Ponting turned down apology offer

And anyway, the initial version of the article had this:

Kumble told a press conference in Canberra on Wednesday that he, as captain, offered to apologise on Harbhajan's behalf, if there was any offence caused.

doremi wrote:

Interesting that he wasn't reported until 2 days after the test match though

No, they reported him the same day as Harbhajan's hearing, which is the day he actually made the comments.

The dat after Ponting supposedly turned down Kumble's apology . . . simple tit-for-tat muckraking.

handled?

As in disposed of, it's a leap to get from that to saying he wanted it disposed of by offering an apology.

it sounds from everything he and the Indian tour manager said that they simply warned the aussies the shit would hit the fan if they proceeded with the charge.

At no point did they try and apologize or make amends they simply warned that there would be consequences.

HH_pink wrote:And anyway, the initial version of the article had this:

Kumble told a press conference in Canberra on Wednesday that he, as captain, offered to apologise on Harbhajan's behalf, if there was any offence caused.

1. an apology from kumble wouldn't have been enough i think we could all agree with that,it would have had to be from singh to symonds.

2. if kumble said exactly that at the press conference why isn't it quoted when everything else is?

please don't yell wrote:handled?

As in disposed of, it's a leap to get from that to saying he wanted it disposed of by offering an apology.

it sounds from everything he and the Indian tour manager said that they simply warned the aussies the shit would hit the fan if they proceeded with the charge.

At no point did they try and apologize or make amends they simply warned that there would be consequences.

I don't see Kumble doing that, or indeed, any decent sportsman. Doing that.

You sure about that?

Kumble must have had some idea that his post match comments would be like a red rag to a bull when it came to the fanatics in India yet he still made them.

Quite frankly the Indian skipper has one heck of a job because the slightest over reaction will ignite a fire in India.

it's why we have seen people like tendulkar over the years never deliberately provoke in the press when things don't go their way, he knows how his words can be misconstrued and used by people to push agenda's.

Im sure kumble is well aware of the power his words have, he would have been well aware of that when he warned ponting not to press on with the report.

His post-match comments really have done nothing more than give some a feeling of nostalgia.

doremi wrote:His post-match comments really have done nothing more than give some a feeling of nostalgia.

The Don99 wrote:I have been quite sympathetic of India's plight during the 2nd test but if this article is true, it seems to support the claim that Harby issued a racial slur. Why else would Kumble apologise? If Harby simply sledged Symonds back I see no reason for Kumble to apologise - in fact it would show him to be a weak captain who would rather appease the opposition than back up his teammates. To be fair Punter is within his right not to accept the apology and report the incident (especially given the events at the prior ODI series).

Having saif that, I still don't believe Procter had enough evidence to condemn Harbhajan, especially if he was simply taking the word of one team over another.

Kumble was merely trying to find out IF Bhajji was indeed a culprit and in case IF he was than in sense of fair play IF there was a case for apology. That is pretty fair and neutral thinking since neither of the two captains were there to ehar what went and not in a position to know the truth. There was simply only the words of their team mates to go on. One should be make sure if they are backing someone who is on the right side and trying to find out facts doesn't hurt. Kumble did just that. He wouldn't be making this statement with the whole tour in a storm with an appeal pending, if he had actually accepted Bhajji's so called offence. he ahs said nothing so far that is not his team's and Bhajji's interest. This revelation does not amount to a confession, but a sporting offer to co-operate to find out the truth. That he is saying this now while the matter is still subjudice means it is also something that is not so hidden a secret that wouldn't have made it into the hearing. Steve Waugh had himself suggested the same recourse in one of his columns where he advocated any cultural misunderstandings between the two sides, should have been sorted out on the field and not off it. So the only real issue now is what was the basis of Proctor's judgement apart from the players 'hearsay'

Batman wrote:

The Don99 wrote:I have been quite sympathetic of India's plight during the 2nd test but if this article is true, it seems to support the claim that Harby issued a racial slur. Why else would Kumble apologise? If Harby simply sledged Symonds back I see no reason for Kumble to apologise - in fact it would show him to be a weak captain who would rather appease the opposition than back up his teammates. To be fair Punter is within his right not to accept the apology and report the incident (especially given the events at the prior ODI series).

Having saif that, I still don't believe Procter had enough evidence to condemn Harbhajan, especially if he was simply taking the word of one team over another.

Kumble was merely trying to find out IF Bhajji was indeed a culprit and in case IF he was than in sense of fair play IF there was a case for apology.

What?

Batman wrote:

The Don99 wrote:I have been quite sympathetic of India's plight during the 2nd test but if this article is true, it seems to support the claim that Harby issued a racial slur. Why else would Kumble apologise? If Harby simply sledged Symonds back I see no reason for Kumble to apologise - in fact it would show him to be a weak captain who would rather appease the opposition than back up his teammates. To be fair Punter is within his right not to accept the apology and report the incident (especially given the events at the prior ODI series).

Having saif that, I still don't believe Procter had enough evidence to condemn Harbhajan, especially if he was simply taking the word of one team over another.

Kumble was merely trying to find out IF Bhajji was indeed a culprit and in case IF he was than in sense of fair play IF there was a case for apology. That is pretty fair and neutral thinking ...

No one on the forum knows what Kumble was thinking, batman.

please don't yell wrote:

HH_pink wrote:And anyway, the initial version of the article had this:

Kumble told a press conference in Canberra on Wednesday that he, as captain, offered to apologise on Harbhajan's behalf, if there was any offence caused.

1. an apology from kumble wouldn't have been enough i think we could all agree with that,it would have had to be from singh to symonds.

2. if kumble said exactly that at the press conference why isn't it quoted when everything else is?

Somewhere along the way no one asked a more pertinent question of what Symo said to Bhajji and what could have provoked Bhajji to retaliate, racism charges and subjudice appeal, notwithstanding? Surely the woods are being missed for the trees?

Batman wrote:

please don't yell wrote:

HH_pink wrote:And anyway, the initial version of the article had this:

Kumble told a press conference in Canberra on Wednesday that he, as captain, offered to apologise on Harbhajan's behalf, if there was any offence caused.

1. an apology from kumble wouldn't have been enough i think we could all agree with that,it would have had to be from singh to symonds.

2. if kumble said exactly that at the press conference why isn't it quoted when everything else is?

Somewhere along the way no one asked a more pertinent question of what Symo said to Bhajji and what could have provoked Bhajji to retaliate, racism charges and subjudice appeal, notwithstanding? Surely the woods are being missed for the trees?

The fact that India chose to cite Hogg for saying Bastard suggests that they didn't have anything on Symonds . . . or is that too logical?

furriner wrote:

Batman wrote:

The Don99 wrote:I have been quite sympathetic of India's plight during the 2nd test but if this article is true, it seems to support the claim that Harby issued a racial slur. Why else would Kumble apologise? If Harby simply sledged Symonds back I see no reason for Kumble to apologise - in fact it would show him to be a weak captain who would rather appease the opposition than back up his teammates. To be fair Punter is within his right not to accept the apology and report the incident (especially given the events at the prior ODI series).

Having saif that, I still don't believe Procter had enough evidence to condemn Harbhajan, especially if he was simply taking the word of one team over another.

Kumble was merely trying to find out IF Bhajji was indeed a culprit and in case IF he was than in sense of fair play IF there was a case for apology. That is pretty fair and neutral thinking ...

No one on the forum knows what Kumble was thinking, batman.

Kumble has said with that revelation he did not want to see things reaching an ugly end and blown into a larger issue so he thought talking to Punter and sorting out would help. In fact his thoughts are pretty clear on this.

tac wrote:

Batman wrote:

please don't yell wrote:

HH_pink wrote:And anyway, the initial version of the article had this:

Kumble told a press conference in Canberra on Wednesday that he, as captain, offered to apologise on Harbhajan's behalf, if there was any offence caused.

1. an apology from kumble wouldn't have been enough i think we could all agree with that,it would have had to be from singh to symonds.

2. if kumble said exactly that at the press conference why isn't it quoted when everything else is?

Somewhere along the way no one asked a more pertinent question of what Symo said to Bhajji and what could have provoked Bhajji to retaliate, racism charges and subjudice appeal, notwithstanding? Surely the woods are being missed for the trees?

The fact that India chose to cite Hogg for saying Bastard suggests that they didn't have anything on Symonds . . . or is that too logical?

Don;t confuse the issue by using logic.

taipan wrote:

tac wrote:

Batman wrote:

please don't yell wrote:

HH_pink wrote:And anyway, the initial version of the article had this:

Kumble told a press conference in Canberra on Wednesday that he, as captain, offered to apologise on Harbhajan's behalf, if there was any offence caused.

1. an apology from kumble wouldn't have been enough i think we could all agree with that,it would have had to be from singh to symonds.

2. if kumble said exactly that at the press conference why isn't it quoted when everything else is?

Somewhere along the way no one asked a more pertinent question of what Symo said to Bhajji and what could have provoked Bhajji to retaliate, racism charges and subjudice appeal, notwithstanding? Surely the woods are being missed for the trees?

The fact that India chose to cite Hogg for saying Bastard suggests that they didn't have anything on Symonds . . . or is that too logical?

Don;t confuse the issue by using logic.

It seems Vikas has slunk off back to the batcave to lick his wound . . .

tac wrote:

Batman wrote:

please don't yell wrote:

HH_pink wrote:And anyway, the initial version of the article had this:

Kumble told a press conference in Canberra on Wednesday that he, as captain, offered to apologise on Harbhajan's behalf, if there was any offence caused.

1. an apology from kumble wouldn't have been enough i think we could all agree with that,it would have had to be from singh to symonds.

2. if kumble said exactly that at the press conference why isn't it quoted when everything else is?

Somewhere along the way no one asked a more pertinent question of what Symo said to Bhajji and what could have provoked Bhajji to retaliate, racism charges and subjudice appeal, notwithstanding? Surely the woods are being missed for the trees?

The fact that India chose to cite Hogg for saying Bastard suggests that they didn't have anything on Symonds . . . or is that too logical?

That is a different issue. Both teams have grievances that have been filed. Talking about the Symo-Bhajji flare up. Symo did start of something, mouthing off Bhajji when things went down the tube. He did admit 'talking' to Bhajji before the alleged comment happened. I am sure a lot of people would want to know what that was. Or is it ok to provoke someone, force a reaction and then run off to complain about it? Is it a tendency then in Aus then to frame charges and then build a case along the way like was done in the case of a certain 'Haneef', where terrorism charges were slapped without evidence?

tac wrote:

taipan wrote:

tac wrote:

Batman wrote:

please don't yell wrote:

HH_pink wrote:And anyway, the initial version of the article had this:

Kumble told a press conference in Canberra on Wednesday that he, as captain, offered to apologise on Harbhajan's behalf, if there was any offence caused.

1. an apology from kumble wouldn't have been enough i think we could all agree with that,it would have had to be from singh to symonds.

2. if kumble said exactly that at the press conference why isn't it quoted when everything else is?

Somewhere along the way no one asked a more pertinent question of what Symo said to Bhajji and what could have provoked Bhajji to retaliate, racism charges and subjudice appeal, notwithstanding? Surely the woods are being missed for the trees?

The fact that India chose to cite Hogg for saying Bastard suggests that they didn't have anything on Symonds . . . or is that too logical?

Don;t confuse the issue by using logic.

It seems Vikas has slunk off back to the batcave to lick his wound . . .

Fat lot of good that'll do him, I believe it's a wound that never heals. Especially when sandy.

Batman wrote:

tac wrote:

Batman wrote:

please don't yell wrote:

HH_pink wrote:And anyway, the initial version of the article had this:

Kumble told a press conference in Canberra on Wednesday that he, as captain, offered to apologise on Harbhajan's behalf, if there was any offence caused.

1. an apology from kumble wouldn't have been enough i think we could all agree with that,it would have had to be from singh to symonds.

2. if kumble said exactly that at the press conference why isn't it quoted when everything else is?

Somewhere along the way no one asked a more pertinent question of what Symo said to Bhajji and what could have provoked Bhajji to retaliate, racism charges and subjudice appeal, notwithstanding? Surely the woods are being missed for the trees?

The fact that India chose to cite Hogg for saying Bastard suggests that they didn't have anything on Symonds . . . or is that too logical?

That is a different issue. Both teams have grievances that have been filed. Talking about the Symo-Bhajji flare up. Symo did start of something, mouthing off Bhajji when things went down the tube. He did admit 'talking' to Bhajji before the alleged comment happened. I am sure a lot of people would want to know what that was. Or is it ok to provoke someone, force a reaction and then run off to complain about it? Is it a tendency then in Aus then to frame charges and then build a case along the way like was done in the case of a certain 'Haneef', where terrorism charges were slapped without evidence?

Again, if all the Indians can find to cite is Hogg saying Bastard, then it seems that Symonds must have said very little of an offensive nature to Harby . . . can't you see the connection?

doremi wrote:

HH_pink wrote:There's no prizes being awarded here, Zatty and taips.

Kumble apologised to Ponting on Bhajji's behalf so that the series would go on without all the brouhaha of a disciplinary hearing.

One very feasible interpretation is that Kumble offered a "without prejudice" type apology. Not admitting guilt or claiming innocence on behalf of his player (the let's get on with it approach that Ponting should have accepted) - the other is that he knew that the player was guilty, he wished to avoid him being suspended & the whole team with the support of their Board went on the attack blaming everyone else for everything.

For Harbhajan Singh? It would have been feasible for someone like Yuvraj even, but Bhajji? Doubt it.

doremi wrote:For Harbhajan Singh? It would have been feasible for someone like Yuvraj even, but Bhajji? Doubt it.

Where you talking to me?

tac wrote:

Batman wrote:

tac wrote:

Batman wrote:

please don't yell wrote:

HH_pink wrote:And anyway, the initial version of the article had this:

Kumble told a press conference in Canberra on Wednesday that he, as captain, offered to apologise on Harbhajan's behalf, if there was any offence caused.

1. an apology from kumble wouldn't have been enough i think we could all agree with that,it would have had to be from singh to symonds.

2. if kumble said exactly that at the press conference why isn't it quoted when everything else is?

Somewhere along the way no one asked a more pertinent question of what Symo said to Bhajji and what could have provoked Bhajji to retaliate, racism charges and subjudice appeal, notwithstanding? Surely the woods are being missed for the trees?

The fact that India chose to cite Hogg for saying Bastard suggests that they didn't have anything on Symonds . . . or is that too logical?

That is a different issue. Both teams have grievances that have been filed. Talking about the Symo-Bhajji flare up. Symo did start of something, mouthing off Bhajji when things went down the tube. He did admit 'talking' to Bhajji before the alleged comment happened. I am sure a lot of people would want to know what that was. Or is it ok to provoke someone, force a reaction and then run off to complain about it? Is it a tendency then in Aus then to frame charges and then build a case along the way like was done in the case of a certain 'Haneef', where terrorism charges were slapped without evidence?

Again, if all the Indians can find to cite is Hogg saying Bastard, then it seems that Symonds must have said very little of an offensive nature to Harby . . . can't you see the connection?

Two different issues. Whether India's objection to Hogg is acceptable to you or not is not my concern. Thats for the Aussies to work out with ICC. I could say the same about Aussies making the ruckus about Bhajji allegedly calling Symo a monkey. I did not talk about Hogg at all in the post you quote. Like I said two different issues, based on two different complaints. Aussies may view India's objections as childish, though Indians are justified in it just as Indians view the Aussie complaint as too serious, as much as Aussies feel justified about it. Both sides have clear enough perceptions of what hurts their cultures more. If you can see the bigger picture beyond these simple facts, so well, smart guy than fill in the dots for your own personal satisfaction and spare us your brilliant deductions.

You're not very clever, are you Vikas?

tac wrote:You're not very clever, are you Vikas?

Masterly piece of understatement.