Ponting turned down apology offer

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

Batman wrote:

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

Jeez, I am bleeding real bad right now and even as I speak, I am headed for the infirmary.

Like trolls can actually wound me on the net. In case it helps give you a sense of achievement, I will give you a bravery award for your remarkable feat. I will be too obliged to help you achieve something as worthwhile as hollow victories over the net.

tac wrote:

Batman wrote:

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

Jeez, I am bleeding real bad right now and even as I speak, I am headed for the infirmary.

Like trolls can actually wound me on the net. In case it helps give you a sense of achievement, I will give you a bravery award for your remarkable feat. I will be too obliged to help you achieve something as worthwhile as hollow victories over the net.

I always laugh when people make such an effort to show they're NOT hurt . . .

tac wrote:

Batman wrote:

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

Jeez, I am bleeding real bad right now and even as I speak, I am headed for the infirmary.

Like trolls can actually wound me on the net. In case it helps give you a sense of achievement, I will give you a bravery award for your remarkable feat. I will be too obliged to help you achieve something as worthwhile as hollow victories over the net.

I always laugh when people make such an effort to show they're NOT hurt . . .

Batman wrote:

tac wrote:

Batman wrote:

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

Jeez, I am bleeding real bad right now and even as I speak, I am headed for the infirmary.

Like trolls can actually wound me on the net. In case it helps give you a sense of achievement, I will give you a bravery award for your remarkable feat. I will be too obliged to help you achieve something as worthwhile as hollow victories over the net.

I always laugh when people make such an effort to show they're NOT hurt . . .

Your words hurt me so much, I am on life support right now. Please don't kill me now.

doctorspin wrote:What I reckon about the complaint against Hogg is this:

It is about testing the "judicial" process. It seems that the Harbi-Symonds is one or 2 people's word against another, generally insufficient to convict.

The Hogg incident is the same, but not only that, one of the person's words is the Indian captain (and someone generally considered to be beyond reproach.)

So it is if you are going to find Harbi guilty on this evidence you must find Hogg guilty. If you don't find Hogg guilty, how can you find Harbi guilty? There would obviously be great ramifications as any player could then allege that another had insulted them.

If this theory is correct, then it was smart of them not to make a counter-allegation against Symonds as such an allegation would be seen to be tainted and because of the particular individuals involved.

The Hogg allegation provides a cleaner "test case"

tac wrote:

doctorspin wrote:What I reckon about the complaint against Hogg is this:

It is about testing the "judicial" process. It seems that the Harbi-Symonds is one or 2 people's word against another, generally insufficient to convict.

The Hogg incident is the same, but not only that, one of the person's words is the Indian captain (and someone generally considered to be beyond reproach.)

So it is if you are going to find Harbi guilty on this evidence you must find Hogg guilty. If you don't find Hogg guilty, how can you find Harbi guilty? There would obviously be great ramifications as any player could then allege that another had insulted them.

If this theory is correct, then it was smart of them not to make a counter-allegation against Symonds as such an allegation would be seen to be tainted and because of the particular individuals involved.

The Hogg allegation provides a cleaner "test case"

Or . . . it's a cynical tit-for-tat sook from a bunch of farkin whingers.

doctorspin wrote:

tac wrote:

doctorspin wrote:What I reckon about the complaint against Hogg is this:

It is about testing the "judicial" process. It seems that the Harbi-Symonds is one or 2 people's word against another, generally insufficient to convict.

The Hogg incident is the same, but not only that, one of the person's words is the Indian captain (and someone generally considered to be beyond reproach.)

So it is if you are going to find Harbi guilty on this evidence you must find Hogg guilty. If you don't find Hogg guilty, how can you find Harbi guilty? There would obviously be great ramifications as any player could then allege that another had insulted them.

If this theory is correct, then it was smart of them not to make a counter-allegation against Symonds as such an allegation would be seen to be tainted and because of the particular individuals involved.

The Hogg allegation provides a cleaner "test case"

Or . . . it's a cynical tit-for-tat sook from a bunch of farkin whingers.

But why not against Symonds then?

tac wrote:

doctorspin wrote:What I reckon about the complaint against Hogg is this:

It is about testing the "judicial" process. It seems that the Harbi-Symonds is one or 2 people's word against another, generally insufficient to convict.

The Hogg incident is the same, but not only that, one of the person's words is the Indian captain (and someone generally considered to be beyond reproach.)

So it is if you are going to find Harbi guilty on this evidence you must find Hogg guilty. If you don't find Hogg guilty, how can you find Harbi guilty? There would obviously be great ramifications as any player could then allege that another had insulted them.

If this theory is correct, then it was smart of them not to make a counter-allegation against Symonds as such an allegation would be seen to be tainted and because of the particular individuals involved.

The Hogg allegation provides a cleaner "test case"

Or . . . it's a cynical tit-for-tat sook from a bunch of farkin whingers.

The Indian team manager Chetan Chauhan has said that Andrew Symonds broke a "pact" when he instigated the confrontation with Harbhajan Singh during the Sydney Test, the incident that led to Harbhjan being charged and later found guilty of racist abuse for calling Symonds a monkey.

Chauhan did not reveal the details of this pact, which, he said, had been made after the ODI in India in October 2007 during which Harbhajan allegedly called Symonds a monkey. It has been learnt that Symonds met Harbhajan after the seventh one-day international in Mumbai and they agreed that they wouldn't abuse each other henceforth.

"In Mumbai they had a friendly pact, an oral pact," Chauhan told Harsha Bhogle on the Star Cricket channel during the first day of India's tour match in Canberra. "I would say the first person to have broken that pact was the person who has complained. He has said it everywhere that it was he who started it. The cause started from there and then the effect came in."

Chauhan's comments were in response to Bhogle saying that the Australians had maintained that the only incident not in the spirit of the game in Sydney was the Harbhajan issue.

Symonds had said that it was Harbhajan's action, when he decided to "hit Brett [Lee] on the backside", that sparked off the confrontation.

"I have no idea why he did it," Symonds said. "I was standing nearby and when I saw what happened, I thought, 'Hold on, that's not on'. I'm a firm believer in sticking up for your team-mate so I stepped in and had a bit of a crack at Harbhajan, telling him exactly what I thought of his antics. He then had a shot back, which brings us to the situation we're facing."

A complaint was lodged against Harbhajan under section 3.3 of the ICC Code of Conduct and the match referee Mike Procter banned him for three Tests at a hearing after the conclusion of the Sydney Test. India has since appealed against the judgment.

© Cricinfo

skully wrote:

tac wrote:

doctorspin wrote:What I reckon about the complaint against Hogg is this:

It is about testing the "judicial" process. It seems that the Harbi-Symonds is one or 2 people's word against another, generally insufficient to convict.

The Hogg incident is the same, but not only that, one of the person's words is the Indian captain (and someone generally considered to be beyond reproach.)

So it is if you are going to find Harbi guilty on this evidence you must find Hogg guilty. If you don't find Hogg guilty, how can you find Harbi guilty? There would obviously be great ramifications as any player could then allege that another had insulted them.

If this theory is correct, then it was smart of them not to make a counter-allegation against Symonds as such an allegation would be seen to be tainted and because of the particular individuals involved.

The Hogg allegation provides a cleaner "test case"

Or . . . it's a cynical tit-for-tat sook from a bunch of farkin whingers.

I don't think there is any doubt that it's a square-up. But if Bhajji ultimately pays the price then so must Hogggyyy!!! If Hogggyyy!!! is found guilty he too will appeal and presumably get a "stay" as Harby has. The farce continues.

*Buckaroo* wrote:Symonds broke 'pact', which led to incident - Chauhan

Cricinfo staff

January 10, 2008

The Indian team manager Chetan Chauhan has said that Andrew Symonds broke a "pact" when he instigated the confrontation with Harbhajan Singh during the Sydney Test, the incident that led to Harbhjan being charged and later found guilty of racist abuse for calling Symonds a monkey.

Chauhan did not reveal the details of this pact, which, he said, had been made after the ODI in India in October 2007 during which Harbhajan allegedly called Symonds a monkey. It has been learnt that Symonds met Harbhajan after the seventh one-day international in Mumbai and they agreed that they wouldn't abuse each other henceforth.

"In Mumbai they had a friendly pact, an oral pact," Chauhan told Harsha Bhogle on the Star Cricket channel during the first day of India's tour match in Canberra. "I would say the first person to have broken that pact was the person who has complained. He has said it everywhere that it was he who started it. The cause started from there and then the effect came in."

Chauhan's comments were in response to Bhogle saying that the Australians had maintained that the only incident not in the spirit of the game in Sydney was the Harbhajan issue.

Symonds had said that it was Harbhajan's action, when he decided to "hit Brett [Lee] on the backside", that sparked off the confrontation.

"I have no idea why he did it," Symonds said. "I was standing nearby and when I saw what happened, I thought, 'Hold on, that's not on'. I'm a firm believer in sticking up for your team-mate so I stepped in and had a bit of a crack at Harbhajan, telling him exactly what I thought of his antics. He then had a shot back, which brings us to the situation we're facing."

A complaint was lodged against Harbhajan under section 3.3 of the ICC Code of Conduct and the match referee Mike Procter banned him for three Tests at a hearing after the conclusion of the Sydney Test. India has since appealed against the judgment.

© Cricinfo

noelene wrote:Yes they do
Level 2
2.8 Using language that is obscene, offensive or of a seriously insulting nature to another Player,
umpire, Referee, Team Official or spectator. (It is acknowledged that there will be verbal
exchanges between Players in the course of play. Rather than seeking to eliminate these
exchanges entirely, umpires will look to lay charges when this falls below an acceptable standard.
In this instance, language will be interpreted to include gestures).

http://in.yimg.com/icccricket/pdfs/code-of-conduct-for-players-and-officials.pdf

JGK wrote:

noelene wrote:Yes they do
Level 2
2.8 Using language that is obscene, offensive or of a seriously insulting nature to another Player,
umpire, Referee, Team Official or spectator. (It is acknowledged that there will be verbal
exchanges between Players in the course of play. Rather than seeking to eliminate these
exchanges entirely, umpires will look to lay charges when this falls below an acceptable standard.
In this instance, language will be interpreted to include gestures).

http://in.yimg.com/icccricket/pdfs/code-of-conduct-for-players-and-officials.pdf

TBH - can't see how "bastard" could get caught under this as well (given the words in brackets). Just yesterday there was a youtube clip with Harbijian saying "fark you" to KP. So clearly crude language does not insult Indian sensibilities.