That is the headline in Peter Roebuck’s opinion piece today. It is a very well argued take on the latest developments in the Harbhajan Singh matter, judicious even, in my opinion.
…Brinkmanship or not, threatening to take their bat and ball home in the event of a resented verdict being allowed to stand was an abomination. It sets a dreadful precedent. What price justice now?
Not that the attempt made by Cricket Australia to broker a compromise had much more to commend it. Ricky Ponting and his players were entitled to take a stand on principle. As it happens, I thought their strategy unwise because they had fanned the flames, Anil Kumble had not been given a chance to intervene and the case was unwinnable…
As was inevitable, Harbhajan’s appeal was successful. Simply, there was not enough proof to justify a conviction. It does not matter what anyone thinks may have happened. Court cases are about facts, not opinions, or allegations or interpretations or guesses. Once the microphones and umpires could not back up the charges, the case was doomed. That does not make Harbhajan a hero. It is high time his seniors took him in hand. He has become a hothead with an unpleasant tongue.
Far from seeking revenge, the Australians should have treated him with derision. Throughout this episode, they have been driven not by reason but by a rage that ruined a match and imperilled a series. Harbhajan is not worth half as much. Nor is it wise to ignore Australia’s reputation as champion sledgers. Everything has a history.
All around, it has been a bad business. Over the years, India have often been represented by gentlemen with high principles and a strong sense of sportsmanship. Australia have not been so fortunate. But it seems that power has corrupted. It was intolerable that India’s one-day players were sent to Adelaide when they ought to have been practising hard in Melbourne…
See also Great test match, but really bad smell on the field… Or was there?, And yet it really was, in many respects, a good and exciting game, that Second Test…, Moir cricket… and Are Australians racist?
Update 31 January
Speed admits ICC blunder in Harbhajan case
International Cricket Council (ICC) chief executive Malcolm Speed says the ICC has accepted the blame for the administrative blunder that enabled India spinner Harbhajan Singh to escape a stiffer penalty in his racial abuse case.
Harbhajan’s three-Test suspension for allegedly racially abusing Australia all-rounder Andrew Symonds during the contentious second Test in Sydney was overturned at a code of conduct appeals hearing in Adelaide on Tuesday.
At the hearing, the charge was downgraded to a level two charge of using abusive language and Harbhajan subsequently pleaded guilty, with appeals commissioner John Hansen fining the spinner half of his match fee.
However, Justice Hansen then revealed he would have handed out a stiffer penalty, including a possible suspension, had he been aware of Harbhajan’s full record.
Justice Hansen was only informed of one prior misdemeanour by Harbhajan, with three other previous offences overlooked by the ICC, including a one-match suspended sentence for showing dissent to an umpire in 2001.
Mr Speed issued a written statement today that acknowledged the ICC had been at fault.
“It is very unfortunate that human error led to Justice Hansen not having the full history of Harbhajan’s previous code of conduct breaches and the ICC accepts responsibility for this mistake,” Mr Speed said…
Benjamin Solah
January 30, 2008 at 12:05 pm
I find the whole matter quite hypocritical. Hothead? I find the terminology quite racist in itself. I’ve seen other bloggers demonise all Indians as ‘hotheads’ and stubborn.
The charges were ridiculous and I think they had every right to protest. It was basically the Australian’s word against the Indian’s and of course everyone takes the side of the Aussies coz they’re white.
ninglun
January 30, 2008 at 12:49 pm
I’m quite glad the matter was defused. Just a couple of points though. Racism, like homophobia, misanthropy or misogyny, is not something that occurs only among white people*; being a “hothead” is a personality characteristic, not a racial one; Symonds, when I last looked, is not white; “monkey” could well be construed as racist when applied to a black man, though some inform me the term within Indian culture may not have that connotation necessarily, though the fact it was only applied to the non-white Symonds, if not on that day certainly on earlier occasions, makes me doubt that. Indian Cricket is a triumph of capitalism in action, as of course is most Cricket, including our own. If everyone thinks a bit about the whole sledging issue, for which we of course have been famous, the game may be that much the better for this episode.
You’ll have to check my older posts, linked above, to see what I really thought about the issue, and neither I nor Peter Roebuck automatically took the Aussie side; Roebuck in fact was famously critical, calling for Ponting’s sacking at one point. Kumble I do rather admire, and it was a good test series generally speaking.
* See for example: The stain that just won’t wash by Shivam Vij.
Benjamin Solah
January 30, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I think hothead has a racist connotation coming from the use of the word against Asian/Middle-Eastern people, and has a quite serious history especially in Britain which I believe has permeated the cricketing world.
Also, see the issue of Mx after Singh was banned in which he was described as being ‘Turbinated’ whilst the article went on to try and condemn the alleged racism of the Indians with not one ounce of irony.
JB
January 30, 2008 at 2:34 pm
“I’m quite glad the matter was defused”.
It might be in India, but not in Australia.
ninglun
January 30, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Benjamin, I won’t disagree about the Mx article, which I haven’t read, but it sounds par for the course for Mx. I disagree about “hothead”, a term I have heard, indeed have used myself, applied to all manner of people irrespective of ethnicity. Of course to assume all Indians/Pakistanis are “hotheads” would be racist, or stereotyping at the least.
I really do think that it is quite likely, despite the finding, that Singh did quite deliberately taunt Symonds using a racist epithet for which the evidence (that the term “monkey” is racist, not that Singh used it, which appears not to be disputed) looks even clearer to me after reading that Indian blog I quote, and a number of others. The comments on that blog are worth reading too.
Racism is alive and well in many places; it is not irrelevant to the trouble in Sri Lanka, to name one instance, and the Chinese too are really good at racism, believe me; so are the Koreans. Or almost any other group you would like to name. (Not to say they are all racists, no more than we are, or cricketers are.)
JB, no matter what the truth is let’s hope the rest of this Indian tour is famous for its Cricket rather than these other matters.
JB
January 30, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Ninglun,
It’s too late now. Myself and a lot of others are extremely angry at what has happened. We no longer have any respect for the Indian cricket team or it’s officials.
For your wish to come come true, I hope I am in the minority. India may have saved face, but they have spited ours.
ninglun
January 30, 2008 at 3:13 pm
I understand what you are saying, JB. Let’s just hope our own hotheads — and I mean in the crowd rather than on the team — are restrained. BTW, I still recommend Peter Roebuck’s article, my point in this post after all.