Watson gets paltry 15%fine

[The Outsider]

In other words, nothing, race - wise, has changed since the colonial days, which if memory serves me correctly was some, oh let me think, ... , some 100 years ago - It was white versus black than and supposedly seems to be the case now. Tough call punters. :sniffle:

100 years? WTF are you talking about? South Africa had institutionalized racism 20 years back and the racist scum Broad supported it by going on a cricket tour there in 1990. Australia had institutionalized racism till 30 odd years back to the extent of taking kids away from their mothers if they happened to be Aborigines. You need a serious lesson in history.

[DomainK]

I would really like to see a red card system. You mess up on the field, you pay up on the field. Stay off for 5 or 10 overs or for the rest of the match and let your team play one player less. Then it will hurt and then it will stop.

[DomainK]

In other words, nothing, race - wise, has changed since the colonial days, which if memory serves me correctly was some, oh let me think, ... , some 100 years ago - It was white versus black than and supposedly seems to be the case now. Tough call punters. :sniffle:

No, it's much milder now. And though I don't think it will ever go away (evil never really goes away, it will be minimized in the coming times and racists will prefer to keep their feelings hidden.

[EnterTheVoid]

100 years? WTF are you talking about? South Africa had institutionalized racism 20 years back and the racist scum Broad supported it by going on a cricket tour there in 1990. Australia had institutionalized racism till 30 odd years back to the extent of taking kids away from their mothers if they happened to be Aborigines. You need a serious lesson in history.

History started 30 years ago did it ? Keep going back, back to the days when black players were considered inferior to whites. With all this incessant whining, you'd be forgiven to thinking a day never passed.

No' date=' it's much milder now. And though I don't think it will ever go away (evil never really goes away, it will be minimized in the coming times and racists will prefer to keep their feelings hidden.[/quote'] Why does everytime something happen, the white versus black issue always takes centre stage ? Is it so difficult to believe that the outcome of the case is dependent upon the merits of the case and the end verdict is essentially subjective, based on the person's interpretations ? Maybe you all know something that Broad doesn't and perhaps can educate us on what it is because everytime something happens, the floodgates to this white versus black nonsense open. This 'white versus black', 'ICC is against us', 'Broad is against us' nonsense has been milked for all its worth. In the end, its his decision and he netted out a punishment he deemed fit. Cop it on the chin and move on.

[The Outsider]

History started 30 years ago did it ? Keep going back, back to the days when black players were considered inferior to whites. With all this incessant whining, you'd be forgiven to thinking a day never passed.

Huh? I just stuffed your 100 year old claim by showing that not only a lot of living people grew up in an institutionalized racist environment but also actively promoted it like the ICC referees Broad and Procter. If you consider facts as whining, go ahead and wallow but don't give me insouciant replies based on emotion. The education you are looking for in your next paragraph has already been presented to you, but go ahead and ignore it.

[DomainK]

History started 30 years ago did it ? Keep going back, back to the days when black players were considered inferior to whites. With all this incessant whining, you'd be forgiven to thinking a day never passed. Why does everytime something happen, the white versus black issue always takes centre stage ? Is it so difficult to believe that the outcome of the case is dependent upon the merits of the case and the end verdict is essentially subjective, based on the person's interpretations ? Maybe you all know something that Broad doesn't and perhaps can educate us on what it is because everytime something happens, the floodgates to this white versus black nonsense open. This 'white versus black', 'ICC is against us', 'Broad is against us' nonsense has been milked for all its worth. In the end, its his decision and he netted out a punishment he deemed fit. Cop it on the chin and move on.

Every time something happen? Like what? Every time a mosquito dies, it takes center stage? Or every time a wicket falls, it takes center stage? Or every time a terrorist attack happens it takes center stage? Or every time a plane crashes, it takes center stage? I can not understand that part? You mean to say that it's an absurd troll that randomly appears without a reason at some random event? That is plain ridiculous. Why don't you try to find a pattern to the possible events that are triggering it? You will find answers then.

[EnterTheVoid]

Huh? I just stuffed your 100 year old claim by showing that not only a lot of living people grew up in an institutionalized racist environment but also actively promoted it like the ICC referees Broad and Procter. If you consider facts as whining' date=' go ahead and wallow but don't give me insouciant replies based on emotion. The education you are looking for in your next paragraph has already been presented to you, but go ahead and ignore it.[/quote'] Institutionalized racist environment Good one. Are you going to give that excuse everytime Broad / Procter adjudicate a dispute between two teams ? So, the bottom line is, the individual who gets the more leniant punishment is the one whose skin colour is white, irrespective of the facts, irrespective of the evidence ? because Broad / Procter came from an 'institutionalized racist environment' as you termed it ? As for 'white versus black' in cricket going back to colonial times, you haven't answered my question; that irrelevant mumbo - jumbo about aborigines and stolen generation doesn't count. Perhaps, this would be a good place to start (Parts 1 - 3): [ame=

Empire of Cricket - West Indies - Part 1[/ame] [ame=

Empire of Cricket - West Indies - Part 2[/ame] [ame=

Empire of Cricket - West Indies - Part 3[/ame]

[EnterTheVoid]

Every time something happen? Like what? Every time a mosquito dies, it takes center stage? Or every time a wicket falls, it takes center stage? Or every time a terrorist attack happens it takes center stage? Or every time a plane crashes, it takes center stage? I can not understand that part? You mean to say that it's an absurd troll that randomly appears without a reason at some random event? That is plain ridiculous. Why don't you try to find a pattern to the possible events that are triggering it? You will find answers then.

Name me one instance, where Broad passed a judgement in, that wasn't attacked on the basis of 'black versus white' - one instance where teams just copped in on the chin instead of whinging 'Oh, we got the rough end of the stick', 'They got let off easily because they're white' etc The only pattern I see is that every judgement he made has been politicized on the basis of race.

[The Outsider]

Institutionalized racist environment Good one. Are you going to give that excuse everytime Broad / Procter adjudicate a dispute between two teams ? So, the bottom line is, the individual who gets the more leniant punishment is the one whose skin colour is white, irrespective of the facts, irrespective of the evidence ? because Broad / Procter came from an 'institutionalized racist environment' as you termed it ?

The bottom line is that these guys have a proven track record of supporting institutionalized racism and anytime they make a discrepant judgment between black and white there is a good chance it's influenced by their sick, racist mentality. I don't see the relevance of those videos to the discussion so am not replying to it. Edit : I brought in the stolen generation in the discussion to show that your 100 year old claim is nothing but garbage.

[EnterTheVoid]

The bottom line is that these guys have a proven track record of supporting institutionalized racism and anytime they make a discrepant judgment between black and white there is a good chance it's influenced by their sick, racist mentality. ... To the point they bend the code of conduct they are obliged to adhere to ? See the choice of words in describing their judgements: 'It is likely', 'The probably', 'There is a good chance' etc; Stop indulging in hyperbolae and scenarios which may or may not happen I don't see the relevance of those videos to the discussion so am not replying to it. Without watching those videos, how can you claim whether they are relevant or not ? You still haven't answered my original question btw: You keep on repeating that the decisions made by the ICC are made on the basis of colour, whether the person is 'black versus white' - that was the mentality adopted by the colonial masters (i.e. British) who viewed themselves as superior and blacks are inferior. Are you telling me nothing has changed all these years because judgements made by the ICC seem to have the same reasoning ? I don't want to hear about aborigines or any of that irrelevant mumbo jumbo

[The Outsider]

To the point they bend the code of conduct they are obliged to adhere to ? See the choice of words in describing their judgements: 'It is likely'' date=' 'The probably', 'There is a good chance' etc; Stop indulging in hyperbolae and scenarios which may or may not happen [/quote'] Sure, why not? Racist fecks like Broad are not left with official instruments anymore, so will use whatever loopholes they can to carry forward their sick agenda in whatever way they can.

Without watching those videos, how can you claim whether they are relevant or not ? You still haven't answered my original question btw: You keep on repeating that the decisions made by the ICC are made on the basis of colour, whether the person is 'black versus white' - that was the mentality adopted by the colonial masters (i.e. British) who viewed themselves as superior and blacks are inferior. Are you telling me nothing has changed all these years because judgements made by the ICC seem to have the same reasoning ?

I am not accusing ICC of institutionalized racism - I am accusing referees Broad and Procter of handing out racist judgments based on their history of supporting racism and the fact that the white guy always gets the better deal in their judgments. ICC has changed but unfortunately still has it's fair share of racist scumbags, who need to be kicked out.

I don't want to hear about aborigines or any of that irrelevant mumbo jumbo

It's not irrelevant because you claimed these things happened 100 years back and I showed you these things are very recent. You don't like to face the facts and the truth, tough luck. Or you want to play cheerleader for taking babies away from mothers, too?

[asterix]

Why Chris Broad is assigned every Aussie series? Do the Aussies always need the cushion of the racist Broad? Any match refree from India, Pakistan or Srilanka should've been assigned this series..

[EnterTheVoid]

Sure, why not? Racist fecks like Broad are not left with official instruments anymore, so will use whatever loopholes they can to carry forward their sick agenda in whatever way they can. In other words, you approach the issue with pre - concieved notions and distort the evidence to suit those notions when circumstances / situations suggest otherwise. How can you accuse Broad and Procter of harbouring malicious intent when you harbour that same intent in the form of mistrust, deception and exxagerations ? I am not accusing ICC of institutionalized racism - I am accusing referees Broad and Procter of handing out racist judgments based on their history of supporting racism and the fact that the white guy always gets the better deal in their judgments. ICC has changed but unfortunately still has it's fair share of racist scumbags, who need to be kicked out. Sorry, but indirectly you are. If Broad and Procter are able to propogate racist judgements for so long, its because the organization they work under, fosters an environment that actively encourages such behaviour. The ICC has become a partner in crime, complicit in their approach, not denying it but not condoning such behaviour either. In a sense, they have became as guilty as the perpretatos of their crime, even more so since they let the situation reach such damaging proportions under their watch It's not irrelevant because you claimed these things happened 100 years back and I showed you these things are very recent. You don't like to face the facts and the truth, tough luck. Or you want to play cheerleader for taking babies away from mothers, too? I meant racism in cricket such as black players considered not good enough to captain their times, open the batting and like; always had to take orders from a white man, the videos which I have posted further enhance on this point

P.S. How do I do that multi quote within a single message ?

[DomainK]

P.S. How do I do that multi quote within a single message ?

You have to do that manually using the quote tags.

[The Outsider]

In other words, you approach the issue with pre - concieved notions and distort the evidence to suit those notions when circumstances / situations suggest otherwise. How can you accuse Broad and Procter of harbouring malicious intent when you harbour that same intent in the form of mistrust, deception and exxagerations ?

No, I don't. It is a fact that Broad and Procter have supported institutionalized racism in the past and continue to give discrepant judgments between black and white.

Sorry, but indirectly you are. If Broad and Procter are able to propogate racist judgements for so long, its because the organization they work under, fosters an environment that actively encourages such behaviour. The ICC has become a partner in crime, complicit in their approach, not denying it but not condoning such behaviour either. In a sense, they have became as guilty as the perpretatos of their crime, even more so since they let the situation reach such damaging proportions under their watch

Institutionalized racism? No. Does ICC have racist elements? Most definitely, yes.

I meant racism in cricket such as black players considered not good enough to captain their times, open the batting and like; always had to take orders from a white man, the videos which I have posted further enhance on this point

I am not sure how you can extricate racism in cricket from the society from which all it's players and officials come from. Even today, Aussie cricketers refer to other sportsmen as black ******s and monkeys, FFS!

[S.Bond]

he should have been banned for 1 test match... That was horrible stuf...

[S.Bond]

Sree' date=' Hayden , Watson , Symo, Bhajji .. all these players are in the same category[/quote'] wato, sree and bahjji, it's ok... but don't put hayden or symonds in it...

[EnterTheVoid]

No' date=' I don't. It is a [b']fact that Broad and Procter have supported institutionalized racism in the past and continue to give discrepant judgments between black and white. This has become set in stone, has it ? Everytime a judgement is passed that you find questionable, you will resort to this same excuse ? What about all others who played in Apartheid Africa but now occupy positions in various positions within the cricketing fraternity in the form of commentators, journalists and like. Why don't you apply the same yardstick and accuse them of being racists too instead of going after Procter and Broad everytime ? Why the selective morality. Institutionalized racism? No. Does ICC have racist elements? Most definitely, yes. If the organizational environment allows the cancer to spread, isn't the organization itself the cause of more concern than its constituents ? I am not sure how you can extricate racism in cricket from the society from which all it's players and officials come from. Even today, Aussie cricketers refer to other sportsmen as black ******s and monkeys, FFS! You still haven't answered the question. Please just watch the videos.

[The Outsider]

This has become set in stone, has it ? Everytime a judgement is passed that you find questionable, you will resort to this same excuse ? What about all others who played in Apartheid Africa but now occupy positions in various positions within the cricketing fraternity in the form of commentators, journalists and like. Why don't you apply the same yardstick and accuse them of being racists too instead of going after Procter and Broad everytime ? Why the selective morality.

I would accuse them of the same thing if and when I come across judgments by them where the white guy got the better deal for the same offense repeatedly.

If the organizational environment allows the cancer to spread, isn't the organization itself the cause of more concern than its constituents ?

I am sure CitiBank has a few racist employees as well.

You still haven't answered the question. Please just watch the videos.

I think I've answered all questions - let me know which one you are still looking an answer for?

[fuub]

yeh broad is such a racist. you wonder why he tried to protect the pakistani 4th umpire and stop his gun wound from bleeding when he could of just used him as a shield instead.