Talk:Second Test, 2007-08 Border-Gavaskar Trophy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cricket Portal Click here for information about how the WikiProject assesses notability Second Test, 2007-08 Border-Gavaskar Trophy is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: not checked Categories and templates: not checked

Portal	Second Test, 2007-08 Border-Gavaskar Trophy is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian sports.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article... Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale by the India project.

Contents 1 Article name 2 Merge 3 Cricinfo commentary 4 Umpiring controversies 5 Scorecard 6 Pre-tour Agreements 7 Article 8 Surfer 9 No need for self-references in place of citations 10 Roebuck and Greig 11 YouTube links 12 Neil Harvey 13 Ponting "grassing" a catch from Dhoni 14 LBWs 15 Channel Nine 16 Change 17 Monkey Roll 18 Ponting being Harbhajan's bunny 19 Peter Roebuck 20 Ishant Sharma's Wicket (???) 21 "They did it too" 22 Semi protected 23 "Monkey" 24 Lost in translation 25 Wide world of Sports 26 predator clown references 27 Greig commentary 28 Player behavior in the Perth match 29 Removal of Racism Allegations 30 Too many quotes 31 Fair use rationale for Image:Harbhajan hattrick.jpg

[edit] Article name

I would suggest a different name. New Years Day Test match suggests it started on 1 January when it actually started 2 January. "Second Test, India vs Australia, 2007–2008" sounds a little overblown. Any ideas (and no, "Bucknor's Match" is not NPOV :-)). -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Another new name. Well done to the editor for being bold, but perhaps with so many people editing this article it may have been worthwhile consulting on the talk page first. How do others feel about the new name? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Move it back to the old style, to be consistent with the series. HAving said that it doesn't matter whether, "Second Test" goes before or after. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Border-Gavaskar Trophy is the name of the series. Rafy (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It is but on Wikipedia, the convention is to use XXX cricket team in YYcountry in Year-year, which is why the old naming was used to keep things in an orderly manner in line with teh naming conventions. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd support a change to the original name as suggested by Blnguyen. Consistency in naming is important, otherwise you don't know where to find related articles, or how to name new articles when they are created. -- Chuq (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I have suggested that the article Bucknor-Benson dubious decisions be merged with this article. The other article is severely limited in scope, the title is hopelessly POV and makes it difficult to maintain NPOV in the content. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cricinfo commentary

I would advise against using the Cricinfo commentary as a reliable source. This is not meant to be a slur against Cricinfo or Jenny Thompson and George Binoy, who all do a marvellous job. There is also little real need as all the controversial decisions have been discussed ad nauseum in the Indian and Australian press. Cricinfo commentary certainly should not be used as the arbiter of whether a decsion was correct or not, and definitely should not be used to accuse players (e.g. Ponting) of cheating. If there is an insistence on using Cricinfo commentary, then the comment should be attributed to the commentator, in the form of "According to the online ball by ball commentary at Cricinfo, Ponting did not catch the ball cleanly" or similar. An opinion on an umpiring decision is an opinion only and should be attributed to someone or some people. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, will do. Darrowen (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I seem overly critical and paranoid about POV, but the best way to keep the vandals away, and to avoid deletion, is to keep this article as NPOV as possible. So far, so good. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I think if the Cricinfo comment says "Snicko/Hakweye says yes" about 2 overs after the incident, then it is a RS for Snicko/Hawkeye. I agree that taking their "live comments" as fact is not a good idea. We might as well quote the scientific stuff. Hawkeye isn't guaranteed of being correct, but it does use the same algorithm for all players, unlike the umpires. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In being reasonably generic, Hawkeye doesn't take into account a number of important bowler/pitch/weather specific factors, which make it an unsuitable substitute and also because it isn't good as a substitute also an unsuitable verification of the millimetre accuracy umpires seem to be pressured to have. Ansell 11:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Umpiring controversies

Given that LBW decisions have been included on the list (viz. Laxman, Hussey), if anyone has a videotape to hand, there was an instance in India's first innings where Sachin Tendulkar was ruled not out to an LBW call which hawk-eye showed would have hit the stumps. I think he was less than 50 at the time. Not that I am endorsing hawk-eye, but it is probably of the same standard of error as the Laxman and Hussey calls. Kind regards--Calabraxthis 07:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

LBWs should not be considered as contraversial descisions when so many catches and non catches were adjudged out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.96.54 (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that the article deals with controversies, and whether or not something is controversial exists in the mind of the beholder, I would be minded to keep the LBW opinions as they too have an impact on the outcome of the game. In this vein I note that the Andrew Symonds LBW is retained in the present article.

I propose that the Laxman and Hussey LBWs should be reinstated together with the Tendulkar one. One of the strong criticisms atttached to the decision where Symonds was given not out when he edged off Ishant Sharma was that it allowed him to go on and score another 120+ runs. In this context, the same can be said of the Laxman and Tendulkar decisions. This would present a more balanced view of the controversies which arose (although I still hold the view that the Indian team was by far the worse off as a result of the umpiring which genuinely affected the outcome of the match). Kind regards--Calabraxthis 08:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask why the Tendulkar LBW decision is yet to be published on this page? showdownhero 21:17, 8 January 2008 (GMT+9:30)

LBW decisions which favour the batsmen aren't that controversial, unlike the other decisions, i believe its best not to include the LBWs--TvKimi (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a tendency in the arguments above to consider "controversy" too narrowly. Personally, I don't like the word controversy as it appears in many Wikipedia articles because it seems to be a short-hand method of identifying something that an editor does not like in circumstances where he or she is too lazy to articulate the reasons why he or she does not like it. Nevertheless, if we are stuck with using the word, it makes sense to give it some proper meaning in the context under consideration, viz. umpiring decisions.

To say that an LBW decision which favours the batsman cannot be controversial is too one dimensional. I think what you can say is that a batsman who fails to walk in circumstances where he is given "not out" to an LBW call (even though he is plumb) has not behaved controversially - but so what - indeed, if a batsman started "walking" when he believed that an umpire was incorrect in not ruling him to be LBW, then he would probably never play international cricket again. But the same argument can be made in relation to the two Andrew Symonds stumping appeals - there was no controversy in the fact that Symonds chose not to "walk" when the third umpire failed to give him out and then later when the square leg umpire failed to refer the decision to the third umpire.

Yet despite this, both the Symonds decisions could correctly be said to be controversial because of the impact which the decisons of those umpires had on the rest of the match; Symonds proceeded to score an additional 114 runs after the first of them and was able to form valuable partnerships for each of the seventh, eight and ninth wickets in Australia's first innings.

Likewise, both the Laxman and Tendulkar decisions may be considered to be controversial because they allowed India to score an additional 200+ runs and form meaningful partnerships with its lower order.

Both of these controversial decisions needs to be included in the text of the article. I note that whilst I have been penning this script User:Quantummeruit has added the Tendular decision to the article (thank you for that), and I will re-instate the Laxman decision which was eliminated this morning.

I think that when an objective reader reviews the list, they will still see that the weight of decisions went against India. But to delete the decisions which went in India's favour is to distort the record of events of the test match and (however inadvertently) to make the umpiring appear better than it really was.

My final observation about controversy is that for an event to be controversial it generally has to be seen to produce an outcome which is either unexpected or not liked. I wonder, if Michael Clarke had not taken 3 wickets in the penultimate over of the match with the consequence that India lost a match that they should fairly have drawn, whether this article we are all writing would exist in the first place? Kind regards --Calabraxthis 22:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this article would still be there even if those three wickets were not taken and the result was a draw. The controversy was because of umpiring incidents, racism allegations and allegations of unsportsmanlike behavior (as if there was no ample evidence of the fact).

I think the Tendulkar LBW decision was not plumb. Maybe we should delete the not-out given LBWs as it's not that different for an umpire to give the batsman the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise there were numerous decisions in which Hawkeye said the ball would hit the stumps but the umpire gave it not out. So I elect to delete all of them apart from the Symonds one in the second innings as that would've given Kumble a hat trick and Kumble was visibly disappointed with the decision. Darrowen (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand how you can include the Laxman LBW decision and not include the Michael Hussey LBW decision when he was at 22. In fact, I would say that the Symonds LBW in the 2nd innings was less close than the Hussey LBW decision. I really think that decision should be included. Nikhil (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

But then if you include that decision then what about the RP Singh decision in India's second innings. The ball was turning in to him, hit him in well in front of the stumps above the knee-roll. If anything that should be mentioned. So I think it perhaps that we delete all dubious LBW decisions apart from Ponting and Symonds, the Symonds one because it denied Kumble a hattrick and raised some annoyance. Darrowen (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say rm LBWs unless they include errors of observation, ie, inside edges, bowled pitched outside leg and the umpire gave it out or batsman hit outside the line. Making errors in predicting where the ball will go is not so difficult and there are many close shouts all the time. Unless there was a consensus that the ball was missing by a long way (eg going down leg by a full stump-wdith), or batsman given out when hit above the knee-roll and going 20cm over or something, then we would be swamped with 50-50 or 40-60 LBW predictions, which are difficult. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it shows that the fact that we can't agree on whether or not the LBWs should be included demonstrates that they are all sources of controversy. My point in the comment above was that in addition to the other mistakes, the timing of the LBW decisions in the context of the innings of the relevant batsman all had an impact on the direction of the match. Whether or not you take the view that they were "clearly out", "clearly not out", "a little bit out but forgiveable" or a "little bit not out but unforgiveable" really depends on your point of view. I think for the sake of complete objectivity, they all need to be included. An intelligent reader can then form his or her own view on which decisions to place weight on and which to discount. Kind regards--Calabraxthis 07:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem that I have with the LBW decisions in the list is that the list is preceded by "Below is a list of the MAJOR umpiring controversies..." (emphasis mine). As far as I can tell, they aren't major controversies (apart from the Ponting LBW), because, as many other users have said, LBWs are a contentious issue, and in most of these cases the cricket community still can't agree on whether or not the umpire was right (i.e. whether or not the batsman should have been given out), especially in the cases where the batsman looked to be out, but wasn't given out. The ones stated as major controversies should only be the ones where there is widespread agreement that the umpire made the wrong decision. Gazzawhite (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scorecard

A full scorecard would be a great addition to the article. Someone who is more up on wiki formatting may be able to put a decent full scorecard up. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll make a start on it now, unless someone else has already done so? Schumi555 (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a template anywhere for cricket scorecards? The only one I can find is over at WikiNews. Schumi555 (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've started to create one here, feel free to complete and use. AMBerry (talk | contribs) 19:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-tour Agreements

Two of the major controversies in this match could both be seen to hinge on pre-tour agreements between Ponting and Kumble. The anti-rascist stance agreed by the captains has been mentioned briefly, and I have just added a brief line at the end of the Ganguly dismissal regarding the contentious catches agreement, but I can't help but think that perhaps these agreements need their own section... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reuben from brighton (talk • contribs) 06:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we need this section? I have removed the Dhoni instance from the Controversial Umpiring Decisions, because it was not controversial because of umpiring, but because of the appeal Ricky made for a grassed catch. I suggest this new section (if it was added) would be a good place for that as well as another mention of Michael Clarke's catch of Ganguly and not to forget Ponting's catch of Dravid in first innings (to have a balanced view). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.131.0.194 (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the Dhoni instance should be included somewhere in the article as it was a major talking point in the media (along with the Ganguly dismissal). It also relates directly to the captain's agreement on low catches that Ricky Ponting has been pushing for years and is also a mojor talking point in the media. Gazzawhite (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::: So, someone agrees with me here. I am new to Wiki and do not know how to create new sections/contents under Articles. I do not want to mess up a nice article by experimenting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.131.0.194 (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we really need to add this section. I saw an article online this morning where Chauhan was saying to that the MoU did not have anything about the contentious catches. That was just a verbal agreement between the captains. It was just one article, so I am not sure if it is correct information or just media adding their bit of spice to a simple statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.131.0.194 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article

Good article, good to see it come on the first page... thanks wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.44.160 (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The biased way that this article has been written actually made me laugh. The way this reads, you'd think that there has never been some controversial decisions made in cricket before! Among my personal favorites in this article: the dubious claim that the number of mistakes compared to other tests was unusually large (source for this anyone?), and the part where it conveys the opinion that without the bad decisions, india would not have lost the test (original research aside, doesn't anyone here have a time machine I'm not aware of?). 124.187.200.13 (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The number of mistakes was unusually large, thus the uproar. Also, considering India had 1.1 overs left I think say if Dravid or Ganguly were not given out India would have survived past the final over spells of Michael Clarke and Andrew Symonds. I think denying that the umpiring had a major effect on the result of the match is just plain false. Darrowen (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Mistakes are made in cricket matches all the time. The mistakes in this test drew a large amount of attention and controversy, but does this mean there was an unusually large number? Unless you can find a reliable source for this, then no. Additionally, you don't have a crystal ball and neither do I, so we cannot start debating how things would have turned out if some decisions had gone a different way.--124.187.200.13 (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right that unless there is a reliable source for the unusually large number it should go. But what is clear is a large number of sources have suggested India wouldn't have lost were it not for the mistakes. Personal opinions of these claims are irrelevan Nil Einne (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I too agree on that. Personal opinions will create another war on this article and it will become a target for vandalism. But, since a large number of sources all over the world have agreed on this, India would not have lost the match but for the mistakes. The unusually large number of mistakes is because of the controversial aspect of them. A few of them were very big mistakes. Mistakes in LBW decisions happen every time in every match, so ignoring them also we have 8-9 glaring mistakes.

OK. But on most fronts I like the way this article is shaping up. Darrowen (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article comes across biased against the Austalian team. Mistakes by umpires are unfortunate, but a part of sport. Cricket players around the world have agreed that they want to retain the human element of umpiring, as opposed to reviewing every decision in super-slow-motion, which slows the game and humiliates the umpire when they are found to have been incorrect. These were international umpires, so they are presumed impartial, but this articles all but accuses them of deliberately favouring Australia. It is a bitter loss for the Indian team, amplified by the close nature of the match, but such is sport. The next test in Perth may have umpiring decisions that favour the Indian team, should we demand new umpires then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.151.32.7 (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well said.124.187.195.248 (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many times you've seen people given out caught when the umpire had no vision of bat or glove for the length of the delivery... Darrowen (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Mistakes like this are not new to cricket, it was the behavior of the Indian cricket team that made it blow out into such a big incident. I think Australian journalist Jim Wilson said it best: "the Indians have a reputation of being serial whingers."--Selaw Ymmij (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the "whinging" of the team was more based on the accusation of one of their players as a racist without evidence and the basic claim that Sachin Tendulkar had been lying to the match referee. In India, racists are frowned upon, particularly after 200 years of imperial rule in which colour was more important than anything else. For the Indian public, the accusation that one of their much-loved cricketers was a dirty racist was considered an affront to the honour and integrity of the nation. But Jim WIlson's views can be incorporated into the Australian reaction section. Darrowen (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Surfer

Just in case people are unaware, I always find this as a good place to start when you want a rounded view of an issue. Darrowen (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No need for self-references in place of citations

"(see below)" looks ugly and is unnecessary in text everywhere that a controversy is referenced in the summary. The summary is a statement of fact, and people will get to the controversies in time without being directed there multiple times. Ansell 00:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roebuck and Greig

I do believe that they are Australian citizens, and at the least, permanent residents on Sydney's eastern suburbs (Wentworth area). Having said that, they might be considered to be non-Australian due to their playing days. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Both citizens–see [1] and [2]. While mention of their non-Australian cricket background is OK (for example Larwood and Sobers are/were Australian citizens but to call them Australian cricketers is incorrect) considering them non-Australians because of their birthplace is not right. Anything they said and wrote was by an Australian and for an Australian audience and should be considered Australian reaction. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a bit of a gross generalisation - they are ex-non-Australian cricketers and their opinions constantly reflect this regardless of their new nationality or place of residence. I hold dual citizenship but if I was to begin a journalism career in London, it would be remiss to assume that because I hold nationality and am living there, my opinions are based on my current geographic, than the 20 odd years I spent growing up in Australia. If anything I would say generally their opinions are designed to be a mild form of incitement! Crx2gen (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

But that is your (and others) opinion only, and that is the point. The facts are: They are Australian and their comments were for Australian audiences on CH 9 and in the SMH. You don't agree with them; fine, I don't agree with a lot they have said either but calling into question their Australian-ness is not on. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I see Greig has been moved and Roebuck is now 'English Australian', which I don't recall seeing earlier when I read it (and can't be bothered checking the history). Can I assume this is agreeable, or even your work? Either way opinions are opinions, and if you you want to get picky, the facts are they are ex-foreign naturalised Australians, working for Australian owned, internationally distributed broadcasters/newspapers. This could go on to the death and has nothing to do with my apparent disregard for their 'Australian-ness' and everything to do with not presenting their comments in the correct light. I guess the best way to view it for example would be through the eyes of someone who knew nothing of the controversy or Greig and his history.Crx2gen (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube links

While WP:EL allows links to YouTube, I am concerned that the videos in question breach copyright. If that is the case, then the links must be removed. See WP:COPY "However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States." Unless it can be demonstarted that the YouTube vidoes do not infringe on the creator's rights, I intend to remove them. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the YouTube videos are good references as they are effectively (if you run them on mute) primary sources. You can look at those replays and see that Lee had bowled a no ball, something I didn't know about before. Darrowen (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute that they are great references, but I don't think they meet Wikipedia policy and they have the potentional to expose the Foundation to legal action. Unless we can find versions that don't breach copyright, I think they should go. -- Mattinbgn\^talk —Preceding comment was added at 04:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neil Harvey

Hooray.... Everyone's favourite olden-day Australian cricket hath spoken! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Good old Neil, he never lets his "fans" down. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Something to add to the Harvey article I think! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[3] - His comments generated a flurry of readers to his article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ponting "grassing" a catch from Dhoni

Quoting from the article, in the section relating to the Ganguly/Michael Clarke catch:

He [Ponting] had earlier unsuccessfully claimed a similar catch off M.S. Dhoni, when TV replays show that the ball had been "grassed".

I would suggest this statement is not NPOV. The television footage, as is often the case with these types of catches, is arguably equivocal as to whether Ponting had completed the catch without "grassing" the ball in the process. Unless you have a citation from the umpires as to why they chose not to award the catch, the statement as given is pejorative and unfair. Anecdotally, the umpire might not have awarded the catch because he was not convinced the ball struck Dhoni's glove. Fact is, umpires on the field make decisions based on multiple criteria, and unless recourse is made to the third umpire, which was not the case here, these have absolutely nothing to do with TV replays. The success or otherwise of the appeal does not determine Ponting's belief that he made the catch, or that his appeal was anything other than legitimate. -- Philip Legge _{phi1ip@netscape·net} has forgotten his Wikipedia logon... 128.250.151.82 (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no point in discussing if it could have been given out as a catch as the replays clearly show that the ball touched the ground. It would have only become another major controversy for umpires. However this incident did show fielding captain appealing in a no case which puts the trust in asking the fielders/captains in case of controvertial catches in question. 76.241.22.9 (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no, the replay clearly shows Ponting completing the catch above the ground, so that the issue hangs on the interpretation of Law 32. Notably, that page doesn't discuss this issue at all, i.e. when a catch is completed - you'll have to look at the actual fine detail of the law (MCC website) for that. Ponting's view would probably be that he grassed the ball after he had completed the catch, in the action of raising his arm off the ground for the appeal. Thus, I again suggest Ponting's was a legitimate appeal to make, thus the statement cited remains non-NPOV, and the umpire was more likely to have been unconvinced that the ball had grazed Dhoni's gloves, than swayed on the evidence of TV replays! Umpires are allowed to give batsman the benefit of the doubt, you know. Philip Legge _{User Email Talk} 01:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the grassing at the end of 0:33 and beginning of 0:34 second in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcbJOkeyKBA and not the picking up second time at end of 0:35 seconds. Please confirm. For sure he is not in control of the ball at end of 0:33 seconds and could not avoid touching the ball on the ground. I have seen so many such catches given not out and all the experts say that such catches are not out. What else is grassing a catch in your opinion otherwise?

From your link PDF you have given

(a) The act of making the catch shall start from the time when a fielder first handles the ball and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control both over the ball and over his own movement.
(c) the ball does not touch the ground, even though the hand holding it does so in effecting the catch.

both of these points are not satisfied. I am curious to know what makes you think it is a valid catch? I hope you have unbiased opinions. 66.245.9.34 (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LBWs

Various editors are reinserting a paragraph claiming "minor controversies" were in India's favour. The evidence given is that Michael Clarke was denied one close lbw shout and Brad Hogg was denied one lbw shout in the first innings and Hogg was denied two lbw shouts in the second innings. I think above consensus was that lbws are not to be considered, so I deleted but an editor came back saying 4 lbws given not-out constitutes controversy. I think if one were to watch cricket for an extended period of time they would know that most lbw shouts were not given. To find 2 in an innings and label it as controversial seems a bit lame. Darrowen (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, most umpires are conservative on LBWs, per the benefit of the doubt to the batsman. I don't think LBWs should be included unless they invovled observation errors from the umpites -pitched.struck outside the line or inside edge. Obviously, if the batsman gets hit by a low full toss dead in front and hawkeye showed it would be hitting the base of middle stump, then that would be a highly dubious prediction and then the commentators would shout about it a lot. But just with difficult predictions, the commentators will just go "hmmm" and not complain about for the next 20 minutes, which they will do if there is an observational error, eg inside edge or struck outside the line or pitched outside leg. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I am still not persuaded by the arguments that have been made by both of you in relation to the (lack of) controversial nature of the LBW decisions for reasons I outlined above in the Umpiring Controversies section. I do however agree with you both that it does not make sense to insert a specific paragraph to act as a dumping ground for general grievances about LBW decisions based on the number of appeals turned down.

Many of the decisions included on the master list are controversial because television technology shows something different to what the umpire detected with his senses during real-time play. Now "Hawk-Eye" (which you criticise) is one of these technologies and is not available to the umpires. But so, equally, "Snickometer" (or "Hot Spot") are also not available to the umpires, and whilst I don't think the Bucknor-Symonds caught behind appeal can be defended in any way (ie. Geoffrey Boycott's mother would have given it out sitting at home in Yorkshire), the same cannot be said of certain other decisions on the current list. Hence if you are to argue that the Laxman, Tendulkar & Hussey LBW decisions should not be included because they require reliance on Hawk-Eye technology, then you should really also be excluding the Ponting & Hussey caught-down-the-leg-side decisions for the same reason (becuase they rely on Snickometer technology). Fine edges behind which are not given out by the umpire also occur frequently in international cricket.

I think the only way to ensure that an objective record of the controversies which occurred in the match can take place is if all of the decisions which Hawk-Eye demonstrated would have hit the stumps AND which thereby allowed the batsmen to score many more runs are included on the list. In this category I would include the Laxman decision (given not out on 16 and went on to make 109), the Tendulkar decision (given not out on 36 and went on to make an undefeated 154) and finally the Hussey second innings decision (given not out on 22 and went on to score an undefeated 145).

Whilst I don't think the length of time which a decision is analysed by the commentators is the appropriate test for deciding whether a dismissal is controversial (I get much more out of the TV coverage when I switch off the commentary from the peanut gallery), I can concede that discussion of a dismissal by the print media does indicate that it is worthy of further consideration. In this regard and in the circumstance of the Tendulkar appeal, my attention has been directed towards discussion in the following two articles by Peter Lalor [[4]] and [[5]]. You will see from the context of the articles that the Tendulkar decision acquired its elements of controversiality because of events that followed the decision, not purely because of the qualitiative nature of the decision at the time.

I think this is important as I still stand by my view that the whole sorry affair of the second test would not have remained newsworthy for much time after the match if Michael Clarke had not unexpectedly dismissed the last 3 Indian batsmen with minutes remaining on the clock. We would have all moved on to much more productive pursuits than adding dialogue to Talk pages if that had been the case. Kind regards--Calabraxthis 13:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You make valid points but I believe the difference between snicko and hawkeye is that hawkeye is merely scientific conjecture. Like I think I once heard Ian Chappell criticize Hawkeye for exaggerating bounce. Additionally, the thing is that it's very common in test matches for lbws to be given not out and hawkeye to say that it's out. But it's not so common for edges and caught-behind-off-the-pads and no-balls not to be spotted. Also as I said before, hawkeye saw RP Singh's dismissal missing leg, and I don't know how many times when Dhoni was padding up that Hawkeye saw the decision as close but when he was eventually out I believe Hawkeye said it would miss (don't remember too clearly but think so), so then we would open the article up and make it susceptible to overflow. Darrowen (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why should an LBW turned down not be considered a "controversies". It should go on how the media etc. respond to it. If you want to keep your LBW logic, you need to throw out all the controversies in which any batsmen was 'not out', as the batsmen must be give the benefit of the doupt. In this case only controversies resulting in a playing being give out should be included, all the ones that are 'not out' should be removed, not just the LBW not out decisions.--Dacium (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well there weren't any LBWs that have been severely admonished by the media. Why? Because it's natural for lbws to be close. On the other hand, if the batsman should be given the benefit of the doubt in a sizeable edge such as Symonds then caught behinds would be stopped altogether. Darrowen (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Channel Nine

I question whether offical Channel Nine people such as the CEO or an attack video should be mentioned, since Channel Nine are Cricket Australia's partnership network and have a lot of financial ties with CA, thus is would be obvious COI in their comments and would be very upset if India quit the tour. If their perspective is included, I don't think it should be included as "independent Australian" comments, but it should be in the Australian team/Cricket Australia camp. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about that too, but don't you reckon that Nine would be loving all this controversy, and that a more likely COI is a desire to keep the dispute bubbling [bad faith I know]. They're walking a fine line between doing that and not provoking a tour cancellation. The media interest for Perth next week will be huge. —Moondyne 08:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Change

I changed this "Included in his final report were the words that "I believe one group is telling the truth", possibly implying that Tendulkar and Harbhajan were lying in their testimonies." to this "Included in his final report were the words that "I believe one group is telling the truth", implying that Tendulkar and Harbhajan were lying in their testimonies"

obviously Procter was telling that Indians were lying... Sai2020 07:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monkey Roll

I see in the Progress of Play section, for Day Four - the word "monkey roll" used for the celebrations that Harbhajan did. I think it may be not be NPOV, someone is just trying to add that whole racism twist to the double rolls that Harbhajan did celebrating that wicket. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.131.0.194 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ponting being Harbhajan's bunny

It has been said in some quarters that Ponting was adamant to report Harbhajan,inspite all the pleas from Kumble, because he simply couldnt bat against him. I think this bit deserves to be included —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.9 (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right about Ponting being Harbhajan's bunny, but I think it is mere speculation that he reported him because of that. There has been a lot of speculation about it. --Mankar Camoran^talk 19:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, things like this will always remain speculation until someone "reveals" them in their (Auto)Biography. Makes it a selling point of an otherwise redundant piece of literature. How many of popular stars do not have their lives all over the media already? People won't pay to read something they can easily google or look up in Wiki for free. Though subconsciously, Ponting would definitely be a relatively relieved man after hitting Harbhajan's confidence like this (Who wouldn't?).

Perth pitch has made it worse by getting Harbhajan ruled out of the next match. Getting dropped just because of playing conditions is a different thing. But next five days sitting in the changing room, all that has gone through last 2 weeks will take its toll too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.131.0.194 (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Roebuck

Why are we having a dispute over Roebuck's citizenship. The article says it all, "our country", he's talking from the POV of an Australian. So get over it. Darrowen (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

He is talking from an Australian point of view but he has only ever played cricket against Australia, not for it. He recently decided to become an australian. The main issue is the original concept to divide the article up into International and Australian perspectives, and he fits in both effectively. Personally I think he just likes to rant, as the Australian pointed out he has no evidence for his crazy claims and is even anti-religious towards Hayden who is doing as well as any batsman ever without causing a political fuss to anyone else... Ansell 23:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ansell why are you moving Peter Roebuck's comments? 59.182.64.94 (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ishant Sharma's Wicket (???)

I saw that a few people want to make that an issue when no one appealed for that out. The Law of Cricket on Wiki itself says that Timed out has to be given on appeal. I get a feeling that the people wanting to include that as incorrect decision just want to add something that shows a favor to India. I am removing it again after submitting this comment.

[edit] "They did it too"

We seem to be getting some "they did it too" responses by various editors. Such responses should be avoided and let's try and stick to proper facts based on proper verifiable sources. But I guess it's hard because the Australian media seem to be into that as well (ie. going to all that hard work to find three pics spread apart by 25 years of Indians playing outside the "spirit of the game"). Darrowen (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering deliberate time wasting is outside the "spirit of cricket" and happened only in the last Test match, it shouldn't be difficult to verify both sides playing outside the "spirit of cricket". -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well time wasting is pretty normal actually. In the 2005 Ashes in the 3rd Test at Old Trafford, Australia bowled really slow and batted slow once it was obvious they were trying to save the game. At the time, they had some rule about only having 30 minutes of overtime and due to being superslow, Australia was able to burn off about 6 of the "mandatory" 90 overs. And plenty of other teams do it as well in a hard fought "holding on" situation. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, Timed Out needs an appeal. So, by law it was not out. As of time wasting is concerned, it happens all the time. Once even Mike Denness once famously let off Merv Dillon of West Indies for requesting change of boots. And again Indians can also say that they (very late in the match) finally started to play hard and fair.

And there's no evidence it was deliberate. I'm not sure but I heard about someone going out to bat and reaching the pitch without their bat. But most importantly, there was no appeal so it's not an incorrect decision and it hasn't been mentioned much in the media although it was booed by the crowd. But I think it's a bit sad by the Australian media to only manage to find the Harbhajan incident (in which he thought he was stumped, not bowled, and had to be told he was bowled, to which he reacted admittedly in a bad attitude), the Dhoni incident (altho Dhoni has been known to walk in the past and in this case Pietersen was allowed back onto the field without much fuss) and the Gavaskar incident (which was in 1981). And I believe that sentiment must be triggerring the idea of putting Ishant Sharma's alleged "timed out" in the controversial umpiring decisions section. Darrowen (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As for teh Channel 9 attack video, I think it should not be mentioned per my comments above about c9 having an obvious conflict of interest. If a channel 9 pundit put his name to the piece, like Roebuck for instance, then it is attributed, but if someone puts an unattributed opinion piece there, we don't know if this person who made teh video is a qualified cricket commentator or anything, and it just comes back to a spam campaign, since Channel 9 is the partner of Cricket Australia.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi protected

I've semi protected the article for 24 hours because of the amount of revert warring, POV pushing and general vandalism, much of which is coming from IPs and SPAs.

I'll be offwiki pretty soon, so any dissenting admin can feel free to overturn this without needing to discuss with me.

A word of warning to experienced users - revert warring is not good practice and if you contravene 3RR you risk being blocked. Many reverts in the name of reverting vandalism are not reverts of vandalism. Please tread carefully, as incurring these kind of blocks is silly.

Finally, I recommend perusal of WP:BOSTONTEAPARTY. --Dweller (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Monkey"

Please refer to User talk:Pcricketer. The following edit was removed by Ansell, an Australian Wikipedia user, and is included here for discussion:

Note that calling an individual "monkey" is widely accepted in the Indian sub-continent as calling him or her "foolish". However, although it is a term for primate and not for Great Ape- the actual evolutionary ancestor of humans, "monkey" is also widely accepted in the West as pointing to an individual's ethnic ancestory. This acceptance can be better understood in the background of the West's struggle with racism, wherein the ethnic ancestory of colored people was frequently quoted to support the claim of their inferior evolution.

Claim 1 - Great ape: The great apes are the members of the biological family Hominidae which includes humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. References - "Great ape" is a common name rather than a taxonomic label and there are differences in usage. Subtly, it may seem to exclude human beings ("humans and the great apes") or to include them ("humans and non-human great apes"). Homo sapiens is not at any especial remove from other members of the biological family, and humans are therefore described here as great apes. Also refer to Monkey.

Claim 2 - Racism in the West: Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man, 1901. pp. 241-242 - "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even as the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between a Negro or Australian [aborigine] and the gorilla."

Huxley, Thomas. Lectures and Lay Sermons, 1865. pp. 115 - "It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men, but no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less superior, of the average white man. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins."

Conklin, Edwin. The Direction of Human Evolution, 1921. pp. 34 - "Comparison of any modern race with the Neanderthal or Heidelberg ["ape men"] types shows that all have changed, but probably the Negroid races more closely resemble the original stock than the white or yellow races." Dr. Edwin Conklin was a leading evolutionist, professor of biology at Princeton University from 1908 until 1933, and the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1936.

As you may also know from your reading of the history of the 1936 Berlin Olympics, Adolf Hitler had said that "the white races would win over the negroid and yellow races." But when Jesse Owens, a black man, won four gold medals in track competition, Hitler tried to ban all blacks from further participation.

Dr. Osborne, Evolutionist - "Black people, according to them, are closer to 'ape men' than White people or Asians! Black people have not evolved as far, and are closer to 'the original stock.'" Also, "Every consideration should lead those who believe in the superiority of the white race to strive to preserve its purity and to establish and maintain the segregation of the races, for the longer this is maintained, the greater the preponderance [superiority and influence] of the white race will be (ibid., pp. 53).

http://www.rlhymersjr.com/Online_Sermons/04-06-03PM_Imperialism.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcricketer (talk • contribs) 16:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to confess that I am more than a little confused as to the point that Pcricketer is trying to assert in the preceding paragpraphs.

In Section 2 he or she is pointing out that there has been historic racism in the West towards black people linked to usage of the term "monkey". I don't dispute this which is why the ICC and Cricket Australia have taken the use of the word on the cricket field so seriously. I understand from the debate presently raging that Harbhajan Singh denies using the word in the second test and that he has been supported by Sachin Tendulkar. This implies to me that the Indian players acknowledge the offence caused to black people when the "monkey" word is directed at a player of Afro-Caribbean origin like Andrew Symonds.

What I find a little more perplexing is the preamble to Pcricketer's analysis where he says Note that calling an individual "monkey" is widely accepted in the Indian sub-continent as calling him or her "foolish".

Let me not dispute this as a general matter of fact. However Pcricketer seems to be implying that because this may be true in one general circumstance (ie. a term of mild criticism understood by all Indians when applied to each other) that it is therefore true in all other circumstances where they knowingly use the word.

Take a look at the attached web-link to the article "No monkeying around" by Soumya Bhattacharya written after the one-day match between India and Australia in Mumbai in October 2007. Many will recognise the much-published photo. Is Pcricketer to have us believe that the arm gesticulations which mimic the behaviour of apes is also the preferred method for one Indian to tell another that he or she is foolish? Methinks not. Such gestures and labels are used by the "lunatic fringe" referred to in the Bhattacharya piece precisely because they connote the historic racist view referred to in Pcricketer's Section 2 and not because they imply the target is merely behaving foolishly.

The articles written by Pradeep Magazine for the Hindustan Times and Siddharth Saxena for the India Times also back in October 2007 demonstrate that both Indians and Australians alike are fully aware of what the "monkey" word means when used on a cricketing field in the context of the only player of black Afro-Caribbean origin.

Once again, I am not certain what precise case Pcricketer's is trying to make, but if it is an attempt to downplay the offence caused by use of the word "monkey" when uttered on a cricket field, my view is that it is a weak one. Kind regards

--Calabraxthis 18:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The term monkey used towards Symonds has nothing to do with his racial background. Else Steve Bucknor who indians hate equally would also be called by the same name but he has never been in all these years. Evidently its because of the way he dresses himself. If Ponting would use the lip gloss in the way Symonds does he would be equally called a monkey. Would it still be called racist? Think about it. Symonds infuriated indian public by giving statements in press about his jealousy towards indian celebrations after the T20 world cup win. Apparantly he could not digest the semi final loss to india in a graceful way. Which country doesnt celebrate after a major tournament win? Did he not see celebrations in croatia after Goran Ivanisevic won the wimbledon. He showed poor sportsmanship and compounded with his lipstick look he was asking for trouble.

76.241.22.9 (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What a load of tosh you have written. You cannot possibly believe what you are claiming in the face of undeniable evidence like fat pig imitates monkey.

203.33.160.127 (talk) 06:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not denying that the public in India was trying to tell him that he looked like a monkey but that was because of his fancy lip gloss look and had nothing to do with his race. Think about Ricky Ponting using that gloss and see if he can escape the same people chanting towards him. btw they could have as well called him a clown for his looks. Could they still blamed it as a racial slur? and why do you think Steve Buckner has never been called a monkey in india if its a racial issue and the fact that Indians hate him as much as they hate symonds for his jealousy.

76.241.22.9 (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to Calabrxthis

Claim 1 - Great ape:

This claim is about the actual ethnic ancestor. The Great Ape, not the monkey, is the actual ethnic ancestor of humans. Hence, for someone to be rightly considered a racist, he or she must call the object of his or her vilification an ape and not simply a monkey. In such a case, his or her presumption would be based upon the history of racism in the West as mentioned above.

Claim 2 - Racism in the West:

Calling someone "monkey" is not uncommon in the Indian subcontinent. For that matter, calling someone "donkey" is not uncommon either. When it is used, the term only denotes "foolishness", and does not point to any ethnic ancestry and therefore can not be racist. As citation, please refer to numerous folk songs and proverbs regarding this claim.I am glad that you accept this as a general matter of fact.

It is in the West where ethnic ancestry was widely used as an argument against colored people, including Indians which include assimilated immigrants from Africa, and therefore remains sensitive and carries shame. Likewise, the "swastika" symbol denotes "good luck" in India, but remains sensitive and carries shame in the West. As negative citation, there has been no socio-literary movement in India where ethnic ancestry was used as an argument against Africans.

My point is that one has to be aware of and in acceptance with this very social argument in order to be considered racist. With out this awareness, and there is none because India does not share the West's historical baggage, the actor is naive at best, certainly not racist. In other words, it is not racist to call someone "monkey". It is racist to think that calling someone "monkey" is racist (because then you make that link in your mind between ethnic ancestry and evolutionary superiority).

Claim 3 - Racial Unawareness in India:

India has relatively low ethnic diversity compared to the West. As such, Indians exhibit high difficulty differentiating between the various shades of skin color. I sincerely doubt if most Indians can correctly identify the light-skin Andrew Symonds as African, or Ricky Martin and Jennifer Lopez as Hispanic etc.

Claim 4 - Lip-cream:

Andrew Symonds uses a thick white lip-cream which does make him look like a "monkey". I submit various photographs circulating on the internet as irrefutable evidence.

Given these claims, I vote to include my original comment (below) in this article. Thanks.

Note that calling an individual "monkey" is widely accepted in the Indian sub-continent as calling him or her "foolish". However, although it is a term for primate and not for Great Ape- the actual evolutionary ancestor of humans, "monkey" is also widely accepted in the West as pointing to an individual's ethnic ancestory. This acceptance can be better understood in the background of the West's struggle with racism, wherein the ethnic ancestory of colored people was frequently quoted to support the claim of their inferior evolution.

- Pcricketer (talk) 07:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to Pcricketer and 76.241.22.9

Respectfully, I am still confused by all of this. I suspect that both Harbhajan Singh and the BCCI will be grateful that neither Pcricketer or our unknown friend 76.241.22.9 will be acting for them on the defence team when the appeal is finally heard. It seems to me very surprising that one could actually argue these points with a straight face.

Nevertheless, and to apply one's imagination, I suppose a dialogue might go something along the lines as follows:

{Mr Pcricketer:} Your honour, I act for the defence in this matter. My client admits to use of the term 'monkey' to refer to Mr Symonds but denies that a breach of paragraph 3.3 of the Code of Conduct has occurred. Your honour will see that in order to be in breach, my client's language must 'insult or humiliate.... another person on the basis of that person's race.... descent..... or ethnic origin'. As neither humans or monkeys are descended from each other, but rather they share a common evolutionary ancestor being the Great Ape, my client has no case to answer.

Or maybe the argument could be run like this instead, as has been suggested above:

{Mr 76.241.22.9} Your honour, I too act for the defence in this matter. My client still admits to using the term 'monkey' to refer to Mr Symonds yet repeats his denial that a breach of paragraph 3.3 has occurred. My client was not insulting anyone's race, descent or ethnic origin, but was rather was making an artistic statement about the dress-sense and sartorial splendour of Mr Symonds on the cricket field at the time the incident occurred. You will recall that Mr Symonds was wearing a zinc-cream lip gloss and in my client's view, that bears close comparison with the behaviour of lower primates. After all it is a well known fact that a monkey likes to proudly display its lip gloss to its fellows. Indeed, zoo-keepers the world over must constantly lobby local government for bigger budgets in order to accommodate their animals' addictive demand for the product.'

But in fairness to Harbhajan, I remind you that he is claiming that he never spoke the word "monkey" to Andrew Symonds. Indeed this claim has now been refined to suggest that he was in fact using a Punjabi word which resembled the word 'monkey' when overheard by English-trained sets of ears.

It is on the basis that I think the passage that Pcricketer wishes to insert actually bears no relevance to the incident at hand, but rather, if Harbhajan was a reader of Wiki articles (which I am sure he is) he would view it as undermining his position.

Best regards to all--Calabraxthis 09:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In all the text above I have never said that Harbhajan has said this and because of the above points it is "OK" for him to say that. I am saying that yes "indian public" may have called him monkey when this whole problem started because of him being specially agitated by the T20 victory celebrations. However their action was directed at his dressing and "make up" and not at his ethnic origin. Who would not tease a person putting up something like lipstik on him and abusing a country for celebrating something they got after beating teams like Australia and Pakistan who did try their best. I am again saying if Ponting goes was on field with all the special "make up" he would also be called nothing less than a monkey specially after his actions in the previous match and in any country be it England or SriLanka. So thats only about the indian general public teasing him about monkey thing. Its not for any race.. its only for him. I am surprised no one at his home calls him for that lipstick. Read that people also call him clown for the same. How many people and how many words would you ban? There are also predator posters because of his hair locks which is not really a bad name to have. Also mind you that had he been cool about it and not shown responses, the calls would have died down. who wants to do all the hard work and not get noticed for the same but apparantly it is not difficult to get under Symonds skin. All this time I am not saying that monkey is a very graceful word for someone and not an abuse but it is not directed towards his race, cuz many people of his race have come to india and have been loved by the public. Coming to Harbhajan, after all the hoopla and ban over the word use for Symonds in india he would be a fool to use that word on symonds again and that too when it doesnt come to him naturally as a panjabi person. Also no one has heard it other than Symonds and his mates who would back him for anything and everything come what may (and therefore cant be trusted) give me a good reason why harbhajan does not deserve a benefit of doubt here. 76.241.22.9 (talk) 11:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my original edit summary "remove philosophy dribble able[sic, about] the difference between racism in the east/west". It was not based in commentary about this issue, or if it was it wasn't cited and didn't look reasonable enough to leave in and ask for a citation.

I can only assume that given your reasoning for an Indian potentially using the word monkey (after knowing how aggressively their fans used it a few months back) that an Australian would be able to use the b word because it is not a very bad pejorative in Australian culture. They couldn't have known before hand what its effect was unless they were tutored in all the bad words (and words that sound like other words but really refer to ones mother instead of ones skin colour) they must never say on a cricket field when they are playing a team who could be reasonably expected to start a diplomatic crisis because of it. Of course now we all know that Indians would take offence to it for class related reasons, but punishing that statement without retroactive knowledge would be unfair in any modern law system, unlike the monkey incident which resulted in a large press coverage from only a few months ago. Ansell 11:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact they were tutored of all the bad hindi words before the test series began, | Racist fans at MCG face life bans and this word comes right in top two. "(and words that sound like other words but really refer to ones mother instead of ones skin colour)" For sure, monkeys has nothing to do with black color. Monkeys in india are red or yellow faced. The indian claim for the "b" word is also just a counter claim to show that baseless claims can be made both ways. Thats the reason why they didnt make that complaint the first day. I do not expect any punishment for Hogg, if harbhajan is cleared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.22.9 (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Calabraxthis and Ansell here. After all that happened in India last year (the article pointed out by Calabraxthis explains it very well) everyone knows the word "monkey" should not be directed at Symonds. So the edit in question isn't really relevant to the article. The very fact that the Indians are denying the charge that Harbhajan used the word "monkey" shows that they know it's racist in this context. --Mankar Camoran^talk 13:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok lets clear a couple of things here. 1. Monkey directed towards Symonds is not towards his race. It is towards his make up. If he wants to take it in whatever manner he wishes thats his problem. He cant ask to be given a special treatment for every damn resons he can think of. Tomorrow everyone will come with their list of special hurtables as bomb jacket that everyone wants to wear and explodes at drop of a hat. It takes one to know one. Does Symonds think in his mind that he does look like monkey or what (apart from the make up he does)? If he does, then he is himself to blame. Its like he is saying I am a monkey but dont call me that. Why doesnt he just ignore the phrases and say that you yourself must be monkey I am not, and let the spectators show their monkey side and prove their own monkeyness. I guess he loves his lipstick too much or maybe they have given him a lot of money for putting that on so whatever happen he is not going to stop it. So he wants to look like a monkey by putting it up but doesnt want anyone to call him for that cuz money is everything. 76.241.22.9 (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason why Harbhajan and authorities are saying he did not use is that while indian people made those faces to him for his lipgloss (which was "derogatory" but not "racist") after last series this word had become something of extra caution and to say that Harbhajan was careless enough to ignite Symonds vaulentary bomb jacket would be foolish of him. Like going into his trap or something. Therefore they are denying a charge which till now has no evidence (other than testimony of some same side of people) but if proven can for unnecessarily underground a team member as if thru a well planned conspiracy. At the same time their effort to escape this does not change the meaning of the word into a racist one, unless someone wants it to become that to gain an upper hand in this war of words. 76.241.22.9 (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the word "monkey" by itself is not racist. Indians don't even consider it derogatory in informal contexts. It is just a humourous word. There is even a monkey god who is revered by everyone. If it was directed at any other Australian it would not have been a big issue at all. But Symonds is of African-Caribbean origin. That's the main problem here. It is a very sensitive issue what with all the history of racism in the west.

Just look at a couple of quotations provided by Pcricketer:

Conklin, Edwin. The Direction of Human Evolution, 1921. pp. 34 - "Comparison of any modern race with the Neanderthal or Heidelberg ["ape men"] types shows that all have changed, but probably the Negroid races more closely resemble the original stock than the white or yellow races." Dr. Edwin Conklin was a leading evolutionist, professor of biology at Princeton University from 1908 until 1933, and the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1936.

Dr. Osborne, Evolutionist - "Black people, according to them, are closer to 'ape men' than White people or Asians! Black people have not evolved as far, and are closer to 'the original stock.

So in this context "monkey" becomes a racist word. I don't believe Harbhajan should be punished because there is no evidence against him. The umpires haven't heard anything, the stump microphones haven't picked up anything, but that's another matter. --Mankar Camoran^talk 18:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont agree or succumb to this theory. By agreeing to this you are saying that black people are monkeys. This is a myth and in not so bad case it will give all african people a license to start a fight everytime and in worse case will put a divinding line between them and others. This is not true and I and no one wishes this to be true. I hope we can bury this notion right here and have freedom to equally call a white or a black person monkey without thinking twice something like that "black people are actually monkeys". If this is the time to decide, we have to all say that no they are not and it is just as bad to call a black man monkey as it is to a white man. West or East please dont fall or make others fall for this. 66.245.9.34 (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Point in case, India didn't nominate monkey on the bad words list but Australia nominated monkey. [6] Ansell 19:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The references to clown are only from fan blogs, as such they don't belong in the article. Unless the major press picks up on it, his appearance can't be used to rationalise Harbhajan's denial that he called him a monkey. Ansell 19:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

To summarize

Claim 1 - Great ape v Monkey An entire race of people can not rightly feel insulted through a factually incorrect ethnic ancestry comment. For example - "Calabraxthis is a rat". Here, Calabraxthis can not rightly take umbrage to this as a racist comment.

Claim 2 - Racism in the West Racism exists in the West, has existed in the West and in all probability, will continue to exist in the West because some Caucasian people think that they are superior to colored people because of their race. Racism does not exist in India, has never existed in India and in all probability, will never exist in India. Unfortunately, Indians are not any better, they just discriminate on the basis of caste and religion. Without this historical context, the said comment can not rightly be taken as a racist comment.

Claim 3 - Racial Unawareness in India As mentioned earlier, there is limited racial awareness in India. Most Indians that I have talked with are a little surprised to now find out about Andrew Symonds' actual ethnic ancestry. Without this racial awareness, the said comment can not rightly take this as a racist comment.

Claim 4 - Lip-cream Andrew Symonds looks like a monkey, and like Calabraxthis, sometimes acts like one.

Claim 5 - Heat-of-the-moment When in anger, humans switch to their mother tongues to vent. To an angry Indian, calling someone monkey in a heated argument will get him or her laughed at ("Is that the best you can do?!").

Calabraxthis ...I expected a modicum of intelligence and a cogent point-by-point rebuttal from you. Unfortunately, you would rather be a monkey (Are you a teenager by any chance?).

Ansell ...I agree with you- "bastard" is not a racist term. Let us not make a mockery of political correctness.

Mankar Camoran The very fact that the Indians are denying the charge that Harbhajan used the word "monkey" shows that they know it's racist in this context. ...Or simply because the Indian management wants to end this unfair episode as quickly as possible, so they are using what appears to them as the most effective argument. Harbhajan, like most Indians, is still unaware of the above mentioned historical context (Claim 2 and 3).

Back to my point: I want to reserve the right to call a colored person "monkey" or "bastard" for being a jerk, without being judged as a racist. If you agree with me, please let us know.

I totally agree, accepting that "monkey" is special for black people is a racist idea in itself. 66.245.9.34 (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So, we have certainly disagreed on some points in our discussion, but nevertheless, we make it clear that highlighting the context- the different histories of the West and India, and just how that makes the term "monkey" offensive in the West, will add value to the article. Hence, please modify my original comment based on our discussion and add to the said article.

And remember, the "swastika" symbol denotes "good luck" in India, but remains politically-charged and carries shame in the West. Similarly, you can not rightly accuse an Indian of antisemitism when he or she uses that symbol. I respectfully rest my case (I now have better things to do).

- Pcricketer (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other users. Ansell 20:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning 2: Please do not remove warnings from talk pages. And putting the personal attack back isn't the best idea either. Ansell 20:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

66.245.9.34 I greatly appreciate your support. As I mentioned above "My point is that one has to be aware of and in acceptance with this very social argument in order to be considered racist. With out this awareness, and there is none because India does not share the West's historical baggage, the actor is naive at best, certainly not racist. In other words, it is not racist to call someone "monkey". It is racist to think that calling someone "monkey" is racist (because then you make that link in your mind between ethnic ancestry and evolutionary superiority)." In simpler words, accusing Indians of racism is as silly as accusing Australians of casteism.

Ansell Relax, in between my minor edits and spelling corrections, your edit got over-written- just compare the back-to-back time-stamps: I never intended to monkey-around!

- Pcricketer (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflicts are very visible. The mediawiki software dictates that you had to intentionally overwrite my warning. Don't be careless about overwriting others edits in future. And with your multiple edits you might want to try previewing more in order to get spelling right the first time. You are still warned for attacking other users. Ansell 00:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lost in translation

Another view appeared about the word used is that it could be an expletive (Teri Maan Ki ***) used in northern india's state of Punjab where Harbhajan belongs to which means "Your Mother's ***". | India claim lost in translation Use of this expletive can be seen in this youtube video made last year where voice over has been put on Shahid Afridis incident with Gautam Gambhir. The expletive has been used by both of them many times. Both of them are from areas near Punjab and understand meaning of this. A person from Punjab is more likely to use this expletive than "monkey" which belongs to english not likely to be used in high tempers. | Afridi vs Gautam Gambhir .. Full Maa Bhen 76.241.22.9 (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This view is not of Harbhajan himself but is generated by media. 76.241.22.9 (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wide world of Sports

Wide world of sports (of Channel Nine) is partnered with Cricket Australia. It would be surprising if WWOS says something against the australian team. Even in the commentary of Channel Nine, they didnt mention that Michael Clarke's catch was not taken , they ignored it saying "Not a lot of people care about it, so why are we getting different angles to find the answer.". Whereas the Sunil Gavaskar of Star Cricket (India) said "NONSENSE! UTTER NONSENSE!". This shows that Channel nine was totally conservative, we should put Channel Nine's views in Australian Camp Section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.44.160 (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No it shows how biased indian commentators are. Sorry but incase you don't know, in cricket the fielder must claim the catch, where as for edges its the umpire who must make a decission. The fielder claimed the catch, end of story. Also its apparent that Australia channel nine gets HD televion, while India doesn't seem to. There were pictures in HD resolution of the catch from ground level, and it was taken above the ground by about 15 cm... its sad that this nonsense continues.--58.111.143.164 (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess if fielder claiming the catch is end of story we dont need umpires and then all such catches would go to the fielder and bowling side. I guess you have never seen any incidents where claimed grassed catches were revoked in the past. What do you have to explain about them? Or you think that has never happenned in your memory and need to be given references? (cough *Rashid Latif* cough). You must be joking about the HD resolution thing. So you are saying the resolution of indian stone age televisions is > 15 cms. and who is looking at television? I am looking at the you tube links given in the main artical (and my laptop screen is Full HD 1080p) and if you suggest that in HD TV signal a 15 cm space appears in between then maybe you are looking at something else. We are talking here about the MS Dhoni catch claim by Ponting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcbJOkeyKBA and Gangulys catch by clark grounded after the turnaround. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xz1T9-x6eY . I wonder if you would have different ideas if it was a catch on an australian batsman. For me if it was indian fielder I would still say it is grassed. 66.245.9.34 (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[7] has reference for catches being referred to third umpire. Ansell 23:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think 58.111.143.164 is the one that may be misinformed, probably by the apparently unbiased Channel 9 or similar Australian media. The captains struck a deal that they would trust the fielders for a catch this series. India is the only team to have agreed with Ponting on this ideal. But this does not mean that the fielder's view is correct over the umpire's. The umpire should at least first ask the square leg umpire before asking the fielder and trusting them. Also, regardless of where your HD TV shows the ball entered his hand, the question is whether the ball came into contact with grass while Clarke's hand came down. Also, the umpire was not equipped with an HD TV and needed to trust his instincts, not those of Clarke. If it would've gone to the third umpire, it would've been given not out. That's the issue. But I think the media may be whitewashing this in Australia. I remember actually once Michael Slater grassed a catch and the umpire gave it not out, then Slater came up to Rahul Dravid and swore in his face, telling him to go and walk. But replays showed he had grassed it. So that proves you can't trust fielders, even when they are so adamant they took the catch that they shout at the batsman. all in the "spirit of the game" of course. Darrowen (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was in Mumbai in 2001, the last of Australia's 16 in the previous sequence.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The WWOS commentators are a bit pro-Australian in my opinion, but there is sufficient freedom of expression for the commentators that it is ok. I'm not so sure about WWOS CEOs and so forth though. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats why they have Tony Greig (barracks for the other side a lot) and Mark Nicholas (english) on the team :)... They might be trying given those two as evidence. Then again... this article may polarise ones opinions on the issue. Ansell 08:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't think I'm going to bother trusting Wide World of Sports again, who have disgustingly tried to cover up an amazing match with an implication of ball tampering (judging by the comments most Australians agree with that). Talk about stirring up trouble. As long as such media exists there will never be anger-free games between the two nations. Reading through the comments, it seems that many people want the match to be declared null and void simply because one team was swinging it more than another... Darrowen (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] predator clown references

I am not going to remove them again, but I think it is original research to put the quotes about clown and predator in random articles causing the fans to make monkey noises and get themselves arrested for it as a reference when the only published materials so far refer to it in passing. Stuff.co.nz does not exactly try to be objective in their portrayal of Symonds as not being worthy of being associated with Monkey's. Unless there is a clear link to actual fans in India believing this as published by newspapers who have had 3 months so far to publish an article if it were the truth, then I suspect random references to predator and clown will have to do.

I know - monkeys all over the world will be outraged by this; the idea that they're being compared to a wild-eyed Queensland buffoon and stereotyped on the basis of his jester-like appearance and foolish behaviour.

Even more particular is the sentence about other non-white cultures not being attacked by Indian fans when they toured, which is false but I have removed it too many times.

Anyway, I am going to leave it alone for a while as I havn't had much backup on my actions anyway. But thoughts to ponder on are usually good. Ansell 07:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There are several references of Symonds being compared to clown much older than this current incident including one by Geoffery Boycott http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/england/6169975.stm . It needs to be mentioned that those comparisons have never drawn so much attention or considered controvertial.

here is a reference from BBC sport from 14 December 2006 much before these events.

"He's not convinced me as a Test player yet," says Geoff Boycott of Andrew Symonds, seconds before the clown lookalike launches Monty Panesar not once, but twice, deep into the Waca crowd. 66.245.9.34 (talk) 08:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That reference doesn't specifically relate the clown observation as a defence for Harbhajan allegedly calling Symonds "monkey". Unless you find one which specifically does that your assertions about clowns and predator will not be taken seriously. Another editor also does not like your additions [8], so I am not the only one. Please stop putting original research into wikipedia. Ansell 23:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It indicates that the reason he was called monkey was for his dressing sense and make up for which he has already been named by two other names and it means that partly he is himself to blame for those names. Also indicates that the monkey name was not directed towards his race but to his own way of dressing. I am also not comfortable with the idea that is unspokenly floating around that "Black people are more like monkeys, therefore it is not right to call them by that name as it 'does' makes some sense to call them that". Isnt saying that "monkey" is more an abuse to a black man than to a white man a racist idea in itself and indicates the racist mindset of the one who accepts this notion? Including the black person who says he is offended by that. And this also gives the black person a special privilege to prosecute someone and does not give that privilege to a white person. This be used by someone to take advantage of situations which might be something happening in this case. 66.245.9.34 (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In all the above details it is not suggested that it is right of Harbhajan to call him by that name, but then it maybe just as bad as Harbhajan calling him a Clown or a Predator like so many other people have done in the past which has not been pointed out to be offensive by anyone. Why should Symonds be given extra privileges on the monkey word. And is giving those privileges in itself accepting the fact that black people are monkeys. Is it like a double edged sword? Which side of it do you think people should stand? I would not like to believe and associate a word to a particular race, so would like to give no special credits to black people towards monkey and keep it even. 66.245.9.34 (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If anyone starts to refer to it in relation to this test via a quote from an indian fan who was arrested, the indian team or even Symonds if he feels like it, then it will be legitimate in my opinion. As it stands it seems like a wikipedia has gone out and researched possible reasons for the name and now wants to put them in the article about a specific issue, without having the backing of the actual people involved. There are enough quotes and facts without having speculation in the article. Ansell 07:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greig commentary

Okay, I removed two of three paragraphs of a large Tony Greig quote because one was summarised already, and the other was a speculatory paragraph that didn't add anything to the page in value terms. In any decision there is going to be someone who believes their statement is correct when the judge says it isn't. Why is Tendulkar special in this case? Is Greig just trying to create controversy? The reason for removing that particular paragraph incidentally was that it was summarised already, with all but the Tendulkar reference already on the page, and now duplicated. What do others think? Should we leave the quoted paragraph about white and brown men and Tendulkar being called a liar? Ansell 05:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important because it's a cause for much of the Indian people's unhappiness with the decision. Procter's report stated that only one party was telling the truth in his view. Implying clearly that the other was lying. Darrowen (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Player behavior in the Perth match

Should there be a section for the Aftermath of the Controversy. There have been some quite unusual scenes at the WACA from shake hands before the match to aggressive fast bowlers apologizing after turned-down appeals etc. Even the articles by Waugh where he says the Australians are not sure now about when to appeal. I think we should add something for that as whatever is happening, it is happening as a part of the Reactions to the Sydney match 167.131.0.194 (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There certainly has been a big change in player behaviour compared to the last match but it seems to be too early to come to a conclusion. It has only been two days. It might be better to wait until the series is over or at least until this match is over. --Mankar Camoran^talk 18:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Racism Allegations

Will all the effort in compiling Racism related stuff go to waste now that the charge is not proved. We surely need a (sub)section for the appeal and the result and of course the reactions to that. 167.131.0.194 (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Too many quotes

There are too many quotes in this article. It makes the whole article look messy and makes it longer than it needs to be. We need to sort through the quotes and find the important ones to incorporate them into the article to make it more succinct. Doktor Waterhouse (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Harbhajan hattrick.jpg

Image:Harbhajan hattrick.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)