Thread: Aus vs India 2007

Originally Posted by MeMock

Actually one other thing about this incident that you may not know MeMock. The batsman, Brian McKechnie, was a dual-international and also played rugby for the All Blacks.

He's the one that came on and kicked the last minute penalty against the Welsh to give us the Grand Slam in '78 (at least I think it was then?). Although the referee maintains to this day that it wasn't, many believe that the penalty was initially awarded after Andy Hayden took a dive in the line-out, feigning that he'd been pushed. Ironic or what!

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

There has been some atrocious umpiring in this match. Diabolical even.

agreed, it has been bad!

Wow, looks like the crap has really hit the fan.

India calling for the removal of both umpires from the rest of the series and then threatening to boycott it (withdrawn this morning)

Indian captain saying only 1 side is playing in the spirit of the game.

Originally Posted by MeMock

India calling for the removal of both umpires from the rest of the series and then threatening to boycott it (withdrawn this morning)

fair comment, tho a little melodramatic....

Originally Posted by MeMock

Indian captain saying only 1 side is playing in the spirit of the game.

that is the most hypocritical unfair and just plain old bolloxy comment i have ever heard in my life!

hey india

AN irate Indian cricket team threatened today to quit the tour of Australia after spinner Harbhajan Singh was banned for three Tests for racially abusing Andrew Symonds

of course they do, fcknng whinning dummy spitting babies!

In arguably the biggest cricketing drama since Kerry Packer's World Series split, Indian team spokesman Dr Shridhar three times refused to rule out the possibility the team would go home after Harbhajan emerged from his marathon seven-hour hearing at the SCG at 2.15am.

''That is something we are now going to take a call with the BCCI and we will take to our office bearers, and secretary and the honorary president,'' he said.

''We will put forward what exactly were the deliberations and the way the match was conducted and the way the match was won.

''I am sure they will take a very judicious (answer) on that.''

The Board of Cricket Control of Board immediately called an emergency meeting with the International Cricket Council.

Harbhajan's ban came after a day when the tourists lodged an official complaint with the ICC over the woeful umpiring of Mark Benson and Steve Bucknor in a Test the tourists lost with just eight minutes remaining in the match.

Asked for a second time if there was a chance the tour, which still has Tests in Perth and Adelaide and a one-day series to come, could be scrapped, Dr Shridhar again left the door open with his response.

''I wouldn't say there was anything radical on anyone's mind as of now but the team is definitely not in the right frame the way the cricket is being played,'' he said.

Harbhajan and Indian team management were furious he was found guilty of labelling Symonds a ''monkey'' during the second Test.

The fiery off-spinner maintained his innocence during the hearing which began at 7.30pm.

''The various words that are supposed to be offensive, supposed to be racist, unfortunately most of us don't subscribe to the fact that there is any racist thinking in any of the Indian team members,'' Shridhar said.

of course not, HOW could Indians be racist?? - calling Symonds a monkey is not racist is it?

Shridhar said the tourists were contemplating a counter-claim against Australian spinner Brad Hogg, who allegedly called an Indian player ''a bastard''.

petty, the comment aint polite, but not racist either.

Australian captain Ricky Ponting, Matthew Hayden, Michael Clarke, Adam Gilchrist and Symonds were among the witnesses called to appear before match referee Mike Procter last night.

Sachin Tendulkar and captain Anil Kumble were part of the Indian defence team.

''I don't think the Indian team is happy at all,'' Dr Shridhar said.

''We are extremely disappointed with the way this Test match has gone.

''We landed with the intention that this series will go in the right spirit but, unfortunately, it is not. The way it is preceding it is giving a bad taste to both sides.

''And the way the Indian team has gone through this Test ... it has left a lot of disappointment.

''The bottom line is the entire cricket team is really disappointed and extremely upset with the way things have gone and maybe the unfortunate, I wouldn't call it the icing on the cake, but the unfortunate topping is now being levelled at (Harbhajan).''

Relations between the two teams are in tatters after Kumble sensationally claimed "there was only one team playing in the spirit of the game".

After the series of shocking umpiring decisions against the Indians, which continued yesterday with Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly given out to contentious catches,

not disputing that, they have every right to feel hard done by, but dummy spitting wont help the cause, and that doesnt excuse the silly cvnt ( Harbhajan).

Kumble said a pact between he and Ponting to "be honest" in the series had not been observed.
"We decided initially players would be honest when taking a catch," Kumble said.
"I don't need to say much. That's all I can say. We had decided we would be honest.
"We decided when a player takes a catch, the captain nods his head and he is out. Maybe that is what happened today."

settle down, bad umpires and now he says the team were dishonest about taking catches?

sour grapes

Not since Bill Woodfull in the 1932 Bodyline series has a rival captain spoken so strongly against his opponents.
Ponting had earlier defended his integrity to the Indian press.
"There is absolutely no doubt this match has been played in the right spirit. There has been one little issue that has came out of the game," Ponting said, referring to the spat between Symonds and Harbhajan.

disagree with ponters here, the quality of the umpiring is also an issue.

All the controversies and strong comments overshadowed a stunning record victory for Australia.
It came after Clarke took three wickets in five balls, with just eight minutes to be played.
Australia equalled the record for most Test wins with its 16th straight triumph.
But on a heated day, Ponting and vice-captain Adam Gilchrist both interrupted their post-match interviews to throw in barbs to members of the Channel 9 commentary team, who had questioned the timing of Australia's declaration.
Kumble said the Indian side was upset at being on the end of repeated poor umpiring decisions, and felt aggrieved about the way the Australians played the match.
"We like to play hard on the field and we expect that from Australia as well," he said.
"I have played my cricket very sincerely and very honestly, and that's the approach my team takes on the field. I expect that from the Australians as well.
"We expected that, but sometimes things happen in the heat of the game, you take those chances and probably don't say anything on that.
"It's a part of the game. In that sense, I can only talk on my behalf and as a team we are doubly focused to play really hard cricket in Perth."
Prior to Kumble's press conference, Ponting was incensed to have his integrity questioned by a member of the Indian press over the Ganguly catch.
"Michael Clarke told me straight away that he was 100 per cent sure he caught the ball. That's why I made my way to the umpires to let the umpires know. That's the way this series will be played right the way through," he said.
"If you are actually questioning my integrity in the game, then you shouldn't be standing there."
But Kumble pointed to Clarke's dismissal, where he waited at his crease despite edging the ball to slip, as an example of the Australians win-at-all-costs attitude.
"It's for all to see. When you nick it, yes, you stand there for the umpire to give it out. When you nick it to first slip and you wait, I guess that says it all," he said.

and indians dont do this??

India stands for I'll Never Do India Again!

All over the media at the moment, amazing stuff.

Imagine after such a fantastic win you would be ready for a beer or 4 with ya team mates only to have to attend a hearing until 2am!

mind u I forgot to mention that Ganguly's effort was a fantastic Captains knock, almost was hoping for a draw just for his effort!

I think a case could be made as to whether or not Symo should have walked - if one were debating the true "spirit of the game". That said, nobody really walks these days - as the glove catch Ponts took yesterday shows (lovely catch that by the way).

Also, in some eyes, I could see a claim that Clarke did not take a clean catch of Ganguly (sp) yesterday afternoon. Had it gone to third umpire in the sky it would likely have been given not out. However, rather than do that, TV replays do sort of show the umpire looking to Ponts for confirmation it was a clean catch and Ponts was not sighted.

I tend to agree, the nature of game was razor-edge and was not played in the spirit of the game as I knew it. But then I doubt a test match in the last 15 years has been. It's the nature of the modern game.

On the flip-slide, cricket these days has a lot to do with politics (within the ICC, etc.) and India certainly have the upper-hand there.

The really sad thing is this will likely be the last time we see Tendulaka on these shores, and just as likely that this series will not be remembered for that. Shame, his knock in the 1st Inns. was everything he should be remembered for.

Sad day all round really

Originally Posted by kingwilly

mind u I forgot to mention that Ganguly's effort was a fantastic Captains knock, almost was hoping for a draw just for his effort!

Apart from the fact that Ganguly is Vice Captain

^ oops!
:embarrassed:

I cannae keep up with who is the indian captain these days anyway, half the team have held the job at one stage or another!

The question I think the ICC need to address is whether or not it is in the "spirit of the game" to show replays of umpire decisions on the big score-board during a live game? I've never really liked this practice and think it can only create bad feeling in the ground.

Or don't they do that any longer *thinks they still do*

^ I think they are allowed one replay of a contentious decision.

It is a pity all this is happening and tarnishing what was a great match to watch. It's not altogether surprising though and personally I feel that a great part of the blame lies with the umpires - there was always going to be animosity after some of the shocking calls that were made when a game finishes this tight.

Anyways just for a different perspective on it here's what I thought was a pretty interesting article from Cricinfo - written by an Australian I believe:

Australia's attitude lacking in appeal

Andrew Symonds turned in disgust and threw darts with his eyes at Steve Bucknor. Mahendra Singh Dhoni had not played a shot to Symonds' offspin and the bowler was furious even though the ball was heading over the stumps. After the umpiring perks Symonds received during the match he had nothing to complain about.

On the last ball before tea it was Ricky Ponting who could not understand why Bucknor did not agree with a similar appeal against Rahul Dravid. Ponting crouched down and muttered as if nothing ever went his team's way. In this Test, from the moment Ponting's legside edge on day one went unnoticed by Mark Benson, almost everything did.

Symonds was the most fortunate man in the game. Following his batting reprieves, he was at the centre of another crucial decision that went against India and led to them losing the match. Poor Dravid, who battled to 38, was providing a formidable obstacle when he pushed his pad forward to Symonds and hid his bat and gloves behind his front leg. A sound was heard, Adam Gilchrist caught the ball, the Australians yelled and India's comfortable position of 3 for 115 was soon to be 6 for 137.

Bucknor was swayed in a ruling that was as bad as his miss of Symonds in the first innings. Listening to the edges has obviously become more difficult, but soon a fine servant may actually hear the calls for his retirement. The decisions contributed to India losing the Test, but the visiting players shook the hands of both officials after the match. While they took their caps off and lined up, the Australians danced, jumped and whooped in a manner that would have reminded the Indians of their World Twenty20 celebrations.

The noise of Symonds' nick on 31 was so loud it could have carried to the shoppers in nearby Oxford Street. Bucknor's decision cost India 131 runs and he also refused to call for the third umpire during a close stumping when Symonds was 148. Two days later Anil Kumble missed a hat-trick when Bucknor judged a wrong'un to be going over the stumps when Symonds pushed forward. He went on to score another 61.

Most Australian players believe luck evens itself out over a career, but their long-sightedness is not shared by visiting teams. Bob Woolmer reckoned Australia received almost six times more line-ball decisions than Pakistan during the 2004-05 series, and while it sounded like an exaggeration, the benefit of the doubt favours the home team in Australia and around the world

Umpires must feel like frontline soldiers on the final days of the Tests. Fielders crowd round the batsmen and they are shouted at every couple of balls over fantasy and non-fiction. Every country has its ways of pushing the rules and one of Australia's traditional pet hates was the amount of appealing conducted by teams from the subcontinent.

Shane Warne helped alter that view and on the final day his former team-mates were expert at trying to influence the officials with shouts at all volumes. (Despite the consistent requests, none was as ridiculous as Kumble's plea for an lbw of Brad Hogg in the first innings when the ball was struck through cover for two.) Benson was so worn down late in the afternoon that he sent a run-out call to the third umpire even though the batsman was in by a metre.

"Both arguments are about telling the truth. Why should Clarke be trusted to rule on a potentially match-turning catch when he stayed at the crease on day four after edging a ball to first slip?"

In the same session he had to deal with Michael Clarke's low catch off Sourav Ganguly, who stood with hand on hip as he waited for a decision. Of course the Australians raced to the fielder and swamped him. They were certain it was out, but Benson wasn't sure. He looked to Bucknor at square leg and then walked down the pitch and asked Ponting what he thought. "He caught it," Ponting seemed to say and put his finger up. Benson did the same.

Fortunately for Ponting, who gained credibility for the decision by refusing to accept a low catch in the first innings, the replays did not show the ball falling short. Typically, they also could not clear all doubt from the take. Ponting's noble request for all teams to have an honesty system for these incidents has been rejected by the rest of the world - he had a small victory before this series when Kumble agreed the captains would have the final say on contentious catches - and they must have squirmed when they saw Ponting relaying the message to the umpire.

Australians see catching differently to appealing and walking. They say it's up to the umpire to decide on edges and lbws, but when it comes to knowing whether a ball has carried, the fielder is the best person to judge. What they miss is that both arguments are about telling the truth. Why should Clarke be trusted to rule on a potentially match-turning catch when he stayed at the crease on day four after edging a ball to first slip?
One of Gilchrist's finest traits is he walks whenever he gets an edge, and claims to appeal only if he's sure the batsman has got a nick. Apart from Dravid, Gilchrist was the best-positioned player to know what Symonds' delivery had touched. It was definitely not bat or glove. Gilchrist also did not see the puff of dust from the ball bouncing after Dhoni hit it into his leg before ricocheting back to the wicketkeeper, who appealed with his team-mates for a catch. It was an easy decision for Bruce Oxenford, the television umpire.

Under Steve Waugh the Australians devised a Spirit of Cricket document that they swear by. They insist they play the game "hard and fair" and are shocked whenever their outlook is challenged. After emotional days like this it is hard to sympathise with their complaints.
Peter English is the Australasia editor of Cricinfo
© Cricinfo

Actually this is pretty interesting and topical as well:

Cricket TV appeal trial gets green light

5:00AM Monday January 07, 2008
By David Leggat


Justin Vaughan. Photo / Paul Estcourt

New Zealand cricketers could soon trial a new system that allows them to appeal three contentious decisions in each innings to a TV umpire.

The appeal system - similar to line-call challenges now used in top-level tennis - is likely to be given a test run in March's national one-day final.
It's part of a wider trial run by the International Cricket Council, with an official launch at the Champions Trophy in Pakistan in September, subject to ICC member countries supporting it.

Under the proposal, a batsman, or fielding captain, can appeal a decision, which is then referred to the TV umpire. Two years ago, ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed and general manager of cricket Dave Richardson tried to implement a player appeal system but the test-playing member nations were split 5-5. Seven votes were required.

Countries have been asked to trial it and New Zealand Cricket chief executive Justin Vaughan confirmed that the State Shield final on March 2 is being considered for a test run.

Talks with Sky Sport are ongoing but it is an expensive exercise getting the necessary television equipment set up for a domestic game.
Dr Vaughan supports the idea, which was trialled in English county cricket last year. But it wasn't particularly successful, with players losing interest after a novelty period.

"You certainly don't want to see it overdone in terms of constant referral," he said. "My impression is in England they started off questioning a few of the line-ball decisions. When none got overturned they stopped trying."
Dr Vaughan thinks TV appeals should be saved for significant controversial moments, and with a limit of three opportunities, teams would need to think before asking for a second opinion, rather than risk wasting a turn.
The idea is gaining more support following a couple of wretched umpiring decisions in Australia's second test against India, which ended in Sydney yesterday.

Australian batsmen Ricky Ponting and Andrew Symonds clearly benefited from dud umpiring calls - and Ponting was adjudged lbw after edging the ball into his pads.

The ICC's plan is only for ODI cricket at this point, and Dr Vaughan said there would be little point introducing it to the fast-paced Twenty20.
Mr Speed has said he doubts it would be introduced to test cricket. "Let's see if it works, then have the debate. I'm not concerned about the credibility of cricket. Generally there's a sense the decisions even themselves out. The dilemma is the technology has got better and what do we do with it?"

The ICC meet in Kuala Lumpur in March when the matter will be aired, but a final decision may be left until its next meeting in London in June.

Originally Posted by Wayne Kerr

I hope all Indian cricket supporters aren't this evil

IME they are.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

It is a pity all this is happening and tarnishing what was a great match to watch. It's not altogether surprising though and personally I feel that a great part of the blame lies with the umpires - there was always going to be animosity after some of the shocking calls that were made when a game finishes this tight.

true and both articles raise some good points. we certainly need some sort of appeal system for the game, but i worry about an arbitary number being used. not every innings will have 6 contenticious decisions... would a captain feel obliged to 'use them' anyway? thereby wasting time?

perhaps allow them with a caution of a fine etc for excessive (failed)? appeals

^ Yeah that's definately a risk, the appeals being abused or used as gamesmanship themselves.

Fines might work, perhaps run or over penalities as well (or in place of).

Latest word is the Indians are threatening to return home if knob-head Harbhajan's appeal is unsuccessful. They are really going on like pork chops .

I would say that when things get down to such a level, that perhaps it would be better for all sides if the Indians did decide to go home. They obviously feel unwelcome & there must be tipping point.

Pointless to continue in a half-hearted manner after this.

It seems so childish to ban a player for calling someone a monkey. Players verbally abuse each other all the time - only, most do it under their breath.

If the Indians go home, they should lose their test status. Simple really.

If they're too immature to play with the big boys they shouldn't be allowed to play with the big boys.

Originally Posted by Wayne Kerr

Latest word is the Indians are threatening to return home if knob-head Harbhajan's appeal is unsuccessful. They are really going on like pork chops .

My mate cimboc (TD member) and I have already booked our airfares to Melbourne and tickets to a 1 dayer between aust and india, I really do hope they stop being sooky lalas and play on "in the spirit of the game"

^ Is that the Twenty20 game mate?

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

If the Indians go home, they should lose their test status. Simple really.

They have placed the ICC between a rock and a hard place with this threat, loss of test status would be reasonable I reckon.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

If the Indians go home, they should lose their test status. Simple really.

If they're too immature to play with the big boys they shouldn't be allowed to play with the big boys.

"Test" status means nothing these days, even Bangladesh have it!

As for losing it, they own the ICC - which now resides in Dubai, not Lords - so it's unlikely.