Hall v. Harbhajan
May 1st 2008 09:19
No, I'm not suggesting a fight! I think that would only be fair if Harbhajan was allowed a suit of armour and a mace. What I'm suggesting is that there are some similarities between their recent misdemeanours. Obviously, a punch is very different to a slap, but I'm referring more to the circumstances in which they occurred.
Just after the Hall incident, I read a very interesting (though to my mind, misguided) article in The Age, in which the issue of pressing criminal charges against Hall was considered. The crux of the writer's argument was that since football is a very physical sport, players suspend their legal rights for the duration of the game. For example, if someone bumped or tackled you in the street, you would be well justified in contacting the local constabulary. However, within the confines of the game, these practices are perfectly acceptable.
As the more perspicacious among you may have already realised, there is a slight flaw in this logic. Quite simply, footballers do not volunteer to be punched in the head away from the play. It would be like trying to justify a boxer being pummelled with a chair when he returned to his corner, since he's already allowed himself to be punched. If you're outside the rules or away from the play, the voluntary suspension of legal rights no longer applies. And it is in this respect that the Harbhajan case is a similar one. The similarity is not that Sreesanth should have pressed charges, but that attacking your opposition when the game is 'off' shows a fundamental lack of respect. It is no longer a civilsed game, but has become a kind of warfare. Both Hall and Harbhajan crossed this line.
For this reason, I believe the IPL handled the case far better than the AFL. By suspending Harbhajan for the rest of the series (some 11 matches, or 13 including finals) as well as imposing a financial penalty, they sent a clear message that cricket will not tolerate such behaviour, whether they be in the heat of battle or not. In contrast, the AFL handed out a seven week suspension for what (in terms of physical danger) was a far more serious offence. Thus, Hall will be back playing well before the finals. This sends the message that these sorts of actions are, although serious, not entirely outside what is expected from professional footballers. It is as though we are to excuse thuggery to some extent just because it does not differ substantially from the conduct of the game (at least not as much as it differs from a completely non-contact sport like cricket).
Once you're off the field (or when the ball is nowhere in the vicinity) all games are non-contact (aside from a handshake, perhaps). Cricket has always been interested in promoting itself as a 'gentleman's game', but shouldn't all sports be conducted in a gentlemanly manner?
Just after the Hall incident, I read a very interesting (though to my mind, misguided) article in The Age, in which the issue of pressing criminal charges against Hall was considered. The crux of the writer's argument was that since football is a very physical sport, players suspend their legal rights for the duration of the game. For example, if someone bumped or tackled you in the street, you would be well justified in contacting the local constabulary. However, within the confines of the game, these practices are perfectly acceptable.
As the more perspicacious among you may have already realised, there is a slight flaw in this logic. Quite simply, footballers do not volunteer to be punched in the head away from the play. It would be like trying to justify a boxer being pummelled with a chair when he returned to his corner, since he's already allowed himself to be punched. If you're outside the rules or away from the play, the voluntary suspension of legal rights no longer applies. And it is in this respect that the Harbhajan case is a similar one. The similarity is not that Sreesanth should have pressed charges, but that attacking your opposition when the game is 'off' shows a fundamental lack of respect. It is no longer a civilsed game, but has become a kind of warfare. Both Hall and Harbhajan crossed this line.
For this reason, I believe the IPL handled the case far better than the AFL. By suspending Harbhajan for the rest of the series (some 11 matches, or 13 including finals) as well as imposing a financial penalty, they sent a clear message that cricket will not tolerate such behaviour, whether they be in the heat of battle or not. In contrast, the AFL handed out a seven week suspension for what (in terms of physical danger) was a far more serious offence. Thus, Hall will be back playing well before the finals. This sends the message that these sorts of actions are, although serious, not entirely outside what is expected from professional footballers. It is as though we are to excuse thuggery to some extent just because it does not differ substantially from the conduct of the game (at least not as much as it differs from a completely non-contact sport like cricket).
Once you're off the field (or when the ball is nowhere in the vicinity) all games are non-contact (aside from a handshake, perhaps). Cricket has always been interested in promoting itself as a 'gentleman's game', but shouldn't all sports be conducted in a gentlemanly manner?
| 47 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
