Adjective watch: “Recalcitrant Gambhir”

This is not a joke!

Now, Gautam Gambhir has the honour of being termed “recalcitrant” by Chloe Saltau from the The Age!

The use of an offensive adjective like this would have been totally expected from the pen of Malcolm Conn (‘The Australian’). Indeed, I would have been surprised had Conn resorted to anything less abhorrent or ghastly. However, the use of “recalcitrant” a harsh, punitive and callous invective to describe Gautam Gambhir by Chloe Saltau is, I must say, most depressing! Moreover, I thought “recalcitrant” is an adjective that is totally reserved for describing a former Malaysian Prime Minister by Australians in high office!

Regular visitors to i3j3Cricket may know that we commenced i3j3’s “Adjective Watch” Department. This was our own response to the Australian Labour Government’s Fuel Watch, Carbon Watch, Government Watch, Price-Fixing Watch and other random “Watch” strategies!

Anyway, “Adjective Watch” confirms that in recent days one did read Chloe Saltau’s clarion calls for stiffer penalties to be imposed on Gautam Gambhir. We can confirm that ‘The Age’ and ‘The Australian’ are available online in Indian Hotels. Chris Broad probably delayed his judgment on Gambhir so that he could digest the Salt(au) and be Conned!

“Adjective Watch” also confirmed that Saltau yelped in what could be best described as “expressing extreme mortification” that Saint Watson was fined 10% of his match fee for what was a polite enquiry from a thorough gentleman of this world! Saltau said, “Watson appeared to do nothing more than express his displeasure to Gambhir and implore the umpire to look at a replay, but was charged with breaching the same clause as the Indian, albeit for a lower offence carrying only a fine.”

We at “Adjective Watch” can only sigh and conclude that the heat and dust of India does funny things to rational thinking to those people that are not used to it, especially when their beloved team is not doing that well! If these guys lived in India for longer, they would get used to both — the heat/dust as well as regular losses — and get on with life with a karma-tic shrug, rather than resorting for the need to yearn for blood.


If Gambhir’s appeal, made by the BCCI, is accepted by the ICC, it will take at least 2 days for the ICC to appoint an appeals judge. An appeal is a right for anyone charged with a Level-2 offense. It could then take anything up to 4-7 days for the appeal to be heard. By then the 4th Test between Australia and India will have commenced. So Gambhir can play that Test match (remember that Harbhajan Singh could have played at Perth if the Indians wanted him to play). In that case, Gambhir, if found guilty in the appeals hearing could miss either 1 Test or 2 ODIs. In all likelihood, Gambhir could miss the 1st ODI against England on Nov 14 (Rajkot) and the 2nd ODI against England on Nov 17 (at Indore). If the appeal is unsuccessful, Gambhir will have to bear the cost of the appeal — loose change, I’d have thought!

— Mohan

26 responses to “Adjective watch: “Recalcitrant Gambhir”

  1. hope the Indian Media learns from theiR Oz counterparts.

    very soon we can see, articles with adjectives like “unscrupulous” Gilly. “mudslinging” Watson, “roguish” Ponting and so on..

    Cmon guyz

  2. I really cant see the problem. Watson only engaged in a verbal. Gambhir took it physical. We should accept that and infact as an indian i think he deserves to be banned. He must learn his lessons. Let the aussies do whatever they want. As indians we should set a standard of the manner in which we play our cricket and follow through with it regardless of the oponent. Tendulkar is a great example.

    Why are you attacking the australian cricket team so much ? Is that the purpose of what you write? Ok…we r playing good cricket but bear in mind its only been one game. Australia played better than us in the 1st test and this test is likely to be a draw.

    Another thing id like to point out is this is as weak as an australian side will ever get due to injuries (bracken) and suspensions (symonds) and the strongest indian cricket team we will ever have for a long time and we are still not dominationg by any means. I know the margin of victory looks huge in the 1st test but i believe that is largely due to the fact that we won the toss. Lets get a hold of ourselves.

  3. Another case of BCCI justice. Must be proud.

  4. @JB

    What’s your problem? Don’t you like working within codified laws? Or is your problem that you’d like the law to only apply to the developed world? I’ll have you know that there are colours in the RBG colour scale other than 255:255:255 (ffffff, if you prefer Hex).

  5. Srinivas,

    Why do you assume my problem has something to do with colour?

    I am just sick and tired of these sort of things happening. What are the grounds for the appeal? What was wrong with this process? What is wrong with the umpires opinion this time?

    Jeepers. It is very frustrating.


  6. @JB

    So you think our courts and even the AFL Tribunal should also do away with an Appeals system then?

  7. The AFL tribunal requires new evidence for an appeal. Comfortable with that.

  8. Gambhir is a coward.
    The only safe place he could elbow a big man like Watson is in front of 20,000 one eyed Indian cricket fans in New Delhi.
    Try it in the MCG carpark after the match next time you tour and see how it goes.
    Despicable little man.

  9. Watson’s a big bloke and thus I am quite sure he could bash Gautam up (unless of course, Gautam is a super kung-fu dude). It’s all about big and small, might and meek, physically.

    I wonder who actually is big and who small? The big man who gets a light tap with the elbow on his chest and runs to the umpire imploring them to view it on replay, or the small man that elbowed the big man in the heat of the moment, despite the MCG carpark looming at a later date?

  10. Oh and by the way, by the same reasoning as Mac above, Michael Clarke is also a coward. He tackled stocky Tendulkar in Australia in front of 20,000 one-eyed Aussie fans as opposed to the Wankhede stadium carpark.

    Despicable little man Clarke.

    Tendulkar is a little shorter but stockier than Clarke, so he would get his physical come uppance from him, I am sure. But pehaps, Tendulkar wouldn’t take much notice of the slight and carry on, as he did in the game.

    Great game this…stadium carpark boxing!

  11. stadium carpark boxing?
    Now that’s something I’d pay to watch….or what about Captain Fantastic Tendulkar’s Super Hearing Show?…where you guess what’s being said from 30 metres away and then lock it in.
    Yeah..I’d like to see that too.

  12. Something tells me you’d back Goliath over David in the carpark boxing. Heroic that.

  13. @JB
    Crap. Get your facts right. In a court of law, anything can be appealed even without the presence of new evidence. You can appeal the judgment as well as the sentence.

    You silly silly man. You silly silly man.

  14. Srinivas,

    My comment relates specifically to the AFL tribunal. My fact is correct.


  15. @JB

    Without wanting to buy too much into your argument with Srinivas, I have to say that you are wrong. Check your facts.

    You thundered, “The AFL tribunal requires new evidence for an appeal. Comfortable with that.”


    From the AFL Website:

    A player can appeal on the following points:
    • Error in law.
    • That the decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it.
    • Classification of offence manifestly excessive.
    • Sanction imposed manifestly excessive.

    There is no talk here of new evidence either being either necessary or important.

    All of the above could apply in the Gautam Gambhir case.

    If you are frustrated, I could suggest a cold-shower, but for heavens’ sake, if you can’t get your facts right, do not argue unless you have a compelling need to prove to this forum that you are a bit dim.

    — Mohan

  16. Mohan,

    I refer you to;

    Appeals – New Evidence
    Appeals are available in relation to an error of law, a grossly unreasonable decision, manifestly excessive classification or manifestly excessive sanction. The Appeal Rule 24 however provides that an appellant can seek leave of the Appeal Board to produce fresh evidence provided the appellant can convince the Appeal Board that the evidence sought to be produced could not by reasonable diligence, have been obtained prior to the conclusion of the Tribunal hearing and where that evidence is of sufficient value that had it been presented before the Tribunal, the Tribunal would have reached a different decision [see Rule 24.21(b)].”

    I love the fact that you revert to insults. You have refered to me as insane, a bigot and now dim in various posts.

    Simple one for you mate, “dick-head”.


  17. @JB

    Your reproduction above and my post immediately prior are totally consistent.

    The AFL Appeals process does not “require” new evidence.

    In other words, Appeal Rule 24 suggests, in fact, that any new evidence that is presented to the Appeals board has to pass a stiff test before it is admitted. New evidence has to pass the rigorous test that would stand to convince the Board that this new evidence could not have been obtained prior to the conclusion of the Tribunal hearing. In other words, only after this test has been passed will new evidence be admissible. Further, such new evidence will only be admissible if the appellant is able to prove that such new evidence is of “sufficient value that had it been presented before the Tribunal, the Tribunal would have reached a different decision”.

    In other words, the Appeals Tribunal in fact makes it extremely hard for new evidence to be presented!

    The most important rules are 13.1.11, 13.1.12 and 13.1.13

    Here they are below. The important bits are in bold to make it easier for you:

    11. The Appeal Board shall hear and determine an appeal against findings made by the Tribunal by re-hearing the matter and forming its own view of the evidence presented before the Tribunal.
    12. Neither the appellant nor AFLQ may produce fresh evidence at the hearing of
    the appeal
    without the permission of the Chairperson. The Chairperson must
    not give permission to produce fresh evidence unless:
    (a) the evidence could not by reasonable diligence have been obtained by the appellant prior to the conclusion of the hearing before the Tribunal; and
    (b) the evidence is of sufficient probative value that, considered with other evidence which was before the Tribunal, the Tribunal may have
    reached a different decision.
    13. The Appeal Board may have regard to the record of the proceeding before the Tribunal as previously constituted, including a record of any evidence taken in the Tribunal Hearing.

    And finally…

    JB, I do not need to resort to insults to put you down mate. You are doing a terrific job of it al on your own!

    — Mohan

  18. Maybe I am, in which case, I am enjoying wasting so much of your time.

    Takes two to tango. You have made it clear how little you think of me. The irony of course is that you are no better.

    Enjoy your hate filled, racially driven, hypocritical life.

  19. Mate JB.

    You are a joke! Here we have Mohan patiently giving you time of day and proving beyond reasonable doubt that you are a dill. A good response to Mohan would have been “Thank you for the patient education. I did not know. Now I do.”

    Instead, you continued your ego-trip! Your words are here for all of us to read. And from it, it is obvious to me that you are a loser, mate!

  20. I’m not engaging in any of the nastiness above, though my opinion may not be palatable to all.

    I would say that it is not Gambhir that is being recalcitrant, but it is certainly an apt descriptor for the BCCI. They consistently undermine the authority of the ICC*, in a way that may further their short term, nationalistic goals (eg. getting rid of Steve Bucknor, threatening to go home from Australia, refusing to accept an ICC judgement), but can only damage the game in the longer term.

    I am not saying that the ICC is a faultless organisation, by any stretch of the imagination, but, in order to have effective governance arrangements, it is important to have an authority that is respected.

  21. @jose

    So you do not accept that the American War of Independence / American Revolution, say (could be seen as an act that “undermined authority”) was necessary or important? What if the ICC were a organisationally shallow of morally corrupt organisation? I am not saying it is… totally, but thee are elements of that. In my view, its governance needs a complete and total overhaul — another topic another day.

  22. I am not sure that you pose a valid comparison. The BCCI is a major player within the ICC, and could change it for the better.

    You say ‘what if the ICC were a organisationally shallow of morally corrupt organisation?’ I would say that you’re probably right on that matter, but the BCCI constantly throwing its weight around outside the established processes for governing the world of cricket, and I think it makes things definitely worse.

    If all countries were able to and did behave like the BCCI there would be no international cricket, as everyone would have taken their bat and ball and gone home.

  23. The comparison is valid. You try and change the system from within. When the system is so intensely corrupt — along some or all dimensions — sometimes, a revolution is required.

    I agree that the BCCI ought not to throw its weight around just because it supplies world cricket with 80% of its funds. However, where there is nonsense involved — and clearly the Harbhajan Singh case and the Gautam Gambhir appeal are examples — it must protest in any/every way it can.

    I agree that taking the bat and ball and going home is not the solution. However, what we are talking about is not the hiring of charter planes but natural justice to be served.

    Happy to discuss/debate with anyone/anytime on this.

  24. Maybe a revolution is required, but if it is led by an organisation that behaves unilaterally with such little respect for process and transparency, then it doesn’t inspire much hope that a better system will transpire afterwards does it?

    Remember that Robert Mugabe was a freedom fighter in Rhodesia — power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That’s why we have checks and balances, rights of appeal etc.

    The BCCI is entirely recalcitrant when it exercises a right of appeal and then refuses to accept the decision.

  25. @jose

    I don’t agree with the appeals process. And if I were running the BCCI, I won’t either. See my other article and we can continue the argument there.

  26. Pingback: “Adjective Watch”: Alive and Kicking! « i3j3Cricket :: A blog for fans of Indian cricket…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s