The Sydney test match between Australia and India is filling the front and back pages of newspapers across the world with allegations of racism, poor sportsmanship and underhanded tactics all served with a side helping of incompetent umpiring.

But the amount of spin that surrounded the game would make Shane Warne proud, and as a neutral observer, perhaps I can cut through it.

Two incidents on the first day reignited the debate over whether batsmen should walk, despite being given not out by the umpire. Both Ricky Ponting and Andrew Symonds remained at the crease after getting healthy edges early in their innings, and then going on to make big scores.
'When Michael Clarke remained at the crease after edging the ball to first slip, Australia lost any moral high ground it may have had'


Indian fans cried foul claiming it was against the spirit of the game, while Australian fans countered with the argument that the decisions should be left in the hands of the umpires. On the surface both of these appear to be reasonable premises, but when Michael Clarke remained at the crease after edging the ball to first slip, Australia lost any moral high ground they may have had.

Indian journalists pursued Ponting further over an appeal he made after taking a catch at silly point off MS Dhoni when replays showed the ball touched the ground. Ponting reacted angrily to the grilling: "There's no way I grounded that ball. If you're actually questioning my integrity in the game, then you shouldn't be standing there," he said, "What I did in the first innings, doesn't that explain the way I play the game?" (refering to an incident where Ponting informed umpires a catch did not carry, despite the appeals of his team-mates).

By questioning the journalists' right to be in the press conference, Ponting has committed an ad hominem fallacy by attacking the questioner and not the premise, although he did provide something resembling an answer. Unfortunately for Ponting, his behaviour while batting showed exactly how he plays the game, standing his ground when he was erroneously given not out, then staring in disbelief and muttering in disgust after he was wrongly given out. Being happy to accept an incorrect decision in your favour but not accepting one against you is not something usually associated with integrity.

When some of these issues were pointed out to Australian fans, they countered claiming India's slow over rate and, in their view, excessive appealing, also constituted poor sportsmanship. In formal logic, this form of argument is called a tu quoque fallacy, a form of ad hominem where accusations are met with counter-accusations which do nothing to invalidate the original accusations. In essence this is the "two wrongs do not make a right" argument that your mother told you about.

Finally, perhaps overshadowing all the other issues, is the incident between Symonds and Harbhajan Singh, in which Harbhajan allegedly directed a racial slur at Symonds. Harbhajan has since been found guilty of a breach of the ICC Code of Conduct and has been banned for three Test matches. 

Sledging, for better or worse, is part of the modern game but racism is completely unacceptable in any facet of modern society. What was actually said on the field may never be known, but debates over the word "monkey", the alleged slur, and whether it is racist serve little purpose, as in this context it clearly is. If Harbhajan said this, and all signs seem to indicate he did, then he deserves his ban, no matter how aggrieved his team might feel over the Australians' behaviour and the umpire's incompetence.

If there is one thing that even the most one-eyed fans of either side can agree on, it is that the umpiring was not up to standard. India have lodged an official complaint with the ICC, requesting Steve Bucknor be removed from the third Test in Perth, and rightly so. Fans can debate leg-before decisions endlessly, but there is no question that Bucknor got the Symonds caught-behind wrong, along with failing to refer a stumping to the third umpire when Symonds was clearly out.

Neither side comes out of this match smelling of roses. If sides wish to partake in this kind of bare-knuckle cricket, then say so, but attempting to vilify your opponent while claiming the moral high ground leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth. And it leaves fans talking about behaviour, traditions and sportsmanship rather than the fantastic Test match.