BCCI Sledging Hypocrisy

[Richard]

BCCI Sledging Hypocrisy. Not my article, but seeing as no-one else has linked to it, I thought I would. See what the community thinks.

 

[silentstriker]

Disagree with it, to be honest. Mixing up a bunch of separate issues: 1) clout of BCCI, 2) Harbhajan sledging, 3) Ban of all sledging, 4) implementation of said ban.

I don't believe he read Proctor's or Hansen's report before writing that article, because if he did, he would have realized there was no proof to ban Harbhajan, regardless of the fact that you and I may think he said it. Secondly, banning sledging is a separate issue, and its hardly ironic, considering Symonds admitted in his testimony that he started the incident by saying 'You've got no friends here'. That has been admitted by Symonds and is part of the 'mutually agreed upon' part of Hanson's report. In addition, he is claiming impartiality on the part of Proctor but implies shady business on part of Hansen. Why? The big difference between the two is that one is a former cricketer while the other is an actual judge with experience in legal matters.

Furthermore, he says the BCCI 'ironically' want sledging banned. What's ironic about trying to remove sledging from the game so the incident like the one in Sydney doesn't happen again? Either you want BCCI to take a leadership role and try to improve the game by going to the full members and trying to implement things it thinks will help everyone, or you want them to use their power for their own selfish reasons and do what they want unilaterally. You can't have it both ways. Threatening to go home was doing the latter, actually using the ICC to try to make a point and get a resolution passed is the former. You can't have an issue with both. You can obviously disagree with the notion of banning sledging, but the article makes it sound like the BCCI shouldn't do anything because it doesn't have its house in pristine condition.

And I cannot believe that I am actually defending the POS organization that is the BCCI.....that annoys me more than the article itself. But it is very not right when they get hit by people for actually doing things the right way. If they're going to get hit for that, then they might as well just do what they want anyway.

 

[jeevan]

Banning sledging/poor behavior is the only one thing BCCI is actually doing some good on. After the recent Harbhajan slapping incident - IPL banned him for a whole season and cost him a good part of a million dollars. On top of that, BCCI is conducting it's own investigation and has appointed a lawyer who also happens to be a cricket administration guy.

Right after the Sydney incident, the BCCI president went on record that even if Harbhajan was not guilty of racism, he was atleast guillty of 'gaali galauch', dirty swearing language, which was also not tolerable. Believe this was the day/week after the Hansen hearing.

This is not only more than one can expect BCCI to do on any issue, it is more than any other cricket authority is doing on sledging.

 

[Engle]

Will be interested to see who opposes this, officially or otherwise. Glad to see a body taking a leadership stand on this. There will be some birthing pains, but they're on the right track. This sledging stuff has gotten out of hand.

 

[andruid]

Methinks the ban on sledging was long overdue anyway. Its one thing to attempt to get a psychological edge over one opponents its quite another to show a lack of breeding by constantly spewing a barrage of expletives that would not be fit for human consumption.
Its probably par for the course thatit is the BCCI who have gone and lobbied for such a move being as they spearhead just about anything that happens in the ICC.

 

[Burgey]

Methinks the ban on sledging was long overdue anyway. Its one thing to attempt to get a psychological edge over one opponents its quite another to show a lack of breeding by constantly spewing a barrage of expletives that would not be fit for human consumption.
Its probably par for the course thatit is the BCCI who have gone and lobbied for such a move being as they spearhead just about anything that happens in the ICC.

That's the issue though, isn't it? What's sledging, what isn't?

In the association I play in, there's a sledging ban. It's defined as any word or action designed to put an opposing player off their game, or something like that.

Obviously abusing someone is sledging in that it's personal. But, does the proposed ban also include comments like "He's not moving his feet", "He's playing away from his body" or "He's not getting behind the ball" about a batsman to the bowler by his fielders? Under the definition we play under, these would be considered sledging, but is that what's proposed by the BCCI?

 

[silentstriker]

That's the issue though, isn't it? What's sledging, what isn't?

In the association I play in, there's a sledging ban. It's defined as any word or action designed to put an opposing player off their game, or something like that.

Obviously abusing someone is sledging in that it's personal. But, does the proposed ban also include comments like "He's not moving his feet", "He's playing away from his body" or "He's not getting behind the ball" about a batsman to the bowler by his fielders? Under the definition we play under, these would be considered sledging, but is that what's proposed by the BCCI?

No, it's about the umpires using common sense to separate abuse from chatter. I find it odd that you can't punch someone but can insult their mother/wife/kids, etc. If cricket wants to go that route, I've no problems with it, and they should legalize fighting in game like ice hockey does. Otherwise, I don't want cowards yapping off when they know the guy won't come after them.

 

[Burgey]

Certainly, and there is an element of common sense applied in our league, where there might be a bit of chatter, but the unmpires will usually call in the captains and tell them to control their players. If they don't and the player gets cited, the captain goes down with the ship - same suspension as the player, and the team loses 4 competition points.
I guess the point I was making is if there isn't a full on blanket ban, and you're dealing with people from different cultures, might we not end up with an argument like the one which ran forever on this forum about what is abusive/ what isn't. I'd have thought we could all do without that, so it seems there may need to be either a blanket ban on negative comments on the field, or else it will be very difficult to interpret and police.

 

[silentstriker]

I guess the point I was making is if there isn't a full on blanket ban, and you're dealing with people from different cultures, might we not end up with an argument like the one which ran forever on this forum about what is abusive/ what isn't. I'd have thought we could all do without that, so it seems there may need to be either a blanket ban on negative comments on the field, or else it will be very difficult to interpret and police.

Personally, I'd want a full ban. But I know thats not going to happen, so I'd be happy with something that gets rid of most of it.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah, and if the players complain about it, the answer is it's their own fault for taking it too far.

Must say one thing though. There seem to have been some suggestions in different threads that one of reasons for Australia's success has been their use of sledging. I don't subscribe to that. Were it the case that sledging and carrying on = winning, Andre Nel would be the most successful bowler in cricket history.

I've no problem accepting that Australia's attitude has been a factor in their winning, but overwhelmingly they've won because they've batted, bowled and fielded better than their opponents.

 

[silentstriker]

Yeah, and if the players complain about it, the answer is it's their own fault for taking it too far.

Must say one thing though. There seem to have been some suggestions in different threads that one of reasons for Australia's success has been their use of sledging.

Nah, they clearly outskill everyone and would have been the best regardless. But Waugh definitely subscribed to the theory that it can sometimes be the difference between winning and losing, if you come up against a mentally weak opponent, and he is quite clear about that in his biography. It may or may not be true, but that was his belief.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah the old "mental disintegration", wasn't it?

 

[silentstriker]

Yeah the old "mental disintegration", wasn't it?

Yup.

 

[andruid]

Granted there are plaeyrs out there who will fold under any kind of pressure, there has to be a line drawn between getting that competitive mental edge and uncivilised abuse

 

[honestbharani]

BCCI Sledging Hypocrisy. Not my article, but seeing as no-one else has linked to it, I thought I would. See what the community thinks.

so we got one of those "BCCI is running cricket, it is all bad" articles on the main page as well...... gr8!!!!!!!

 

[Top_Cat]

Nah, they clearly outskill everyone and would have been the best regardless. But Waugh definitely subscribed to the theory that it can sometimes be the difference between winning and losing, if you come up against a mentally weak opponent, and he is quite clear about that in his biography. It may or may not be true, but that was his belief.

They were also smart enough to pick their targets. Daryl Cullinan is an obvious one but they also knew never to sledge Sachin or Lara. Those guys fed off that stuff.

Mind you, it can change; around 2000, the Aussies started to target Lara because it did needle him a bit. He was certainly far less effective against them afterwards. Either way, there's a lot of thought put into it, far from teh perception of it just being random commenst made at everyone with a bat in hand taking guard against the Aussies.

 

[honestbharani]

They were also smart enough to pick their targets. Daryl Cullinan is an obvious one but they also knew never to sledge Sachin or Lara. Those guys fed off that stuff.

Mind you, it can change; around 2000, the Aussies started to target Lara because it did needle him a bit. He was certainly far less effective against them afterwards. Either way, there's a lot of thought put into it, far from teh perception of it just being random commenst made at everyone with a bat in hand taking guard against the Aussies.

I think it WAS in 2000 when STeve Waugh personally told Ponting not to sledge Lara. He was playing poorly then Ponting sledged him in Adelaide and he made a brilliant 180 odd. Then they stopped and he didn't do much. And I remember they pretty much stayed away from sledging him almost all the time since then and I pretty much watched every one of his knocks fully against Australia since that period....

 

[Richard]

Atherton always said that it took them a while, but they realised eventually that you should never say a word to Lara, or Stephen Waugh. It was always a bad idea, not only because it improved their chances but it distracted you.

TBH I've never seen anyone say much to Tendulkar at any point. Even Warne knew he'd look foolish if he did, so he didn't.

 

[silentstriker]

They were also smart enough to pick their targets. Daryl Cullinan is an obvious one but they also knew never to sledge Sachin or Lara. Those guys fed off that stuff.

Mind you, it can change; around 2000, the Aussies started to target Lara because it did needle him a bit. He was certainly far less effective against them afterwards. Either way, there's a lot of thought put into it, far from teh perception of it just being random commenst made at everyone with a bat in hand taking guard against the Aussies.

Not according to Graeme Smith. Plus how much though is put into abuse doesn't make the abuse less worse. If anything, it's worse, since you can't blame it on the heat of the moment like everyone wants to do. The standard excuse is 'Well its a Test match so sometimes things get heated and thats what we say stuff.' Bollocks. As you say, it's planned harassment and abuse of a another player.