February 01, 2008	Friday	Muharram 22, 1429

MELBOURNE, Jan 31: Australian captain Ricky Ponting leapt to the defence of Andrew Symonds here on Thursday after the appeals commissioner was critical of the Australian all-rounder in the Harbhajan Singh appeal hearing.

Harbhajan, the Indian off-spinner, was originally suspended by match referee Mike Procter for allegedly calling Symonds a ‘big monkey’ during the contentious second Test in Sydney.

But the suspension was overturned on appeal on Tuesday, with Justice John Hansen finding there was not enough evidence to prove Harbhajan had made the comment.

In his finding, Hansen said the whole scenario reflected poorly on cricket and was extremely critical of the behaviour of Symonds, who he said unnecessarily instigated the verbal exchange with the Indian spinner.

However, Ponting said he would not accept criticism of Symonds.

“Any sort of character assassination on Andrew Symonds would be completely unfair,” Ponting said.

“He’s someone who doesn’t want this stuff happening, it’s the second time with what he had to go through in India as well. It’s the second time he’s been through this sort of stuff and the last thing in the world he wants.

“What I do know is he’s a terrific and honest bloke and he’s a great team-mate of mine, so I’ll stick up for him at any opportunity.”

Meanwhile, Cricket Australia (CA) Chief Executive James Sutherland also backed Symonds, saying he had been unfairly tarnished.

“Andrew Symonds is a brilliant cricketer, he’s a tough, uncompromising cricketer in terms of the way he plays the game,” Sutherland said. “He plays the game like most Australians are brought up to play.

“There’s no doubt for Andrew... there are probably some things for him to reflect on.

“But as a whole I would say perhaps some of the reporting is a little bit over the top.”

In his finding Hansen, the appeals commissioner for the International Cricket Council (ICC), said Symonds had challenged Harbhajan with an ‘unnecessary invective-laden attack’ after the Indian patted Brett Lee on the behind in what he viewed as a sporting gesture.

“That interchange had nothing to do with Mr Symonds but he determined to get involved and as a result was abusive towards Mr Singh,” Hansen said.

“Mr Singh was, not surprisingly, abusive back.”

Hansen said Symonds’s evidence suggested he found it unacceptable that an opponent made a gesture that recognised the skill of one of his own team-mates.

He quoted Symonds as saying: “A Test match is no place to be friendly with an opposition player.”

“If that is his view I hope it is not one shared by all international cricketers,” Hansen said. “It would be a sad day for cricket if it is.”

Meanwhile, International Cricket Council (ICC) chief Malcolm Speed said the organisation accepted the blame for the administrative blunder that enabled Harbhajan to escape a stiffer penalty in his racial abuse case.

Harbhajan’s three-Test suspension was overturned at a code of conduct appeals hearing in Adelaide on Tuesday.

At the hearing, the charge was downgraded to a level two charge of using abusive language and Harbhajan subsequently pleaded guilty, with Hansen fining the spinner half of his match fee.

However, Hansen then revealed he would have handed out a stiffer penalty, including a possible suspension, had he been aware of Harbhajan’s full record.

Hansen was only informed of one prior misdemeanour by the spinner, with three other previous offences overlooked by the ICC, including a one-match suspended sentence for showing dissent to an umpire in 2001.

Speed issued a written statement on Thursday that acknowledged the ICC had been at fault.

“It is very unfortunate that human error led to Justice Hansen not having the full history of Harbhajan’s previous Code of Conduct breaches and the ICC accepts responsibility for this mistake,” Speed stated.

Hansen said the suspended sentence did not show up in the ICC records because the incident was logged under another player’s name, while the other two priors were omitted because of a database issue and human error.—Agencies