Monkey in the Circus

Written by Jaideep Varma

Tuesday, 08 January 2008

The funny thing in this whole Symonds-Harbhajan face-off is that perhaps the whole thing is based on a small misunderstanding. “Monkey” is not a racist slur in India, just as “Bastard” is not a hideous abuse in Australia. But, there’s no doubt that after being warned in India for the same “offence”, if Harbhajan chose to give full rein to his expression again, that’s pretty corny. If he did, in the first place. Chances are that he did, after not a little provocation, no doubt.

All said and done, it is ridiculous that Ponting decided to make it such a big issue. Given Australia’s track record of conduct, that is what smacks of double standards. And that is why Ponting is the one who should be seriously examined here.

Ponting is actually making his case even weaker by aggressively harping on his integrity. His approach on the last day was disgusting – that spooned “catch” of Dhoni which was obviously grounded, or the Michael Clarke catching incident. One suspects this will be the most unmemorable day of Ponting’s career, despite the victory. Because it removed all doubts that this “scrapper” is really an uncouth lout, fully capable of lying bare-faced and getting aggressive and self-righteous about it. He is the single reason why things have gotten out of hand this time around.

Whether Harbhajan let loose on Symonds or not, the fact also is that there is no evidence that he did, despite so much technology present. So, it is the word of Symonds and three of his team-mates against Harbhajan and three of his, and Mike Proctor still chooses to be completely in no doubt that Harbhajan was guilty. That, to me, strikes me as the really racist moment in the whole episode. White testimony outweighs brown. It’s really as simple as that.

The umpiring disaster was not altogether unexpected. For years, technology has been available to improve the quality of decision-making, but it has only been used for line decisions. The most idiotic and childish argument to not get technology in has been that the human element in the game should not be removed, that there is a charm in the umpire making all the decisions. Hopefully those same people can now see the charm of top class, high intensity cricket being diluted with wrong decisions, test matches being destroyed, careers ruined (Dravid has had exceptional bad luck with this for over a year now, and see where he is at now; who knows if Ishant Sharma, who could have changed the result of the game with Symonds' wicket, will ever play again). It goes further than just the one or two decisions that go wrong – results are altered, not just for the moment or the day, but maybe the series, that year, that epoch. The Sydney test is not the first where such serious repercussions have come to the fore; it is just the first where there were so many mistakes. It was a disaster waiting to happen.

The auxiliary arguments are ineffectual too. 1) “The third umpire evidence is inconclusive too sometimes.” Duh. So? At least, the other decisions where they are not inconclusive will be correct. 2) “100% people will not get justice by using technology”. So? 99.5% will, which is still better than the 94% that ICC claims the umpires get right currently. 3) “Too much time will be wasted if decisions keep getting referred to the third umpire” Really? How often do such situations really occur, where there is a doubt? It will cumulatively not add more than 10-15 minutes during the course of a day in any match, Test or ODI. Can a game that gets played for 7 hours a day on an average, not afford 15 minutes extra to get its decisions right? And, if referrals are limited in number per side, that can actually reduce that time even more. And what is unnoticed is that referrals and third umpire replays are not 'boring' parts of the game, they aren't a part of the game where viewers switch channels or switch off. The process of looking at replays and trying to find out whether a batsman is out or not is quite thrilling.

No, these are all woolly-headed arguments. The real problem is the sentimentality/ romanticism associated with two venerable figures in white coats giving unimpeachable judgments. It is emotion ruling over logic. This is nonsense, because the emotion needs to come from the players, not from the rules governing the game, or from the people administering those rules. It is emotion that often leads to a champion side getting the benefit of the doubt, probably even as ridiculously regularly as this Test. It is probably emotion that leads a “coconut” like Steve Bucknor to skew his worldview and perhaps general view too.

The only good thing that can come out of this whole circus that it has become is if some of these parameters of how the game is run change. Otherwise, for all the high drama, we know what will happen - Harbhajan will be allowed to play, pending appeal, the series will go on, and India, despite showing fight perhaps, will still struggle, because they quite simply do not have the bowling firepower, especially in Perth.

And the real monkey in all this, Ricky Ponting, will still have the last laugh.

Postscript

As expected, Harbhajan has been allowed to play in the third test at Perth till his appeal is heard by an Appeal's Commissioner. Steve Bucknor will not umpire in the rest of the series, and it is worth wondering if he will be more relieved than anyone else on knowing that. In another curious decision, there will now be two referees for this series from hereon. Not surprisingly, an Asian refree, Ranjan Madugalle, will fly in to 'assist' Mike Procter. The end result of all this is a further expansion of the slowly spreading gulf between Asia and the rest of the cricketing world, though the good news is that atleast for now, the issue has been settled and all the right noises are being made by the ICC and the BCCI.

Comments

Add New

RSS

Jonathan - Monkey

Unregistered | 2008-01-08 11:38:21

Insightful piece and it's amazing to see the ICC continue to tye themselves in knots rather than allow the technology in.

Reply | Quote

Geoff - losing end

Unregistered | 2008-01-08 12:04:27

Yeah...it is unfortunate that India have to fight so much just to cut losses....even after having a stay order put on the ban and having Bucknor out, they have still got to cope with the fact that they have a defeat in a very important match which they could have won chalked up against their name, for no fault of theirs...

Reply | Quote

HW - too funny

Unregistered | 2008-01-09 13:13:15

There's a comment that's making rounds - that harbhajan may have said "Tere ma ki..." and Symonds heard it as "Monkey". I think this is too funny.

jaideep

Reply | Quote

Vistasp - On another note:

Unregistered | 2008-01-16 08:02:11

Adding to the list of woolly-headed arguments (on a different note altogether) in the aftermath of the Sydney test, is the oft-repeated one that despite all the umpiring errors, the fact remains that India cannot last two sessions on the final day against a good attack on a decent track.

I find this particular argument truly galling because it conveniently does not account for the fact that two guys who got bad decisions out there were two frontline batsmen (Dravid and Ganguly)who were stroking the ball marvellously well at that stage.

Just imagine a scenario at Kolkata 2001, with Dravid and Laxman ending up at the altar of umpiring errors! Well, India would have then folded up in no time at all and the cricketing world would have never had the good fortune to see two of the classiest knocks in recent memory.

Moral of the story: If we do accept bad decisions as the part and parcel of the game, fine; but then let's not blame the team for not lasting out, out there. Because even one bad decision can turn the match on its head completely.

Reply | Quote