WHY CAN'T SACHIN PLAY FOR FREE NOW
Shiva IYER
patch...
(Of course I still believe that this is the right time for him to hang
his gloves,
now that he is absolutely on top..At his age, one never knows when
the
next patch of prolonged slump will return to haunt )
Regardless, he says that he is passionate about the game of cricket
and
has lots of cricket left in him... If it's then indeed for the
absolute love
of the game, why can't he play for free for Bharath...NO FEES FROM
BCCI, NO ENDORSEMENTS.., just showing up for the love of the game
at its highest levels.. And money he needs not... He has already made
his fortune for the next several generations...
So, it's time for the likes of ST to do say exactly what they say...
Play the game for the love of the game and play it for FREE, esp
at this stage of his life and career when more fame and money does
not amount to much..
Now the Question here... WILL HE DO IT???
Shiva IYER
121109
Krishnaarpanam
Shiva IYER
Of course, there is no obligation on great pros like him to
play for free.. his skills are just stratospheric ..
But if he does play for free from now on. he will set
a great example as he has already set with his
gentle and classy conduct and of course humility
both on and off the field..
Shiva IYER
121109
Krishnaarpanam
Nirvanam
Shiva Iyer,
I guess you would also be passionate about your work. Will you do your
job for free?
Why even expect another human being to do something for free? Why? Are
you so wretched that you want your country's sportspersons to play for
free? Are you paying them? What is hurting you if BCCI pays Sachin or
if Sachin has endorsements? Are you jealous of him? Why are you even
bothered about his making money when it is clear that he is able to
make so much money because he has the talent to do so? Are you jealous
of Sachin because you don't possess a similar talent to make as much
money as Sachin does?
Get a perspective, man. This tendency to expect public figures to act
saintly and not have material needs is sickening. He is a human being
like you, Shiva. What if someone who you don't know, could care less
about, starts asking "why can't Shiva Iyer work for free?".This is a
cheap question/suggestion, Shiva (not calling you cheap but your
suggestion).
How old/young are you, Shiva?
Shiva IYER
Did u read my follow up post.. Didn't I make it clear
that he is under no obligation to do so..
U entirely miss the point ..
All I'm saying here if he indeed does that, now that money
is no longer and issue for him unlike the vast many of us,
HE COULD SET A GREAT EXAMPLE FOR THE LOVE
OF THE GAME..
Not only ST, but other sports superstars could do the
same, once they have reached their astronomical financial goals..
This move will be a great move..a revolutionary one in modern
sports indeed!!
And this has nothing do with my age...
Shiva IYER
121109
Krishnaarpanam
Nirvanam
Look at it this way, Shiva: at an age of 36, clearly no one including
the Tatas and Birlas and Ambanis have enough clarity on what their
future will be to then be able to tell how much wealth is sufficient
for earning a decent life for their retirement, for their children,
for their family, etc, etc. At least we have the advantage of careers
that can go on till we are 55-60 whereas sportspersons do not have
that luxury...their earnings although huge in a short period of time
is not a sustainable earning, they only have so many years to make all
the money. Now, if they are business-savvy and have other skills (like
Shastri) they can get into a career involved with cricket. Apart from
cricket, they rarely have any other skills...only a very few make it
big even in commentary.
At the age of 36 it is very difficult for someone to say "right, I
have all the money I need for the rest of my life to secure my and my
family's future, so let me now play for free." It would probably be a
good gesture to his team mates, if he says "guys I don't want the man
of the match money that is distributed among the playing 11". Maybe
such a "sacrifice" is plausible. But saying you are not going to earn
at all at the age of 36 is very difficult unless you have planned to
suicide in the next year or so and don't care about leaving behind
your family without a bread-winner.
I don't think the amount of money they make is so huge that they can
live as lavishly as say an Ambani or a Tata. I don't think they even
make as much money as even rock stars and bands like Metallica and
Iron Maiden...luckily for musicians and other artists they have
royalty income as an insurance.
Here's an idea...may sound ridiculous to some but it is definitely
something that makes amazing life sense for the individual and to his
board...ask for royalty on their performances. For ex - ESPN, Star,
Neo all these channels show so many past deeds, great innings, great
spells, etc. All the money goes to the Board as telecast rights for
the match only. Maybe for later views also the Board may get paid.
Now, Sachin can have an agreement with the board that all his great
knocks that will be shown are in some way his property too...so he can
ask the board to pay him less as far as contract/match fees are
concerned but to pay him royalty on the telecast of those innings/
programs. After all, Lata Mangeshlar continues to earn for the songs
she sang in 1950s, why can't Sachin get that benefit. Both of them are
artists, both of them are professional artists who have given humanity
something unique to cherish with their creativity.
tendulkar.com
* If I plan to live the rest of my life as an ascetic in a forest
eating fruits, $5 is way too much to me
* If I plan to build hospitals around the world to treat the poor for
free or build a space elevator to solve the world energy problems,
then $2 Trillion is not enough for me.
Only a mega idiot with no imagination like you can claim how much
money anyone needs. Do us all a favor and crawl back to the same hole
that you came out. Every sentence you write only proves how much of a
clueless loser you are.
[There are millions of people in this world who are thankful that Bill
Gates & Warren Buffett didn't listen to idiots like you and stop
making money after $1 Million]
Shiva IYER
I actually expected that U will come up with
ur usual personal vitriole on me.. and
wondered why it took so long...
Listen, if U do not like to read what I post, I
request U to move on to the next post that
makes sense to U to ur extraordinary intellect..
...and not waste time..Ps spare us mere mortals..
First of all learn to address people with proper etiquette,
Shiva IYER
121109
Krishnaarpanam
Shiva IYER
Even if I had posted that ST should play for
more money.. U would have taken umbrage..
Is there something called an alternate Point of View??
Is is that Only ur views are right???
My suggestion: Just do not waste urself on my
postings... Feel free to put it on spam
But I do request U to desist from name-calling, else
will be forced to lodge a complaint to google (and
U have a long history of personal abuse directed
at me for no good reason and I have them on
records and will seek resolution...)
AND I'M DEAD SERIOUS ABOUT IT.
Shiva IYER
121109
Krishnaarpanam
Nirvanam
> will be forced to lodge a complaint to google (and
> U have a long history of personal abuse directed
> at me for no good reason and I have them on
> records and will seek resolution...)
>
> AND I'M DEAD SERIOUS ABOUT IT.
>
> Shiva IYER
> 121109
> Krishnaarpanam
Shiva, is it possible for a poster to complain to google about another
poster's behavior? On a public forum like this, what can google do,
really? Forget about our forum, there are so many other forums you
know like religious ones where some posters tend to get really
dirty...the straight drive and viper type of posters...can we do
anything about such posters?
tendulkar.com
Shiva IDIOT, here are some points
* I never claimed my views are right, just that your ideas are idiotic
[Alternative is NOT the same as idiotic]
* Get of your high horse about me actually care about you to attack /
reply to you personally. I'm replying to your ilks and the stupid
ideas of your posts.
* It is not my problem that 100% of your posts are commie-inspired
garbage and you get the perception that I'm attacking you.
* Google has an algorithm to prove the above 3
tendulkar.com
[Just to add]
If you wanted to have a logical discussion, you'd have replied to the
points that I made (about ascetic, hospitals & Gates) in my post.
Instead you made personal attacks on me. I will complain to Google
about this.
Don speaks the truth
> On Nov 12, 1:36 pm, "tendulkar.com" <tendulkar....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 12:23 pm, Shiva IYER <om.srig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > And of course, U will attack once again...
> > > Even if I had posted that ST should play for
> > > more money.. U would have taken umbrage..
>
> > > Is there something called an alternate Point of View??
> > > Is is that Only ur views are right???
>
> > > My suggestion: Just do not waste urself on my
> > > postings... Feel free to put it on spam
>
> > > But I do request U to desist from name-calling, else
> > > will be forced to lodge a complaint to google (and
> > > U have a long history of personal abuse directed
> > > at me for no good reason and I have them on
> > > records and will seek resolution...)
>
> > > AND I'M DEAD SERIOUS ABOUT IT.
>
> > > Shiva IYER
> > > 121109
> > > Krishnaarpanam
>
> Shiva IDIOT, here are some points
>
> * I never claimed my views are right, just that your ideas are
> idiotic
I can say the same thing about you.
> [Alternative is NOT the same as idiotic]
> * Get of your high horse
Pot calling the Kettle black.
> about me actually care about you to attack /
> reply to you personally. I'm replying to your ilks and the stupid
> ideas of your posts.
> * It is not my problem that 100% of your posts are commie-inspired
> garbage and you get the perception that I'm attacking you.
100% of your posts are just garbage not inspired by even a pig.
> * Google has an algorithm to prove the above 3
>
> [Just to add]
>
> If you wanted to have a logical discussion, you'd have replied to the
> points that I made (about ascetic, hospitals & Gates) in my post.
Gates and Buffet did not stop at 1 billion....does not mean others
should not.
Are Gates(a chor who steals software ideas from Steve Jobs, Marc
Anderssen
just to name a few) and Buffet(just another money minded bania)
exemplary
in any way to the 2 billion poor of the world?
Don
> Instead you made personal attacks on me. I will complain to Google
> about this.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
alvey
>
> But if he does play for free from now on. he will set
> a great example as he has already set with his
> gentle and classy conduct and of course humility
> both on and off the field..
You mean apart from the ball-tampering and Ferrari incidents...
alvey
Don speaks the truth
On Nov 12, 5:40 pm, Shiva IYER <om.srig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, Sachin is indeed doing good now and again has hit a great
> patch...
Tell me the few instances of 10 match streak where he hit a low
patch in his 20 years international career.
> (Of course I still believe that this is the right time for him to hang
> his gloves,
Why? When he has dragged on till just about the eve of WC 2011 why
should he retire now and give up on his single most important dream?
> now that he is absolutely on top..
When has he not been absolutely on top? Please provide instances.
> At his age, one never knows when
> the
> next patch of prolonged slump will return to haunt )
Assumptions make an ass out of you and me.
> Regardless, he says that he is passionate about the game of cricket
> and
> has lots of cricket left in him... If it's then indeed for the
> absolute love
> of the game, why can't he play for free for Bharath...
> NO FEES FROM
> BCCI,
He is not doing charity for BCCI. Corrupt BCCI would be the last org.
for which
even an idiot would do charity, leave alone a genius like Tendulkar.
Rather he should collect all his salary from BCCI and give it to the
poor.
And he does do that....he does lot of charity to poor kids behind the
scenes.
> NO ENDORSEMENTS..,
Why no endorsements? The endorsed company is a capitalist minded
company who wants to make crores out of every Tendulkar commercial, so
why he should not take a pie of the profit? Remember corporates are
another capitalist
entity upon whom one will think last of doing charity. What Sachin is
doing is right,
taking all the money from corporates and giving some of it to the
poor street kids of Mumbai...indirectly he is forcing the greedy
corporates to work for the society which is commendable.
> just showing up for the love of the game
> at its highest levels.. And money he needs not... He has already made
> his fortune for the next several generations...
He just auctioned 12 lakhs for street kids who are poor at a recent
function. He has his priorities at the right place. Or is the
expectation of charity from him something like that stupid expectation
that he has to hit a century in every match.
> So, it's time for the likes of ST to do say exactly what they say...
He never said he will not take money from BCCI or the Corporates.
He did say that he plays for the country with passion which he really
does. So where's the inconsistency, Einstein? Or is it that you want
to crib about everything he does or should do?
> Play the game for the love of the game
He does that already.
> and play it for FREE
Sorry can't do charity for free especially to greedy goons of BCCI and
the corporates.
>, esp
> at this stage of his life and career when more fame and money does
> not amount to much..
It does. How do you know that Sachin won't start a big charitable org.
some 5 years from now and donate hundreds of crores to the poor and
needy of India?
> Now the Question here... WILL HE DO IT???
He won't and you should not expect him to. You need to get out of this
mentality of expecting idealistic behaviour from your role models.
Well, expect him to act humble, do great deeds like helping the poor,
keep playing well for India but the last thing you should expect him
or anyone else to do is do his or her job for free.
The world does not work like that, buddy!
Don
>
> Shiva IYER
> 121109
> Krishnaarpanam
Don speaks the truth
al...great post...you have proved your loyalty to aussies
now....alleged
ball tampering and requesting for duty free Ferrari is a greater crime
than claiming grounded catches, hitting the dressing room door after
throwing tantrums on the field after getting run out by a substitute
fielder..
well done.
Don
alvey
>
> al...great post...you have proved your loyalty to aussies
> now....alleged
> ball tampering and requesting for duty free Ferrari is a greater crime
> than claiming grounded catches, hitting the dressing room door after
> throwing tantrums on the field after getting run out by a substitute
> fielder..
> well done.
Fail.
"Found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute. Fined 75% of match fee
and suspended suspension of one Test match..."
alvey
Don speaks the truth
please also read this oh great Al,
"In the second test of India's 2001 tour of South Africa, match
referee Mike Denness fined four Indian players for excessive appealing
as well as the Indian captain Sourav Ganguly for not controlling his
team.Tendulkar was given a suspended ban of one game in light of
alleged ball tampering. Television cameras picked up images that
suggested Tendulkar may have been involved in cleaning the seam of the
cricket ball in the second test match between India and South Africa
at St George's Park, Port Elizabeth. This can, under some conditions,
amount to altering the condition of the ball. The match referee Mike
Denness found Sachin Tendulkar guilty of ball tampering charges and
handed him a one Test match ban.The incident escalated to include
allegations of racism, and led to Mike Denness being barred from
entering the venue of the third test match. After a thorough
investigation, the International Cricket Council revoked the official
status of the match and the ban on Tendulkar was lifted. Tendulkar's
ball tampering charges and Sehwag's ban for excessive appealing
triggered a massive backlash from the Indian public and even the
Indian parliament."
Also this:
"Under Law 42, subsection 3 of the Laws of Cricket, the ball may be
polished without the use of an artificial substance, may be dried with
a towel if it is wet, and have mud removed from it under supervision;
all other actions which alter the condition of the ball are illegal"
gupta...@comcast.net
Sachin is now playing for two things: RECORDS and MONEY. He has
plenty of both but he wants MORE.
RG
alvey
Jaysus! I've never seen anyone with anything remotely close to your ability
to self-inflict wounds. It's practically an art form.
Now, if you read whatever it is that you've quoted you'll perhaps notice
that all that changed for SRT was that the one Test ban became a suspended
one Test ban. So even with the noise of a billion whinging & bullying
Indians the charge still stuck. And why was this? Because the footage of
the little cheat lifting the seam was as unarguable as that of Dravid's
ball-tampering effort.
alvey
Shiva IYER
expects ST to work for free..
But for a second, if he did that, it will be just great
because he has made all the money in the world..
and he can show that he is still there just for the
love of the game..
Shiva IYER
121109
Krishnaarpanam
Shiva IYER
I'm sure there are lots of others on RSC who are abused
by U for no good reason at all..
I just say that U are being plain silly..
There is one Sachin Tendulkar, the real great
and there is one Silly Tendulkar on RSC who just abuses people for fun
and no good reason.
The real ST will make world record in runs and this one will make
world records in
the number of abusive posts and foul language...
Carry on..if this indeed gives U happiness..
Shiva IYER
131109
Krishnaarpanam
Ravi
> Yes the world indeed does not work like that and nobody
> expects ST to work for free..
>
> But for a second, if he did that, it will be just great
> because he has made all the money in the world..
> and he can show that he is still there just for the
> love of the game..
>
Why does love for the game need to be exclusive from making money? Why
does he have to show that?
- Ravi
> Shiva IYER
> 121109
> Krishnaarpanam
Uday Rajan
> Why does love for the game need to be exclusive from making money? Why
> does he have to show that?
Well, how do we know that he really loves the game? If he really loves
the game, surely he should be prepared to sacrifice something
meaningful for it. I mean, after all these years if he's not willing
to commit, when on earth will he be willing to commit? The game will
just have to break off this relationship and look for a new partner.
Ravi
We don't do for certainty he loves the game or not but certainly can
infer from his actions and words. He is quite committed on the field
and does state the same off-line. The question is what why is the
sacrifice required? He could still make money and start coaching camps
or make an effort to alleviate poverty or make contributions in
education or do things that he thinks he want to make a difference in
society. Just as Bill Gates is able to make significant contributions
towards Third World health initiatives and btw this is all possible
because of his wealth (+ altruistic motives) irrespective of whether
one thinks that it was due to monopoly. I agree that Sachin can and
should make a contribution off the field and set the bar but it need
not be necessarily by sacrificing his income from the game/
endorsement.
Ravi
Ravi
> On Nov 13, 8:32 am, Uday Rajan <udayra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 12, 10:20 pm, Ravi <krav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why does love for the game need to be exclusive from making money? Why
> > > does he have to show that?
>
> > Well, how do we know that he really loves the game? If he really loves
> > the game, surely he should be prepared to sacrifice something
> > meaningful for it. I mean, after all these years if he's not willing
> > to commit, when on earth will he be willing to commit? The game will
> > just have to break off this relationship and look for a new partner.
>
> infer from his actions and words. He is quite committed on the field
> and does state the same off-line. The question is what why is the
> sacrifice required? He could still make money and start coaching camps
> or make an effort to alleviate poverty or make contributions in
> education or do things that he thinks he want to make a difference in
> society. Just as Bill Gates is able to make significant contributions
> towards Third World health initiatives and btw this is all possible
> because of his wealth (+ altruistic motives) irrespective of whether
> one thinks that it was due to monopoly. I agree that Sachin can and
> should make a contribution off the field and set the bar but it need
> not be necessarily by sacrificing his income from the game/
> endorsement.
>
> Ravi
correct errors
qwkslvr
"Shiva IYER" <om.sr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c28169a7-17ab-4002...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
Ofcourse he can, but what purpose would that serve? Why does he need to stop
earning money, for whom? For BCCI?
How does that make him great anyways? How does that help anyone? Besides, he
is not playing for BHARATH.
He is playing for a Club owned by BCCI. If anything, he should charge more
and use that to build infrastructure for cricket in
india.
SultanOfSwing
wrote:
Is Sachin the only player to play for records and money? Given a
chance,
wouldn't Ricky Ponting also want to break all of Sachin's records
in Tests
and ODI's, and earn a fat sum of money from playing IPL as well. So
why
the different standards for different players? Why should only
Sachin be
a paragon of virtue among all the current international cricketers?
Don speaks the truth
Al, no one can be close to you in being stupidly stubborn in your
little lies.
The arguement was about the ball tampering whether it was alleged or
not
and i did provide proof from a notable site like wikipedia to endorse
the
opinion that it was alleged ball tampering. No further proof of this
is needed
that Mike Deness was barred from doing any further match officiating
9 months later. Read this
"In his capacity as an ICC match referee, Denness caused controversy
after the Port Elizabeth Test between South Africa and the visiting
Indians when he sanctioned six Indian players. At first, India refused
to accept the sanctions and named the players for the following Test
match. The International Cricket Council responded by stripping the
game of Test match status. Soon after BCCI and ICC decided to
establish a Referee Committee to verify Denness's conclusions. The
BCCI later decided to "forget" the incident on humanitarian grounds,
after Denness underwent heart surgery. In March 2002 Denness' role as
a match referee came to a end when the ICC failed to select him for
their newly formed Elite Panel of Referees, although he had been put
forward by the England and Wales Cricket Board as an candidate".
Are you arguing against the Law42 which says that cleaning the dirt
off the ball does not amount
to ball tampering? I am not trying to say Denness is biased against
India but simply that he
was an incompetent referee not able to distinguish between the finer
aspects of the game and its
laws and make a sound judgement given the track record of the Player.
It was poetic justice that he was removed from the ICC Elite panel
sooner than later.
Don
>
>
>
>
> alvey
Don speaks the truth
Shiva IYER wrote:
> Yes the world indeed does not work like that and nobody
> expects ST to work for free..
>
> But for a second, if he did that, it will be just great
> because he has made all the money in the world..
> and he can show that he is still there just for the
> love of the game..
And the precise question is "why should he do that". Tiger Woods
has made much more money than Sachin but he still keeps
playing for money and charging heftily for his endorsements...lemme
put it this way then...."why should Sachin be a lone exception to this
world?"
Andrew Dunford
"Shiva IYER" <om.sr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c28169a7-17ab-4002...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> Yes, Sachin is indeed doing good now and again has hit a great
> patch...
> (Of course I still believe that this is the right time for him to hang
> his gloves,
> now that he is absolutely on top..At his age, one never knows when
> the
> next patch of prolonged slump will return to haunt )
>
> Regardless, he says that he is passionate about the game of cricket
> and
> has lots of cricket left in him... If it's then indeed for the
> absolute love
> of the game, why can't he play for free for Bharath...
Because next time he breaks the Code of Conduct the ICC can hardly fine him
20% of nothing.
<snip>
Andrew
Shiva IYER
contract an option to play for just love of the game, at least
in the final stages of their careers after they have reached all
their financial goals.. Even the spirit of sportsmanship will
become financially measurable in the future if not already..
So why not a genuine LOVE OF THE GAME..why not.. it
can be possible if the SPORTING WILL is there...
Shiva IYER
131109
Krishnaarpanam
Big sports has become outrageous money today.. What example
is it setting for youngsters today.. Even
Nirvanam
> The corollary here is why can't all these Superstars sign in their
> contract an option to play for just love of the game, at least
> in the final stages of their careers after they have reached all
> their financial goals.. Even the spirit of sportsmanship will
> become financially measurable in the future if not already..
That is a huge assumption, innit Shiva? "in the final stages of their
careers after they have reached all their financial goals". How does
one know at the age of 36 that he has enough money for the rest of his
life and his family's?
> So why not a genuine LOVE OF THE GAME..why not.. it
> can be possible if the SPORTING WILL is there...
Are you willing to work for free when you are 53-55? I am sure you
LOVE your area of expertise. Why should love for our chosen profession
be mutually exclusive of earning money?
guyana
wrote:
Fucking communist, Gates created millions of jobs all over the world
including the TURD world. He gives billions for charities unlike your
Indian maharajas who waste money chasing white hookers?
Don speaks the truth
>
> - Show quoted text -
No problem with Gates creating millions of jobs but he was a chor
(thief) with respect to innovation of new software as he copied
Windows idea from Steve Jobs and Web browser idea from Marc Anderssen.
I know West Indians like you who spend their life doing dirty work for
the rich
American tourists on the beach will not be able to even understand
what i am saying.
Don
Don speaks the truth
>
> - Show quoted text -
It would have more sense, Iyerwaal, if you said all that you said in
this thread
while doing meditation in Himalayas for the rest of your life. But
saying it while
living in a capitalist country like Aus just does not make sense, does
it?
Don
guyana
Slumdog watch your mom make pappadums and pickles in your slum, STFU,
boy, communist moron!
Bob Dubery
I don't think it was proven that he was lifting the seam. What was
clear was that he was in contravention of the ICC regulations that
applied to that series. It may be that he was only cleaning the seam,
but that should have been done by the bowler and under supervision of
the umpires.
He was caught fair and square. It doesn't matter what he was doing or
what his intent was. He was in contravention of the regulations and
the MR had no choice but to impose a sanction.
Tendulkar's problem, of course, was that he got caught. He should have
followed Keith Miller's advice about lifting the seam: "If you can do
this without being spotted by the umpire and you can get the ball to
pitch on the seam it will fairly fizz through." And, of course,
remember to press the seam down again before the umpire has a look at
the ball.
Bob Dubery
wrote:
> "In his capacity as an ICC match referee, Denness caused controversy
> after the Port Elizabeth Test between South Africa and the visiting
> Indians when he sanctioned six Indian players. At first, India refused
> to accept the sanctions and named the players for the following Test
> match. The International Cricket Council responded by stripping the
> game of Test match status.
Why? Because the home authorities gave in when India put a gun to
their head and replaced the MR without seeking permission from the
ICC. Nobody bothered to point out that Tendulkar was nabbed fair and
square and the MR had just been doing his job.
> Soon after BCCI and ICC decided to
> establish a Referee Committee to verify Denness's conclusions. The
> BCCI later decided to "forget" the incident on humanitarian grounds,
Did they, in the meantime, arrive at a situation where any of
Denness's decisions were found to be incorrect or informed by racism?
> after Denness underwent heart surgery. In March 2002 Denness' role as
> a match referee came to a end when the ICC failed to select him for
> their newly formed Elite Panel of Referees, although he had been put
> forward by the England and Wales Cricket Board as an candidate".
How many other candidates were not appointed to the panel?
> Are you arguing against the Law42 which says that cleaning the dirt
> off the ball does not amount
> to ball tampering?
What should be argued is not what Law 42 says NOW, but the law or ICC
playing condition that applied to the match THEN.
I am not trying to say Denness is biased against
> India but simply that he
> was an incompetent referee not able to distinguish between the finer
> aspects of the game and its
> laws and make a sound judgement given the track record of the Player.
He could only take into consideration the track record when passing
sentence. He couldn't decline to investigate the matter or decide to
ignore the facts - which were that Tendulkar was clearly in breach of
the regulations - because then he'd set a precedent by which the very
practice the ICC were seeking to curb would be made available to all
players.
Bob Dubery
> I beg to differ from U... Why do I need to be jealous of ST..
> Did u read my follow up post.. Didn't I make it clear
> that he is under no obligation to do so..
>
> U entirely miss the point ..
>
> All I'm saying here if he indeed does that, now that money
> is no longer and issue for him unlike the vast many of us,
> HE COULD SET A GREAT EXAMPLE FOR THE LOVE
> OF THE GAME..
>
> Not only ST, but other sports superstars could do the
> same, once they have reached their astronomical financial goals..
That'd set a precedent which would make it much harder for the
younger, less established players to get a good financial deal. "What?
You want more money? Tendulkar is playing for free. So is Dravid. So
is Ponting. Remind us again who you are and what you've done."
It would be very irresponsible for SRT to play for free - other than
in occasional matches in support of a charity.
alvey
>
> Al, no one can be close to you in being stupidly stubborn in your
> little lies.
> The arguement was about the ball tampering whether it was alleged or
> not
> and i did provide proof from a notable site like wikipedia
fx: giggle
> to endorse the opinion that it was alleged ball tampering.
"Found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute. Fined 75% of match fee
and suspended suspension of one Test match...".
Read it and gnash.
> No further proof of this is needed
> that Mike Deness was barred from doing any further match officiating
> 9 months later.
All that the aftermath "proved" was that the BCCI are whining bullies and
that Seth Efrica are supine harlots.
snip unread.
alvey
Don speaks the truth
> On Nov 13, 9:44 am, Don speaks the truth <don200...@rediffmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "In his capacity as an ICC match referee, Denness caused controversy
> > after the Port Elizabeth Test between South Africa and the visiting
> > Indians when he sanctioned six Indian players. At first, India refused
> > to accept the sanctions and named the players for the following Test
> > match. The International Cricket Council responded by stripping the
> > game of Test match status.
>
> Why? Because the home authorities gave in when India put a gun to
> their head and replaced the MR without seeking permission from the
> ICC. Nobody bothered to point out that Tendulkar was nabbed fair and
> square and the MR had just been doing his job.
It was not India alone but Pakistan and SL too who were against the
unfair punishment.
>
> > Soon after BCCI and ICC decided to
> > establish a Referee Committee to verify Denness's conclusions. The
> > BCCI later decided to "forget" the incident on humanitarian grounds,
>
> Did they, in the meantime, arrive at a situation where any of
> Denness's decisions were found to be incorrect or informed by racism?
No, just that he was an incompetent fool and so could be forgiven.
>
> > after Denness underwent heart surgery. In March 2002 Denness' role as
> > a match referee came to a end when the ICC failed to select him for
> > their newly formed Elite Panel of Referees, although he had been put
> > forward by the England and Wales Cricket Board as an candidate".
>
> How many other candidates were not appointed to the panel?
Point is about Denness.
>
> > Are you arguing against the Law42 which says that cleaning the dirt
> > off the ball does not amount
> > to ball tampering?
>
> What should be argued is not what Law 42 says NOW, but the law or ICC
> playing condition that applied to the match THEN.
And precisely what did the law say then? Care to inform us all?
>
> I am not trying to say Denness is biased against> India but simply that he
> > was an incompetent referee not able to distinguish between the finer
> > aspects of the game and its
> > laws and make a sound judgement given the track record of the Player.
>
> He could only take into consideration the track record when passing
> sentence. He couldn't decline to investigate the matter or decide to
> ignore the facts - which were that Tendulkar was clearly in breach of
> the regulations - because then he'd set a precedent by which the very
> practice the ICC were seeking to curb would be made available to all
> players.
What regulations? First clarify that. And evenif he wasin breach, did
it justify the one match ban on him given his track record?
Dubery, come clear on this instead of beating around the bush.
Don
Nirvanam
> their head and replaced the MR without seeking permission from the
> ICC. Nobody bothered to point out that Tendulkar was nabbed fair and
> square and the MR had just been doing his job.
"nabbed fair and square"...nabbed for what? was it ever proved that he
was actually tampering with the ball? The video "evidence" that you
claim did not show Sachin 'tampering' with the ball. Mike Denness
interpreted it that way when clearly a later investigation into the
matter by an ICC appointed committee disagreed with Denness' view.
> Did they, in the meantime, arrive at a situation where any of
> Denness's decisions were found to be incorrect or informed by racism?
Yes, ICC appointed a committee later to investigate the matter, look
at the video "evidence" and the committee found no reason for why
Denness should've suggested Sachin was "tampering with the ball".
Racism was not an official complaint by the BCCI, so that was not even
looked into.
> He could only take into consideration the track record when passing
> sentence. He couldn't decline to investigate the matter or decide to
> ignore the facts - which were that Tendulkar was clearly in breach of
> the regulations - because then he'd set a precedent by which the very
> practice the ICC were seeking to curb would be made available to all
> players.
Sachin was NOT in breach of any regulations. The ICC later withdrew
any such charge after their committee found nothing in the video
footage that suggested he was tampering with the ball. Be aware of
this and stop calling Sachin a cheat.
Don speaks the truth
>
> - Show quoted text -
slumdogs...us? then what are u bald blackies with no hair growth?
must be some orangutans in human form lol.
Don
Sanjiv Karmarkar
--== SNIP ==--
Your posts should be part of all middle-school curriculum with the
preface "Kids, this is what Kenny G does to your brain!".
Also, stop offering crap to Krishna. He dont want it.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
Sanjiv Karmarkar
> On Nov 13, 8:32 am, Uday Rajan wrote:
> > Well, how do we know that he really loves the game? If he really loves
> > the game, surely he should be prepared to sacrifice something
> > meaningful for it. I mean, after all these years if he's not willing
> > to commit, when on earth will he be willing to commit? The game will
> > just have to break off this relationship and look for a new partner.
> We don't do for certainty he loves the game or not but certainly can
> infer from his actions and words.
Whoosh! Thought you were smarter than this, Mr. Iyengar!
Sanjiv Karmarkar
Sanjiv Karmarkar
> I don't think it was proven that he was lifting the seam. What was
> clear was that he was in contravention of the ICC regulations that
> applied to that series. It may be that he was only cleaning the seam,
> but that should have been done by the bowler and under supervision of
> the umpires.
That is exactly right. This whole "lifting the seam" is a product of
imagination of jealous losers. He was simply reprimanded for removing
grass/mud from the ball. Here is the official ICC quote:
``Sachin Tendulkar has not been found guilty of ball tampering. The
punishment was for removing grass from the ball without having
informed the umpires, which is very different from ball tampering.''
-- Mr. Jonathan Hamus, ICC spokesperson
> He was caught fair and square. It doesn't matter what he was doing or
> what his intent was. He was in contravention of the regulations and
> the MR had no choice but to impose a sanction.
Sure. But if someone is given a ticket for jaywalking, you simply do
not start arguing in public forum that he was convicted of rape and
murder. That's precisely what's going on here.
> Tendulkar's problem, of course, was that he got caught.
And that he is a gentleman. If he was an asshole like some of these
other superstars, the powers-to-be would be a lot more wary of
treating him the way the often do.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
Sanjiv Karmarkar
> Sachin is now playing for two things: RECORDS and MONEY. He has
> plenty of both but he wants MORE.
Unlike other players who are playing for chicks and coke.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
Bob Dubery
wrote:
> On Nov 14, 10:24 am, Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 13, 9:44 am, Don speaks the truth <don200...@rediffmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > "In his capacity as an ICC match referee, Denness caused controversy
> > > after the Port Elizabeth Test between South Africa and the visiting
> > > Indians when he sanctioned six Indian players. At first, India refused
> > > to accept the sanctions and named the players for the following Test
> > > match. The International Cricket Council responded by stripping the
> > > game of Test match status.
>
> > Why? Because the home authorities gave in when India put a gun to
> > their head and replaced the MR without seeking permission from the
> > ICC. Nobody bothered to point out that Tendulkar was nabbed fair and
> > square and the MR had just been doing his job.
>
> It was not India alone but Pakistan and SL too who were against the
> unfair punishment.
duress from their guests, decided to do away with Denness and appoint
another official in his place. No doubt other countries joined in the
protest later.
>
>
>
> > > Soon after BCCI and ICC decided to
> > > establish a Referee Committee to verify Denness's conclusions. The
> > > BCCI later decided to "forget" the incident on humanitarian grounds,
>
> > Did they, in the meantime, arrive at a situation where any of
> > Denness's decisions were found to be incorrect or informed by racism?
>
> No, just that he was an incompetent fool and so could be forgiven.
Bollocks they did!
>
>
>
> > > after Denness underwent heart surgery. In March 2002 Denness' role as
> > > a match referee came to a end when the ICC failed to select him for
> > > their newly formed Elite Panel of Referees, although he had been put
> > > forward by the England and Wales Cricket Board as an candidate".
>
> > How many other candidates were not appointed to the panel?
>
> Point is about Denness.
Well, if there were 20 candidates and the ICC appointed 8 then that's
one thing. If Denness was the only candidated not accepted then that's
quite another. It's being implied that Denness was turned down simply
because of the fallout over the penalties dished out to Sehwag and
Tendulkar. It may simply have been that there were more applicants
than there were positions. So knowing how many candidates there were
and how many were not accepted would be illuminating.
>
>
>
> > > Are you arguing against the Law42 which says that cleaning the dirt
> > > off the ball does not amount
> > > to ball tampering?
>
> > What should be argued is not what Law 42 says NOW, but the law or ICC
> > playing condition that applied to the match THEN.
>
> And precisely what did the law say then? Care to inform us all?
Well I think YOU should have checked this out first before shooting
off your mouth. I can't quote it verbatim but it was to the effect
that anything other than usual shining of the ball could only be
performed by the bowler after he'd informed the umpires and with the
umpires supervising. This was probably an ICC playing condition rather
than an MCC law. Tendulkar was charged with breaking that regulation -
which he quite clearly had done.
OK! Enough of that! Get your head back in the sand and carry on
ranting!
Bob Dubery
> > Why? Because the home authorities gave in when India put a gun to
> > their head and replaced the MR without seeking permission from the
> > ICC. Nobody bothered to point out that Tendulkar was nabbed fair and
> > square and the MR had just been doing his job.
>
> "nabbed fair and square"...nabbed for what? was it ever proved that he
> was actually tampering with the ball?
of the regulations at the time. They were to the effect that any
cleaning off or picking at the ball, effectively anything other than
rubbing it on your trousers, could be performed only by the bowler and
only with an umpire supervising. Tendulkar may well, as he claimed,
have simply been picking mud out of the seam, he may have had no
intent to change the condition of the ball to give the bowlers and
advantage. None of that matters. Irrespective of WHY he was doing it
he was in contravention of the playing conditions, thus was
sanctioned.
> The video "evidence" that you
> claim did not show Sachin 'tampering' with the ball. Mike Denness
> interpreted it that way when clearly a later investigation into the
> matter by an ICC appointed committee disagreed with Denness' view.
Since Denness never claimed that Tendulkar was tampering with the
ball, only that he was doing something to it that only the bowler was
allowed to do and only when the umpires had been informed and could
supervise, I'm sure that's not true.
>
> > Did they, in the meantime, arrive at a situation where any of
> > Denness's decisions were found to be incorrect or informed by racism?
>
> Yes, ICC appointed a committee later to investigate the matter, look
> at the video "evidence" and the committee found no reason for why
> Denness should've suggested Sachin was "tampering with the ball".
> Racism was not an official complaint by the BCCI, so that was not even
> looked into.
>
> > He could only take into consideration the track record when passing
> > sentence. He couldn't decline to investigate the matter or decide to
> > ignore the facts - which were that Tendulkar was clearly in breach of
> > the regulations - because then he'd set a precedent by which the very
> > practice the ICC were seeking to curb would be made available to all
> > players.
>
> Sachin was NOT in breach of any regulations. The ICC later withdrew
> any such charge after their committee found nothing in the video
> footage that suggested he was tampering with the ball. Be aware of
> this and stop calling Sachin a cheat.
Who called Tendulkar a cheat? Not me. If you want to get on your high
horse about the facts then you'd do well to check yours first.
Don speaks the truth
So you agree that it was not a law about ball tampering. Which should
make you agree that Sachin had done it without knowing the laws and
not done it purposely to tamper the ball condition. Which should make
the decision by that foolish englishman all the more unjustified.
> OK! Enough of that! Get your head back in the sand and carry on
> ranting!- Hide quoted text -
No its you fools who are doing the ranting. This thread was about the
positive quotes of Sachin by the legends of the game and you jealous
fools from South Africa, Aus and Eng who have had to go through the
torture of having seen your bowlers whacked by the great man wanted to
get back at him with some totally irrelavant and nitpicking rants.
Don
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Don speaks the truth
And Aussies? The only country formed by some pack of criminals
exported on a ship from England due to the crimes they did? Shows what
kind of culture foundation they laid for the great OZ country.
Don
>
> snip unread.
>
> alvey
Nirvanam
> of the regulations at the time. They were to the effect that any
> cleaning off or picking at the ball, effectively anything other than
> rubbing it on your trousers, could be performed only by the bowler and
> only with an umpire supervising. Tendulkar may well, as he claimed,
> have simply been picking mud out of the seam, he may have had no
> intent to change the condition of the ball to give the bowlers and
> advantage. None of that matters. Irrespective of WHY he was doing it
> he was in contravention of the playing conditions, thus was
> sanctioned.
Yes and what you don't seem to understand is that removing mud off the
ball is not ball-tampering. Read the official quote from ICC which
Sanjiv has provided above. ICC very clearly...even for biased
eyes...has stated that Sachin was NOT teampering with the ball.
> Since Denness never claimed that Tendulkar was tampering with the
> ball, only that he was doing something to it that only the bowler was
> allowed to do and only when the umpires had been informed and could
> supervise, I'm sure that's not true.
What??????? Denness actually claimed Sachin was tampering with the
ball. ICC laws do not give bans to players for "cleaning the ball
without the umpire noticing". Bans are handed over only for serious
offences. Stop defending Denness.
You mention "Not at the time. This happened very quickly. The UCB of
SA, under duress from their guests, decided to do away with Denness
and appoint
another official in his place. No doubt other countries joined in the
protest later."
I think UCBSA did the right thing by not allowing Denness in.
You also mention, "If Denness was the only candidated not accepted
then that's quite another."
If a Match Referee (not a school kid who is officiating as an umpire
in a school game), interprets things so irrationally he should not be
considered for any role to deal with officiating. It is one thing for
an umpire making a mistake and one for a Match Referee not applying
his mind in an unbiased way. Umpires can be forgiven because it is all
in the heat of the moment, they can get things wrong. Match Referee
has the whole day's play to reflect over what has happened, has time
to look at the videos, study the situation, and everything else before
passing a judgment like that. No one can prove what Denness'
intentions were, because only Denness knows. But ICC can conjecture
from the incident, and they got it right: Denness is not fit to be an
international official. Case closed. The bugger deserved to be thrown
out. I wish BCCI would've taken him to court and not bothered about
any humanitarian concerns and fought the case following which he
would be humiliated for what he did.
Jayen
> On Nov 12, 10:20 pm, Ravi <krav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why does love for the game need to be exclusive from making money? Why
> > does he have to show that?
>
> Well, how do we know that he really loves the game? If he really loves
> the game, surely he should be prepared to sacrifice something
> meaningful for it. I mean, after all these years if he's not willing
> to commit, when on earth will he be willing to commit? The game will
> just have to break off this relationship and look for a new partner.
I was stunned to learn that he had actually been paid all these years.
What's done is done, but in the future we need to start charging
Sachin for his appearances in the Indian team. I suggest a figure of
$1000 multiplied by the number of tests/ODIs he's played so far. That
way, he'd shell out $140,000 for his 141st test and $501,000 for his
500th ODI. This is only fair as he has made more money from ODIs in
the past.
This gesture would truly prove his commitment to the Indian team and
his willingness to sacrifice something meaningful.
Regards,
Jayen
Sanjiv Karmarkar
> On Nov 13, 8:32 am, Uday Rajan wrote:
>
> > On Nov 12, 10:20 pm, Ravi wrote:
>
> > > Why does love for the game need to be exclusive from making money? Why
> > > does he have to show that?
>
> > Well, how do we know that he really loves the game? If he really loves
> > the game, surely he should be prepared to sacrifice something
> > meaningful for it. I mean, after all these years if he's not willing
> > to commit, when on earth will he be willing to commit? The game will
> > just have to break off this relationship and look for a new partner.
>
> I was stunned to learn that he had actually been paid all these years.
> What's done is done, but in the future we need to start charging
> Sachin for his appearances in the Indian team. I suggest a figure of
> $1000 multiplied by the number of tests/ODIs he's played so far. That
> way, he'd shell out $140,000 for his 141st test and $501,000 for his
> 500th ODI. This is only fair as he has made more money from ODIs in
> the past.
>
> This gesture would truly prove his commitment to the Indian team and
> his willingness to sacrifice something meaningful.
This is the problem with India; softies like you want to just give a
slap on the wrist of these criminals. You think just getting $641 K
back is enough? I bet he has made a lot more money than that. If
Sachin really loved this game - and I've started wondering about the
sincerity of his claims - he will sell his mansion, put his family to
work, and return all the money ASAP.
And this gets worse. I'm not sure if you watch any TV; but Sachin is
ubiquitous on the tube sponsoring a large number of commercial
products which he claims he loves. Well gets what... he gets paid for
those commercials - every one of them. If he really likes those
products like he claims he does, he would give all that money back as
well and do all the commercials in the future for free.
Why can't you have the wisdom and the courage of Shiva and Gupta? And
you don't even offer your posts to some deity of your choice.
PS: May I please borrow your Kenny G collection? I want to
perpetually feel like I’m riding an elevator.
PPS: Oh yes, almost forgot. Christaarpanam.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
Bob Dubery
> Which should
> make you agree that Sachin had done it without knowing the laws and
> not done it purposely to tamper the ball condition. Which should make
> the decision by that foolish englishman all the more unjustified.
His ignorance of the ICC's playing conditions is no defense. If he was
ignorant. Anybody who read cricinfo would have known that the playing
conditions are changed, and you can bet that both the SA and Indian
boards had been informed of the changes and presented with copies of
the updated regulations.
Ignorance can't be a defense. Think what sort of genies would be let
out of the bottle. "Oh... nobody had told me that you can't hit the
ball twice." "Nobody had told me that you can't straighten your arm
when bowling." "Nobody told me that you can't roll the ball along the
ground."
The rules say "thou shalt not do this". If a player does that then
action must be taken. Which is what happened. Sachin did what a "thou
shalt not" type rule said he must not do. Denness had to act. He was
as bound by the regulations as the players were.
Bob Dubery
> Yes and what you don't seem to understand is that removing mud off the
> ball is not ball-tampering. Read the official quote from ICC which
> Sanjiv has provided above. ICC very clearly...even for biased
> eyes...has stated that Sachin was NOT teampering with the ball.
That's immaterial. He was in contravention of the regulations. It is
not necessary for the officials to decide WHY he was doing what he was
doing. They are not mind readers and don't need to be. They need to
decide if he was contravening the regulations. He was.
>
> > Since Denness never claimed that Tendulkar was tampering with the
> > ball, only that he was doing something to it that only the bowler was
> > allowed to do and only when the umpires had been informed and could
> > supervise, I'm sure that's not true.
>
> What??????? Denness actually claimed Sachin was tampering with the
> ball. ICC laws do not give bans to players for "cleaning the ball
> without the umpire noticing". Bans are handed over only for serious
> offences. Stop defending Denness.
Denness said ``Tendulkar was punished not for tampering with the ball,
but for failing to call up an umpire to supervise his attempts to
clean the ball,''
Denness never said that Tendulkar was tampering with the ball. Neither
did I. Go and find the people who did, or the people who
misrepresented this incident as Denness accusing Tendulkar of changing
the condition of the ball and take up the issue with them.
>
> You mention "Not at the time. This happened very quickly. The UCB of
> SA, under duress from their guests, decided to do away with Denness
> and appoint
> another official in his place. No doubt other countries joined in the
> protest later."
> I think UCBSA did the right thing by not allowing Denness in.
Well you would, wouldn't you? I thought they had no business defying
the ICC and involving themselves in a spat between a team and an
official.
>
> You also mention, "If Denness was the only candidated not accepted
> then that's quite another."
> If a Match Referee (not a school kid who is officiating as an umpire
> in a school game), interprets things so irrationally he should not be
> considered for any role to deal with officiating.
Perhaps. But Denness was right. Tendulkar was doing something he
should not have been doing. He was in contravention of the
regulations.
> It is one thing for
> an umpire making a mistake and one for a Match Referee not applying
> his mind in an unbiased way. Umpires can be forgiven because it is all
> in the heat of the moment, they can get things wrong. Match Referee
> has the whole day's play to reflect over what has happened, has time
> to look at the videos, study the situation, and everything else before
> passing a judgment like that. No one can prove what Denness'
> intentions were, because only Denness knows. But ICC can conjecture
> from the incident, and they got it right: Denness is not fit to be an
> international official. Case closed. The bugger deserved to be thrown
> out. I wish BCCI would've taken him to court and not bothered about
> any humanitarian concerns and fought the case following which he
> would be humiliated for what he did.
Perhaps. Perhaps it would have been ruled that he was correct.
That wouldn't be surprising because Tendulkar had, after all, broken
the rules.
Did the ICC ever actually rule that Denness's decision was wrong? Did
they reverse it?
Don speaks the truth
Your points make sense if Tendulkar was a frontline bowler. But the
fact was
that he was a frontline batsman and a part time bowler. Why would a
part time bowler
purposely do anything other than shining the ball? Even if he had done
something in ignorance of the law, the match referree need not hand
such a hefty punishment given his decent track record. He could have
been
let off with a warning. But that he gave him such a big punishment
coupled
with the stupid rulings against Indian fielders for excessive appealing
(when they
were nothing against how Pollock used to appeal) shows that Deness
had some
ulterior motive against the Indians. Never expected you to support an
incompetent
fool like Deness, Dubery, esp. after he was debarred from further
officiating 6
months after that incorrect ruling.
Don
Bob Dubery
> Did the ICC ever actually rule that Denness's decision was wrong? Did
> they reverse it?
We know that the sanction against Sehwag was not reversed. The 3rd
match in the SA v India rubber was ruled as not being a Test match,
and the ICC told the Indian board that Sehwag had still to serve out
his suspension. This put India's next series in doubt. Eventually
India backed down, Sehwag was omitted and the match went ahead with
Test status.
Nirvanam
> not necessary for the officials to decide WHY he was doing what he was
> doing. They are not mind readers and don't need to be. They need to
> decide if he was contravening the regulations. He was.
And where have I said he should not be dealt with for doing what he
did?
> Denness said ``Tendulkar was punished not for tampering with the ball,
> but for failing to call up an umpire to supervise his attempts to
> clean the ball,''
>
> Denness never said that Tendulkar was tampering with the ball. Neither
> did I. Go and find the people who did, or the people who
> misrepresented this incident as Denness accusing Tendulkar of changing
> the condition of the ball and take up the issue with them.
Then how exactly did Denness justify a 1 Test ban for "removing mud
from the ball without umpire noticing"
> Well you would, wouldn't you? I thought they had no business defying
> the ICC and involving themselves in a spat between a team and an
> official.
O yes, they had. If an incompetent prick like Denness was allowed he
would've made even bigger blunders. And I think what UCBSA did is what
everyone else should do...whenever there is injustice (Sachin getting
a ban for removing mud from the ball is injustice...he getting
punished with a fine is acceptable) everyone must stand up and out the
perpetrator in his place.
> > You also mention, "If Denness was the only candidated not accepted
> > then that's quite another."
> > If a Match Referee (not a school kid who is officiating as an umpire
> > in a school game), interprets things so irrationally he should not be
> > considered for any role to deal with officiating.
>
> Perhaps. But Denness was right. Tendulkar was doing something he
> should not have been doing. He was in contravention of the
> regulations.
Dubery, Dennis was NOT right. You don't hand a ban for an act of
removing mud from the ball. The prick lost his mind
> Perhaps. Perhaps it would have been ruled that he was correct.
Oh, even after ICC came out with an official comment that he was
wrong? Why are you defending the prick? Why can't you see that he did
not do the right thing?
> That wouldn't be surprising because Tendulkar had, after all, broken
> the rules.
So hand him a punishment as per the rule he broke. Like Sanjiv (or
someone else) said you can't hand the punishment meted out for a rape/
murder to a person for stealing a Rs.500/- note.
> Did the ICC ever actually rule that Denness's decision was wrong? Did
> they reverse it?
Didn't you read the quote aove which very clearly implies that Sachin
was not tampering with the ball as the prick Denness claimed during
the hearing at the end of the day. What Denness said later to the News
reporters is what you are providing. The whole issue would not have
occurred if Denness did not claim Sachin was tampering with the ball,
and gave him a sentence which was in line with the offence of removing
mud from the ball without umpire noticing.
Nirvanam
So you see India finally served the sentence but only after making it
known that they didn't think Denness' decision was fair. The prick was
summarily thrown out of the Match Referee panel exactly as he deserved
to be. Pricks like Denness don't understand that the days of colonial
inequality are all long gone...they need to have enough evidence to
back a claim especially when the claim results in serious punishments.
The prick Denness did not have enough evidence and definitely rode his
luck. He deserved to be thrown out for his behavior.
Don speaks the truth
Denness is an Englishman and many Englishmen are knopwn to give some
stupid rulings against Indians. Not trying to rake up the nation vs
nation debate again, but this is a fact. Remember the MCC tirade
against Gavaskar in the 80s and then how @Lords, some foolish MCC
functionary poked fun behind Tendulkar's back after Hoggard had got
him cheap in the Lords test in 2002
and Tendulkar was walking back to the pavilion. Many Englishmen are
known to
get the "shivers" when India or some Indian gets success in some way.
Remember also how the Wisden has ignored Tendulkar a lot of times by
not putting him in the right place in their stupid all-time rankings.
Its all the "british Raj" inertia many Englishmen are still under.
Don
Nirvanam
wrote:
Oh ya, and it was one of those MCC buggers who did not allow an Indian
official into their members area during the 83 World Cup final
dismissing him off with some chosen colonial rant. That Indian
official promised that day that he will bring the World Cup to India,
and he did it in 1987. Not only that but he laid the foundation for
India to rule the world of cricket and ECB to lose its monopoly in
cricketing matters.
Bob Dubery
> > That's immaterial. He was in contravention of the regulations. It is
> > not necessary for the officials to decide WHY he was doing what he was
> > doing. They are not mind readers and don't need to be. They need to
> > decide if he was contravening the regulations. He was.
>
> And where have I said he should not be dealt with for doing what he
> did?
wish you'd argue with the right people.
>
> > Denness said ``Tendulkar was punished not for tampering with the ball,
> > but for failing to call up an umpire to supervise his attempts to
> > clean the ball,''
>
> > Denness never said that Tendulkar was tampering with the ball. Neither
> > did I. Go and find the people who did, or the people who
> > misrepresented this incident as Denness accusing Tendulkar of changing
> > the condition of the ball and take up the issue with them.
>
> Then how exactly did Denness justify a 1 Test ban for "removing mud
> from the ball without umpire noticing"
draws up the rules and they link them to a scale of penalties. The MR
has to apply a penalty within the range defined by the ICC.
>
> > Well you would, wouldn't you? I thought they had no business defying
> > the ICC and involving themselves in a spat between a team and an
> > official.
>
> O yes, they had. If an incompetent prick like Denness was allowed he
> would've made even bigger blunders.
If he made blunders. I don't believe that he did, and I don't recall
any findings to that effect.
<snip ill-informed bollocks, ranting and potty mouth insults>
Bob Dubery
> Oh ya, and it was one of those MCC buggers who did not allow an Indian
> official into their members area during the 83 World Cup final
> dismissing him off with some chosen colonial rant.
In England they still have the quaint concept of private property. The
member's area at Lords is private property of the MCC. You enter at
their pleasure.
There are some times explanations other than racism.
Indeed to shout "racism" any time a non-white man dealing with a white
man doesn't get his way is, in fact, racist.
higgs
I wondered when that particular card was going to be played.
I'm surprised it took so long
Higgs
Nirvanam
> draws up the rules and they link them to a scale of penalties. The MR
> has to apply a penalty within the range defined by the ICC.
Apparently the punishment meted out to Sachin was beyond the "range"
of penalties prescribed by ICC. It is going to be very difficult for
anyone to show evidence that a one match ban is within the range of
penalties for the sin of "removing grass/mud from the ball without
umpire noticing".
> If he made blunders. I don't believe that he did, and I don't recall
> any findings to that effect.
This one blunder was enough for ICC to pack him off for good. You
eliminate the cause, the effect due to that cause will not occur again
> <snip ill-informed bollocks, ranting and potty mouth insults>
What is so ill-informed here? And calling someone a prick who was
being a prick is not an insult, Dubery. He was a prick and he deserved
what he got. In fact my opinion is that he was let off by the
generosity of the BCCI. The prick should'nt have been let off on
humanitarian grounds at all. He should've been taught a good enough
lesson that other such officials who still "live" in the colonial
times dare not be so unjust. And this includes any official including
Indian and Asian.
Why is it so difficult for you to see that he was not being fair? Upto
what length will you go to defend Denness?
Nirvanam
> member's area at Lords is private property of the MCC. You enter at
> their pleasure.
>
> There are some times explanations other than racism.
>
> Indeed to shout "racism" any time a non-white man dealing with a white
> man doesn't get his way is, in fact, racist.
Excuse me, no one denies that private property is not open to the
public. But the official was spoken to in an insulting way which is
what made him determined to bring the world cup to Asia (if I am not
mistaken he had very strong ties with Dhirubhai Ambani which is what
brought Reliance into the picture). You can be gentle, humane, and
courteous while denying entry to someone.
Bob Dubery
> > MRs are bound by the regulations just as the players are. The ICC
> > draws up the rules and they link them to a scale of penalties. The MR
> > has to apply a penalty within the range defined by the ICC.
>
> Apparently the punishment meted out to Sachin was beyond the "range"
> of penalties prescribed by ICC.
the "facts" department so far have you?
> It is going to be very difficult for
> anyone to show evidence that a one match ban is within the range of
> penalties for the sin of "removing grass/mud from the ball without
> umpire noticing".
Well
1) All that would be necessary is to examine the COC and schedule of
punishments that applied at the time
2) The ICC didn't say "Mr Denness, you charged Mr Tendulkar correctly
but your penalty was outside of the permitted range."
3) You're a rude individual but you like to get on your high horse
about other people's manners.
Nirvanam
> the "facts" department so far have you?
How about providing an instance of where I got my facts wrong as far
as Denness and that incident is concerned? If you don't find one then
stop making such a claim.
> Well
> 1) All that would be necessary is to examine the COC and schedule of
> punishments that applied at the time
So go ahead and educate us with the prevailing punishments at that
time
> 2) The ICC didn't say "Mr Denness, you charged Mr Tendulkar correctly
> but your penalty was outside of the permitted range."
How can the ICC say, "Mr Denness, you charged Mr Tendulkar
correctly.." when the ICC did not agree to the charge of Denness at
all. Denness' charge was "tampering with the ball" and therefore
handing a 1 Test ban which is what caused the entire drama. Had he
charged Sachin with "removing grass/mud from the ball without umpire
noticing" and meted out a relevant punishment, none of this drama
would've taken place. Since and before that incident Indian players
have been charged and punished, neither the BCCI nor the Indian
players jumped up and made a scene about it (except monkeygate which
was perceived by them as unfair). Shouldn't that tell you that there
was something about the case that the Indian players and BCCI felt
strongly about to challenge it? Again, in case while reading this
passage you thought of accusing Indian players and BCCI of making a
scene over things, have enough evidence to back it up. One instance in
2008 and one instance in 2002 out of at least 50 incidents in the same
time only establishes that these were "special causes" as the term is
used in statistical analysis.
> 3) You're a rude individual but you like to get on your high horse
> about other people's manners.
O yeah! The "rude", "ill-mannered" card has to be played...red
herring, Dubery. Provide me instances of when I have been rude or ill-
mannered. Also provide me instances where I was told so, and I haven't
apologized/accepted my guilt (your point # 3 is not an instance of
this rather an accusation which I am challenging). If you provide
evidence, then I will apologize. If you cannot then don't accuse me of
such things. You cannot stomach the fact that someone is challenging
your claim and showing you to be defending Denness when he obviously
was being unfair.
Don speaks the truth
> On Nov 17, 10:50 am, Nirvanam <viz.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:> > MRs are bound by the regulations just as the players are. The ICC
> > > draws up the rules and they link them to a scale of penalties. The MR
> > > has to apply a penalty within the range defined by the ICC.
>
> > Apparently the punishment meted out to Sachin was beyond the "range"
> > of penalties prescribed by ICC.
>
> Well that's what you say. But let's face it, you haven't done well in
> the "facts" department so far have you?
And so have you. Why ignore the fact on your face that Denness was an
incompetent English poop whose main grouse was against Indians and
not
against any rubbing of the seam.
> > It is going to be very difficult for
> > anyone to show evidence that a one match ban is within the range of
> > penalties for the sin of "removing grass/mud from the ball without
> > umpire noticing".
>
> Well
> 1) All that would be necessary is to examine the COC and schedule of
> punishments that applied at the time
> 2) The ICC didn't say "Mr Denness, you charged Mr Tendulkar correctly
> but your penalty was outside of the permitted range."
> 3) You're a rude individual but you like to get on your high horse
> about other people's manners.
Punishments for rubbing the dirt? Pls point us to your wise knowledge
of the rules for giving one match punishment for rubbing the dirt,
Dubery.
ICC implied so by getting Denness removed at a convenient time which
goes to prove they accepted BCCI's grouse of the punishment being
unfair on a great player.
Dubery, You are the one who butted into this thread but you fail to
give any proof of all your balderdash about punishments meant for
removing mud off the ball without the umpire's knowledge..
Don
Bob Dubery
> > Well that's what you say. But let's face it, you haven't done well in
> > the "facts" department so far have you?
>
> How about providing an instance of where I got my facts wrong as far
> as Denness and that incident is concerned?
EVERYTHING right. For all I know you may have recently asserted that
the sky is blue. That doesn't make you right about anything else. Even
a broken clock tells the right time twice a day.
> If you don't find one then
> stop making such a claim.
>
> > Well
> > 1) All that would be necessary is to examine the COC and schedule of
> > punishments that applied at the time
>
> So go ahead and educate us with the prevailing punishments at that
> time
Actually it was YOU that asserted that Denness had handed down an
inappropriate penalty. Thus it's up to YOU to prove that point.
You can do that, can't you?
>
> > 2) The ICC didn't say "Mr Denness, you charged Mr Tendulkar correctly
> > but your penalty was outside of the permitted range."
>
> How can the ICC say, "Mr Denness, you charged Mr Tendulkar
> correctly.." when the ICC did not agree to the charge of Denness at
> all.
So they said "incorrect charge" and dropped the matter did they?
Again, you've made the assertion, you back it. If you can.
When you've got some PROOF then we can talk again. This is the way
things work - you make the accusation, it's up to you to prove it.
Nirvanam
> > as Denness and that incident is concerned?
>
> That you got one particular thing right doesn't mean that you got
> EVERYTHING right. For all I know you may have recently asserted that
> the sky is blue. That doesn't make you right about anything else. Even
> a broken clock tells the right time twice a day.
Read what I wrote again, Dubery: "How about providing an instance of
where I got my facts wrong as far as Denness and that incident is
concerned?". I am asking you to provide one instance of me GETTING
FACTS WRONG as far as this Denness incident is concerned. Your
original argument was that I don't get my facts right...I assume you
were referring to the Denness case...now all you need is at the least
one instance of me getting my facts wrong for you to "win" your
argument, because I challenged you to produce at least one instance of
me getting a fact wrong on Denness' case. Prove it else stop making
value judgments.
I am not letting you off easily with this...you accused me of
something, you better have evidence to back it up.
> Actually it was YOU that asserted that Denness had handed down an
> inappropriate penalty. Thus it's up to YOU to prove that point.
>
> You can do that, can't you?
Exactly, and I presented to you the FACT that ICC themselves came out
with the statement that Tendulkar did not tamper the ball, and his 1
match ban was suspended. If the rule-maker himself affirms that one
person did not give the right punishment and hence the rule-maker
deems it is right to suspend the punishment, what does that indicate?
> So they said "incorrect charge" and dropped the matter did they?
Isn't that what happened after BCCI and the Indian players protested?
Doesn't the ICC official statement on the incident imply that? Doesn't
the fact that the ICC suspended the 1 match ban punishment imply that?
What ICC records in its artifacts when a charge is deemed wrong:
whether they record it as "case closed", "incorrect charge",
"incorrect case", etc will be known only to the employees of ICC that
deal with their documentation process.
> Again, you've made the assertion, you back it. If you can.
>
> When you've got some PROOF then we can talk again. This is the way
> things work - you make the accusation, it's up to you to prove it.
The proof has already been presented to you. Do you want me to present
it again? If you do not know how to figure out which statements/
passages/sentences are the proofs in the above posts, then ask me,
I'll copy-paste them back. If you have a problem with the evidence
that has been provided then analyze the evidence and let me know why
the evidence is no good instead of turning your attention on
me...that, Dubery, is called an "Ad Hominem" type of fallacy in logic
Bob Dubery
> > > How about providing an instance of where I got my facts wrong as far
> > > as Denness and that incident is concerned?
>
> > That you got one particular thing right doesn't mean that you got
> > EVERYTHING right. For all I know you may have recently asserted that
> > the sky is blue. That doesn't make you right about anything else. Even
> > a broken clock tells the right time twice a day.
>
> Read what I wrote again, Dubery:
prefer, "Bob". The way you're talking is the way that prefects in
English public schools talk to their fags and other first formers.
"How about providing an instance of
> where I got my facts wrong as far as Denness and that incident is
> concerned?".
You asserted that Denness had accused Tendulkar of tampering with the
ball. Denness said that he didn't.
> > Actually it was YOU that asserted that Denness had handed down an
> > inappropriate penalty. Thus it's up to YOU to prove that point.
>
> > You can do that, can't you?
>
> Exactly, and I presented to you the FACT that ICC themselves came out
> with the statement that Tendulkar did not tamper the ball, and his 1
> match ban was suspended.
Well I'm not surprised given that
a) Denness himself said that whilst Tendulkar was in contravention of
a specific regulation he was not accusing him of tampering with the
ball
b) Denness gave him a one match ban suspended until end January 2002.
http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/108107.html
So it would seem that all the ICC did was to agree with Denness.
And note that you got it wrong again. The ICC did not downgrade
Tendulkar's penalty to a suspended ban, it had been suspended from the
word go.
Unless you can come up with some facts in support of your position I
am not pursuing this debate any further.
Nirvanam
> prefer, "Bob". The way you're talking is the way that prefects in
> English public schools talk to their fags and other first formers.
How am I to know what your cultural sensitivities are? In India we
don't think that as being rude...innocent ignorance on my part. But
since it has caused you some hurt, I apologize. I didn't know that in
England addressing a person by his surname at the end of a sentences
is considered rude. In fact in many places in India it is a common
practice to address people with their surnames (especially people we
respect) with an appendage of "ji", "sahib", "sir", "garu", etc, etc
especially people you do not know personally. For ex, a Telugu person
of my age does not call my dad "Satyam" but he calls him by his
surname, Sharma-garu or a North Indian person would call my dad Sharma-
ji. Fair?
> "How about providing an instance of> where I got my facts wrong as far as Denness and that incident is
> > concerned?".
>
> You asserted that Denness had accused Tendulkar of tampering with the
> ball. Denness said that he didn't.
Oh yes, he did accuse. Otherwise why all the hullaballoo by the Indian
players and BCCI? Are you suggesting that BCCI, the Indian players,
journalists everyone protested because Sachin was found to be removing
mud/grass from the ball? Denness may have later given the statement in
the press saying he didn't accuse. If he did not accuse Sachin of it
during the hearing, why did the ICC have to come out and very
specifically say that Sachin did not tamper the ball? If Denness had
charged Sachin with removing mud/grass from the ball then all this
wouldn't have happened. He had to charge Sachin with such a huge
violation before handing over a 1 match ban. I don't think Denness is
so foolish to hand over a 1 match ban for removing dirt from the ball.
Or are you arguing that Denness is really that stupid?
> Well I'm not surprised given that
> a) Denness himself said that whilst Tendulkar was in contravention of
> a specific regulation he was not accusing him of tampering with the
> ball
Refer above passage. Also, if Denness had the decency he would have
shut up and let the matter be decided internally like how Sachin has
remained silent even today. Denness is one of the perpetrators/parties
involved here not any cameraman or journalist who can make any
comments he likes on the case.
> b) Denness gave him a one match ban suspended until end January 2002.http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/108107.html
The "suspension" happened because ICC stepped in after BCCI and Indian
players complained. The "suspension" was ICC's way of ensuring justice
was done to Sachin. Coupled with the categorical denial of ball
tampering in an official statement that the ICC made, it is very clear
that the punishment meted out was unfair. Maybe the BCCI let Denness
go and that is why did not insist on the ban being revoked altogether
and agreed to a "suspended" sentence. A suspended sentence is not
served so it doesn't affect anyone.
> So it would seem that all the ICC did was to agree with Denness.
For one, as shown above, ICC did not agree. Now, even if ICC was
agreeing with Denness, are you saying ICC confirms that a 1 Test ban
is the punishment for removing dirt from the ball without umpire
noticing?
> And note that you got it wrong again. The ICC did not downgrade
> Tendulkar's penalty to a suspended ban, it had been suspended from the
> word go.
That is exactly how they and the BCCI ensured they will not rub
Denness' nose into the sand for his disgraceful act.
> Unless you can come up with some facts in support of your position I
> am not pursuing this debate any further.
You cannot. You neither have the facts right nor are your inferences
of presented facts as per what most people would infer based on the
way things are done in official matters. And you continue to defend
Denness. Now that is shameful, Bob. At least stop defending the
prick's actions/decisions.