ARROGANT AND ABRASIVE

The Indian cricket team yesterday threatened to suspend its tour of Australia following a sequence of disputed decisions by neutral umpires, the charging (and three-match ban) of Indian spinner Harbhajan Singh over abuse of an Australian player, Indian demands that West Indian umpire Steve Bucknor not stand in the next Test and a senior Indian player smearing Australia as “a team that cheats and lies quite blatantly”. All of which leads Peter Roebuck to conclude:

Ricky Ponting must be sacked as captain of the Australian cricket team.

Why, precisely, Roebuck doesn’t say, offering only broad swipes: Ponting is “arrogant and abrasive”, he’s shown insufficient respect for his “accomplished and widely admired opponents”, and “has not provided the leadership expected”. Oh, and there’s this: his team has a “narrow and self-obsessed viewpoint”. (There’s a line guaranteed to sting a professional sports outfit.) According to Roebuck, the “worst aspect” of the Australian performance was … :

… their conduct at the end. When the last catch was taken they formed into a huddle and started jumping up and down like teenagers at a rave. It was not euphoria. It was ecstasy … Not one player so much as thought about shaking hands with the defeated and departing.

How unseemly. Roebuck also wants Matthew Hayden and Adam Gilchrist sacked and reckons Michael Clarke “cannot be promoted to the vice-captaincy of his country” because:

In the first innings he offered no shot to a straight ball and in the second he remained at the crease after giving an easy catch to slip.

About Harbhajan Singh – unlike Ponting, Hayden, Gilchrist and Clarke, actually suspended by the International Cricket Council – Roebuck is a little more forgiving:

Harbhajan Singh can be an irritating young man but he is head of a family and responsible for raising nine people.

Makes all the difference, then. Why wasn’t the ICC made aware of this? Besides, he’s only guilty of responding to Australian taunts:

Australian fieldsmen fire insults from the corners of their mouths, an intemperate Sikh warrior overreacts and his rudeness is seized upon.

Curse those intemperate Sikh warrior genes! They’ll get you in trouble every time. By the way, the SMH ran this on the front page. It’ll be interesting to see how the Australians deal with reporters from that paper … especially as, claims Roebuck, Ponting has turned them “into a pack of wild dogs”.

Perhaps they’ll “overreact”.

UPDATE. Thoughtful pieces from Gideon Haigh and Greg Baum, who notes that the media “forgot themselves at Indian captain Anil Kumble’s press conference and applauded him for sticking it to Australia.”

UPDATE II. This should liven things up:

The International Cricket Council has confirmed that umpire Steve Bucknor will stand in the third Australia v India Test at Perth from 16 January.

UPDATE III. ICC caves: Steve Bucknor dumped, Brad Hogg charged, Harbhajan Singh likely to play.

Posted by Tim B. on 01/07/2008 at 05:51 PM
    1. Clearly higher standards are expected of Australian cricketers.  They are white, after all.

      Posted by anthony_r on 2008 01 07 at 06:06 PM • permalink

 

    1. ”…an intemperate Sikh warrior overreacts…”

      A regular wordsmith, this Roebuck chap.

      Fielding, Barth and Hemingway will be jealous.

      Posted by Harry Bergeron on 2008 01 07 at 06:08 PM • permalink

 

    1. My guess is that it’s all caused by Global Warmening.

      Posted by swassociates on 2008 01 07 at 06:09 PM • permalink

 

    1. They had swallowed a dangerous pill called vengeance.

      I bet it tasted like a Red Curry.

      PS> It sure must suck to write for the SMH

      Posted by swassociates on 2008 01 07 at 06:13 PM • permalink

 

    1. The Australian cricket team is “arrogant and abrasive” and are so far up themselves they can see the sun shine from their rears. They are juvenile, unsporting, spoiled and behave like a bunch of infantile hoons.

      If ever any tall poppies needed to be lopped, it’s Ricky Ponting and his mates.

      Ponting is a bad captain and has encouraged the attitudes established by previous captains, like Steve Waugh.

      What’s possibly worst about the Australian team is that they can dish it out but can’t take it. Instead, they go sulking to their rooms like a bunch of sooks or go sobbing to the media. What’s more, they don’t know how to lose, gracefully or otherwise.

      Also, if Andrew Symonds doesn’t want to be called a monkey, he should start wearing the invisible zinc which is available, rather than the white effort he currently sports.

      Posted by ann j on 2008 01 07 at 06:16 PM • permalink

 

    1. 5. What are you on about Ann? Invisible Zinc?

      The Indian cricket team should pack their bags and go home.

      Posted by lingus4 on 2008 01 07 at 06:22 PM • permalink

 

    1. Ann J has been snorting “Invisible Zinc”. A particularly bad and tragic habit I’m told. It causes massive brain lapses and a body oder similar to a Sikh spin bowlers armpits.

      Posted by swassociates on 2008 01 07 at 06:27 PM • permalink

 

    1. The Aussies’ major crime is unprecedented success. And the good old Australian tall poppy lopping tradition remains intact.
      I agree with Roebuck – people should be sacked, staring with him. The bloke is an arsehole.
      And Annj it isn’t the zinc that has Symonds being called a monkey. Why do you think the Indians have limited the use of this epithet to the only black guy in the Australian team?

      Posted by Harold on 2008 01 07 at 06:28 PM • permalink

 

    1. Looks like the SMH is desperate for villains since the eeeeeevil HoWARd Government was defeated.

      Posted by Skip on 2008 01 07 at 06:28 PM • permalink

 

    1. Roebuck has jumped the shark.

      Posted by noir on 2008 01 07 at 06:32 PM • permalink

 

    1. Roebuck and Tony Greig are obviously swapping spit in the showers. They both despise their ‘adopted’ country, having fucked up their old one. Roebuck’s whitewash of Singh’s role in this is disgraceful – he sounds more and more like the Fisk of sports reporting every day.

      Posted by AlphaMikeFoxtrot on 2008 01 07 at 06:36 PM • permalink

 

    1. I am inclined to agree with the desire to remove the umpires, and send them back. Darrell Hair no longer officiates at Test Level where Sri Lanka are involved, and the Indians were rightly upset with the decisions made in the centre.

      However, to remove Ponting, Gilchrist and Hayden would mean that opposition teams have levelled the playing field without improving their own game. It’s just not cricket

      Posted by Pa Feral on 2008 01 07 at 06:40 PM • permalink

 

    1. Preparing myself for a withering torrent (oxymoron?) of criticism, I am of the opinion held by many that what’s said on the pitch, stays on the pitch.

      The Aussies are known far and wide as consummate “sledgers”—Ponting running to the Ump a’tattling goes against over a century of custom.

      Dish it? Take it!

      (and j, you are quite right. I too, have often wondered at Symmo’s apparent efforts to go out of his way to make himself look like a golliwog.)

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2008 01 07 at 06:41 PM • permalink

 

    1. Roebuck’s has enjoyed a little ecstacy too, courtesy Wikpedia:

      Roebuck in 2001 was given a suspended jail sentence after admitting caning three young cricketers he had offered to coach. He pleaded guilty to three charges of common assault involving three South African teenagers between 1 April and 31 May, 1999. Roebuck was originally accused of indecent assault but pleaded guilty to lesser charges of common assault. However, the judge said he did not accept the purity of Roebuck’s motives. He said: “It was not appropriate to administer corporal punishment to boys of this age in circumstances such as these. It seems so unusual that it must have been done to satisfy some need in you.” Ian Fenny prosecuting said: “Roebuck then pulled the boy towards him, in what appeared to be an act of affection. He then asked if he could look at the marks on the boy’s buttocks, something which he in fact did.”He now resides in Sydney, Australia, where he writes columns for the Sydney Morning Herald, and the Melbourne Age, as well as commentating for the ABC radio cricket coverage in Australia. He is known for wearing his trademark straw sunhat at all times, even in the commentary box.

      Posted by larrikin on 2008 01 07 at 06:48 PM • permalink

 

    1. Self inflicted wounds.

      1) Andrew Symonds should have walked when the whole world, including him, knew he was out at 30 and went on to score 162 in the first innings. That’s cheating – irrespective of the appalling standard of umpiring. That was match changing stuff and India have every right to be dirty at this blatant cheating.

      2) and that dropped catch of Ponting’s in the second innings. Ponting clearly grounded the ball two seconds after catching it, yet continued to scream ‘catch, catch’ until the umpires declared a dropped ball. That’s blatant cheating too. And to compound it, Ponting even claimed he caught it clean at the press conference – after he must have seen the replays.

      It’s this ingrained win-at-any-cost mentality that turns people off – and the cricket world at large. The desire to win is commendable. But the Graham Richardson philosophy of “whatever it takes’” is a most unpleasant trait of the current team.

      Ponting lacks the maturity and grace to be a great captain. And winning games isn’t the only thing.
      This whole episode puts a nasty taste in one’s mouth – and to say India do it too is no excuse. Australia have lifted sledging and name-calling to new levels – an unpleasant practice that really took off under Steve Waugh.

      The game is more important than the players, the winners, and all their big fat contracts and sponsorships. The game is more important than the very precious ACB and their even more precious players.

      Posted by Bonmot on 2008 01 07 at 06:55 PM • permalink

 

    1. In case my previous remarks were taken the wrong way, I would like to state for the record that Andrew Symonds is my favourite Aussie cricketer—one of the best all-rounders the game has seen in years.

      The man can bowl, G-d knows he can bat, and his fielding is awe-inspiring.

      Also, I think Roebuck and Grieg are both twats, well past their time.

      Maybe it’s just ime to allow a ittle “biffo” into the game.

      I mean, would you call a man with arms like Superman, carrying a three-pound chunk of hardwood a “monkey”?

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2008 01 07 at 06:56 PM • permalink

 

    1. #8, Harold:

      Why do you think the Indians have limited the use of this epithet to the only black guy in the Australian team?

      Because he’s also the only bloke who plays wearing the zinc like an escapee from a black minstrel show?

      Posted by ann j on 2008 01 07 at 06:56 PM • permalink

 

    1. ann j.,
      Following on from the view that it is understandable that Symonds is labelled a monkey for wearing white zinc, (praytell where are these white lipped monkeys anyway – I must catch up my viewing of the National Geographic channel..):Presumably it would be OK to offer a few saucy and suggestive comments to a girl wearing a low cut top or with a short skirt…Certainly some hookers dress that way.

      I guess also if an Indian gent was hooking into a tasty little Lamb Korma we could roundly proclaim him a “Curry Muncher” with impunity ?

      Posted by Wacko on 2008 01 07 at 06:59 PM • permalink

 

    1. #13
      (and j, you are quite right. I too, have often wondered at Symmo’s apparent efforts to go out of his way to make himself look like a golliwog.) Quite right. The dreadlocks poking out under the baggy green, the dark face with giant white lips. He looks like a Black & White Minstrel – this look is highly provocative and he shoves it right in everybody’s face.

      Symonds is the only cricket player I can recall that you can recognise on TV from the furthest parts of the field.

      He sets out to trademark this look (like Dean Jones with the overt display of zinc cream), he’s got to cop it when others find the look risible.

      He’s lucky he only gets called a monkey.

      Posted by Bonmot on 2008 01 07 at 07:01 PM • permalink

 

    1. Assuming the decision to suspend Singh is overturned, is it OK for the Australians to call the Indians monkeys? I suspect not.

      Posted by noir on 2008 01 07 at 07:03 PM • permalink

 

    1. The Aussie cricketers do turn it on a bit with their celebrations, but it probably stems from their intense ambition to win, a fame of mind which has propelled them to their current status as the world’s number one – by a country mile. I sincerely hope they win the next one and establish the longest winning streak in cricket history.

      I used to hate sledging and thought Ian Healy set a particularly bad example. For some reason I now have no problem with it. Healy’s strine – “Grate boling, Shaaaane” – started bringing a smile to my face every time. Best way for an opposition batsman to shut the Aussies up is to crack a few boundaries – I remember that’s what Gilchrist did after being called a ‘wingnut’ by one of the Kiwis.

      The way the Australians have come back in those matches when they have been behind demonstrates their tremendous fighting spirit. To reiterate a point: if you don’t like them jumping up and down in celebration, try winning the game. As for bad umpiring, I’m sure most of us want to see our team win without any outside help. Decisions might seem to go our way a lot because we’re constantly getting other batsman into near-miss situations, whereas our batsman rarely give away a chance. Symonds was caught at 30. He went on to score 160-odd not out. I’m sorry, India, but if you couldn’t create more chances it’s no good blaming your inferior skills on the umpires. Their concentration lapsed a handful of times (and not always in our favour), far less than the number of times your own players gave up their wickets through lack of focus.

      Posted by Dminor on 2008 01 07 at 07:03 PM • permalink

 

    1. #18, Wacko.

      Telling … One monkey, white lipped.

      Posted by ann j on 2008 01 07 at 07:08 PM • permalink

 

    1. I do hope that all those indignantly insisting the Symonds should have walked when given not out drive around and find themselves a policeman to confess to to every time they break the speed limit. No? Didn’t think so.

      Given not out. Move on. Especially from a nation where no-one could win a series for decades due to the umpiring – the very reason neutral umpires were introduced.

      As for you people who are saying that Symonds “asked” for it, or that “monkey” isn’t a racist term, you’re beneath contempt. If you think it’s racist, try it on the next Maori or Samoan bouncer you meet.

      Posted by anonymous guest on 2008 01 07 at 07:12 PM • permalink

 

    1. Annj – So black guys have certain standards they have to meet if they want to play with the whiteys eh? Maybe his lips are more sensitive to sunburn.
      I wonder would the condemnation be the same if Symonds was aboriginal. Or as others have pointed out if it was Warney or Hayden calling Tendulkar a monkey.
      And as for all that walking when out bullshit – WG Grace didn’t even walk for Christ sake. Finally, the Indians are hardly the acme of gentlemanly conduct. Why do you think we ended up with neutral umpires anyway. This time the problem is they lost and didn’t like it.

      Posted by Harold on 2008 01 07 at 07:13 PM • permalink

 

    1. err…If you think it’s NOT racist, etc.

      nothing kills a good rant better than a howling typo.

      Posted by anonymous guest on 2008 01 07 at 07:13 PM • permalink

 

    1. Taa ann j @ # 22 ,

      Damn the filter here won’t let me see it. No naughty pictures workers!)
      I’ll have a look when I get home.

      Posted by Wacko on 2008 01 07 at 07:15 PM • permalink

 

    1. I think Symonds is a good sort, not monkey-like at all.

      My first thought when I heard that Harbhajan called him a “monkey” was that it was a case of pot/kettle/black*.

      Posted by kae on 2008 01 07 at 07:18 PM • permalink

 

    1. I’m having difficulty with some of the comments here today. Are we truly suggesting that Andrew Symonds has brought this upon himself becuase he wears the wrong fucking zinc cream? Sorry folks but that rates right up there with chicks who deserve to be raped because of the way they dress. I expect that shit from Sheik Catmeat but not here.

      Symonds and indeed the whole Aussie cricket team are being targeted for no other reason that they are habitual, methodical winners. They train to win, they play to win, they expect to win and they win. The criticism they are drawing is no different to the stupid US bashing we see in the world today simply because they are successful. Has being successful and outwardly enjoying that success really become a habit to be shunned?

      Posted by Gibbo on 2008 01 07 at 07:19 PM • permalink

 

    1. Even Roebuck’s dad thinks he can use his tongue witheringly [and stupidly] at times, and this is a monumental dummy spit for an English Oxford prig who was way inferior as a player to three or four current Aussie teams himself.

      My estimation of him is only a bit more than my view of SMH readers who are voting 55% to 30% that PONTING should be sacked..  Amazing stuff.

      Posted by Barrie on 2008 01 07 at 07:20 PM • permalink

 

    1. #5 – If that Symonds wasn’t black, we’d stop harrassing the uppity nigger.

      Usually I wouldn’t respond to some dumb broad making commnets about sport, but you take the fucking cake.

      #11 – Roebuck the Fisk of sport! Magnificent!

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 07 at 07:21 PM • permalink

 

    1. #24, Harold.

      Having an Australian Aboriginal ancestress myself, I think I would recognise racism if I saw it.

      This is not racism.

      Symonds does, I understand, have a problem with sunburn but I still think he could use invisible zinc cream, which is just as effective on “sensitive lips” and doesn’t look so bloody ridiculous.

      Posted by ann j on 2008 01 07 at 07:21 PM • permalink

 

    1. ’Not one player so much as thought about shaking hands with the defeated and departing’.

      Actually, Sharma was too stunned to depart for quite some time.  Roebuck obviously forgot all the usual handshakes did take place in the modern manner.
      Almost nothing he wrote makes any sense.  He’s damaged his reputation with me for good unless an inquiry proves he was on something stronger than alcohol at the time.

      Posted by Barrie on 2008 01 07 at 07:24 PM • permalink

 

    1. #31 – He wears the zinc because he’s superstitious, not for sunburn. Which is why you’ll see him wearing it indoors at The Telstra Dome. Harbhajan wears a turban for religious purposes – may I refer to him as an elephant jockey because I think it looks abnormal?

      And your Aboriginal ancestry gives you know moral authority whatsoever.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 07 at 07:25 PM • permalink

 

    1. If anyone should be sacked, it’s Roebuck. Sometimes he’s an insightful writer, but like most SMH/Age grandees (eg. Martin Flanagan) he undermines all that with bombastic and pretentious pronouncements that clearly have a political agenda.

      And how come the SMH subs let him get away with saying “doubtless” every second paragraph?

      Posted by Blithering Bunny on 2008 01 07 at 07:26 PM • permalink

 

    1. #31 So all those soccer hooligans in Europe making monkey noises and throwing bananas at black players in the Premier & European soccer leagues aren’t racist then?

      Posted by anonymous guest on 2008 01 07 at 07:26 PM • permalink

 

    1. Spelling and grammar are the first to suffer from a rant. Could we please install a cooling off button?

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 07 at 07:27 PM • permalink

 

    1. Ponting is “arrogant and abrasive”.Wow! And this from a creep convicted in 2001 of common assault on three South African teenagers.He was originally charged with indecent assault but entered a plea of guilty to the lesser charge.He was given a suspended sentence.The children he was charged with assaulting were being “coached” by this paragon.It seem that his methods included caning to encourage them to improve their cricketing performance.The Judge said he did not accept the purity of his motives and seemed to suggest that Roebuck had more on his mind than cricket when he flogged these teenagers.The Prosecutor certainly confirmed that view and questioned the need for the accused to examine the marks left by the cane on the boys buttocks.Perhaps this recalcitrant Australian team could do with a jolly good thrashing,perhaps Roebuck might volunteer to administer the treatment,he could probably even bring his own cane.I would suggest however that he might forgo the exquisite pleasure of trying to examine the bums of the flogees.

      Posted by Lew on 2008 01 07 at 07:27 PM • permalink

 

    1. According to a friend and former colleague of Nick’s, who is an Australian-raised Indian, the Punjabi term for monkey is ‘bundit’.

      It is used in the same way we’d describe someone as a clown.

      — Nora

      Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2008 01 07 at 07:27 PM • permalink

 

    1. ’a bunch of sooks or go sobbing to the media. What’s more, they don’t know how to lose, gracefully or otherwise.’ Er, ann j, Australia WON, didn’t it?

      Are you on the same stuff as Roebuck today?

      Posted by Barrie on 2008 01 07 at 07:28 PM • permalink

 

    1. Before I forget, the other person who should be sacked is Tony Greig. I’ve been saying this for years. Not just because he’s a dreadful commentator, because that applies to half the Channel 9 box, but because he goes on and on and on about umpiring in such an exaggerated way all the time that it’s actually quite damaging to the game.

      Posted by Blithering Bunny on 2008 01 07 at 07:28 PM • permalink

 

    1. I am torn between admiration for the Australian cricket team for their unparalleled success, and disgust for the hypocritical and cheating ways in which they achieved this victory. Ponting and Clarke both claimed catches when the ball bounced. Michael Clarke also claimed a catch which blatantly hit the ground in the recent 3rd one dayer against the Kiwis. The batsman was dismissed.

      Harbajhan crossed the line by using the term `monkey`, if he used it. He should have said `Cheating c*nt who didn`t walk when he blatantly nicked it`. And who else didn`t walk when they blatantly nicked it? Ponting and Clarke.

      Posted by deanosumo on 2008 01 07 at 07:29 PM • permalink

 

    1. It is used in the same way we’d describe someone as a clown.

      Except when it’s not.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 07 at 07:30 PM • permalink

 

    1. #23 Anon & #24 Harold

      Here here.

      The idea that Roy has brought this upon himself by having dreadlocks and white zinc is a joke.

      Saw some footage last night of the Indian tour with a poster held up by an Indian supporter “How did a monkey get in between the Kangaroos?”.

      The whole monkey thing is dead set racist. The British taught India may things. What a pity it all finished before they taught them irony.

      Monkey is not a term of endearment, it is not some quaint nickname, it is boong, coon or nigger.

      Posted by Pickles on 2008 01 07 at 07:31 PM • permalink

 

    1. Annj I’ll say it again for you. Symonds is the only black guy in the team and he is the only guy the Indians are calling a monkey. Figure it out, it aint about the zinc.
      You have an ancestor who was black so you recognise racism better than me?
      Interesting concept but I have to tell you that on this occasion at least you have not recognised racism. From what I can see all you have recognised is that you don’t like black guys using white zinc.

      Posted by Harold on 2008 01 07 at 07:31 PM • permalink

 

    1. #38 It is used in the same way we’d describe someone as a clown.

      So that’s why the crowd in India were making monkey gestures when they were chanting it at Symonds?

      Please.

      Posted by anonymous guest on 2008 01 07 at 07:32 PM • permalink

 

    1. #13 Mentalfloss: “Preparing myself for a withering torrent (oxymoron?) of criticism, I am of the opinion held by many that what’s said on the pitch, stays on the pitch”.

      Do you also approve of the many anti-Roy racist ‘monkey signs’ OFF the pitch by Indian spectators, which were initially invisible to the whole Indian Board?
      And Harbhajan’s apology in India, and an agreement to report any repetitions, which they now regret agreeing to?
      They are in arrogant denial again, it seems.  So only whites are racist?

      Posted by Barrie on 2008 01 07 at 07:35 PM • permalink

 

    1. The idiots who are complaining about Australia actually enjoying their victory (the wine!) obviously never saw (because they know nothing about cricket) India’s celebrations when they won the Twenty-20 World Cup.

      The same idiots are upset about Harbhajan being banned for racial abuse because they know that those laws were only supposed be applied to Australians and South Africans (and maybe the English).

      Posted by Blithering Bunny on 2008 01 07 at 07:36 PM • permalink

 

    1. #38
      Somewhat like a parent might describe their child as a monkey, climbing or generally clowning around?My mum used to call kids who were full of beans monkeys, little monkeys, especially if they got into mischief.

      I have to be very careful who I say it to!

      Posted by kae on 2008 01 07 at 07:40 PM • permalink

 

    1. ’this look is highly provocative and he shoves it right in everybody’s face’.

      Actually he shoves it on his own face, Bonmot, and no official ever complained..
      As to dreadlocks, seen any football or basketball lately?
      You’re too precious.

      As for any bias, did Darren Lehmann pull a dummy spit when he was banned for one very uncharacteristic ‘racist’ outburst?

      Posted by Barrie on 2008 01 07 at 07:40 PM • permalink

 

    1. You will Kae – as a previous poster said try calling the next Samoan/Tongan/Maori bouncer you see a monkey.

      Posted by Harold on 2008 01 07 at 07:41 PM • permalink

 

    1. Roebuck is an idiot.

      He slams the Australian team for their behaviour, but the best the Indians can come up with is that one Australian called someone a ‘bastard’.

      He has been a vocal supporter of chuckers for years – something that has really put the game in danger – and attacked Daryl Hare, even though subsequent testing of the aforementioned chuckers showed that Hare was, indeed, so correct that the sub-continent dominated ICC had to change the rules.

      But mostly, I can’t see why the Indians are so upset over losing; if they really wanted to win, I’d have expected a few of their fieldsmen to get their knees dirty when the ball is out of bend-down distance.

      Posted by BB77 on 2008 01 07 at 07:42 PM • permalink

 

    1. Everyone knows that only whites can be racist.

      /sarc

      Posted by kae on 2008 01 07 at 07:43 PM • permalink

 

    1. #31 ann j says…
      Having an Australian Aboriginal ancestress myselfNew word ann?
      Is ancestor sexist?
      And since ancestress is derived from ancestor, why not just leave it at ancestor?

      Here we go down the road where women want to be called actors except at Academy Award time when it would rob them of their category. Then proudly, they are ACTRESSES!

      Me puzzled.

      Posted by Bonmot on 2008 01 07 at 07:44 PM • permalink

 

    1. #42
      It was just a thought.Andrew Symonds does looks like a clown (I like clowns!) with the white zinc and knowing a little of Indian etymology I thought might contribute to the discussion.

      Frankly, I don’t take that much interest in cricket, so I don’t have a dog in this fight so to speak. But I’d like to make two points.

      1. Unsportsman-like behaviour by anyone on any side, in any sport should not be tolerated by anyone.

      2. Everyone is capable of racism.  Through Singh-Symonds incident (valid or not), it is interesting that it is occuring to the greater public that racism may not be limited to being an anglo-saxon malaise as PC indoctrinaires would have it.

      — Nora

      Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2008 01 07 at 07:45 PM • permalink

 

    1. #41, do you watch much cricket? Have you not noticed that most batsmen don’t walk? Most batsmen from most teams?

      And have you also noticed that many players claim catches which the replays suggest bounced? Do you also get all huffy about those players?

      And might you not draw the conclusion—remembering that claiming a catch that isn’t out is a much worse crime than not walking, and that the claim of a catch will be subjected to intense scrutiny—that these players are just mistaken in thinking they know whether the ball’s carried?

      In other words, might you not consider the idea that you’re a know-nothing who is in no position to be getting all high and mighty?

      Posted by Blithering Bunny on 2008 01 07 at 07:46 PM • permalink

 

    1. Correct Bonmot.

      The day they call the Queen’s daughter Prince Anne, I’ll start calling actresses actors. (Though I’ll never call an ancestor an ancestress.)

      Posted by BB77 on 2008 01 07 at 07:47 PM • permalink

 

    1. #52 The Indian team logic behind “bastard” being offensive is that in India, where apparently racism does not exist, a bastard child is consigned to the lowest caste. The caste system is nothing less that rampant domestic racism.

      Posted by noir on 2008 01 07 at 07:48 PM • permalink

 

    1. #41 Biased rubbish from deanosumo: Ponting and Clarke both claimed catches when the ball bounced. Michael Clarke also claimed a catch which blatantly hit the ground in the recent 3rd one dayer against the Kiwis.

      Ever played this game, deano?  It is quite possible to think you have caught a ball that in fact has touched the turf a little.  That is why it is hard to always accept the players’ word if he is sure.
      But it is also impossible to depend on 10 cameras to show everything too, so a good very catch can be cancelled wrongly – this problem is ongoing for years..

      Posted by Barrie on 2008 01 07 at 07:48 PM • permalink

 

    1. This is interesting.

      Again, India want to to be ‘top dog’ of the cricket world. It would be interesting to get a compendium of comments from the Indian team before the series, they had every intention of taking it up to the Aussies using methods that have worked for Australia in the past.

      As to the celebrations on the field, why ever not? They had just won a game they could have easily lost, having been 70 odd runs in deficit after the first innings. They also had equalled the record of 16 eins in a row. What would have been more appropriate?

      The fact that both teams had been spoken to specifically over the use of ‘monkey’which strangely, is directed at one dark skinned man in a funny hat to another, means that Harbhijan needs to learn a lesson.

      The Aussies, as winners, are also bearing the brunt of anything that did not go the Indians’ way, umpiring calls, and their own players’ behaviour. They can’t be held responsible for all of that.

      Mind you, had Howard been in office, the left would have used this fiasco as proof of the racism and discontent in an un-caring Australia. Mr. Rudd?

      Posted by Nic on 2008 01 07 at 07:48 PM • permalink

 

    1. Damn, that should be #51.

      Posted by noir on 2008 01 07 at 07:49 PM • permalink

 

    1. #52 Everyone knows that only whites can be racist.

      /sarc

      You beat me to it Kae.

      Nicky first heard it when his friend referred to ‘those Bundits’ or alternatively to ‘those monkeys in the policy division’.

      It is a little harsher than referring to mischievous children as ‘you little monkeys’ and more akin to referring to adults as ‘that clown’ or ‘that idiot’.

      — Nora

      Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2008 01 07 at 07:51 PM • permalink

 

    1. Nora good points but:
      1. The Indians’, and others, outrage at poor sportsmanship appears to me to have a pretty strong link to them having lost a test, copped some poor umpiring (by neutral umpires) and had a team member found guilty of racial abuse.
      2. Maybe but seems to me that a fair slab of the greater public are still yet to come to that realisation.

      Posted by Harold on 2008 01 07 at 07:52 PM • permalink

 

    1. I agree with Ann. Symonds looks like a f——- idiot in that zinc cream and does in fact resemble a black & white minstrel or, indeed, a negroid cliche from yore or a simian caricature. The Indian crowds have some fun with him on this account, much as Australians used to with Pig Botham. Use of the “monkey” epithet probably then morphed into defiant Brahmin racism after it was labelled as such and was thus meant to racially offend. (As Indians are blacks, I always found this particularly amusing). It seems this Australian team is made up of self-advertised hard men – until they cop a player or a crowd sledge, at which time they whinge and dob in their opponents like a bunch of purse-carrying nancy-boys. Even though I regard “Punter” Ponting as an irritating little twat, it still has to be said that the Pakis and curry-munchers will always play the racism and ‘we-woz-robbed’ cards when they lose and, furthermore, that they intend bullying the game’s officials into handicapping an Australian team which, more often than not, they can’t beat. What’s more, as the case of the chucking cheat, Muralitharan, has demonstrated, they’ll almost certainly succeed.

      Posted by C.L. on 2008 01 07 at 07:53 PM • permalink

 

    1. #21 ‘a fame of mind which has propelled them..’

      A typo I quite like..

      Posted by Barrie on 2008 01 07 at 07:53 PM • permalink

 

    1. Also, Blithering Bunny, most of the catches that are denied because of the video replay are not denied because they weren’t catches, but because the limits of the technology mean the third umpire can’t be 100% certain – the central umpire’s eyes are usually better than the 25 frames a second of the video camera. (Remember, the ball is often travelling at over 100kmph.) Generally, I’d say 90% of the catches that have been given ‘not out’ were actually catches. I also think Ponting held the catch in the first innings, but he was uncertain and said so – and the video was its usual blurred self, so the Indian batsman survived.

      Posted by BB77 on 2008 01 07 at 07:53 PM • permalink

 

    1. Naturally, I have a view on this nonsense

      Basically, the Indians have gone overboard, as has Roebuck who seems to have lost the plot.

      Remember Ganguly’s disgusting, contemptuous attitude during Australia’s last tour of India when he was captain? Remember the appalling, cheating umpires that used to stand in India and Pakistan, which forced the neutral umpires we now have?

      Good on the ICC for standing up to the BCCI and announcing Bucknor to stand in the west.

      Posted by Jack Lacton on 2008 01 07 at 07:54 PM • permalink

 

    1. How about a poll here to decide whether or not Roebuck should be fired?

      SHOULD PETER ROEBUCK BE FIRED?

      -Yes, he’s a jumped-up perv who thinks saying “doubtless” all the time gives him gravitas.

      -No, because somebody has to play the haughty Pommy twit role for laughs and he does it better than anyone else.

      -Let’s all cool down! Roebuck’s self-promotion is only a game.

      Posted by Blithering Bunny on 2008 01 07 at 07:56 PM • permalink

 

    1. I hope the curator at the WACA is preparing a green top special and that Shaun Tait is limbering up as we speak. The best thing possible to further revive Test Cricket would be a couple of dead Indians. We could even stuff and mount them in the WACA museum next to the dead seagull.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 07 at 08:00 PM • permalink

 

    1. I blame Kevin Rudd. It was all butterflies and rainbows before he turned up at the cricket prtending to be the prime minister. Why didn’t take a leaf out of his boss’s book and stay at home. Julia Gillard should come and collect him before he causes a war.

      Posted by Contrail on 2008 01 07 at 08:00 PM • permalink

 

    1. #67 – Keep the useful idiot. Have never met the man, but could almost guarantee that he smells of dandruff and camphor.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 07 at 08:02 PM • permalink

 

    1. #46 Barrie, of course not.

      Did I speak to the actions of spectators (who should be escorted not-so-gently out of the grounds for the actions you describe)?

      I did not. I was simply pointing out that that I understood there to be an “unwritten code” to the effect “that what’s said on the pitch, stays on the pitch”.

      Pillory me for my misunderstanding or misinterpretation of that if you will, but forbear, please, from attributing to me—even indirectly—opinions on the page that I never expressed.

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2008 01 07 at 08:02 PM • permalink

 

    1. Yes, fire Roebuck. Doubtless it would be a fair decision.

      Posted by BB77 on 2008 01 07 at 08:03 PM • permalink

 

    1. I know its wrong but every time I see him I think of Papa Lzarou.

      Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2008 01 07 at 08:04 PM • permalink

 

    1. Don’t fire Roebuck. He should walk.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 07 at 08:04 PM • permalink

 

    1. #49 Barrie.

      Barrie, Symonds indeed pokes his trademark in everybody’s face.

      Anyhoo, it was Steve Bucknor who ruined this Test – tempers flared because of it. Nerves jangled.
      And Lehmann’s suspension is irrelevent to this incident. Calling somebody a monkey is small cheese compared to calling a Sri Lankan a ‘fucking black’ for which Lehmann recieved a one match suspension. Where’s the justice?

      The fact that Bucknor will stand in the remaining tests is a disgrace and provocative. If I was one of those billion Indians, I’d be shitty too.

      And please Barrie – don’t be a, well, Barrie.

      Posted by Bonmot on 2008 01 07 at 08:07 PM • permalink

 

    1. What is it specifically that Ponting has done that he should resign for?

      Posted by Nic on 2008 01 07 at 08:14 PM • permalink

 

    1. #63 C.L. ‘idiot in that zinc cream and does in fact resemble a black & white minstrel’.

      So what have you against black and white minstrels, C.L.?
      They were very popular entertainers just like our Roy, who wins MOM and MOS awards to prove it.

      Posted by Barrie on 2008 01 07 at 08:14 PM • permalink

 

    1. To #55 and #58- yep, I have watched lots of cricket and played it. Still do.

      Also it is hypocritical that the Aussie players demanded that the umpires and Indians take their word on whether a catch had been taken, but won`t walk.

      Aparently there was some sort of gentleman`s agreement between the two teams about walking, appealing and claiming catches honestly. Obviously once the first ball was bowled this was ignored.

      On the other issue, if you call an aboriginal a `monkey`, you are clearly racist and deserve some kind of ban.
      As to the person who thinks Symond`s look is an intentional attempt to get in the opposition`s faces, you are living in the wrong century.

      Posted by deanosumo on 2008 01 07 at 08:14 PM • permalink

 

    1. #76 Nic asks…

      What is it specifically that Ponting has done that he should resign for?

      Personally, I think it’s because of his hammy performance with John Laws in the Valvoline ad.

      Posted by Bonmot on 2008 01 07 at 08:17 PM • permalink

 

    1. Probably not a good day for Aussies who require help from call centres in Bangalore.

      “I am hoping the weather is good for you too. Your credit card application has been decline, you cheating white monkey. Thank you.”

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 07 at 08:19 PM • permalink

 

    1. Peter Roebuck’s formative years..

      Thank you Sir, may I have another…

      Posted by Pickles on 2008 01 07 at 08:21 PM • permalink

 

    1. Mind you I think everyone should just stop being precious and playing the race card and “harden the fuck up”.

      Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2008 01 07 at 08:22 PM • permalink

 

    1. #50
      Harold
      I was thinking more along the lines of calling children monkeys.There’d be no reason for me to call an adult a monkey. I work in an environment where I must be very careful what I say, something to me that is innocuous can be very offensive to someone else. I was also dragged up to be polite.

      As for calling islander bouncers “monkeys”, I don’t have a death wish.

      Posted by kae on 2008 01 07 at 08:22 PM • permalink

 

    1. #75 Bonmot, either you don’t know Harbhajan’s previous form on this in India, or what rules resulted from the treatment Roy got there, or you just wish to ignore history in sentencing [of which Lehmann had none].

      I didn’t make any decisions. Please don’t make this personal. I could be offended by bonmots.

      I agree with you on Bucknor – at 61 he’s too old now, but don’t expect the ICC to cave in and see that before the end of the series..

      Posted by Barrie on 2008 01 07 at 08:23 PM • permalink

 

    1. Bullshit, Bonmot.

      A ‘fucking black’ is offensive, but it’s merely stating the obvious – that is, someone’s colour.

      Calling someone a ‘monkey’, on the other hand, is suggesting he is a pre-evolved life form, a lower kind of human. That’s serious stuff and the root of real racism – the belief by some that some people – usually Africans – are subhuman.

      Posted by BB77 on 2008 01 07 at 08:23 PM • permalink

 

    1. #80, IT,

      Chortle, actually, it might be a good opportunity for some fun:

      Centre: Good day to you sir, this is Bazza speaking, how can I be of help to you?

      Caller: G’day, I need my credit card approved

      Caller: Bazza eh?

      Centre: Yes ‘mahte’ The weather in Sydney is welly good today

      Caller: Mate, what about the cricket? those curry munching whining babies.

      Centre: Yes, those Aussies are cheating scoundrels, oops, thank you good bye, come again, click.

      Posted by Nic on 2008 01 07 at 08:25 PM • permalink

 

    1. The Australians,having made sledging the norm, have been the sledgee and have run crying to the teacher.
      The Indians, having spat the dummy, are threatening to take the bat and go home, thus spoiling everybodies fun………Lets stir this pot a bit further…could it be the reason the Australians ganged up on Harbajhan is because he continues to make Ponting look silly for the two or three balls it usually takes him to get the Australian Captain’s wicket????

      Just a thought.

      Posted by Rod C on 2008 01 07 at 08:25 PM • permalink

 

    1. #77 Barrie is at it again…
      So what have you against black and white minstrels, C.L.?  Every time Symonds walks out I expect him to burst into a chorus of ‘Swanee’ or ‘Mammy’.

      Sorry, if you cultivate the look, you gotta cop the heckling.

      And Bazza, I have nothing against the Black & White mintrel Show. It worked a treat as a musical. As a cricket match, I’m not so sure.

      Posted by Bonmot on 2008 01 07 at 08:25 PM • permalink

 

    1. #82 TFM

      I agree. A grand excuse to give this bloke another run.

      Harden the f*ck up Australia

      Posted by Pickles on 2008 01 07 at 08:27 PM • permalink

 

    1. Wow, this thread’s going to perplex our American friends.

      Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2008 01 07 at 08:29 PM • permalink

 

    1. Maybe Ricky could invite the Indians around for a few beers and a steak? They could bring a pavlova and some bananas for Roy.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 07 at 08:30 PM • permalink

 

    1. #90
      Shhh, they’re probably all in bed right now.
      It’ll be a nice puzzle for them in the morning…

      Posted by kae on 2008 01 07 at 08:30 PM • permalink

 

    1. For our Arerican friends, Cricket is the biggest sport in India. Clearly they don’t like losing. Other than that, a good bunch of (1 billion) people.

      Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2008 01 07 at 08:31 PM • permalink

 

    1. #20 Noir

      [is it OK for the Australians to call the Indians monkeys?]

      I think not also….. Lets try “Rock Apes”. That should stir things up a bit!!!

      Posted by Gotlieb on 2008 01 07 at 08:32 PM • permalink

 

    1. Well Barrie? No response to #71 ?

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2008 01 07 at 08:33 PM • permalink

 

    1. #68 Infidel – love your work.
      As for the rest, like someone just said it was the neutral umpires who gave all the lousy decisions (some against Aussies as well) and a neutral referee who suspended Singh but its Ponting and his team who get all the flak.
      For the record I think Ponting and his team mates do behave poorly quite often or could behave better but not anywhere near in a sackable way.
      The Indians are trying it on here and will probably get their way. Be interesting to see how many LBW decisions against the Indians Bucknor gives in Perth.

      Posted by Harold on 2008 01 07 at 08:34 PM • permalink

 

    1. Australian fieldsmen fire insults from the corners of their mouths, an intemperate Sikh warrior overreacts and his rudeness is seized upon.

      In Cricket, otherwise known as sledging. I dunno why but there it is/ For ourAmerican friends, think of dissing.

      Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2008 01 07 at 08:34 PM • permalink

 

    1. #87 I’ve no doubt that they wanted Harbajhan benched. It doesn’t say much about his professionalism that we gave them an excuse on a platter.

      Posted by anonymous guest on 2008 01 07 at 08:35 PM • permalink

 

    1. BB77 says…
      A ‘fucking black’ is offensive, but it’s merely stating the obvious – that is, someone’s colour. Wrong. Calling somebody ‘black’ is merely stating the obvious.
      Calling that person a ‘fucking black’ (and loud enough to be picked up on the PA and on Channel 9), is downright offensive.

      You see, the word ‘fucking’ in this instance makes the difference – it drips with vulgar racism and intent to insult.

      Lehmann got one match. Harbhajan copped three. I wonder what calling a fat cricketer an elephant would rate penalty-wise?

      Go figure.

      Posted by Bonmot on 2008 01 07 at 08:35 PM • permalink

 

    1. HE gave them an excuse, damnit

      Posted by anonymous guest on 2008 01 07 at 08:36 PM • permalink

 

    1. The International Cricket Council has confirmed that umpire Steve Bucknor will stand in the third Australia v India Test at Perth from 16 January.

      What’s the ruling on deliberately targeting an Ump? That should be fun.

      Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2008 01 07 at 08:36 PM • permalink

 

    1. #99 – Lehmann was suspended for saying “fucking black c**t”. At the time there was debate from some quarters over whether he should be suspended for racism or sexism. I think it was just a cunning ruse to give him time off to film Shrek 2.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 07 at 08:39 PM • permalink

 

    1. I think maybe some of you disagree with Harbaja, harbe, Singh getting into trouble simply for calling a spade a spade.

      Posted by Harold on 2008 01 07 at 08:40 PM • permalink

 

    1. #80.Infidel Tiger. “help from a call centre in Bangalore”????? Now that is an interesting concept. Any dealings I’ve ever had with any Indian call centre,in Bangalore or any other location,could never have been described as “help”.Fucked about by incompetents maybe but help,no way.They run their call centres along the same lines as they play their “off-field” cricket,cheap and nasty.

      Posted by Lew on 2008 01 07 at 08:44 PM • permalink

 

    1. Wrong again, Bonmot.

      Calling someone an elephant is not a comment on race. Weight is something an individual can overcome, race is not.

      Posted by BB77 on 2008 01 07 at 08:44 PM • permalink

 

    1. #93-

      It would appear cricket can produce the same effect on Australian/Indian/British fans as the NFL does on us ‘merkans.

      In fact, if I just substitute “football” for”cricket”, “Cowboy fans” for “Aussies”, and “Redskin fans” for “Indians”, I can just about follow this thread…

      Posted by Tex Lovera on 2008 01 07 at 08:44 PM • permalink

 

    1. 106,
      Quick someone from America is trying to follow this thread!! Try and inject a few comments about silly leg, wrong ‘uns and stuff or soon they may want to play it and beat us!

      Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2008 01 07 at 08:51 PM • permalink

 

    1. It’s funny how everyone’s suddenly so tolerant of racial abuse when a non-white does it.  I don’t remember people giving Dean Jones a free pass with his dumb “terrorist” remark.  I think Singh could have been given a warning, but I can’t remember what the precedents are for this in cricket.

      Our guys sledge, but they don’t resort to racist abuse – which is the line you don’t cross.  It’s a line that the Indian public needs to learn, so it doesn’t surprise me that team members need reminding.

      I’ve had it with the sub-continental teams’ first option to scream racism and throw tantrums whenever they don’t get their way.

      The only reason they haven’t played the race card this time is because the offending umpire is black.  I pity any white umpire placed in that position.  Can you imagine how the Indians would squeal if an Australian player racially abused an Indian?

      Yeah they got some tough decisions.  So did Ponting.  And Clarke took that catch.  Grow up India, it’s not a conspiracy.

      Posted by Mr Hackenbacker on 2008 01 07 at 08:55 PM • permalink

 

    1. At cricinfo we read that on May 15, 2001

      Roebuck arrested on sex charges.

      Again pot calling the kettle black?

      Meanwhile at oneindia

      Cricket Australia anti-racism officer Peter Young said the sport was taking a zero tolerance approach to racism on and off the field.

      Now Indians file out.

      All this sounds like feigned high principles to me.

      Posted by stackja1945 on 2008 01 07 at 08:59 PM • permalink

 

    1. Whilst you can argue that the Aussies deal out the sledges so they must be prepared to take them, you can also argue that the Indians have complained of racism in the past, so surely they are under the same onus to shut the fuck up on the park?

      It cuts both ways.

      Posted by Harry Buttle on 2008 01 07 at 09:00 PM • permalink

 

    1. Very relevant comment from the Herald-Sun comments page [partial quote]:

      This blow-up has highlighted the great Indian glass-jaw in my opinion – endemic racism and the denial of it at a society-wide level. I am an Australian of Asian decent who has lived in India because of business for over 4 years. The society in my opinion is endemically classist – heaven help you if you are a lower caste. Even worse, if you are of Asian extraction or black. I can never forget the appalling way all native Indians seemed to treat Kenyan immigrants. I lost count of the times I was spat on and jostled in a crowd just because I had yellow skin. However, beyond their actions, they always vehemently deny that they are racist. To suggest so creates the ultimate insult. We are now seeing nothing more than this attitude being played out on a bigger stage. Anyone seen the video footage of the crowd at the Mumbai ODI ?

      Posted by: Steve Leong of Melbourne 10:58am today

      Posted by Barrie on 2008 01 07 at 09:01 PM • permalink

 

    1. I’m sure the Indian team would love to go home and get back playing Zimbabwe and Bangladesh – hilarious, considering how they talked for months about how tough they were going to be, and how they behaved during the recent one day series in India (which gave us plenty of precedents for their current racist behaviour). And has Roebuck forgotten how the Indians reacted to their 20/20 win? God, by the on field celebrations, you’d think they’d won a real game of cricket. And now they’ve got so carried away by that win that they’re working to destroy international cricket by creating rival 20/20 leagues in India. Go home, go play your 20/20 games, and leave the real cricket to countries that know how to do it.

      Posted by BB77 on 2008 01 07 at 09:03 PM • permalink

 

    1. Bonmot mainly related to # 99 (but all over the place).

      I know it wasn’t central to your beef but….
      5 years is a while so I wasn’t sure and Googled. Lehman looks to have got a 5 match ban – not 1 as you reckoned at # 99.

      Source

      Posted by Wacko on 2008 01 07 at 09:06 PM • permalink

 

 

    1. #87 “Harbajhan…. continues to make Ponting look silly for the two or three balls it usually takes him to get the Australian Captain’s wicket.”

      And when he gets it, he now rolls around on the field like drunken monkey.

      Posted by Barrie on 2008 01 07 at 09:08 PM • permalink

 

    1. #114 – When I called Harbhajan a “coolie”, it was just Aussie slang for a cool guy. Bugger me with a flaming stump. If they could spin the ball as well as they spin a story, the Aussies would lose by an innings plus.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 07 at 09:15 PM • permalink

 

    1. Talking about Harbajhan taking Ponting’s wicket is interesting.

      Ponting’s LBW in the first innings of the Sydney test was very clearly edged onto the pads. It was a far bigger nick than the one Symonds got. Yet Harbajhan and the entire Indian team had no compunction about appealing ferociously and accepting the wicket – a wicket they KNEW was not out.

      Yes, Ponting should have been given out earier (not to Harbajhan) – for what was a very fine nick behind (a difficult decision for the umpire). But it could be argued that the Indian’s started the whole undermining of the umpires by appealing for and accepting that atrocious LBW. Where were their high morals then?

      Posted by BB77 on 2008 01 07 at 09:20 PM • permalink

 

    1. Didn’t Ponting hit 150 odd against India, including Harbajhan, a few months ago? I hardly think you would call him Harbie’s bunny. The bloke has got him a couple of times in two tests.
      Also I read Haigh’s piece and he makes some pretty decent points (that contradict my take on this) without behaving like a total dickhead a la Spanky Roebuck.

      Posted by Harold on 2008 01 07 at 09:21 PM • permalink

 

    1. #95 Well Barrie? No response to #71?

      OK, I’ve said a lot, but Mental Floss, you missed my point.  ‘What stays on the field’ is not possible when the rules have changed today [I am over 60] and all players are now required to report racist incidents, unlike years ago.
      The unacceptable crowd behaviour towards Symonds in India, and the poor initial response of officials was one big background cause of what happened in Sydney, and the ICC stepped in.
      How do you ‘gently escort’ 100s of raving Indians from any ground? So it must be stopped officially by the players first.

      In all this, no-one seems to credit Andrew Symonds enough with his fine, reserved personal reaction to terrible provocation in India – and his superb performances under this pressure.
      Instead, some here are blaming the victim… which surprises me.

      Posted by Barrie on 2008 01 07 at 09:23 PM • permalink

 

    1. I think some people are getting a bit curried away.

      Whoops sorry . The devil made me do it…

      Posted by Wacko on 2008 01 07 at 09:23 PM • permalink

 

    1. Cheeky monkey!

      Posted by Harold on 2008 01 07 at 09:25 PM • permalink

 

    1. Harbejan deserves the three match suspension, not only for his racist taunts, but for that ludicrous rolling on the ground when he dismissed Ponting in the second innings.
      The video clip of that highly dignified moment in time would be something you’d be proud to show your grandchildren, wouldn’t it?A point to note, that seems to have been overlooked here, is that Ponting was required to report any incidents of racism on the field, as was Kumble, if the Aussies had made racist comments. This was part of the pre match agreement, and not some petulant whining by the captain, contrary to what some commenters here have suggested.

      Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2008 01 07 at 09:26 PM • permalink

 

    1. What about h singh’s reaction to ponting’s wicket?

      No wonder Aust celebrated!

      Fuck you Roebuck, you arse sniffing child abuser.  You think because you are a cricket tragic that your view on cricket is any better than the man in the street.  Wrong, dickhead.

      1. Ponting claimed the catch because he claimed control of both himself and ball BEFORE he put his hand on the ground.  Fair enough.  The decision was not given as the umpire could not see or hear the edge off the glove.  Fair enough.  Case closed.

      2. Clark caught it cleanly.  THEN in getting up put his hand on the ground.  AFTER the catch was completed.  Dismissal and fair enough.

      3. Kumble appealed every time the ball hit the pads.  Give me a break.  I thought he would get cited for over appealling.  He also carried on with one appeal hysterically.  Again, the only reason not cited is he’s the captain.

      4. Symonds stood his ground fairly, as per the rules.  How is that cheating?

      5. Tendulkar was plumb lbw – sure a bit harder to “walk”, but if he was given out in his 30’s, that matches the Symonds decision – to me they worked themselves out straight away.

      6. Clarke batting – I didn’t see the first innings incident, but gee, I guess we aren’t allowed to be humans and make a mistake.  I’d like to hear from him on why he didn’t walk before condeming him.

      7. “monkey” “bastard” – H Singh KNEW it was racially offensive and KNEW he was on a warning from when he said it before, and deserved a ban of 1-2 matches.  I’m most disappointed with Tendulkar, who is outright lying he didn’t hear it.  He has lost all credibility imo.  No way 3 aussie players would all conspire independently to say he said it.

      re monkey – it comes from the “porch monkey” racist term for lazy blacks sitting on a porch not doing anything.  No Indian can now be in any doubt it is racist against blacks, and if they are working so hard to combat racism, then the jokey use in their own country is no excuse, given they all know how it is taken here

      re bastard – what a joke – it is not racist.  I’m sure Hogg didn’t know it was offensive to them – fine him to learn the lesson.

      8. sledging – never been a fan of it, especially when it gets personal.  I’d be happy to outlaw any communication between opposing teams that was not necessary to further the game.  But what is going to stop a keeper saying loudly to the first slip – “hey I fucked Ganguly’s sister last night – what a nice lay”, when Ganguly is batting?  How is that policed if it wasn’t directed at the batter but he over hears it?  Sure it is deliberate, but the laws would need about 100 pages to cover this stuff.

      In summary, the Indians have grossly over-reacted and Roebuck is a tool.  And Tendulkar is now suspect.

      Posted by peter m on 2008 01 07 at 09:36 PM • permalink

 

    1. IMHO

      This back lash against the Ausssie team has been brewing for years. I was done with the Australian “cricket” ethic when some members boasted that they never walk. What’s more some thought the question absurd.

      Symonds cheated. But he is not alone. This appalling attitude seems endemic or even promoted in the Australian cricket team.

      Let me state this clearly: If you are caught then you are out. You must walk regardless of the umpires opinion.

      If you know you are caught and don’t walk then you are cheating. No ifs, buts or quibbles.

      The relevant clause from the laws of cricket: Law 27 (2) A batsman is dismissed if
      either (a) he is given out by an umpire, on appeal or (b) he is out under any of the Laws and leaves his wicket as in 1 above.

      I am accused of naiveté. And not understanding the pressures to win at all cost in the world of professional cricket, but I say that is also irrelevant. That’s what made cricket such a special game. The fact that such matters of honour were important.

      I have not and cannot cite the Australian Cricket team up as examples of good sportsmanship to my son.

      And yes I know many other national teams have an even more appalling attitude to the laws of the game. Chucking and ball tampering, but again, that is not relevant. What is relevant to me is how we play the game.

      Posted by Dean McAskil on 2008 01 07 at 09:36 PM • permalink

 

    1. Harbhajan Singh can be an irritating young man but he is head of a family and responsible for raising nine people.

      In all the furore we have overlooked the Singh family’s irresponsible use of birth control and subsequent carbon footprint. It is my contention that he should be excuted at dawn.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 07 at 09:37 PM • permalink

 

    1. As somewhat of an authority (having studied extensively in 4th grade) I can vaguely recall a few relevant facts regarding Indian culture and beliefs. If you are naughty in this life. In the next one as sort of a payback you will get Korma.
      Perhaps I am already in the my next life as I had one just the other day from the North/South Indian takeaway. It was Lamb . My wife had the Beef.

      Posted by Wacko on 2008 01 07 at 09:40 PM • permalink

 

    1. And another thing, that has been said before:

      If Symonds takes the field dressed and made up like some halloween nightmare clown then he should “Harden the F*** up!” or get a new hairdresser and make up artist.

      Posted by Dean McAskil on 2008 01 07 at 09:43 PM • permalink

 

    1. Dean,

      I wont argue that the Aussies have ‘issues’ to be addressed. However, these arguments are irelevant in the face of allegations of racism and/or poor umpiring.

      Posted by Nic on 2008 01 07 at 09:51 PM • permalink

 

    1. Sorry Dean but citing that law doesn’t make it cheating not to walk. The key phrase is “and he leaves his wicket as in 1 above”. In other words you are either given out because the umpire says so or you walk. If you don’t leave your wicket (ie don’t walk) you are not out. Show me a law that says a batsmen must leave his wicket when he knows he’s out and I’ll agree its cheating. Whether its sporting is another issue.

      The issue of walking has been debated for decades. Some cricketers walk some don’t. Its always been like that. To call Symonds a cheat is to damn probably 99% of all cricketers who haven’t walked at some time in their lives. A batsmen can justify it saying the rare occasions they are given not out when they know they’re out makes up for the times they are given out when they know they aren’t.

      Frankly my sympathy for the indians has totally disspiated. They got the raw end of some bad decisions. That’s not Australia’s fault. One of their players was suspended – again not Australia’s fault. To throw tantys now is pathetic.  I can’t see this now as anything but the powerful Indian cricket board starting to throw its weight around.

      As for the pusillanimous rationalisations for Singh by the likes of Roebuck – then I think that just confirms Botham’s view of him.

      Posted by Francis H on 2008 01 07 at 09:51 PM • permalink

 

    1. #124 Nice one Dean..generally agree.  I feel under the present regime our team has a mean, spiteful edge not representative of the country as a whole

      #122

      I hardly think Harbajhan’s reaction was any different to Brett Lee’s over the top lawnmower starting act every time he bowls some hapless Bangladeshi #11

      But finally some sense in this stuff… Indian guest commentator Harsha Bhogle as reported on the ABC

      “”And the ICC is a bit like the United Nations isn’t it? They really have no control.””

      A man with that level of insight needs to be heeded

      And one small, pedantic point….the LAWS of Cricket, not rules

      Posted by Rod C on 2008 01 07 at 09:55 PM • permalink

 

    1. #125 IT

      In all the furore we have overlooked the Singh family’s irresponsible use of birth control and subsequent carbon footprint. It is my contention that he should be excuted at dawn.

      And further, India, the sub continent and Africa should be recolonised immediately, doubtless they need a refresher course in civilised behaviour and mammalian identification.

      Posted by Pickles on 2008 01 07 at 09:56 PM • permalink

 

    1. An ailing all-rounder called Roy
      Hit on a career-boosting ploy;
      Get sledged for your race,
      And respond ‘in your face’
      With sunblock and locks as decoy.

      Posted by Barrie on 2008 01 07 at 09:56 PM • permalink

 

    1. BB77, you are clearly very well versed on cricket with some insightful comments. I think your one at #51 is the most telling though. The Indians were very vocal in the lead up to this series, acknowledging Australia as the world’s best, but that they were ready to challenge us for the mantle. Now it is has all fallen apart they are looking for something to blame rather than the fact that they refuse to put anywhere near the effort into their fielding that the Aussies do, they are lazy and seem to think that bowling and batting are all that matters. One of the first cricket books I was given as a kid was called; ‘Throws and catches can win matches’.
      I was at Day 3 of the Melbourne Test. Watching the Indians warm up was a farce – unprofessional in the extreme – likes kids at lunchtime. Following this joke, they had a big group hug to gee themselves up before the start of play. It was only after this that Tendulkar decided to grace them with his presence on the ground. My nephew commented during the day that their body language when fielding suggested they didn’t seem to like each other, let alone the other team!

      Posted by AlphaMikeFoxtrot on 2008 01 07 at 10:02 PM • permalink

 

    1. Francis H.

      I have had this debate before and yours is a common argument but it is wrong. With respect, it is an obtuse interpretation of the Laws.

      To quote the Laws again.

      Law 32 (1) Out Caught: The striker is out Caught if a ball delivered by the bowler, not being a No ball, touches his bat without having previously been in contact with any member of the fielding side and is subsequently held by a fielder as a fair catch before it touches the ground.

      Note is does not mention the umpire or appeals. Umpires and appeals are relevant only where there is doubt in the batsmen’s mind.

      So again if you don’t walk and you know you are out then you are cheating. Symonds cheated.

      Posted by Dean McAskil on 2008 01 07 at 10:02 PM • permalink

 

    1. #27, kae.  I also think Symonds is a good sort, though the zinc is a definite turn off.

      #28, Gibbo.  No, it’s not because he wears the wrong f—— cream but because he looks ridiculous when he wears it.

      #30 and #33, Infidel.

      I usually agree with your comments but occasionally I don’t.  That doesn’t make me call you dumb and deny you the right to make them.  Women play and watch sport too, sport!

      Aboriginal ancestry doesn’t give me any particular moral authority and I don’t claim it does.  It does, however, mean that I am perhaps a little more familiar with genuine forms of racism.  Everything is stupidly labelled “racist” these days, even disagreements between people of the same ethnic group.

      #35 and #45, anonymous.

      Soccer hooligans in Europe is a different scene all together.  There’s a viciousness there.

      In India, monkeys are considered clowns (except for the monkey god, of course, and even he has his moments).

      #38, Nora.  Nick’s friend is right.  Shame attempts were made later to shoot down such a sensible comment.

      #39, Barrie.  the Australian team lost the Twenty-20 and whinged for weeks afterwards.

      #41, deanosumo, you’re right to point out the hypocritical and cheating ways in which the team achieved the victory.  A sad day for Aussie sport (which, frankly, has no right to call itself sport anymore).

      #44, Harold.  I’ll also say again: (1) Symonds is also the only bloke in the team wearing zinc around both lips, (2) having a black ancestress doesn’t mean I recognise racism better than you, but it does mean I might be more familiar with it, (3) Symonds is a good sort but the zinc is something else again.

      #53, Bonmot, wasn’t trying anything on, but I did get some of my education in the USA, where:

      a woman ancestor
      wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

      It seemed much easier to write “ancestress” than “woman ancestor”.

      #69, Contrail.  I agree, it’s all Kevin Rudd’s fault.  Was he really a cricket fan before becoming Prime Minister?

      #73 and#82, frollicking.  Thanks for the laugh with “Hello Dave!” And you’re right, we should all harden up – we’re all becoming too precious by half.

      #87, Rodd C. The rest of the team did gang up on Harbajhan because Ponting has a real ego problem and just can’t deal with being occasionally off his game.

      #124, Dean.  Unfortunately, cricket is no longer the special game it was.  I blame Kerry Packer – and Kevin Rudd.

      Posted by ann j on 2008 01 07 at 10:03 PM • permalink

 

    1. Wow, just wow.

      I used to think that I might actually look into this cricket thingy. So many stand up Ozzies are interested and I’ve read Patrick O’Brian and I did once wreck two cars in two days during a visit to Sydney.

      But no, any game where giving one’s all is considered a bad thing . . . is just not my cup of tea. (did I say that right – don’t want anyone to call me names.)

      -former free safety ‘merican style.
      -daughter was State Champ playing second base her senior year.
      -yes, those are two different sports.

      Go Aussies.

      Posted by gajim on 2008 01 07 at 10:05 PM • permalink

 

    1. If the poll is still going, I would like to vote yes, Peter Roebuck should be sacked (and, from what I read above, beaten with a cane).

      Also, didn’t the ICC tell both captains, just before the series started, that the captains were to report any instances of racism either on or off the field.

      So why is there a problem when Ponting does this?

      Why didn’t Kumble tell Singh about this?

      If he did, why did Singh go ahead and use the “monkey” term anyway?

      (Three questions which Indian journalists appear not to have asked).

      Posted by johnt4103 on 2008 01 07 at 10:06 PM • permalink

 

    1. If any good has come of this, it is that Test Cricket matters. if this had happened in a one-dayer or 20/20, no one would have cared. Also, many more people are now aware that Peter Roebuck is a sanctimonious, verbose, kiddy fiddling, rock spider.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 07 at 10:06 PM • permalink

 

    1. Sad thing is that the effete ICC will bend again to the tantrums. Which is what this is all about… plus the added advantage of inferior cricket teams being able to beat us at something besides 20/20 – namely, the public relations game.

      Subcontinental cultures are the epitome of the glass jaw. Pakistan, India and Bangladesh all exist as discrete countries today because the people involved are always chucking a sad, crying, burning someone alive, and taking their bat and ball home.

      This doesn’t happen in Australia. We’re just evil in harmless sporting comps. Perhaps there’s a lesson in that. That whole middle bit of the Earth needs a big cup of toughen the fuck up.

      Posted by greenpike on 2008 01 07 at 10:07 PM • permalink

 

    1. ann j proves finally that women should be kept away from cricket.

      I bet she sits a the footy saying, “kick it, just kick it!”

      And ancestress!!!!!!!!!

      Back to the kitchen with her.

      Posted by BB77 on 2008 01 07 at 10:12 PM • permalink

 

    1. And if you leave your wicket Dean. If you delete that clause from the phrase in 27 (2) b you would be closer to being right. But the law specifically says that you are out if the umpire gives you out – or if you leave your wicket and are out from one of the various methods. The law you cited in your original post allows a player to walk – ie under the laws of cricket an umpire doesn’t have to give you out – you are allowed to walk if you believe you are out. If you leave your wicket and aren’t out for those reasons then you have retired – which is another of thepurpose of 27(2)b. The law you cite in your second post is only defining one of the methods by which a player can be out. Show me a law that says a player must walk when he knows he’s out. That is the only law that would make not walking cheating.

      Far from my view being obtuse, I have never heard of any interpretation of the laws which make not walking cheating. And if it was then almost every cricketer in history from every country has cheated and is cheating. Again whether its sporting or not is much more debateable.

      Posted by Francis H on 2008 01 07 at 10:12 PM • permalink

 

    1. #135 – Didn’t mean to be quite so rude before, but I was steaming like a Bombay sewer after a curry festival. My women in sport comment was very tongue in cheek. We will have to agree to disagree. My view is that this is a totally contrived event designed to further entrench the BCCI’s power in world cricket.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 07 at 10:12 PM • permalink

 

    1. #139

      added advantage of inferior cricket teams being able to beat us at something besides 20/20 – namely, the public relations game*.

      *I thought they were pissing and moaning.

      Posted by kae on 2008 01 07 at 10:15 PM • permalink

 

    1. Dean is right, of course. Cricketers nowadays just don’t know how to behave. If only they took after WG Grace. What? Oh, right.. they are.

      Posted by BB77 on 2008 01 07 at 10:15 PM • permalink

 

    1. So, it’s NOT okay for Symonds to wear white zinc on his lips because he’s black, but, it would be fine if he were white?

      Posted by Pogria on 2008 01 07 at 10:19 PM • permalink

 

    1. And dean if you look at 27 (1) it specifically says that an umpire can only give a batsmen out underr th laws if an appeal has been made but this doesn’t “debar a batsmen who is out under any of the Laws leaving his wicket without an appeal having been made”.

      So the laws are framed to allow a batsmen to walk – not to require it.

      Posted by Francis H on 2008 01 07 at 10:20 PM • permalink

 

    1. #119 Barrie, I can accept that. You’ve made some very valid points—but entirely missed the point of my comment in #71.

      Please refrain from attributing comments or opinions to me that were never inferred, implied or insinuated in the text of my original post—particularly by use of such a feeble instrumentality as posing rhetorical questions to one and all that make it seem as though the views you interleave therein belong to me.

      OK?

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2008 01 07 at 10:20 PM • permalink

 

    1. #144 – But it used to be a gentleman’s game? I read so in Daddy’s copy of Country Life. It wasn’t until these blasted colonials started playing that this kind of nonsense happened.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 07 at 10:22 PM • permalink

 

    1. #113 Wacko
      According to 121Sports….
      “Five years ago, Australia’s Darren Lehmann was suspended for five one-day matches after he was found guilty of shouting a “racially-motivated obscenity” after he was run out during a game against Sri Lanka”.
      ……………………..
      I guess five days off has been construed in some commentaries now as a one-test ban (considering a Test lasts for 5 days).Anyway, 5 one-dayers isn’t the same as being banned for three Tests (15 days) – a much harsher penalty in the game’s ultimate format.

      And BB77 – calling somebody a monkey isn’t racist. It may be racist only in the eyes of somebody who sees racism at every turn. Certainly it is insulting and designed to offend – but racist? Well, not in the same way as Mark Latham calling Janet Albrechtsen a “skanky ho” is offensive and sexist and downright plumbs the depths of hateful insult.

      In terms of manifestly overt insult, ‘monkey’ doesn’t even rate against calling somebody a “fucking black c–t”.

      Where’s your sense of proportion?

      Posted by Bonmot on 2008 01 07 at 10:22 PM • permalink

 

    1. But can I add that I agree the Indians were hard done in this test and i was hoping in the end for a draw of an Indian win if nothing more than to defuse the controversy. And the Australian team can behave like prats. I just think the wash-up to this test has been way overdone and to repeat myself – is a rather worrying indication that the Indian Cricket Council seems to think it can throw its weight around to get its way.

      Posted by Francis H on 2008 01 07 at 10:24 PM • permalink

 

    1. Francis H

      My use of the word obtuse was meant as a gentle gibe. I apologise if it offended.

      I am always surprised at your argument. It is a common one.

      “I have never heard of any interpretation of the laws which make not walking cheating”

      I was always taught that to not walk was cheating. And not from one coach but from many. (Warning: Wistful reminisce coming!) I learnt to play in WA on poorly maintained concrete pitches covered with about 1mm of “cushioning” in 40C+ heat in the 70’s.

      Posted by Dean McAskil on 2008 01 07 at 10:28 PM • permalink

 

    1. I hope our friends on the left are reading this. They can see how we right wingers don’t march in lockstep and how we can have fervent and passionate disagreement on the really important issues.

      Posted by Francis H on 2008 01 07 at 10:29 PM • permalink

 

    1. #149 Wtf does Mark Latham have to do with this apart from provide another example of abig sook taking their bat and ball home?

      Again, if you or Ann J don’t think the term “monkey” is offensive to folks with dark skin, you are either completely ignorant or trolling.

      Posted by anonymous guest on 2008 01 07 at 10:34 PM • permalink

 

    1. Bonmot!!! Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!

      After the recent incident in India, when Harbajhan pulled the same stunt, Symonds sought him out and explained why ‘monkey’ is offensive – how it implies that people of African descent are apes, are subhuman. There can be nothing more racist – and more in line with classic racist thinking.

      So whether you think it is racist or not is immaterial. Harbajhan KNEW it was racially offensive to Symonds and still used the term.

      And since he’d agreed not to use the term again, he is both a prick and a liar.

      Fucking and c##t are not racist; they are, in some contexts, words of abuse. Black is a colour. And as Viv Richards said to the spectator who called him a Black Bastard, sure, I’m black, but don’t go talking about my mother that way.

      Posted by BB77 on 2008 01 07 at 10:35 PM • permalink

 

    1. No offence taken dean. I didn’t mean to sound offended (i won’t report you). I suppose at school I was probably taught the same thing (hard to remember now)- certainly that it wasn’t sporting not to walk. But from leaving school I can’t remember anyone saying we had to walk (in my case it was hardly necessary advice since my stumps were usually spreadeagled) – nor have I heard any of our learned commentary friends in the years since refer to not walking as cheating. And my reading of the laws (of which I’m no expert) doesn’t convince me that its cheating. But I won’t belabor the argument. Friendly disagreement is part of the fun of cricket.

      Posted by Francis H on 2008 01 07 at 10:37 PM • permalink

 

    1. Just read a comment by an Australian that Symonds needs to ‘have surgery on his lips’.

      How this issue has brought them out of the woodwork…

      Posted by Barrie on 2008 01 07 at 10:37 PM • permalink

 

    1. OK Annj, just one thing I can’t accept – ancestress? Does it really matter if your ancestor was male or female? Remember Americans do tend to overdo the literal button with language.

      Posted by Harold on 2008 01 07 at 10:40 PM • permalink

 

    1. #145 Pogria – well said—but then there would be the matter of his hair style. No doubt in the absence of his famous white zinc coated lips, he would have to watch his hair style!  Good grief – and who would decide what is acceptable?  Ah yes, I see it now – makeup stylists for each player for each test match preceded by polling all viewers (from all continents) to ensure that no style or appearance would offend anyone! LOL

      Anyway, I say it was a terrific test match, and it’s great for the ICC to confirm the umpires for the next test.

      #142 Infidel – I’m with you on this – follow the money trail.  Without the Symons/Harbhajan Singh monkey incident, my guess is we would be seeing something else.  I wonder how many bets have been lost in India over the match results?

      Posted by Wand on 2008 01 07 at 10:41 PM • permalink

 

    1. I may have posted this a long time ago, and someone may remember the incident in question better (far better) than I, but apparently there was in days past an unassuming, shy but very competent medium pace bowler.

      He apparently bowled a beatiful ball—good line, a bit short of “full”—and struck the batsman (who’d backed up a bit to defend) just below the kneeroll, plumb in front of middle stump.

      No one went up. Not the bowler nor the keeper, neither slip nor gully.

      As the bowler took the ball and walked back past the Umpire to start another run-up, he very quietly asked “So, how was that one, then, Ump?”

      Slowly and deliberately, but without hesitation, up went the Umpire’s finger and the batsman was given out LBW.

      There—did I get that story right (its from memory)?

      I like that story.

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2008 01 07 at 10:46 PM • permalink

 

    1. Francis H

      My final comment. I am very familiar with walking but in my case there was usually little doubt. Even the opposition set up 5 slips everytime I was on strike. A, ahem, “snick” to the 4th slip does challenge the defintion of a “snick”.

      Posted by Dean McAskil on 2008 01 07 at 10:47 PM • permalink

 

    1. Sounds like we had similar walking issues Dean.
      I probably would have considered a batting achievement to have to have been given out by an umpire.

      Posted by Francis H on 2008 01 07 at 10:50 PM • permalink

 

    1. Francis and Dean…I’m over 50 and have never, ever played in a team where anyone ever walked ever, ever, ever. Most people still went off grudgingly when all three stumps were knocked over.

      Posted by BB77 on 2008 01 07 at 10:50 PM • permalink

 

    1. #135 Ann J I wonder did our precious new PM have a secret 48 hour cramming session, in which a lifetimes knowledge and experience of the great game was programmed into his apparentl phenomonal memory??

      Posted by Rod C on 2008 01 07 at 10:50 PM • permalink

 

    1. #159 – I’ve heard that one too. Another one I like, where the umpire informed the bowler he should have appealed because he would have given it out. Funny game, cricket.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 07 at 10:51 PM • permalink

 

    1. #140, BB77

      ann j proves finally that women should be kept away from cricket.

      Having married a cricketer, given birth to two more and attended more cricket games than you’ve had hot lunches, BB, I’ll bear your remarks in mind in my next life.

      Posted by ann j on 2008 01 07 at 10:52 PM • permalink

 

    1. #159 MentalFloss
      Nice anecdote.
      I like the one I heard years ago. I don’t remember the protagonists, but it’s good.Batsmen walks up to umpire who has just given him the finger.
      “That wasn’t out” he exclaims.
      To which the umpire quietly replies, “It wasn’t? Read tomorrow’s paper son”.

      Posted by Bonmot on 2008 01 07 at 10:53 PM • permalink

 

    1. #162 – I once waited for square legs decision when stumped half way down the pitch. Considering it was a teammate doing the square leg duties I was a bit dirty to be given out.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 07 at 10:54 PM • permalink

 

    1. BB77 The stories I could tell. But I won’t since the other commenters would lynch me for personal reminiscence crimes.

      But cricket is like war. Half the fun is rehashing the stories later in life.

      Posted by Francis H on 2008 01 07 at 10:54 PM • permalink

 

    1. What happens on the sporting field should stay on the sporting field – within reason. Incidents on the scale of Leigh Matthews snotting Neville Bruns may be exceptions, but the principle stands nevertheless.

      Therefore Andrew Symonds should be – and is – man enough to cope with being called a monkey. He’s a grown man, not a child.

      The problem is that officialdom everywhere has now sunk so deeply into a mire of politically correct confusion that even sporting bodies such as the ICC are so pathetically frightened of consequences that they fall over themselves to introduce draconian penalties for sportsmen throwing what should be regarded as mere wisecracks at each other.

      Totally absurd.

      There has always been sledging. Off the field, it was – generally – ignored and people – generally – forgot or forgave. The concept that a black man can be more offended by a slight on his background than someone else is almost racist in itself.

      Bureaucratic bowing to political correctness will surely kill the game.

      Having said that, it also wouldn’t kill the Australian team to show a little more sportsmanship.

      Posted by ilibcc on 2008 01 07 at 10:55 PM • permalink

 

    1. Okay just one then I’ll stop (since others have started).

      I was umpiring my teams match when the ball hit the batsmen on the pad, it ran away and the batsmen completed a leg bye.

      “Wasn’t that a dead ball”, the bowler asked? “No he played a shot at it”, I said.

      “Not much of a shot”, said the bowler.

      “Well he’s not much of a batsmen” I replied.

      Boom Boom

      Thank you everyone

      Posted by Francis H on 2008 01 07 at 10:59 PM • permalink

 

    1. And I really will stop now.

      One thing I like about cricket threads. It gets my comment numbers up.

      Posted by Francis H on 2008 01 07 at 11:00 PM • permalink

 

    1. #165 ann j, I am so glad you posted that.

      I was waiting because I pretty much knew from your posts that you could take care of yourself and needed no help from me.

      BB77, hang your head—I’ve read some really stupid remarks on these pages (thankfully few).

      Your comment rates among the worst.

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2008 01 07 at 11:02 PM • permalink

 

    1. #90: Wow, this thread’s going to perplex our American friends.

      Not at all, Wimpy, not at all. Something to do with the Sepoy Mutiny, and the first, or perhaps second, Anglo-Sikh War. Monkeys enter into it, somehow, and wild dogs; I believe in connection with the pet section at Sears Roebuck – if they still have a pet section, which I thought they didn’t. No, no, it all makes perfect sense.

      Posted by paco on 2008 01 07 at 11:05 PM • permalink

 

    1. Here’s my opinion on the matter:

      – This was one of the most interesting and exciting test matches I’ve seen in years

      – Singh went too far with the monkey comment in light of his previous discussion with Symonds in India, and he went too far with the Monkey roll.

      – Even still Ponting should have just kept it on the field and dealt with it through Kumble.

      – There is nothing wrong with the winning team getting excited about their win after such a close game.  All the appropriate handshakes still happened and no disrespect was shown.

      – The Indian team and Indian media are showing themselves to be bad losers and are displaying behavior that most children would not do.  Grow up!

      – Yes the Australian’s play hard, but this is professional sport on an international level.

      – The umpires made some shocking decisions, but we’ve seen it all before and all teams should know how to accept that without making threats to leave.

      – In the end all of this controversy just makes the next game all that more exciting.  Lucky for us Cricket fans!

      Posted by 8_8_8 on 2008 01 07 at 11:20 PM • permalink

 

    1. Paco, maaaaaate!! You’ve been reading Flashman in the dunny again…shame

      Posted by Rod C on 2008 01 07 at 11:22 PM • permalink

 

    1. There’s hardly anyone who isn’t talking out of their arse about all this.

      1- The Indians have every right to complain about the shit umpiring: it cost them the game. The fact that the usual prats are burning effigies and screeching “racism” doesn’t change that fact.

      2- The Australian team are a bunch of hypocritical crybabies when it comes to sledging and abuse. They can dish it out, but it seems they sure can’t take it. The penalty harbajan got was ridiculous.

      3- Roebuck is an idiot.

      4- The BCCI and the usual parade of third-world race-hustlers will use legitimate complaints of crap umpiring and Australian souble-standards to hold the game to ransom.

      5- Everyone else in this country will continue to do a “who, me?” act and pretend there was nothing wrong with the umpiring or the Australian team’s ludicrous double-standards.

      Posted by Tex on 2008 01 07 at 11:25 PM • permalink

 

    1. #176 Tex,

      and your point is?

      Posted by Pogria on 2008 01 07 at 11:28 PM • permalink

 

    1. 173 – thanks for the funny.

      Rod C, 130 – B Lee, during the very short gap of time between getting the decision of out and being embraced by teammates,does some hand gestures.  You cannot compare that with H Singh racing away from his teammates and half way to the boundary, falling into a body roll twice, leaping up and celebrating his wicket.  c’mon, perspective please!!

      Re monkey – singh had explained to him how racist it was.  end of story.

      Posted by peter m on 2008 01 07 at 11:32 PM • permalink

 

    1. Mentalfloss – the kitchen bit was a joke!

      But the fact remains, ann j talked rubbish.

      Racism is racism – and Harbajhan made a racist comment knowing it was racist and intending to offend.

      Posted by BB77 on 2008 01 07 at 11:37 PM • permalink

 

    1. This has gotten way out of hand. Professional cricket is a business. I can’t imagine a businessman going crying to the Chamber of Commerce, the Better Business Bureau, the Department of Commerce or whatever to complain because a business rival called him a monkey. Really, Singh’s “monkey” jibe is no big deal.

      I must admit to being a bit out of touch when it comes to cricket. I once quite enjoyed watching a bit of cricket on TV. The West Indies were always good value: they played hard but fair cricket but more importantly always seemed to enjoy playing the game. It was fun watching them have fun.

      Now there isn’t much cricket commentary that sticks in my mind but I can clearly recall one of the Chappell brothers (almost certainly Ian) commenting during a match many years ago that the Australian players were having way too much fun and being way too friendly and that the players needed to be reminded that they are out there to win and not to have a good time.

      Here’s Ian Chappell ffor the record:

      “… although we didn’t deliberately set out to be a ‘bunch of bastards’ when we walked on to the field, I’d much prefer any team I captained to be described like that than as ‘a nice bunch of blokes on the field.’ As captain of Australia my philosophy was simple: between 11.00am and 6.00pm there was no time to be a nice guy. I believed that on the field players should concentrate on giving their best to the team, to themselves and to winning; in other words, playing hard and fairly within the rules. To my mind, doing all that left no time for being a nice guy.”

      Right, as if playing hard but fair means you can’t be a nice guy. The Australian team is without doubt a great side but clearly has a collective attitude problem.

      Posted by J F Beck on 2008 01 07 at 11:46 PM • permalink

 

    1. #179 I disagree. ann j posted an opinion.

      Your comment at # 140 (and the last time I checked, my sense of humour was intact) was not couched in terms that would lead one to convivial laughter.

      Then again, maybe I am old-fashioned.

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2008 01 07 at 11:50 PM • permalink

 

    1. Welcome back, Jeff! Hope you’re feeling better, and I’m delighted to see that your blog has been found alive and unharmed.

      Posted by paco on 2008 01 07 at 11:51 PM • permalink

 

    1. The way to increase “walking” is to allow 3 challenges to either side an innings. If the batsman has nicked it standing his ground will not save him. The fielding side will challenge a “not out” call and he will be on his way.

      Similarly, frivolous appeals will diminish for the same reasons.

      The idea that neutral umpires would reduce “bad” decisions does not seem to hold water. With increased technology and scrutiny, umpires are left to hang out to dry. A carefully constituted “challenge” system will benefit all concerned and increase the number of walkers which would be a good thing for the game.

      Posted by amortiser on 2008 01 07 at 11:53 PM • permalink

 

    1. I believe Mr. Beck has atroposophied this thread rather neatly

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2008 01 07 at 11:55 PM • permalink

 

    1. Yes, #181, anne j posted an opinion. (Lots of them in fact.)

      And they were all crap.

      She’s allowed to have an opinion, and when that opinion is crap, I’m allowed to say it’s crap.

      Again, Harbajhan made a racist comment, knowing it was racist, and knowing it was offensive. End of discussion.

      Posted by BB77 on 2008 01 07 at 11:56 PM • permalink

 

    1. End of Discussion, you say?

      I did not object to your calling her opinions rubbish—you are “allowed”—as you so succinctly put it.

      You know what I objected to and why.

      That, I believe, is the “End of discussion”

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2008 01 08 at 12:07 AM • permalink

 

    1. And if I might try my hand at atroposification, BB77, I find the fact that our first exchange of pleasantries has taken place on a thread entitled “Arrogant and Abrasive” very fitting indeed.

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2008 01 08 at 12:11 AM • permalink

 

    1. Actually, #186, I was making a subtle point (one I’ve only just discovered) which was that it’s amazing how feminist types can so easily ignore racism when it suits them, then on other occasions forget feminism (as when it involves pointint out that certain cultures are misogynistic).

      Posted by BB77 on 2008 01 08 at 12:12 AM • permalink

 

    1. Quick straw poll in the office. We had two walkers and one “the stumps were like that when I got here, ump.”

      Posted by Dean McAskil on 2008 01 08 at 12:13 AM • permalink

 

    1. #183 here’s another idea; if a batsman is aggrieved at being declared “out”, allow him to appeal the decision to an independent match committee (comprised of appropriate Pooh-Bahs), with the decision being made at the end of the session or days play. If his appeal is upheld, his side is awarded 50 runs (and Peter Roebuck gets to cane the umpire). If his appeal is dismissed, his side forfeits 50 runs.

      Posted by larrikin on 2008 01 08 at 12:14 AM • permalink

 

    1. #175 – there are some excellent cricket descriptions in ‘Flashman’s Lady’ – which incidentally show that sportsmanship in the game hasn’t changed all that much in the last 150 years

      Posted by squawkbox on 2008 01 08 at 12:16 AM • permalink

 

    1. This thread is approaching 200, which is more than India usually scores in an innings anyway, erronoeous umpiring decisions or no.

      That’s stumps ladies and gentlemen..

      Posted by Pickles on 2008 01 08 at 12:16 AM • permalink

 

    1. Also mentalfloss “you know what I objected to and why” is exactly what Symonds could say to Harbajhan.

      Posted by BB77 on 2008 01 08 at 12:21 AM • permalink

 

    1. Or how about this – we could let the umpires make the decisions. Sure mistakes will be made but in the absence of obvious bias these will even out. Sportmanship is also accepting a bad decision that goes against you.

      Posted by Francis H on 2008 01 08 at 12:25 AM • permalink

 

    1. Just listening to the radio

      Interviewee “It’s the biggest thing since Bodyline”

      Thanks everyone for a very interesting discussion here

      Posted by aussiemagpie on 2008 01 08 at 12:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. The walking thing is a tough one. Me personally, I’d be inclined to walk but less so after a few bad decisions. These guys are playing for money and quite rightly leave the calls up to the umpires.

      So tell me BB77, do you think the monkey thing is really a big deal to Symonds? He’s mentally scarred, right? Nope, it’s a big deal because Australia is a racist country (according to some) so a big deal had to made out of this. And if it is a big deal to Symonds, he’s a big baby. Singh didn’t go on TV or in the press and call Symonds a monkey. Nope, he said it to Symonds in an attempt to throw the guy off his game. Big fucking deal. There would be plenty of worse stuff said many times every day in all sorts of different situations right round the country and no one takes any notice.

      Posted by J F Beck on 2008 01 08 at 12:39 AM • permalink

 

    1. Exactly Francis, which owing to the balance of right Vs wrong decisions, is why most batsmen stand their ground.

      Posted by Nic on 2008 01 08 at 12:40 AM • permalink

 

    1. I would have preferred if Symonds had walked. Especially when it left the umpire looking foolish and it helped the game degenerate. And it does make Symonds look unsporting which I think is generally unfair in his case. But i don’t think you can base an accusation of cheating on it being such a blatant case. If you expect a batsmen to walk its got to be absolutely everytime he knows he’s out, whether its a feather snick that only he and the keeper hears or a spooned caught and bowled. I think that’s an impossible standard bearing in mind the decisions go the other way frequently (do you think Dravid will walk on a close one anytime soon). Most batsmen who walk nowadays only do it on obvious outs when its pretty much superflous anyway. Doesn’t mean they’re walking on close calls.

      Posted by Francis H on 2008 01 08 at 12:58 AM • permalink

 

    1. #191 skwarkbox.
      Interesting reference to Flashman.
      George Macdonald Fraser, Flashman’s creator, died recently.His last testament makes fascinating reading:

      Here’s an excerpt:-

      The selective distortions of history, so beloved by New Labour, denigrating Britain’s past with such propaganda as hopelessly unbalanced accounts of the slave trade, laying all the blame on the white races, but carefully censoring the truth that not a slave could have come out of Africa without the active assistance of black slavers, and that the trade was only finally suppressed by the Royal Navy virtually single-handed.

      In schools, the waging of war against examinations as “elitist” exercises which will undermine the confidence of those who fail – what an intelligent way to prepare children for real life in which competition and failure are inevitable, since both are what life, if not liberal lunacy, is about.

      PC also demands that “stress”, which used to be coped with by less sensitive generations, should now be compensated by huge cash payments lavished on griping incompetents who can’t do their jobs, and on policemen and firemen “traumatised” by the normal hazards of work which their predecessors took for granted”.

      ——————

      Right wing old bastard.

      Read it all here. A most illuminating and devastating column.

      Posted by Bonmot on 2008 01 08 at 01:03 AM • permalink

 

    1. I think that both teams could use a bit of disclipine. Bring back the good Doctor I say….

      Posted by Gotlieb on 2008 01 08 at 01:11 AM • permalink

 

    1. JF Beck – you’re behind the times. Symonds didn’t whinge or complain. When it happened the first time, in India, he sought out Harbajhan and explained to him why the word monkey was racially offensive. In affect, he said call me whatever you like, but leave race out of it. Symonds tried to keep it on the field. It was Hayden who told Ponting, and Ponting was compelled to report it because of the rules of the series.  By the way, do you think Symonds, as a young black kid growing up in Qld, wouldn’t have suffered regular childhood taunts? Those things stay with you. I think he, personally, has acted very well in all this, both in India and now here. It seems the biggest sin he has committed is to admit, when asked by a reporter in the post match interview, that he nicked that delivery in the first innings. His natural honesty has earned him endless attacks. Unbelievable.

      Posted by BB77 on 2008 01 08 at 01:13 AM • permalink

 

    1. BB77 can add that just because someone complains about racism, doesn’t mean they’re doing it to make themselves feel better.  Perhaps they’re doing so that next kid growing up in Queensland doesn’t have to put up with it.

      Ask any aboriginal football player that’s made a complaint about racist abuse in that code.  It’s not a problem there anymore.  Not even in the crowd.

      Posted by Mr Hackenbacker on 2008 01 08 at 01:42 AM • permalink

 

    1. Over 200 comments!

      Surely the most remarkable double hundred since Jason Gillespie flogged Bangladesh like they were young boys at Peter Roebuck’s house.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 08 at 01:45 AM • permalink

 

    1. #169 ilibcc [Please use names, this looks weird]:
      ‘The problem is that officialdom everywhere has now sunk so deeply into a mire of politically correct confusion that even sporting bodies such as the ICC are so pathetically frightened of consequences that they fall over themselves to introduce draconian penalties’.Except when it comes to throwing, wasting time, ball tampering, etc.
      But you miss the main point along with many others: The ICC had to do something about the awful recent racism in the Indian crowds, and the only way was to insist that it didn’t GET ONTO the field..

      Hence the correct Ponting action and the predictable result – guilty of a second on-field offence and 3.

      Soccer polices its crowds and players for this, and now cricket unfortunately has to join the party – thanks mainly to the Indians, as it happens.

      Their dummy spit/diversion tactics only makes them look foolish.

      Let’s see how they react to Tait’s blitzkrieg—and Bucknor in Perth.  Hmm.
      Will Tait be selected now, or banished for only potential manslaughter?

      Posted by Barrie on 2008 01 08 at 01:45 AM • permalink

 

    1. #203 Over 200 comments!  Not out, too.  Just look at the Oz papers’ sites.

      Posted by Barrie on 2008 01 08 at 01:47 AM • permalink

 

    1. BB77, on what do you base your assumption that Symonds’ Aboriginality made him the target of childhood taunts? And even if he was teased the guy’s mentally together enough to have achieved international sporting fame.

      Anyway, It’s not like Symonds is having to put up with the abuse served up to me every day by intolerant Aussies. Let me tell you, it’s not easy to live with the fact that my career is hindered by bosses who constantly call me “seppo” and make nasty remarks about Yanks being fucking idiots every time W does something they think stupid. Then again, maybe my career languishes because I’m lazy and inclined to waste time on pointless activities like blogging.

      I do have a sledging solution, however. In line with surveillance trends, every player should be miked with a fourth umpire empowered to send off any player who so much as mutters a culturally or otherwise insensitive remark.

      It’s time to restore civility to the game.

      Posted by J F Beck on 2008 01 08 at 01:56 AM • permalink

 

    1. #205 – Judging by the comments and the poll results at the various news sites, the full weight of the Indian IT industry has been set on attack Australia mode.

      Couple of dead Indians courtesy of Lee and Tait at the WACA and they’ll have to lock the gates at Adelaide!

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 08 at 02:01 AM • permalink

 

    1. #206, Andrew Symonds is not Aboriginal, he is a Brummie (ie, born in Birmingham).  One of his parents is West Indian and the other is English.

      Posted by craigo on 2008 01 08 at 02:04 AM • permalink

 

    1. J F Beck, you idiot.

      First, Symonds is of English/West Indian origin. One look at him makes that obvious.

      Second, your workmates are probably getting stuck into you not because you’re from the US, but because you’re an idiot.

      Posted by BB77 on 2008 01 08 at 02:06 AM • permalink

 

    1. Bucknor has just been dumped for the 3rd Test in Perth – FFS! A complete backflip from this morning…

      I think its time for the whole Indian team to piss off back to the sub-continent.

      Darryl Hair again?

      Posted by Gotlieb on 2008 01 08 at 02:08 AM • permalink

 

 

    1. BB77, I just checked with my workmates who still insist Symonds is of Aboriginal descent. All I know is that he has dreadies and wears zinc on his lips. Regardless, why would Qld children tease him? Are Qld children maybe especially prone to such cruelty?

      Posted by J F Beck on 2008 01 08 at 02:16 AM • permalink

 

    1. #211

      [Stupid, optically challenged, tree swinging, banana eating, sub-human, primate]

      Well said Infidel, but you left out “bribe taking, ball tampering…….”

      Posted by Gotlieb on 2008 01 08 at 02:16 AM • permalink

 

    1. What a pack of weak gutted no-hopers in the ICC.
      Sacking Steve Bucknor at the behest of the Injuns is nothing short of disgraceful.They have appointed some sort of “ethics committee” to hear the Harbejan appeal as well. I will bet a weeks pay on this bunch of softcocks dismissing the charge “in the interests of harmony”.

      Might as well just admit that they are scared spitless of losing the Injun money that pays their fat, overblown salaries, reinstate Harbejan, sack Ponting, Gilchrist and Clarke, and replace them with 3rd grade players from some bush league.

      The ICC is a joke. The BCCI has won by blackmail. Utterly disgraceful.

      Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2008 01 08 at 02:20 AM • permalink

 

    1. J F Beck, your workmates are also idiots.

      Are you having a laugh, or are you serious?

      His (white) English parents adopted him at 3 months and came to Australia soon after. The poms tried to enlist him in their team, but he turned them down.

      He is the most Aussie bloke in the world, but…

      But perhaps you don’t know that the deep north in Australia is like the deep south in America – not always the easiest place for people who look a little different.

      Posted by BB77 on 2008 01 08 at 02:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. Beck FFS he is not aboriginal. I gather your workmates are as ill-informed as you.
      Why get involved in a discussion you obviously know so little about?

      Posted by Harold on 2008 01 08 at 02:27 AM • permalink

 

    1. Bucknor’s been replaced by Bowden. Reap what you sow, you nation of dinner ruining telemarketers with engineering degrees.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 08 at 02:29 AM • permalink

 

    1. #217 Meh. If they don’t like him, they can just keep spittin’ until they get an Umpire whose worldview accords with their own.

      Cowardice, thy name is ICC.

      Posted by anonymous guest on 2008 01 08 at 02:31 AM • permalink

 

    1. Gee, it would be justice if Hair was made umpire for the third test.  It won’t happen though.  Pity – he was an excellent umpire who wasn’t afraid to put his balls on the line for his opinion.

      Posted by Mr Hackenbacker on 2008 01 08 at 02:32 AM • permalink

 

    1. Skynews say that the appeal may be delayed for a while and that convention allows for a suspended player to continue playing until the appeal is held.

      Whats the bet that the appeal will be delayed till after the Adelaide Test….. and that racist prick Harbhajan will get to play in both Tests.

      Memo to Bucknor:- bend over mate, here comes the big one! You poor bastard.

      Posted by Gotlieb on 2008 01 08 at 02:36 AM • permalink

 

    1. #220 Sounds like a way out for all concerned. Doubt if we’ll ever see Bucknor stand again, which aint so bad as he was pretty well past it.
      Tour goes ahead, Singh plays, umpire plays the part of the sacrificial lamb.

      Posted by Harold on 2008 01 08 at 02:40 AM • permalink

 

    1. #214
      They went with the money.
      What else did you expect.
      As much as I prefer Test matches to be tightly contested affairs, hopefully the next result will see the abject humiliation of India.

      Posted by lotocoti on 2008 01 08 at 02:42 AM • permalink

 

    1. I don’t think the sacking of Bucknor for the Third Test is anything other than a pragmatic compromise, such as is normally taken on a daily basis by governments etc, who must try and satisfy conflicting interests.  And who knows–the white stick and ear trumpet might have worked against Oz in Perth.

      #199 old RN saying from the 70s, 80s and 90s of C19………Beware, my lads of the Bight of Benin…there’s one Jack comes out for 5 that go in.

      Posted by Rod C on 2008 01 08 at 02:43 AM • permalink

 

    1. Harold, I don’t need to know anything about Symonds’ origins to know that this whole “monkey” thing is much ado about nothing.

      BB77, yes, I understand it’s possible to make certain assumptions about Australians based on where they live. Tasmanians are, for example, highly inbred with two heads. Having taken a look at Symonds’ background it’s probably safe to assume he was teased more about his father teaching at the school he attended rather than about his extraordinary appearance. (He wore the zinc to class, right?)

      Posted by J F Beck on 2008 01 08 at 02:44 AM • permalink

 

    1. #222

      hopefully the next result will see the abject humiliation of India

      I thought that had already happened (lots), thus the current tantrum.

      Posted by kae on 2008 01 08 at 02:44 AM • permalink

 

    1. And how good it is to see unimportant shit like US politics, the inanities of the left, the fairfax press, etc etc take a back step to a REALLY important topic

      Posted by Rod C on 2008 01 08 at 02:45 AM • permalink

 

    1. you know if the aussies never said a word on the field the headlines would be “Arrogant Aussies rufuse to talk” they just cant win , the self appointed morally superior just want to tear them down

      Posted by davey8 on 2008 01 08 at 02:46 AM • permalink

 

    1. Beck, Hussey has his whole face covered in white zinc, why no smartarse remarks about him? Read the background not the SMH hysteria.

      Posted by Harold on 2008 01 08 at 02:47 AM • permalink

 

    1. To sack Bucknor is one thing, though to overturn Proctor’s decision makes a mockery of their own faith in their own procedures.

      Posted by Nic on 2008 01 08 at 02:52 AM • permalink

 

    1. Okay, I’m willing to bet that Australia wins in Perth by an innings and LOT of runs. It’ll be a slaughter because the Indian team has no backbone.

      Of course, with Billy Bowden on duty, anything could happen. Bucknor was a terrific umpire who got a bit old and tired and had a few bad days. Bowden is a bad umpire who, once and a while, has the occasional good day. He’s also an idiot. (Straighten your finger, you dick head!) I know which I’d rather have.

      Posted by BB77 on 2008 01 08 at 02:54 AM • permalink

 

    1. I’m still searching, but I’d be surprised if that wasn’t a Zionist plot buried somewhere in this brouhaha.

      Symonds > Monkey > Bananas > Poisoned bananas = Jews!

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 08 at 02:55 AM • permalink

 

    1. Harold, I haven’t kept up with cricket for years and know very little about the whole situation but can tell you that, in my opinion, Singh calling Symonds a monkey is, not newsworthy. A three match suspension for such an alleged sledge is ludicrous.

      Posted by J F Beck on 2008 01 08 at 02:57 AM • permalink

 

    1. #221

      Yup! Looks that way, Harold. It sticks in my gullet because similar to what happened to Hair after he caught Pakistan redhanded.

      Bucknor may be getting to the end of his career but surely he deserves a dignified exit.

      Anyhow, Over to Lee, Johnson, Clark and hopefully Tait – with a bit of this.

      Posted by Gotlieb on 2008 01 08 at 02:57 AM • permalink

 

    1. Bucknor deserved to go for poor performance, so it’s hard to pin that entirely on BCCI blackmail.  I think he would have gone even if they weren’t holding their breath and stamping their feet.

      I’m not sure Bowden’s any better though.

      Posted by Mr Hackenbacker on 2008 01 08 at 02:59 AM • permalink

 

    1. know very little about the whole situation
      Exactly.

      Posted by Harold on 2008 01 08 at 02:59 AM • permalink

 

    1. Harold, please explain to me what you know about the situation that I don’t that justifies a three match suspension for a comment allegedly passed from one player to another.

      Posted by J F Beck on 2008 01 08 at 03:05 AM • permalink

 

    1. hey, newsflash. New rules from the ICC:

      Following rules need to be incorporated by ICC WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT to give the other teams a perfect clarification

      (1) Ricky Ponting – (THE TRULY GENUINE CRICKETER OF THE CRICKET ERA AND WHOSE INTEGRITY SHOULD NOT BE DOUBTED ) should be considered as the FOURTH UMPIRE. As per the new rules, FOURTH UMPIRE decision is final and will over ride any decisions taken by any other umpires. ON-FIELD umpires can seek the assistance of RICKY PONTING even if he is not on the field. This rule is to be made, so that every team should understand the importance of the FOURTH UMPIRE .

      (2) While AUSTRALIAN TEAM is bowling, If the ball flies anywhere close to the AUSTRALIAN FIELDER(WITHIN 5 metre distance), the batsman is to be considered OUT irrelevant of whether the catch was taken cleanly or grassed. Any decision for further clarification should be seeked from the FOURTH UMPIRE. This is made to ensure that the cricket is played with SPORTIVE SPIRIT by all the teams.

      (3) While BATTING, AUSTRALIAN (except Adam Gilchrist) players will wait for the ON-FIELD UMPIRE decisions only (even if the catch goes to the FIFTH SLIP as the ball might not have touched the bat). Each AUSTRALIAN batsman has to be out FOUR TIMES (minimum) before he can return to the pavilion. In case of THE CRICKETER WITH INTEGRITY, this can be higher

      (4) UMPIRES should consider a huge bonus if an AUSTRALIAN player scores a century. Any wrong decisions can be ignored as they will be paid huge bonus and will receive the backing of the AUSTRALIAN team and board.

      (5) All AUSTRALIAN players are eligible to keep commenting about all players on the field and the OPPONENT TEAM should never comment as they will be spoiling the spirit of the AUSTRALIAN team. Any comments made in any other language are to be considered as RACISM only.

      (6) MATCH REFREE decisions will be taken purely on the AUSTRALIAN TEAM advice only. Player views from the other teams decisions will not be considered for hearing. MATCH REFREES are to be given huge bonus if this rule is implemented.

      (7) NO VISITING TEAM should plan to win in AUSTRALIA . This is to ensure that the sportive spirit of CRICKET is maintained.

      (8) THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE : If any bowler gets RICKY PONTING – “THE UNDISPUTED CRICKETER WITH INTEGTIRY IN THE GAME OF CRICKET” more than twice in a series, he will be banned for the REST OF THE SERIES. This is to ensure that the best batsman/Captain will be played to break records and create history in the game of CRICKET.

      These rules will clarify better to the all the teams VISITING AUSTRALIA.

      BTW, I didn`t write this myself, but just found it. Do I agree with it all? No. Does it make some relevant points in a funny and cutting way? Yep.

      Posted by deanosumo on 2008 01 08 at 03:15 AM • permalink

 

    1. Have a look at earlier comments here for a start, including one directed at you – #201.
      As for the suspension, I’m not to worried either way. It is your comments on the intent of the monkey jibe and its history that I took issue with.

      Posted by Harold on 2008 01 08 at 03:19 AM • permalink

 

    1. #237 – Judging by the broken English and childlike, tanty throwing humour. I’d suggst that the authour was an embittered Indian telemarketer who can’t get over the fact that even though he has an engineering and computer science degree he lives in a 1 bedroom hovel with 16 siblings and a bucket for a toilet.

      Regardless of how you regard the Australians sportsmanship, to suggest that they’re results stem from anything other than ability is taking the fucking piss.

      Maybe Gandhi wasn’t using passive resistance. Maybe he was given out unfairly and had just laid down to have a sook.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 08 at 03:25 AM • permalink

 

    1. Once again, rage has busted me gramar, riting, spellin machine.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 08 at 03:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. Yep while Aussies may be hardnosed and, basically, running things close to the line and dubious, they are a cricketing juggernaut, and players from the sub-continent have a history of petulance and whining. Also it was less than 20 years ago we had to put up with local umpires in their countries. I remember Javed Miandad was never out LBW and even given not out caught at slip.

      Still think some of the broken English legalise is kinda funny… and the Aussie`s sportsmanship is poor.

      Posted by deanosumo on 2008 01 08 at 03:33 AM • permalink

 

    1. Don’t your Mummy and Daddy (or should I use the term “partner” ) have this site on the filter of naughty sites you are banned from deanosumo # 237 ?

      Don’t pretend to be a grown up. Your writing style and content gives you away .

      Whoops you aren’t young Petey Roebuck Jr are you ?

      Posted by Wacko on 2008 01 08 at 03:41 AM • permalink

 

    1. #208
      Symonds was born in Birmingham, you say? Well, my reading of Mark Steyn’s work, plus that of several English bloggers, means the balance of probability makes him a muz, so he should be playing for another subcontinental team

      Posted by Rod C on 2008 01 08 at 03:43 AM • permalink

 

    1. #239 IT

      I’d suggst that the authour was an embittered Indian telemarketer who can’t get over the fact that even though he has an engineering and computer science degree he lives in a 1 bedroom hovel with 16 siblings and a bucket for a toilet.

      I’d suggest the author wishes he was an embittered telemarketer and could watch the cricket on a TV and not have to listen to it on a scratchy trannie at smoko time at the Bombay stench packing factory where he, she, or it is doomed to work till death with the other low caste punkerwallahs, shit shovellers, Macadamia nut shellers, wannabe effigy burning, wobble headed, failed taxi driving, cow worshipping eunichs.

      Posted by Pickles on 2008 01 08 at 03:56 AM • permalink

 

    1. Harold, nothing in any of the comments above justifies Singh’s suspension for an alleged sledge. If there’s something else I need to know, please enlighten me.

      I take it you agree with BB77 that Singh’s suspension is somehow justified by the childhood torment allegedly inflicted on Symonds by Queenslanders who, like American southerners, are racists by nature. And you guys reckon I’m an idiot.

      Posted by J F Beck on 2008 01 08 at 03:57 AM • permalink

 

    1. I have a question.

      Who are these two (BB77 and Harold) from whom I have read virtually nothing on ANY subject anywhere to be trashing someone (J F Beck) who, in my opinion anyway, has been a respected contributor to this site and a well known and highly regarded Blogger in his own right?

      They say first impressions are often correct. I took you for a fool and a boor at your very first post, BB77, and that opinion has been amply supported by subsequent posts.

      As for you, Harold, I have little to say to you (now or in future) except that if your first response to a reasonably composed opinion—whether you agree with it or not—is to call the author an “idiot”, well, that pretty much marks you as the idiot rather than the reverse.

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2008 01 08 at 04:00 AM • permalink

 

    1. #245 hang on a minute im a Queenslander and I am not racist by nature!!!!!!

      I think Symonds is quite hot and I wouldnt mind if he decided to leave his cricket pads under my bed

      Posted by Killaette on 2008 01 08 at 04:05 AM • permalink

 

    1. Beck your comprehension is letting you down.
      Floss, I didn’t call him an idiot, I don’t give a fuck if he is the world’s greatest blogger, I am as entitled as anyone to comment here – have done many times during the past few years – and you can jam it up your arse.
      Goodnight.

      Posted by Harold on 2008 01 08 at 04:06 AM • permalink

 

    1. #246 I concur bravo.

      Better to be silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt

      Posted by Killaette on 2008 01 08 at 04:07 AM • permalink

 

  1. J F Beck. #245

    ”..Queenslanders who, like American southerners, are racists by nature.”

    And you guys reckon I’m an idiot.

    I think post no 245 has rather confirmed that.

    Psst JF ? Where does Kevin Rudd hail from ? Never had him picked for being much more than a malingerer and charlatan ….but a racist too? Geeze powerful and unarguable stuff there . Any more insight for us ?

    Posted by Wacko on 2008 01 08 at 04:08 AM • permalink