Procter off ICC Match-Referee panel?

[Richard]

The news that Michael Procter will join CSA as CoS sometime soon appears to suggest that his time as a Match-Referee has come to an end.

This is a very good thing indeed IMO as his Refereeing principles were extremely questionable (Australia, New Zealand and South Africa deserve more leeway than other countries where on-field "aggression" is under consideration???), and he handled both Ovalgate and SCGgate diabolically. No surprise that a legal counsel found his findings unsubstantiable in the latter, as it appears he simply took the word of one set of players over another for no particularly good reason.

You're far better-off picking players than handing down judgements on them Mike. Just hope for SA's sake you do that well.

 

[Precambrian]

The news that Michael Procter will join CSA as CoS sometime soon appears to suggest that his time as a Match-Referee has come to an end.

This is a very good thing indeed IMO as his Refereeing principles were extremely questionable (Australia, New Zealand and South Africa deserve more leeway than other countries where on-field "aggression" is under consideration???), and he handled both Ovalgate and SCGgate diabolically. No surprise that a legal counsel found his findings unsubstantiable in the latter, as it appears he simply took the word of one set of players over another for no particularly good reason.

You're far better-off picking players than handing down judgements on them Mike. Just hope for SA's sake you do that well.

Good riddance. One of the worst match referees.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Worst mismatch ever between playing and administrative capabilities. Good riddance.

 

[Faceless void]

Good riddance. One of the worst match referees.

THE WORST, not just one of the worst, IMO

 

[Lillian Thomson]

THE WORST, not just one of the worst, IMO

He slots in nicely between Chris Broad and Clive Lloyd.

 

[zaremba]

he handled both Ovalgate and SCGgate diabolically. No surprise that a legal counsel found his findings unsubstantiable in the latter, as it appears he simply took the word of one set of players over another for no particularly good reason.

I think that the incompetence of India's defence at the SCGgate hearing chaired by Procter had a lot to do with his findings. IIRC the team manager presented their case (Australia, by contrast, were legally represented) and by all accounts did a pathetically inept job: he didn't realise that he had to put questions to witnesses, and the defence they put forward was incoherent. In such circumstances it's not all that surprising if a weird decision was reached.

 

[silentstriker]

Everything is understandable, but it was ridiculous that he said Australia, South Africa and New Zealand deserve more leeway with onfield aggression.

 

[Precambrian]

Disagree.

1. Indian team, I think every team tours without a legal eagle, one simply does not anticipate such things, and the hearing was immediately after the match, which didnt give time to get things done.

2. In a hearing with match referree, there is no requirement for a legal representative. Words of the players are heard, and decisions taken on that regard. Here, Proctor simply refused to give any importance to what Tendulkar, possibly the prime witness, had to say, and took a decision that had absolutely no ground evidences except Symond's own words.

3.It is bull**** to accuse team manager of being "incompetent" to "draft" questions to be asked at a hearing. A team manager is there to take care of the team, and is not expected to be proficient in matters of law.

I think Proctor royally screwed up there, and given his antecedents, "Australians and Saffies are "natural" sledgers, so they deserve less punishment than others" tells how much of a pathetic character he was.

 

[silentstriker]

Didn't he also ban Latif for claiming a grounded catch but didn't do the same for anyone else?

 

[Precambrian]

Yes. Also the Sarwan - McGrath spat, Acrimonious decision not to charge anyone!!!

Despite this

 

[Richard]

Sarwan's comment was piss-poor there, but I'd be surprised if McGrath had never said anything along those lines either.

Yet another perfect demonstration of why saying stuff to opposition players is such a bad idea. If I was McGrath I'd imagine someone referring to your cancer-suffering wife would be far worse than anything else you could come-up with. I'm sure Sarwan was provoked, presumably pretty badly, but still, what he said plumbed the depths.

And you could sympathise with McGrath far more, as I say, had he been squaky-clean-ish.

 

[Precambrian]

Sarwan's comment was piss-poor there, but I'd be surprised if McGrath had never said anything along those lines either.

Yet another perfect demonstration of why saying stuff to opposition players is such a bad idea. If I was McGrath I'd imagine someone referring to your cancer-suffering wife would be far worse than anything else you could come-up with. I'm sure Sarwan was provoked, presumably pretty badly, but still, what he said plumbed the depths.

And you could sympathise with McGrath far more, as I say, had he been squaky-clean-ish.

1. McGrath was belted around by Sarwan for 21 runs. Being the benevolent creature he is, he came upto Sarwan and asked, "What does Lara's dick taste like"

2. Sarwan, who is not expected to know the background history of McGrath or his wife, replied, "Ask your wife"

3. McGrath loses temper, and rest is history.

I don't see why Sarwan's comments were piss poor. He gave as he took.

 

[Richard]

I imagine Sarwan was well aware that McGrath's wife had recently been suffering from cancer - it was pretty well-publicised. He had, after all, missed the previous 2 Tests for that very reason.

If he knew, it was a poor comment - as was McGrath's to initiate the exchange. Neither of them come out of the thing with any glory whatsoever.

As I said - stuff like that being traded on-field is just not on IMO, any more than it's on over anything which is not far, far more war-resembling than a game of cricket.

Another example is Matthew Hayden's "c'mon then you ****ing stupid ****, you really reckong you're ****ing good enough to beat us?" to Graeme Smith on Test debut. It's a game of cricket. FFS, why the hell is there any need to descend to those depths?

 

[Precambrian]

I imagine Sarwan was well aware that McGrath's wife had recently been suffering from cancer - it was pretty well-publicised. He had, after all, missed the previous 2 Tests for that very reason.

If he knew, it was a poor comment - as was McGrath's to initiate the exchange. Neither of them come out of the thing with any glory whatsoever.

As I said - stuff like that being traded on-field is just not on IMO, any more than it's on over anything which is not far, far more war-resembling than a game of cricket.

Another example is Matthew Hayden's "c'mon then you ****ing stupid ****, you really reckong you're ****ing good enough to beat us?" to Graeme Smith on Test debut. It's a game of cricket. FFS, why the hell is there any need to descend to those depths?

Just because it was publicised, doesnt mean that Sarwan should necessarily know it.

It was a shocker of a comment from McGrath, and deserved a shocker reply.

But more shocking was the decision of the match referee not to charge anyone. Procter just made a mockery of the laws and spirit of the game.

Otherwise I agree with you that this talking on field should be done away with.

 

[Richard]

I was emphasising that both Sarwan and McGrath should have been charged for the incident. It reflected very poorly on both of them, and poorly on Procter that he did not discipline them for it.

A one-off isolated incident like that won't weigh too heavily, but get a few of them, and whoopsie - before you know it, players think it's fine to start calling each-other monkeys and God-knows-what-else-besides on-field. Make an example, however - show that this sort of thing is not acceptable - and you've got a much better chance of the sort not recurring.

And BTW, I'm not suggesting talking on-field should be done away with completely. Just direct abuse.

And also, it'll take quite a bit to convince me that Sarwan didn't know about Jane McGrath's cancer. Like Harbhajan and Symonds with the monkey thingy, I think he simply picked something he knew would most hurt his tormentor (that's an exaggeration, but you get the point).

 

[Precambrian]

Yep and more fine to McGrath considering he was the one who incited it.

 

[Bracken]

And also, it'll take quite a bit to convince me that Sarwan didn't know about Jane McGrath's cancer. Like Harbhajan and Symonds with the monkey thingy, I think he simply picked something he knew would most hurt his tormentor (that's an exaggeration, but you get the point).

No way that Sarwan should have faced charges for that. And I can't imagine Sarwan consciously decided that he'd rip on McGrath's wife because she had a potentially fatal disease. The shock on Sarwan's face when McGrath reacted in the manner in which he did demonstrates that.

Questioning the promiscuity of one's wife (or mother, for that matter) is a standard, if uncreative, comeback in that sort of exchange. To assume any special malice is a little unfair.

 

[manali]

First Hair, now Proctor.Good to see ICC distancing themselves from incompetent guys.

 

[Precambrian]

I was emphasising that both Sarwan and McGrath should have been charged for the incident. It reflected very poorly on both of them, and poorly on Procter that he did not discipline them for it.

A one-off isolated incident like that won't weigh too heavily, but get a few of them, and whoopsie - before you know it, players think it's fine to start calling each-other monkeys and God-knows-what-else-besides on-field. Make an example, however - show that this sort of thing is not acceptable - and you've got a much better chance of the sort not recurring.

And BTW, I'm not suggesting talking on-field should be done away with completely. Just direct abuse.

And also, it'll take quite a bit to convince me that Sarwan didn't know about Jane McGrath's cancer. Like Harbhajan and Symonds with the monkey thingy, I think he simply picked something he knew would most hurt his tormentor (that's an exaggeration, but you get the point).

You mean Harbhajan called Symonds monkey?

I don't think Sarwan would have thought of the condition of McGrath's wife, it was a sort of (sub)standard reply to such an insulting remark.

 

[SJS]

When you call someone names, abuse them using foul language that you would never allow to be used at home by your children, you cant turn around and set standards for "how foul the response of the other party can or should be". It doesn't work like that. If you are going to say and do things to work up other people into a rage (or at least try to) you have to take the consequences even if you are stupid enough not to know that rage has no limits. People go mad, momentarily, in a rage. Dont expect them to remember the health card of your family members in that state.

I consider myself very conservative in matters of politeness but if I was driven to a state bordering on rage by someone bent on insulting me and he said something on the lines of what McGrath said to Sarwan, I wouldn't be surprised if I said something on the lines of what Sarwan said. I would have done it not because I was aware at that moment of his wife's condition but because I had reached a point where I was in no condition to consider all those things before I made my angry retort.

I can see why McGrath would be enraged by what Sarwan had said but I wouldn't ever think Sarwan said it BECAUSE he knew of his wife's condition. He said it because in that moment of madness he was in no position to recall it before framing what was an instant retort.

McGrath brought it upon himself. It sounds cruel but thats what it is.