Ok so here is an exercise in sheer self indulgence. I have copied this pice of tag from a friend's blog (note the word...copied) and filled my anwers in (to whom...i dunno); though i think the next time around, i wud first see the length of the tag before copying. All answers are mine btw...nakal main akal, anyone?



( ) smoked a cigarette (Never have, never will)
( ) crashed a friend's car (Nah, I am quite careful with other people’s belongings)
( ) stolen a car (Jeez…why?!)
( ) been in love (Maybe….maybe not)
( ) been dumped (u need to have relationship for that too happen)
( ) shoplifted (Nopes)
( ) been fired (came quite close though)
(X) been in a fist fight (yup..in school, when I was 6)
( ) snuck out of your parent's house (Nopes)
(X) had feelings for someone who didn't have them back (Over and Over again)
( ) gone on a blind date (Once)
( ) lied to a friend (I try not to)
( ) skipped school (Never)
(X) seen someone die (Cremated some...if that qualifies )
( ) had a crush on one of your Internet friends (Nah…didn’t find one worth enuf)
( ) been to Canada (Agreed I am a half sardar, but no)
( ) been to Mexico (What for?)
(X) been on a plane (Yes!!)
(X) eaten sushi (Yes…didn’t like it too much though)
( ) been skiing-snow or water (Sadly no )
( ) met someone from the Internet (Nopes)
( ) been at a concert (No)
(X) taken painkillers (Loadsa time)
( ) love someone or miss someone right now (Hmm…No)
(X) laid on your back and watched cloud shapes go by (Quite often….believe me its enchanting)( ) made a snow angel (In Delhi?! Mate u need to look at the weather pages)
( ) had a tea party (Aunties do such things mate)
(X) flown a kite (Once...with dad, never really took to it though)
( ) built a sand castle (No :( though I v been to beaches galore)
(X) gone puddle jumping (yeah…another one of those simple pleasures of life)
( ) played dress up (No…my memory cant recall a thing like that)
(X) jumped into a pile of leaves (Yes, once at the Lodhi Gardens)
( ) gone sledding (Weather mate!!)
(X) cheated while playing a game (Ludo, trump cards, silent handballs in football, not walking when out in cricket…)
(X) been lonely (Felt lonely at times)
(X) fallen asleep at work/school (Amazingly only at work!)
( ) used a fake ID (Never needed to)
(X) watched the sun set (many times over….beautiful)
(X) felt an earthquake (Yes….the one that rocked Gujarat in 2001 )
( ) slept beneath the stars (Yes…summer nights during childhood in Chandigarh)
(X) been tickled (Infinite times…I am quite ticklish)
( ) been robbed (The Lord have mercy, No)
(X) been misunderstood (Over and over again; don’t misunderstand me, but it wasn’t my fault)( ) pet a reindeer/goat/kangaroo (wud love to pet a dog)
(X) won a contest (quite a few if debates and quizzes count)
(X) run a red light/stop sign (Sometimes…)
( ) been suspended from school (Mate accept it...i was a good kid)
( ) been in a car crash (Thankfully no)
( ) had braces (Again, thankfully no)
(X) felt like an outcast/third person (Felt an outsider on some occasions )
(X ) eaten a whole pint of ice cream in one night (Yes Yes!!)(X) had déjà vu (Seems to happen too often for my comfort :( )
( ) danced in the moonlight (Haven’t found anyone to dance with)
(X) liked the way you looked (At times yes…at times no)
( ) witnessed a crime (Not really)
(X) questioned your heart (Do that every day)
( ) been obsessed with post-it notes (No, somehow I have got in the habit of using them)
( ) squished mud through your bare feet (Squished sand…not mud)
( ) been lost (Once in the trade fair when I was 9)
(X) been on the opposite side of the country (Kanyakumari, Nagaland, Gujarat, J&K…been to all corners)
( ) swam in the ocean (Cant swim for nuts)
( ) felt like dying (Hmm…have had depressing moments, but nothing quite so)
( ) cried yourself to sleep (Nopes)
(X) played cops and robbers (Ya…had four cousin brothers when I was growing up )
( ) recently colored with crayons (Shit I am so old!!)
(X) Sang karaoke (Yes, even with my miserable voice)
(X) paid for a meal with only coins (In school yes)
(X) done something you told yourself you wouldn't (Hmm… Yup, a few things)
(X) made prank phone calls (Only when I was 12)
(X ) laughed until some kind of beverage came out of your nose (Not nose, but out of the mouth like a fountain)
( ) caught a snowflake on your tongue (Sigh….)
( ) danced in the rain (Love getting wet in the rain…dance, no one was there to accompany)
( ) a letter to Santa Claus (Surprisingly, never)
( ) been kissed under the mistletoe (Gee…what a heartburn that question causes)
( ) watched the sun rise with someone you care about (I am a late and a lazy riser)
(X) blown bubbles (Rarely I guess, as a kid)
( ) made a bonfire on the beach (Nopes L)
( ) crashed a party (Na)
(X) gone roller skating (Did a bit as a kid)
(X) had a wish come true (Yes…a few times...the critical ones!!)
( ) jumped off a bridge (Would want to…bunjee jump only please)
( ) ate dog/cat food (why would I do that?? My mother feeds me, thank you very much)
( ) told a complete stranger you loved them (Told one I liked her…but she was a stranger only in half sense of that word)
(X) kissed a mirror (lets not get too much into it)
(X) sang in the shower (Yup…some people have a talent only for bathroom singing)
( ) had a dream that you married someone (nah)
( ) glued your hand to something (I am quite neat with all those things actually)
( ) kissed a fish (I only eat them…that too as pakodas)
( ) climbed a water tower (Im no tarzan… incarnated or otherwise.)
(X) screamed at the top of your lungs (Once when we were playing a group game…had a sore throat for the next few hours)
( X) done a one-handed cartwheel (tried, but stumbled)
( ) talked on the phone for more than 5 hours (2 at max)
(X) stayed up all night (Try studying for CA :))
( ) picked and ate an apple right off the tree (Nopes)
(X) climbed a tree (Ya I guess…when I was between the age of 10-12)
( ) had a tree house (Didn’t go that far)
( ) been too scared to watch a scary movie alone (Nopes…face it head on!)
(X) believe in ghosts (Too rational for that)
( ) have more than 30 pairs of shoes (Only 5)
( ) worn a really ugly outfit to school (They only allowed uniforms :( )
( ) gone streaking (Too shy for that)
(X) gone doorbell ditching (U mean ringing bells and running away…did it once on a hot summer afternoon, got the scolding of my life from my mother)
( ) been pushed into a pool/hot tub with all your clothes on (No one tried)
(X) told you're hot by a complete stranger (Yes but subtly)
( ) broken a bone (Once, the shoulder joint when I was 6)
(X) been easily amused (Ya…I have an easy SOH)
( ) caught a fish then ate it (Kabhi nahin)
( ) caught a butterfly (they are too beautiful to be caught)
( ) laughed so hard you cried (no…what a contradiction that would be)
( ) cried so hard you laughed (No…when I cry I only cry)
(X) cheated on a test (Just once…to no avial… It was the only test I ever flunked)
(X) forgotten someone's name (Many times over…you know they have a name for such a person….Oofle)
( ) French braided someone's hair (What’s that?)
( ) been threatened to be kicked out of your house or been kicked out of your house (Told ya mate, I was a good kid)
(X) loved someone so much you would gladly die for THEM (If you count mom, yes)
( ) cheated on someone (Don’t like the idea)
(X) talk to yourself when no-ones around (Yes…only when I was studyin)
( ) hate someone you once loved (Hate is too strong and dangerous an emotion to harbour )
( ) love someone you once hated (If I dislike someone, it tends to stay)

|

When the dust finally settles and a scorching Aussie summer (both literally and metaphorically) ends, the test match in Sydney might be remembered along with the acrimony it generated, also for the push it provided towards cricketing reform. For far too long, the administrators of this game have been spending their energies on matters that lie on the periphery of the cricket field. The BCCI might well have woken up to the ‘Bucknor Disaster in the making’ had they read through the list of umpires for the current series rather than spending all their energies in trying to sell the Indian Premier League. The ICC, of course, has now made a habit of waking up out of its rip van winklesque sleep only when the fire alarms start ringing in the kitchen. The elite panel is over-aged, over worked and in instances like Bucknor, clearly incompetent. But you wonder whether the ICC would much rather spend time debating the value of the media rights and the sponsorships clauses in the player’s contracts rather than concern themselves with the small matter of umpiring?

Perhaps then, the Sydney test will end up doing us all a big favor and remind the mandarins who run this game that ultimately cricket is played on a green oval ground with a twenty yard pitch in the centre and two competing teams of eleven each with two men in white shirts presiding over the proceedings. At the end of the day the only thing driving the billions of dollars of television revenues and media rights is what goes on there in the field between the two sides actually playing the game. And as long as matters that contribute more to the financial health of the balance sheets of the respective boards continue to enjoy more relevance than those related to the quality of game in the middle, fiascos such as Sydney and The Oval shall continue to occur.

As I write this, already the raging fire is sought to be controlled. The ICC, clearly wary after the Darrel Hair episode, where it stepped in too late and only compounded the mess, has shown a degree of flexibility which is refreshing. The standard typical response of ‘We do not interfere with who umpires whom’ has been replaced within a day (more so after a display of intent by the BCCI) with the removal of Steve Bucknor and the granting of permission for Harbhajan Singh to be picked till the time his appeal is disposed.

More importantly, the entire fiasco at the SCG has raised three important issues each of which now deserves a serious discussion in cricketing forums. The first is quite obvious – What can be done to improve the standard of umpiring and to what extent are we willing to go with the use of technology? The second is the issue of racism. Who judges what is racist or not and how do match referees sitting in the air conditioned comforts of the pavilions pronounce judgments on such problems. And the third being the matter of the spirit in which the game is now being played and whether players on the field can any longer trust each other?

So let’s address them one by one. The umpiring issue is perhaps the one that requires immediate redressal and also perhaps the one that will seriously test the flexibility and imagination of the cricket administrators. Can test matches between nine playing nations requiring round the year supervision be looked after by an elite panel of nine to eleven men? More so, when they often have to fly across continents, stand in varying conditions throughout the five days and face continuous scrutiny from television cameras? A few relevant suggestions have been floating around, the first of course being to expand the elite panel itself so that more rotation of duties takes place and umpires are not overworked. Another suggestion worth exploring was the one offered by Ian Chappell. As Chappell says, the concept of neutrality of the umpire is now an obsolete one, more so in the age of television where your biases can be cruelly exposed leading to Bucknor and Hair like consequences. So if neutrality is no longer the driving force behind umpire selections, then surely nothing should stop a good umpire from standing in a home test. A case in point is Simon Taufel of Australia, widely regarded as the best on the elite panel now. If Taufel is indeed the best (and I am sure no Indian player would have doubts as to his neutrality) and if he can umpire in one day internationals in Australia then why not in test games? Shouldn’t the best umpire on the elite panel be standing in the most high profile series of the year? The advantage of doing away with a redundant neutrality would be two fold – one, it will ensure merit remains the only criteria for appointment irrespective of nationality and secondly because it will allow an umpire to spend more time in his home country with his family, more umpires at the first class game may get encouraged to attempt to graduate to the tougher elite panel.

How far can technology be used is perhaps the most contentious point of all. Some advocate a radical usage, while some (like Ian Chappell again) prefer not to use any technology which is not a hundred percent foolproof and which also requires human intervention. The counter argument of course is that the umpires on the field are also not foolproof, and if they can be allowed their share of the errors then so should be technology. But in a game that thrives so much on the vagaries of skills, conditions and state of the playing surface, mechanizing the decision making in cricket completely would rob it of some of its charm and unpredictability. A three fold approach in contrast may be a more reasonable alternative. First, cricket administrators need to agree on what technological tools to use and which ones not. Something like a hot spot, which the broadcasters claim is cent per cent scientific and can be referred for leg befores and snicks must be used. Secondly, since television only caters to the viewing public and the newer tools are developed to enhance viewing experience rather than ease umpire decision making, it is imperative for the ICC to sit with the major broadcasters and consider what specific technological tools they need and how things like Hawkeye and the Snicko can be made more reliable for further use in umpiring space. The broadcaster by themselves have no incentive for such a move since they are not answerable for the verdict that hawkeye shows, but the ICC does have an reason simply because the umpire ruling the batsman out would have some questions to answer if the hawkeye goes against him. And finally, it would not be a bad idea to introduce tennis like appeals for questioning decisions that a team might feel are incorrect. Three decisions per innings (besides those that will anyway to go the third umpire) might be a way to start. The questions to be addressed then would be who decides to make an appeal (the batsman in the middle or the captain sitting in the dressing room?) and can a decision made by a third umpire (ala the Symonds stumping not given at the SCG) also be contested and if so, then who would adjudicate the same?

I wonder if people would have contrary views on racism. No matter how much sociologists here may dub us Indians as color conscious hypocrites, almost every cricket fan would agree that any racial abuse irrespective of the nationality and the tone of the skin of the abuser needs to be strongly punished. Cricket fields should not become like American streets of 1960s with words like ‘nigger’, ‘black’ and ‘bastards’ flying around. But the problem in the current case is perhaps, not the intent of the match referee to punish racism but the manner of doing so. And the sense of hurt in the Indian camp has been compounded by a feeling of having been cheated of a series saving draw by the connivance of incompetent umpiring and dishonest appealing by the opposition. In the absence of circumstantial evidence, the words of one side have been taken against those of another. Whether something was actually said or not (and both the Aussies and the Indians are certainly capable of losing it in the heat of the moment), there is nothing to corroborate it. It’s a verdict that I suspect will have quite a bit of difficulty standing up in a court of law.

Another consequence of the final day’s play at Sydney would surely be the burying of the idea of trusting a fielder’s word for a contentious catch. Australia are not the first team to display selective honesty and I would perhaps go to the extent of stating that very often in case of diving catch the player may not actually realize that he has rubbed the ball against the floor in the process of balancing himself . But then that is precisely what umpires are out there on the field for. If a batsman stands (and he has every right to), then the decision must be made by the men in the middle or the one sitting in front of the television. Selective honesty, as displayed by Michael Clarke, will ruin the credibility of the players. Equally unacceptable is the logic offered by Ricky Ponting, that with the bat in his hand he is entitled to stand his ground even if the nick goes to third slip but while fielding his word must me taken as final. It is a thought that the ‘straight and honest as a coal miner’ Australian captain might find difficult to accept but in the competitive sphere of international cricket perhaps honesty has taken a backseat and adjudication should solely be left to the umpires and not to the players.

So did the Aussies behave badly and does Ponting, as Peter Roebuck wrote, deserve to be sacked for leading a bunch of wild dogs? Roebuck might have been a bit harsh but I wonder whether any Australian team in the future or any cricket watcher for that matter can call the Indians as an excessive appealing side. The last test was so much about going after that record that the Aussies went for everything. One admires competitive cricket and perhaps one secretly also desires the Indian team to be as feisty and no holds barred as there opponents. But somewhere Ponting has lost that grace that Steve Waugh built around his team. Waugh made Australia, from a good side that he inherited from Mark Taylor, into a champion side that seemed unbeatable. And no one grudged him his success; his side played tough but never was called a bunch of wild dogs. In the worst player behavior episode of his captaincy (Mcgrath abusing Ramnaresh Sarwan in the West Indies), Waugh did not shy away from criticizing his team mate. In his autobiography he called Mcgrath’s behavior as a case of ‘brain burst’. Ponting might have the support of his team but he would do well to analyze why most cricket writers and the fans in the public are not with him on this one. I guess it is partly because the Aussie fans are not used to seeing their team run to the match referee every time something is said to them and partly because the repeated coverage of the dubious catches claimed. Perhaps, there is a cost that the Aussie cricket public does not want its team to pay for victory. And in this case it seems the cost is honor – of a team, of a captain and above all of a game.

|