India in Australia 2007-08

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/baggygreen/content/story/330878.html

India in Australia 2007-08

Captains scrap catching agreement

Siddhartha Vaidyanathan in Perth

January 14, 2008

/
No taking the fielding team's word: Ricky Ponting and Anil Kumble have decided to do away with their agreement on catches © Getty Images

One more hurdle towards a return to controversy-free cricket on India's tour has been cleared with the two team captains deciding to scrap the catching agreement that was agreed upon before the series. Ricky Ponting and Anil Kumble, it is learnt, have decided the on-field umpires' word will be final and they can make a choice to refer the decision to the third umpire. Before the series they decided they would take the word of the fielder in relation to low takes.

The decision comes after an ill-tempered Sydney Test, in which one of the flashpoints included Sourav Ganguly's dismissal in the second innings. Ganguly was ruled out by umpire Mark Benson after a low catch by Michael Clarke in the slips; however, replays suggested that the ball might have touched the ground as Clarke completed the catch. Instead of referring the decision to the third umpire, Benson checked with Ponting, who asserted the catch was clean.

The Australian team came under heavy criticism following the match, with many critics pointing out that both Clarke and Ponting had not walked after nicking the ball. Ponting had also appealed for a bat-pad against Mahendra Singh Dhoni; the umpire rightly ruled there was no edge, but Ponting drew flak for claiming a catch when replays showed he clearly grounded the ball.

However, the Indian team's media manager MV Sridhar said the final decision would be made by match referee Mike Procter after consulting the captains. "Even though the two captains had previously committed themselves on this understanding, the decision was taken at the consent and guidance of the match referee," he told PTI. "Now it is up to the match referee to ask the two captains their views on this issue and then a decision would be arrived after the three parties, the two captains and the match referee, reach a decision."

After the Test, Kumble had written in his newspaper column that the agreement would be reviewed. "We had decided that in the case of a disputed catch, we would take the word of the fielder concerned, if he was certain.

"But that agreement was based on the premise that come what may, whatever the situation, the fielder concerned would be completely straight on what happened. Now, there will obviously be a big question mark moving forward on that."

"I'd like to point out that someone [Michael Clarke] edged the ball to slips in the second innings of the Sydney Test, and stood there even when there was not an iota of doubt over the dismissal," Kumble wrote. "He then claimed a catch that showed more than reasonable doubt and said he was 100% certain it was clean."

Ponting had apparently put forward a suggestion for a catching agreement ahead of the Ashes in 2005, but it was turned down by Michael Vaughan, the England captain.

Siddhartha Vaidyanathan is an assistant editor at Cricinfo

© Cricinfo

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/baggygreen/content/story/331304.html

'I'm not sure what that says about them'

Ramprakash recalls Australian 'racism'

Cricinfo staff

January 16, 2008

/
Mark Ramprakash saved his best for the Australians and he says he only ever experienced racism on the field against them © Getty Images

Mark Ramprakash, the former England batsman, says he only ever experienced serious racism on the cricket field when playing Australia. Ramprakash's comments came as the ICC announced that Harbhajan Singh's appeal against his three-Test suspension for an alleged racist comment to Andrew Symonds would be heard after the Australia-India Test series.

Ramprakash, whose father was born in Guyana to Indian parents, said at the British Asian Sports Awards that racism was not a major issue in cricket. "There's certainly no problem with racism in county cricket and overall I wouldn't say the game in the international arena suffers from it really," Ramprakash said, according to PA Sport.

"Of course I've played cricket for a long time now and you expect it now and again from a few supporters who are tanked up after drinking all day. The only time I've suffered any abuse of a serious racial kind in international cricket is against the Australians so I'm not sure what that says about them."

Ramprakash did not elaborate on when the abuse occurred or what was said, but he certainly faced the Australians plenty of times over the course of his career. He played 12 Tests against Australia across five Ashes series from 1993 to 2001 and clearly did not let them get to him - he averaged 42.40 in Tests against Australia compared to an overall career mark of 27.32.

He said he found it hard to believe Harbhajan would have directed a racist remark towards Symonds during the controversial Sydney Test. "I've played with Harbhajan for two seasons at Surrey and having got to know him well it's not the kind of thing I imagine he would say," Ramprakash said. "Some of the younger players in the India side especially said they would not shy away from having a bit of chat back after the series they played in India last year, so perhaps things have got a bit out of hand."

© Cricinfo

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/331462.html

Opinion

Peter Roebuck
Did you break the code?
Cricket, unlike other sports, lacks a code that - although not mentioned in any rule book - is universally accepted and lends the sport a commonness of purpose
January 17, 2008
/
... Nor could an Australian worth his beer claim as legitimate a catch taken after the ball had bounced. That is why the row about low catches in Sydney struck such a chord among locals © AFP
Every game has codes and customs handed down by the generations and honoured by tradition. Often it is these customs that supporters point towards when asked to explain their devotion to the game. After all, sport serves many purposes, releasing energy, providing competition, giving an opportunity for boys especially to soar without causing grievous bodily harm, testing courage and nerve, allowing nations to meet on fields of play and not battlefields where bodies are torn apart. George Orwell regarded sport as a mere substitute for war. That is also its strongest justification.
But sport goes further than providing entertainment and an outlet for youthful energies. It seeks to instill character in its charges, teaching them to take the rough with the smooth, showing them the importance of playing within the rules and giving them a chance to depart the world of mundanity and enter a finer place where the body can perform minor miracles, where effort is rewarded and camaraderie is paramount. At its best, sport appeals to mankind's better part. From a distance a sporting contest may seem as heartless as the destruction of a building. Closer inspection tells another tale.
Otherwise the sight of a soccer player kicking the ball off the field when an opponent is injured could hardly be imagined. After all soccer is notorious for players diving to obtain free kicks, feigning injury to secure an advantage or being taken from the field on a stretcher only to return miraculously moments later. Yet even the most cynical defender or posturing forward will abide by this single custom. Doubtless self-interest has a part to play, but it goes further, towards honour, that most potent of emotions.
Otherwise prop forwards would not stop pushing, upon hearing a rival shout that he has incurred a neck injury. No prop has ever used this call to fool an opponent into holding back. It is not manly to break that particular code. Prop forwards are not saints. Almost everything else that happens in the inner reaches of a scrum is regarded as fit and proper conduct. Referees can take care of the rest. Rugby players accept their decisions better than almost any other sportsmen, another indication that the game has a civility that exists under the sound and fury. Otherwise golfers would not report themselves for having touched the sand or carried an extra club, or having accidentally tapped the ball in the rough. Woe betide a golfer breaking this code, for they will be drummed out of the game and mentioned only late at night when talk turns to the rare disgraces that have demeaned the good name of their favoured recreation. Of course it is easier to retain manners in golf because there is only the club, the course, the ball and that blessed little hole. The battle is internal, the struggle personal. Opponents are as much fellow sufferers as rivals. Confrontational games demand a higher level of restraint. All the more reason to apply a tighter code of conduct.
Most sports have in recent years turned away from their more obvious violences. Soccer has rejected the scything tackles that were a feature of the 1960s, the knee-cappers and bone-breakers that deterred the more skilful players from embarking on long runs upfield. Referees nowadays book players for even mild excesses that in the old days might have brought at worst a raised eyebrow. Likewise the balls are lighter and pitches drier, at any rate in the upper echelons. As a result fewer hard men stalk the midfield or marshall the defences. Notables 40 years ago, players such as Norman Hunter, Peter Storey, Billy Bremner, Dave Mackay and others of rawboned memory would need to change their approach to survive in the modern era.
Cricket's primary problem is that it has not settled upon a universal code of conduct. It is one thing to produce a book of rules and guidelines, quite another to create common purpose. Australia, especially, have always played by their own democratic and downright lights. There was not much point going to such a harsh and remote continent and then living on the same terms as in England. As far as the Australians were concerned, cricket was not the gentleman's game taken to other parts of the empire by way of instilling virtue in the natives. Gentlemen did not exist. They were a figment of the imagination, a ruse calculated to keep the lower orders in their place. Cricket was played as life was lived down under. Within the regulations, it was every man for himself.
As much as anything, events at the SCG were founded upon mutual misunderstanding. No longer is it enough to seek the lowest common denominator. Clearly that has not worked. The time has come to discover the highest common factor. Cricket must develop a code chosen and applied by all parties in all countries
Australians did not think much of walking, dismissing it as toffee-nosed poppycock likely to cause more problems than it resolved, owing to the man's natural tendency to dissemble when the chips are down. At once the Aussies were at odds with England and also other nations more amenable to colonialist conviction. On the other hand the Australians did not tolerate the questioning of umpires with dirty look and other crafty practices. Admittedly this outlook has at time been more honoured in the breach than the observance, but all the same it expresses an attitude towards life itself. Nor could an Australian worth his beer claim as legitimate a catch taken after the ball had bounced. Indeed it was just such an error that cost Greg Dyer not only his career but for a time his standing in the community. That is why the row about low catches in Sydney struck such a chord among locals. Ricky Ponting was mightily offended when his word was questioned at a press conference. Honour works both ways.
Other countries have followed different traditions that express their own histories. South Africans routinely line up to shake hands with all and sundry at the end of a match, a custom that has taken hold. Australians regard the field of play as a separate place and become friendly the moment stumps have been drawn. Englishmen are more inclined to regard the field as an extension of life and therefore take matters arising on the park more personally. Indians are bemused by the way opponents are prepared to show integrity in some areas and not in others.
Diplomats are expected to understand and respect the cultures of other nations. With some tribes it is manly to offer a strong handshake, in others it is an insult. Some nations dine at 6pm, others at midnight. There is no right or wrong in any of it, just the probability of misinterpretation.
The accidents of history and the identity of the participants means that cricket has become an almost ungovernable game. As much as anything, events at the SCG were founded upon mutual misunderstanding. No longer is it enough to seek the lowest common denominator. Clearly that has not worked. The time has come to discover the highest common factor. In other words it is not enough nowadays to try to keep the peace. Cricket must develop a code chosen and applied by all parties in all countries. No longer the game of gentlemen and ruffians, always hard to tell apart, it must find a new approach understood by every player so that everyone speaks the same language and not merely use the same words.
Peter Roebuck is a former captain of Somerset and the author, most recently, of In It to Win It
© Cricinfo

http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=345027&rss=yes

Kumble says Ponting was 'not willing to listen'

AFP

09:54 AEST Sat Jan 12 2008

Text size

AAA

Go mobile PrintEmail