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.