Indians Sided by Oz in front of Siders? (Read Sydney Siders) ....To be Continued

Though I am as much a cricket lover as an average Indian is, I must say & confess that I am not an expert in understanding Cricket Nuances at its core level.But that would not stop me to write something about the Cricket episode "Sydney" as I would like to Call it that has occupied our minds perhaps of late.

I understand everyone of us have lots of questions and some (may be all) of us are infuriated about the Sydney. Unsurprisingly the media has come up with master analysis on its own rational/irrational interpretations. Some of them do give the technical explanations on whys of the events that happened. Some justify the events using their interpretive Logic. Some reflect the sentiments that we hold so close to our heart. Some do all these things at an appropriate mix. It makes a good read overall.
1)But sometimes I get the feeling that Do we also look at the issues from gray perspective. Should We look at it that way, just like tautological analogy.

2)The next moment I feel that there is nothing called as gray and everything is either correct or incorrect but not both. Everything when drilled down to its premises would yield its true color. It would answer in Yes or No.

Some of us hold the view 1 & the other hold the View2. Let me tell you it is a tough call between 1 & 2. I would stick with 2 because i share that value

Let me now list a gist of questions that I would like to share my thoughts on

1) Should Harbhajan be banned for x matches?
2) Should Ponting be sacked?
3) Should BCCI have recalled India?
4) Should Bucknor be asked to go by Speed?

If what has happened to these things is one thing, what should have happened is another. I am interested in the latter.

**
Let me quote the absolute as it exists today. There was no technical evidence to prove that Harbhajan hurled racial abuse to Symonds. I do not even confess that if Harbhajan did say that or not. Both parties disagree with each other which means one was speaking the truth.If Harbhajan did not cross the line then it would be gross injustice to punish him. Such events would destroy the spirit of the game.
If he did then we have a wide open debate. Let's assume he said it. When we do that we must also remember the facts that started it. I would like to call it a fact because both parties agreed that 'Symonds' proved 'Harbhajan' . So irrespective of the gravity of the situation the fact remains that it was a reactive response. Should reactive response get some allowances It depends? I don't think so. Since Symonds was the initiator of nasty hoopla, ironically i feel that , that needs to be investigated first and addressed appropriately.

Assuming Harbhajan did say what he should not, should he be punished. Yes if assumption is correct. I would say this even though this is a bias. Since we know the naked fact that some teams (no name calling please ) get special allowances when they have crossed lines (Read racial abuses) as many times as their instincts wanted to. So the fact of the matter is the system itself is biased and relies on selective judgment. I would also regret my view point that Harbhajan be punished if assumption is true. But remember that I am still using the word assumption and we should not get conclusions based on assumptions, but only on knowledge and rationality.

So let's give the benefit of the doubt and let's strive to put a more advance technical detection systems that can validate the claims and counterclaims. That the system is defective, Biased is out of context here. :( . I am sad that I cannot involve it as a parameter to involve that into discussion, I am bound by truth, I am bound by soundness of judgement, I am tied by rational mind though my heart says Bhajji is non faulty in either case.