Comments on: Deadlocked Australia v India (2007-2008) :: Where does it all go now?

By: India Vs SA: Both teams in turmoil before First Test « i3j3Cricket :: A blog for fans of Indian cricket…

Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:11:13 +0000

[...] being summarily dismissed from the ICC Match Referee panel after his infamous contributions to the Sydney Monkeygate Test, Mike Procter has been sacked as Cheif Selector in his own country and along with him, his entire [...]

By: England v Pakstan 2006 Oval Test:Result To Be Changed To A Draw?? - Page 7 - World A-Team Cricket Forum

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:29:03 +0000

[...] have accepted the golden rule of the game. The Umpires Decsion is final. I think sanketh meant:- Deadlocked Australia v India (2007-2008) :: Where does it all go now? � i3j3Cricket :: A blog for fa… Sack the racists and save cricket! : Cricket News : IndiaExpress.Com And from the BBC:- BBC SPORT [...]

By: Monkeygate: The Harbhajan Singh Saga « i3j3Cricket :: A blog for fans of Indian cricket…

Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:00:47 +0000

[...] January 2008 · No Comments Once again, the key actors in this sordid racism saga were involved in this latest episode. Cricket Australia, ICC, BCCI, Harbhajan Singh, Sachin [...]

By: harbhajan ban | Save your news

harbhajan ban | Save your news — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 01:34:40 +0000

[...] Deadlocked Australia v India 2007-2008 :: Where does it all go now? [...]

By: Dhanasekhar

Dhanasekhar — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:09:26 +0000

If ICC has stated that the logistics of bringing together the necessary individuals at once is the reason for the doubt whether the appeal process will complete be before the third Test in Perth next week, or even before the series finishes, ICC also is not any better than BCCI

By: mohankaus

mohankaus — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:35:32 +0000

@Anthony

Yep! I certainly agree with you there. BCCI appears to be holding a gun to both its foot as well as to the ICC’s head. But then I don’t think anyone has ever credited the BCCI with exemplary organisation skills. They continue to teach us new ways of doing things badly.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:24:22 +0000

I think everyone wants to see natural justice. But isn’t the point simply this – without knowing what occurred at the hearing it is purely speculation to suggest that Harbajan has not received the benefit of natural justice. If the person appointed to hear the appeal finds that Harbajan was denied natural justice then Mike Proctor (or perhaps more properly the ICC which designed the hearing process) will rightly be criticised. But let’s wait until the appeal is determined. What is disturbing is the comments made by the vice-president of the BCCI that “we will wait to see what the outcome of Harbhajan’s appeal is and we will make a decision from there” and “the controversy continues until Harbhajan’s name is cleared”. At what point is the BCCI going to respect the disciplinary process? Apparently, only when it produces the result the BCCI wants. There’s the slippery slope.

By: mohankaus

mohankaus — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 05:07:52 +0000

@Anthony

What I’d like to see is that “natural justice is served”. A your-word-against-mine is a dangerous and slippery slope. If there is evidence, I hope Mike Proctor is willing to subject that to scrutiny — as the AFL does in all of its hearings. “Beyond reasonable doubt” is a huge call to make. Let us wait and see what the appeals process leads us.

And by the way, this issue is also not without precedent. Trevor Chesterfield talks of a complaint that Dwayne Bravo once made against Graeme Smith for having uttered an epithet in Bravo’s direction. There was no evidence. In a similar his-word-against-his type of case, the match referee had no option but to throw the charge out.

– Mohan

By: Anthony

Anthony — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 04:02:50 +0000

It is a sad irony that in a debate that ultimately centres around the idea that the umpire’s word is final there has not been a little more respect for the finding that was made by Mike Proctor. I can only assume that each of the people who have so vehemently attacked Mr Proctor was either present in the middle of the SCG last Friday afternoon or attended the hearing in front of Mr Proctor on Sunday evening. Anybody with half a brain will appreciate that in many disciplinary hearings there will be disputed accounts as to what has occurred. If there is a conflict of evidence it is the job of the person hearing the charge to form a view as the veracity of the evidence given by witnesses. Ultimately, one person’s evidence must be preferred to another’s in such a case. As I understand it, Andrew Symonds presented one version of events and Harbajan Singh presented another different version. Evidence was also provided by other players (Australian and Indian). A finding one way or another was always going to leave Symonds or Harbajan in a difficult position. Much like a jury will form a view in a criminal trial, the adjudicator’s view will be based not only on the direct oral evidence provided but also on other factors such as the demeanor of the witnesses. As neither the writer of this blog (who is bold enough nevertheless to “seriously wonder if Mike Proctor had enough evidence”) or any of the readers (including me) know what evidence was provided at the hearing and will not be aware how the evidence was provided, I suggest that none of us is in any position to make any assessment of the strength or weakness of the case against the Indian player. The resolution of the charge is a matter best left to the person entrusted with hearing the appeal that has been instigated. Mr Singh and the BCCI have every right to appeal Mr Proctor’s decision. The fact that the BCCI has sought to bring further undue pressure on the ICC in relation to the matter (with threats of cancelling the current tour) reflects poorly on it. I will leave others to form a view as to the general conduct of a nation that seems hell bent on setting things on fire every time something goes against it.

By: dillon

dillon — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:10:37 +0000