'spirit of the game'.

*Buckaroo* wrote:

embee wrote:Buck

Can you show me anywhere in the Laws of Cricket , The Spirit of Cricket or the Code of Conduct where a batsman is required to "walk"?

the 'spirit of cricket' claim involves much more than the pre-series pact between Ponting and Kumble. The war by subterfuge unleashed by Ponting with active connivance of Proctor/Peters/ICC against the touring Indian team is the biggest assault on the so-called 'spirit of the game'.

Bwahahahahaha - "active connivance". It's Paranoid Pete on steroids. 2-0 Bucky, the trophy is gone.

they have dangled a sword on Bhajji's head by post-poning the racism charge to ltr (when is to be decided by ICC and Speed), I'm sure as soon as there is some discordant notes in the script the trumped up charges will be bought forward to harass the Indian team.

BCCI going with this scheme by not providing Bhajji with any lawyers during his January 6 hearing is another case-in-point for those 'concise, witty, and convincing' reasons but have patience and attention span of a fruitfly.

47.4 Clark to Yuvraj Singh, OUT, fullish, outside the off stump, this one is a classic wobbler from Stuart Clark, Yuvraj has a dart at this one. There's a bit of a sound as the ball passes bat and a spontaneous appeal from the slips cordon, the wicketkeeper and the bowler are enough to convince Billy Bowden. Yuvraj stands his ground for a moment but he has to go, for a duck
Yuvraj Singh c Gilchrist b Clark 0 (10m 11b 0x4 0x6) SR: 0.00
India 122/5 SC Ganguly 21* (51b 1x6) SR Clark 10.4-4-15-3

Australia 'broke the agreement' ...Maybe the Second Test was played before the First..

*Buckaroo* wrote:they have dangled a sword on Bhajji's head by post-poning the racism charge to ltr (when is to be decided by ICC and Speed), I'm sure as soon as there is some discordant notes in the script the trumped up charges will be bought forward to harass the Indian team.

BCCI going with this scheme by not providing Bhajji with any lawyers during his January 6 hearing is another case-in-point for those 'concise, witty, and convincing' reasons but have patience and attention span of a fruitfly.

Yes dear. How's the temperature in the padded cell tonight.