Sport Today

by **V. Chandrasekha** » Mon, 26 Nov 2001 20:58:55

I 'll let this article speak for itself.

http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2001/nov/25gray.htm

by **Guy Fawk** » Mon, 26 Nov 2001 21:20:36

This report is a little disingenious; it leaves some ambiguity as to
whether the umpires were not reporting anything relating to Tendulkar
or not reporting anything at all. If it's the former, then the
statements are in harmony; if not, then there is some explaining to
do.

The ICC statement is clear, the umpires did not report on Tendulkar,
they did report on the actions of the players.Majola's words are less
clear, it would be nice to have an unambiguous statement before making
all kinds of allegations.

On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 11:58:55 GMT, "V. Chandrasekhar"

Quote:

>I 'll let this article speak for itself.

>http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2001/nov/25gray.htm

by **V. Chandrasekha** » Tue, 27 Nov 2001 00:19:08

Quote:

>This report is a little disingenious; it leaves some ambiguity as to
>whether the umpires were not reporting anything relating to Tendulkar
>or not reporting anything at all. If it's the former, then the
>statements are in harmony; if not, then there is some explaining to
>do.

>The ICC statement is clear, the umpires did not report on Tendulkar,
>they did report on the actions of the players.Majola's words are less
>clear, it would be nice to have an unambiguous statement before making
>all kinds of allegations.

Huh? Did you read the article carefully? It clearly states that the
situation is one requiring 'some explaining to
do', in your words.

It quotes Majola as saying

"I spoke to the two umpires as well and they said they didn't find anything
to report. They didn't even warn anyone. Even a few of our guys went
overboard but there was no action taken against them."

In other words, the 'anything' includes 'the other Indian players as well as
SA players'. The author has 'they didn't find anything to report' in
italics, to draw attention to the fact that nothing was reported. If the
exclusion in the report was only Tendu, the author wouldn't have called the
article 'Liar, liar, pants on fire' nor asked to see a copy of the umpires
report. Further, the author also says 'Never mind the bit about Tendulkar --
we all know just how funny that particular part is', making it clear that it
is the other players not being reported that he is talking about.

VC

by **Raj** » Tue, 27 Nov 2001 00:36:27

So if the umpires didnt complain and the TV stations allegedly didnt submit
footage, how did Denness get suspicious about Tendlukar??? The only
explanation is he caught the incident live on tv. Don't tell me Denness goes
home and reviews tapes of the day's playsq for the hell of it. so explain to
me this. Why did he wait such a long time to decide to review it(supposedly
at the end of the day)?? Why didn't he handle it on the spot and demand
replays from the tv crew so the match results wouldnt get affected by the
tampering of the ball on a certain day.

Either way , Denness looks incompetent and lazy at the least. Even the South
African president is admitting that Denness wsa vague about why he punished
them with
the usual arrogant stock statement that "he knew his job and all that".
That is a classic explanation people give when they don't have anything
logical to say.

Quote:

> This report is a little disingenious; it leaves some ambiguity as to
> whether the umpires were not reporting anything relating to Tendulkar
> or not reporting anything at all. If it's the former, then the
> statements are in harmony; if not, then there is some explaining to
> do.

> The ICC statement is clear, the umpires did not report on Tendulkar,
> they did report on the actions of the players.Majola's words are less
> clear, it would be nice to have an unambiguous statement before making
> all kinds of allegations.

> On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 11:58:55 GMT, "V. Chandrasekhar"

> >I 'll let this article speak for itself.

> >http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2001/nov/25gray.htm

by **Guy Fawk** » Tue, 27 Nov 2001 04:06:40

I think its common cause that the umpires did not report Tendulkar and
Deness raised the issue, whether off his own bat or on the prompting
of the TV company doesn't matter. Point is, in this context, the
umpires didn't report him.

Point I'm making is that the article in question is ambiguous as to
whether the umpires reported the others. The ICC says they did, the
article infers that Majola said otherwise.

Quote:

>So if the umpires didnt complain and the TV stations allegedly didnt submit
>footage, how did Denness get suspicious about Tendlukar??? The only
>explanation is he caught the incident live on tv. Don't tell me Denness goes
>home and reviews tapes of the day's playsq for the hell of it. so explain to
>me this. Why did he wait such a long time to decide to review it(supposedly
>at the end of the day)?? Why didn't he handle it on the spot and demand
>replays from the tv crew so the match results wouldnt get affected by the
>tampering of the ball on a certain day.

>Either way , Denness looks incompetent and lazy at the least. Even the South
>African president is admitting that Denness wsa vague about why he punished
>them with
> the usual arrogant stock statement that "he knew his job and all that".
>That is a classic explanation people give when they don't have anything
>logical to say.

>> This report is a little disingenious; it leaves some ambiguity as to
>> whether the umpires were not reporting anything relating to Tendulkar
>> or not reporting anything at all. If it's the former, then the
>> statements are in harmony; if not, then there is some explaining to
>> do.

>> The ICC statement is clear, the umpires did not report on Tendulkar,
>> they did report on the actions of the players.Majola's words are less
>> clear, it would be nice to have an unambiguous statement before making
>> all kinds of allegations.

>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 11:58:55 GMT, "V. Chandrasekhar"

>> >I 'll let this article speak for itself.

>> >http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2001/nov/25gray.htm

by **Guy Fawk** » Tue, 27 Nov 2001 04:11:41

I can certainly see your point of view. Read it again, there is room
for ambiguity in what Majola said.

Additionally, the umpires are under no obligation to tell Majola
anything, they could have told him nothing and then discussed this
with the referee and in the discussion decided to raise it. This could
also have been after their conversation with Majiola.

I'm inclined to believe in the integrity of both the match officials
and Majola. There may yet be a perfectly reasonable explanation for
this. This reporter has gone OTT immediately without putting mind into
gear first with allegations.

While in the end, he may well be right, it pays to be a little
circumspect when making allegations of dishonesty.

On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 15:19:08 GMT, "V. Chandrasekhar"

Quote:

>>This report is a little disingenious; it leaves some ambiguity as to
>>whether the umpires were not reporting anything relating to Tendulkar
>>or not reporting anything at all. If it's the former, then the
>>statements are in harmony; if not, then there is some explaining to
>>do.

>>The ICC statement is clear, the umpires did not report on Tendulkar,
>>they did report on the actions of the players.Majola's words are less
>>clear, it would be nice to have an unambiguous statement before making
>>all kinds of allegations.

>Huh? Did you read the article carefully? It clearly states that the
>situation is one requiring 'some explaining to
>do', in your words.

>It quotes Majola as saying

>"I spoke to the two umpires as well and they said they didn't find anything
>to report. They didn't even warn anyone. Even a few of our guys went
>overboard but there was no action taken against them."

>In other words, the 'anything' includes 'the other Indian players as well as
>SA players'. The author has 'they didn't find anything to report' in
>italics, to draw attention to the fact that nothing was reported. If the
>exclusion in the report was only Tendu, the author wouldn't have called the
>article 'Liar, liar, pants on fire' nor asked to see a copy of the umpires
>report. Further, the author also says 'Never mind the bit about Tendulkar --
>we all know just how funny that particular part is', making it clear that it
>is the other players not being reported that he is talking about.

>VC

by **Suprakash Datt** » Tue, 27 Nov 2001 04:58:32

Quote:

> I can certainly see your point of view. Read it again, there is room
> for ambiguity in what Majola said.

No there is not, if the quote is authentic. Read the line
"They didn't even warn anyone. Even a few of our guys went
*****************
overboard but there was no action taken against them."

Now consider the law 42.18
http://www.cricket.org/link_to_database/ABOUT_CRICKET/LAWS/2000_CODE/...

18. Players conduct
If there is any breach of the Spirit of the Game by a player failing to
comply with the instructions of an umpire, or criticising his decisions by
word or action, or showing dissent, or generally behaving in a manner
which might bring the game into disrepute, the umpire concerned shall
immediately report the matter to the other umpire.
The umpires together shall
(i) inform the players captain of the occurrence, instructing the latter
to take action.
(ii) warn him of the gravity of the offence, and tell him that it will be
reported to higher authority.
(iii) report the occurrence as soon as possible to the Executive of the
players team and any Governing Body responsible for the match, who shall
take such action as is considered appropriate against the captain and
player or players, and, if appropriate, the team concerned.

Majola seems to assume that the reader knows this rule and therefore does
not explain in detail.
-Suprakash

Quote:

> Additionally, the umpires are under no obligation to tell Majola
> anything, they could have told him nothing and then discussed this
> with the referee and in the discussion decided to raise it. This could
> also have been after their conversation with Majiola.

> I'm inclined to believe in the integrity of both the match officials
> and Majola. There may yet be a perfectly reasonable explanation for
> this. This reporter has gone OTT immediately without putting mind into
> gear first with allegations.

> While in the end, he may well be right, it pays to be a little
> circumspect when making allegations of dishonesty.

> On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 15:19:08 GMT, "V. Chandrasekhar"

> >>This report is a little disingenious; it leaves some ambiguity as to
> >>whether the umpires were not reporting anything relating to Tendulkar
> >>or not reporting anything at all. If it's the former, then the
> >>statements are in harmony; if not, then there is some explaining to
> >>do.

> >>The ICC statement is clear, the umpires did not report on Tendulkar,
> >>they did report on the actions of the players.Majola's words are less
> >>clear, it would be nice to have an unambiguous statement before making
> >>all kinds of allegations.

> >Huh? Did you read the article carefully? It clearly states that the
> >situation is one requiring 'some explaining to
> >do', in your words.

> >It quotes Majola as saying

> >"I spoke to the two umpires as well and they said they didn't find anything
> >to report. They didn't even warn anyone. Even a few of our guys went
> >overboard but there was no action taken against them."

> >In other words, the 'anything' includes 'the other Indian players as well as
> >SA players'. The author has 'they didn't find anything to report' in
> >italics, to draw attention to the fact that nothing was reported. If the
> >exclusion in the report was only Tendu, the author wouldn't have called the
> >article 'Liar, liar, pants on fire' nor asked to see a copy of the umpires
> >report. Further, the author also says 'Never mind the bit about Tendulkar --
> >we all know just how funny that particular part is', making it clear that it
> >is the other players not being reported that he is talking about.

> >VC

by **Rohan Chandr** » Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:43:27

Quote:

>whether the umpires reported the others. The ICC says they did, the
>article infers that Majola said otherwise.

The Majola quotes, for whatever it is worth, were taking from a
printed written statement.

Rohan.

by **Sougata Mukherje** » Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:55:26

Quote:

> >whether the umpires reported the others. The ICC says they did, the
> >article infers that Majola said otherwise.

> The Majola quotes, for whatever it is worth, were taking from a
> printed written statement.

Where was the statement printed?
Rediff and Times of India?
How can you believe the Indian newspapers?
Shame on the Indian newspapers for lying.

Quote:

> Rohan.

by **Rohan Chandr** » Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:30:40

Quote:

>Where was the statement printed?

Beats me, I just saw Geoffrey Boycott reading from it on TV.

Rohan.

by **Guy Fawk** » Tue, 27 Nov 2001 16:44:14

That doesn't change what I said one iota. Give things some time to
work out before jumping to conclusions.

Quote:

>>whether the umpires reported the others. The ICC says they did, the
>>article infers that Majola said otherwise.

>The Majola quotes, for whatever it is worth, were taking from a
>printed written statement.

>Rohan.

by a » Tue, 27 Nov 2001 16:52:45

Quote:

> I can certainly see your point of view. Read it again, there is room
> for ambiguity in what Majola said.

> Additionally, the umpires are under no obligation to tell Majola
> anything, they could have told him nothing and then discussed this
> with the referee and in the discussion decided to raise it. This could
> also have been after their conversation with Majiola.

the rationalizations from the eng and aus side are now getting
to be pathetic. if the umpire was asked by the ucbsa chief
if they had any thing to report why the heck would they say
no and then report to the match referee!

Quote:

> I'm inclined to believe in the integrity of both the match officials
> and Majola. There may yet be a perfectly reasonable explanation for
> this. This reporter has gone OTT immediately without putting mind into
> gear first with allegations.

no, the reporter is just quoting majola. it is you who is
coming up with wild theories.

Quote:

> While in the end, he may well be right, it pays to be a little
> circumspect when making allegations of dishonesty.

> On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 15:19:08 GMT, "V. Chandrasekhar"

> >>This report is a little disingenious; it leaves some ambiguity as to
> >>whether the umpires were not reporting anything relating to Tendulkar
> >>or not reporting anything at all. If it's the former, then the
> >>statements are in harmony; if not, then there is some explaining to
> >>do.

> >>The ICC statement is clear, the umpires did not report on Tendulkar,
> >>they did report on the actions of the players.Majola's words are less
> >>clear, it would be nice to have an unambiguous statement before making
> >>all kinds of allegations.

> >Huh? Did you read the article carefully? It clearly states that the
> >situation is one requiring 'some explaining to
> >do', in your words.

> >It quotes Majola as saying

> >"I spoke to the two umpires as well and they said they didn't find anything
> >to report. They didn't even warn anyone. Even a few of our guys went
> >overboard but there was no action taken against them."

> >In other words, the 'anything' includes 'the other Indian players as well as
> >SA players'. The author has 'they didn't find anything to report' in
> >italics, to draw attention to the fact that nothing was reported. If the
> >exclusion in the report was only Tendu, the author wouldn't have called the
> >article 'Liar, liar, pants on fire' nor asked to see a copy of the umpires
> >report. Further, the author also says 'Never mind the bit about Tendulkar --
> >we all know just how funny that particular part is', making it clear that it
> >is the other players not being reported that he is talking about.

> >VC

by **Bob Dube** » Tue, 27 Nov 2001 17:43:02

On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 11:58:55 GMT, "V. Chandrasekhar"

Quote:

>I 'll let this article speak for itself.

>http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2001/nov/25gray.htm

The last few paragraphs would seem to be key...

" Majola says that the two umpires did not find anything to report. On
November 19, in the immediate aftermath of the Mike Denness incident,
the umpires told various sections of the media that they had seen
nothing to take note of and act against. "

"And yet the ICC, in an official statement -- and that means Malcolm
Gray -- says the two umpires actually filed a report. "

"It raises a question -- who is lying, and why? "

"The ICC can resolve this question by the simple expedient of
producing the umpires' report."

Which is what I concluded half way through the article: There are two
versions of the story and it is not easy to figure out which version
is the truth.

I hope the ICC do produce the umpire's report.

by **Rohan Chandr** » Wed, 28 Nov 2001 06:01:45

Quote:

>That doesn't change what I said one iota. Give things some time to
>work out before jumping to conclusions.

I neither made any comment, nor jumped to any conclusion. I merely
pointed out what I believe to be a statement of fact based on having
seen the TV commentators reading from the said "statement" from Majola
which was in their hands.

Rohan.

Sport Today

'T2 Umpires Had Nothing to Report on Punished Players' - Majola

'T2 Umpires Had Nothing to Report on Punished Players' - Majola

'T2 Umpires Had Nothing to Report on Punished Players' - Majola

'T2 Umpires Had Nothing to Report on Punished Players' - Majola

'T2 Umpires Had Nothing to Report on Punished Players' - Majola

'T2 Umpires Had Nothing to Report on Punished Players' - Majola

'T2 Umpires Had Nothing to Report on Punished Players' - Majola

'T2 Umpires Had Nothing to Report on Punished Players' - Majola

'T2 Umpires Had Nothing to Report on Punished Players' - Majola

'T2 Umpires Had Nothing to Report on Punished Players' - Majola

'T2 Umpires Had Nothing to Report on Punished Players' - Majola

'T2 Umpires Had Nothing to Report on Punished Players' - Majola

'T2 Umpires Had Nothing to Report on Punished Players' - Majola

'T2 Umpires Had Nothing to Report on Punished Players' - Majola

'T2 Umpires Had Nothing to Report on Punished Players' - Majola