• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Gavaskar on the Broads

Dissector

International Debutant
I don't think Gavaskar's column has anything to do with race and his claims should be investigated on their merits. While it isn't possible to verify the motives of umpires, it should be possible to examine Stuart Broad's record and see if he does in fact get away with stuff that other players don't. If that does happen it isn't unreasonable to surmise that his father's position has something to do with it. Personally I haven't seen enough of Stuart Broad to comment one way or another but I don't think there is anything wrong with Gavaskar bringing up the matter.

As for bias in referees, I think there are troubling examples like Denness and Proctor whose actions have appeared biased, for whatever reason. I don't have any problem with the BCCI or Gavaskar defending Indian players in such instances. Gavaskar is a bit shrill at times but I don't think the problems he talks about are a figment of his imagination.
 
Last edited:

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Gavaskar is making one drastic oversight. Umpires won't report Stuart Broad if they have a strong rapport with Chris Broad. However, Chris Broad is English, people!
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
I think it is a classic conflict of interest case.

Where is Gideon-Sunil-Gavaskar-is-a-bomb-thrower-Haigh, when you need him ? Maybe he is busy writing another article about how bad BCCI has been for the game of Cricket.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I think it is a classic conflict of interest case.

Where is Gideon-Sunil-Gavaskar-is-a-bomb-thrower-Haigh, when you need him ? Maybe he is busy writing another article about how bad BCCI has been for the game of Cricket.
You don't need Heigh for that or for mindless Gavaskar bashing though.. We have quite a few here who can do a MUCH better job.. :p



for folks like Sir Bloody Idiot and Burgey, here is the deal.. A person keps getting away with a lot of nonsense on the field for which most others would be fined/punished... Said person's dad is in an official position where he gets to interact with most umpires who need to be the ones reporting said person... Hence he thinks there might be cause and effect here... What he says may or may not be true but it is surely a permissible speculation?


I wonder if these posters would have jumped up and down had Gavaskar mentioned this about say a Srikkanth and his son Aniruddha in the hypothetical situation that Krish was a match referee and his son was playing for India..


What would that be? Reverse Nationalism? :p
 
Last edited:

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
I know but I wanted to know if anyone here thought that If the Broads' is a case of 'conflict of Interest' or not ?
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
I know but I wanted to know if anyone here thought that If the Broads' is a case of 'conflict of Interest' or not ?
It obviously is if Chris is officiating in a match in which Stuart is taking part. Not really sure if there is one when he's not involved. Obviously, it becomes a bit murkier when talking about what happens with umpires who obviously know and answer to Chris Broad.

Lets say that Chris Broad stepped down now from his role as an ICC referee. I would be super surprised if that had an effect on how Stuart was treated, as I'd say that it's more likely that the personal relationship between an umpire and Chris Broad, and not necessarily the professional one, that would have an effect on punishments handed down to Stuart.

I hope that made sense.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
It obviously is if Chris is officiating in a match in which Stuart is taking part. Not really sure if there is one when he's not involved. Obviously, it becomes a bit murkier when talking about what happens with umpires who obviously know and answer to Chris Broad.

Lets say that Chris Broad stepped down now from his role as an ICC referee. I would be super surprised if that had an effect on how Stuart was treated, as I'd say that it's more likely that the personal relationship between an umpire and Chris Broad, and not necessarily the professional one, that would have an effect on punishments handed down to Stuart.

I hope that made sense.
yeah.. it is understandable..


What is not understandable is that Gavaskar is being villified for raising a speculation that just about anyone could/would have had...
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Its easy to get carried away when one's idol's or one's country are perceived (not always rightly) to be under fire. I am an Indian like others on this forum and a proclaimed fan of Gavaskar. This, however, does not mean I have to agree or defend everything he says or consider it my 'patriotic' duty to do so every time an Indian icon is criticised.

One can agree with what Gavaskar is saying and yet disagree with his way of putting things across. Then again, just because one disagrees with somethings he says does not mean one must disagree with everything he says or vice versa.

Here are two examples from just one piece by the Little Master written after the Harbhajan-Symonds fiasco.

1. Worse still, his decision has incensed millions of Indians, who are quite understandably asking why his decision shouldn't be considered a racist one considering the charges that were levied on Harbhajan were of a racist remark. Bias apparent. MILLIONS OF Indians want to know if it was a 'white man' taking the 'white man's' word against that of the 'brown man'

Now. If Gavaskar had criticised Proctor for his decision to take one man's word against the other, no one could have had any complaints. By talking of a white man's word against a brown man, he is deliberately being provocative. You can't say such things without any evidence to back you up. Using the Indian public and saying that it is "incensed millions of Indians, who are quite understandably asking why his decision shouldn't be considered a racist one", he isn't getting much more than a fig leaf to protect himself against the kind of charge ICC finally confronted him with.

Then again he wrote. . .

2. "Here the ICC too deserves praise for the swiftness with which it tried to defuse the tension by removing Bucknor from the duties of umpiring at Perth. But the ICC will do well to keep in mind that there were two umpires out there who had a bad game and not to penalise only one or it could be up against a racist charge too.

Ironically on the morning that the racism allegation against Harbhajan was made, one paper in Australia had a feature on Bucknor with his photograph with the catch line that he earns $ 440 an hour to make mistakes. Typically it forgot the other umpire Mark Benson who wasn’t exactly blameless in the game or did they really forget? Or was it simply that a black man’s errors were more highlighted than a white man’s? Throughout, as the controversy unfolded it was only Bucknor that the Aussie media was pillorying and not Benson. You form your opinion whether it was racist or not?"

What kind of support does he have to bolster his case that ICC was treating a black man's errors more strictly than a white man's? Does this not look like at least pandering to parochial sentiments at home (and in the wider cricketing audience of a certain ethnicity) or worse? If he goes about affixing racist tags so indiscriminately would some in the audience not be justified in looking at his motivations with concern?

Its actually true that in most cases where Bedi and Gavaskar have taken a stance, I have been in agreement with them on the cricketing issue concerned but as someone said of Bedi, "he believes in not calling a spade a spade but a bloody frigging shovel." Gavaskar does not use Bedi's colourful language but he makes equally strong charges which are not lightly to be made.

I am sorry, I may be old fashioned but I do not agree with that particularly when done in the public space. Gavaskar has enough fora to speak on where all those who matter in the game will listen rapturously and hang to his every word but an afternoon rag like Mid-Day panders to just the kind of sentiments that senior citizens of the game need to avoid provoking.

That there may be those in media across the world who may have done exactly that is no justification for responding in kind.

Okay I said what I had to say and that is that :)
 
Last edited:

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
It obviously is if Chris is officiating in a match in which Stuart is taking part. Not really sure if there is one when he's not involved. Obviously, it becomes a bit murkier when talking about what happens with umpires who obviously know and answer to Chris Broad.

Lets say that Chris Broad stepped down now from his role as an ICC referee. I would be super surprised if that had an effect on how Stuart was treated, as I'd say that it's more likely that the personal relationship between an umpire and Chris Broad, and not necessarily the professional one, that would have an effect on punishments handed down to Stuart.

I hope that made sense.
I think there definitely is a case, not of pointing at Chris Broad, and/or the umpires, and accusing them of protecting Stuart, but of a possible conflict of interest. This should be brought up as a legitimate concern which needs to be addressed and taken care of by the authorities in a satisfactory manner.

Chris Broad may be completely above board and impartial but there is no way the apprehensions of the teams playing against England can be assuaged. Umpires are human and such things are not unknown to happen in almost all spheres of human activity.

But it has to be handled as a potential issue from day one rather than by making allegations which do little more than cause avoidable rancour and recriminations.
 
Last edited:

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Its easy to get carried away when one's idol's or one's country are perceived (not always rightly) to be under fire. I am an Indian like others on this forum and a proclaimed fan of Gavaskar. This, however, does not mean I have to agree or defend everything he says or consider it my 'patriotic' duty to do so every time an Indian icon is criticised.

One can agree with what Gavaskar is saying and yet disagree with his way of putting things across. Then again, just because one disagrees with somethings he says does not mean one must disagree with everything he says or vice versa.

Here are two examples from just one piece by the Little Master written after the Harbhajan-Symonds fiasco.

1. Worse still, his decision has incensed millions of Indians, who are quite understandably asking why his decision shouldn't be considered a racist one considering the charges that were levied on Harbhajan were of a racist remark. Bias apparent. MILLIONS OF Indians want to know if it was a 'white man' taking the 'white man's' word against that of the 'brown man'

Now. If Gavaskar had criticised Proctor for his decision to take one man's word against the other, no one could have had any complaints. By talking of a white man's word against a brown man, he is deliberately being provocative. You can't say such things without any evidence to back you up. Using the Indian public and saying that it is "incensed millions of Indians, who are quite understandably asking why his decision shouldn't be considered a racist one", he isn't getting much more than a fig leaf to protect himself against the kind of charge ICC finally confronted him with.

Then again he wrote. . .

2. "Here the ICC too deserves praise for the swiftness with which it tried to defuse the tension by removing Bucknor from the duties of umpiring at Perth. But the ICC will do well to keep in mind that there were two umpires out there who had a bad game and not to penalise only one or it could be up against a racist charge too.

Ironically on the morning that the racism allegation against Harbhajan was made, one paper in Australia had a feature on Bucknor with his photograph with the catch line that he earns $ 440 an hour to make mistakes. Typically it forgot the other umpire Mark Benson who wasn’t exactly blameless in the game or did they really forget? Or was it simply that a black man’s errors were more highlighted than a white man’s? Throughout, as the controversy unfolded it was only Bucknor that the Aussie media was pillorying and not Benson. You form your opinion whether it was racist or not?"

What kind of support does he have to bolster his case that ICC was treating a black man's errors more strictly than a white man's? Does this not look like at least pandering to parochial sentiments at home (and in the wider cricketing audience of a certain ethnicity) or worse? If he goes about affixing racist tags so indiscriminately would some in the audience not be justified in looking at his motivations with concern?

Its actually true that in most cases where Bedi and Gavaskar have taken a stance, I have been in agreement with them on the cricketing issue concerned but as someone said of Bedi, "he believes in not calling a spade a spade but a bloody frigging shovel." Gavaskar does not use Bedi's colourful language but he makes equally strong charges which are not lightly to be made.

I am sorry, I may be old fashioned but I do not agree with that particularly when done in the public space. Gavaskar has enough fora to speak on where all those who matter in the game will listen rapturously and hang to his every word but an afternoon rag like Mid-Day panders to just the kind of sentiments that senior citizens of the game need to avoid provoking.

That there may be those in media across the world who may have done exactly that is no justification for responding in kind.

Okay I said what I had to say and that is that :)
Gavaskar is no angel and there have been times when he has been waaay off the mark.. I just don't think it is one of those occassions this time though...
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Gavaskar is no angel and there have been times when he has been waaay off the mark.. I just don't think it is one of those occassions this time though...
I agree. I have already said I may have over reacted because of his past record.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
It would definitely be a conflict of interest if Chris Broad officiated in a match in which Stuart Broad was playing. Anything beyond that is really just pointless speculation, and as McNamara pointed out, if such a situation did exist in which Stuart Broad received preferential treatment from other umpires because of their personal or professional relationship with Chris Broad, it would likely continue to happen anyway, even if he never officiated in another match.

So yes to the potential conflict of interest, and suggesting that they should never be involved in the same match is fine, but extrapolating that to some sort of broader conspiracy is pretty far fetched, like most of what Gavaskar writes.

edit: no pun intended
 
Last edited:

Shri

Mr. Glass
You guys should all cut Stuey some slack. Girls have thrown tantrums for millennia, it only gets worse when they are blonde. Not going to change.
 

bagapath

International Captain
would love to be a fly on the wall when the international umpires get together and this particular statement from sunny comes up in the discussion after a few drinks.
 

Top