Bhajji banned, I say call off the series - Page 74

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

For your query about if harbhajan intended to be offensive...... check this part of the decision by judge.....

[55] I have set out above the agreed statement of facts. There it was accepted by Mr Singh that he intended to be offensive towards Mr Symonds and Messrs Symonds, Hayden and Clarke were of the view that in the circumstances that language was offensive.

Before telling me to read all the judgement, it would be nice if the same people can know the facts

Originally posted by: kabhi_21

For your query about if harbhajan intended to be offensive...... check this part of the decision by judge.....

[55] I have set out above the agreed statement of facts. There it was accepted by Mr Singh that he intended to be offensive towards Mr Symonds and Messrs Symonds, Hayden and Clarke were of the view that in the circumstances that language was offensive.

Before telling me to read all the judgement, it would be nice if the same people can know the facts

😆 again, the point here is WHY he "intended to be abusive". can't keep on missing that "WHY" now as it is mighty important in this whole issue😛😉 we know the facts of how and why this incident happened. looks like someone else keeps missing the main point over and over and over and pjir ek baar over again😉😆

btw, i wonder at times, does it even bother u even for a second how symonds started and fashioned this whole ordeal and still goes scott-free and that too with a cry baby face of a victim here??? I do not hear u asking what was done to address that symonds' held responsible for initiating this whole scenario in the first placel!!!

Chill yaar. no need to get all het up. ab naheen samajh aa raha toh kya ker saktey ho...hai na😛. chalo, chhodo yeh sara maslaa. baat khatm karo yaheen😊

peace - gauri😃

waisey hamey achha dhoya aussies ney kal raat 😆 this morning when i logged in to IF, I was wondering how come there's no running commentary. so, checked the TOI and came to know 😆 ....ouch 😆

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

😆 again, the point here is WHY he "intended to be abusive". can't keep on missing that "WHY" now as it is mighty important in this whole issue😛😉 we know the facts of how and why this incident happened. looks like someone else keeps missing the main point over and over and over and pjir ek baar over again😉😆

btw, i wonder at times, does it even bother u even for a second how symonds started and fashioned this whole ordeal and still goes scott-free and that too with a cry baby face of a victim here??? I do not hear u asking what was done to address that symonds' held responsible for initiating this whole scenario in the first placel!!!

Chill yaar. no need to get all het up. ab naheen samajh aa raha toh kya ker saktey ho...hai na😛. chalo, chhodo yeh sara maslaa. baat khatm karo yaheen😊

peace - gauri😃

I know that symonds got scot free.... but here again the mistake was of anil kumble or sachin..... because to charge him, they had to write a complaint of him being abusive.....

even symonds agreed to have been abusive and that he intended to be abusive...... and he would have been charged for match fee or ban..... but unfortunately there was no complaint.....