The Harbhajan Singh / Andrew Symonds issue is not directly connected with The Ashes (which is what this particular blog is all about), but it’s such a massive issue that I just had to say something about it.

I’m not one of those Australian cricket commentators who reckons the Aussie team should all be sacked. In fact, I’m not quite sure what they’ve done wrong, but I’ll try and work through a few of the allegations:

1. Did Singh call Symonds a “monkey”?
I think he did, but he probably didn’t intend it as a racist term. However, he knew that Symonds did consider it to be racially offensive, as they apparently had a chat about this very issue during the one-day series in India last October, so it probably wasn’t a smart thing to do. Maybe Singh forgot about that in the heat of the moment, so he just went and used the first offensive term that came to his head. So Singh is offended when he is accused of being racist (because he didn’t intend to be), whilst Symonds feels that he’s been the victim of racism and, in accordance with ICC rules, his captain informed the match referee. I’m just theorising here, but this does seem to work for me.
Update: January 13, 2008 …
It looks like my theory was close to being right. According to the Indians, Harbhajan used an offensive Punjabi phrase - “maa ki” (which means “motherf…”) - it sounds like “monkey”, but it was not a racial taunt. Was this version of events put forward during the initial hearing with match referee Mike Procter? Anyway, this is the line the Indians will be putting forward when the appeal is heard some time after the third Test in Perth. However, I don’t understand why the Indians would think this phrase is OK, but they’ve accused Brad Hogg of racial vilification for calling a couple of the Indians “bastards”. Smells like double standards to me. If Brad Hogg is guilty for using the term “bastards”, then Harbhajan Singh is guilty for using “maa ki”.

2. Should Andrew Symonds have walked after edging one through to the ‘keeper early on in his innings?
No. Hardly anyone does, so we can’t say he did anything unusual or that he “cheated”, as some are saying. Take a look at this footage of Harbhajan Singh being clean bowled by Kevin Pietersen. Singh is clearly out, yet he refused to walk. So the Indians can hardly say that they are a team of righteous, “we always walk” sorts of guys.

3. Should the Australians have appealed for the Rahul Dravid caught behind?
Yes. The video footage, in slow motion, suggests that the ball came off Dravid’s front pad, yet the Aussies all appealed. Why? First up, the rules of cricket state that you’ve got to appeal in order to get a guy out (unless it’s an obvious one like being bowled, eh Harbhajan), so if they don’t appeal then, even if the umpire thinks the batsman is out, he can’t raise the finger. That’s why you’ll see players appealing all the time for anything caught behind. They’re usually a bit better for the LBWs, but some, even the Indians, can get a bit ridiculous with those. So I reckon if the situation had been reversed and it had been Mike Hussey batting, and if Huss had edged the ball off his pad to the ‘keeper, I think the Indians would have appealed too. It’s then up to the umpire to make the call.

4. Was the umpiring really that bad?
Yes. The umpiring was terrible, and perhaps it changed the result of the game. Here’s a collection of poor umpiring decisions from that 2nd Test, as shown on Indian television:

I don’t think Australia “cheated”, as some are saying, I just think they were fortunate enough this time to have most of the poor decisions going in their favour. There have been plenty of occasions in the past when poor umpiring has gone against the Australians … see, for example, pretty much every Test match Australia played in India and Pakistan during the 1980s. So if the Indians and sporting public in general have a problem, then it should be directed at the umpires, not the Australian cricket team.

Having said that, umpiring is a tough job. I spent a season working as a professional umpire when I was just a teenager living in Melboure, and it was hard work. The pressure is intense, and mistakes are easily made. Umpires Steve Bucknor and Mark Benson are experienced guys, and they’d be used to a fair bit of pressure, but they are still only human and will therefore make the occasional mistake. The replays we get on television make it all too easy for us as we sit in our lounge rooms, but it’s not as easy as that when you’re out there in the middle with the noise of 30,000 people buzzing around.