Johnson gets verbal, physical & PWN'd BIGTIME ( Video: Post 115 )

[thevortex]

Thanks Sachinism. But do you really think they would respond to a normal cricket fan? I must admit I have never tried contacting them. Got to try it some time...

[Sachinism]

A few months ago, when Suleiman Benn clashed with Brad Haddin and Mitchell Johnson, I wrote a piece critical of the seeming double standards that the ICC applies when dealing with such unsavoury incidents. Much earlier, I wrote a similar-themed piece when Gautam Gambhir and Shane Watson clashed in India in 2008. Watching the live telecast from Napier yesterday when Mitchell Johnson (again) and Scott Styris clashed tongues and heads, there was never any doubt in my mind that justice like the type meted out to Benn and Gambhir was unlikely to happen here. An insignificant fine perhaps, depriving already rich men of some pocket money, and talk of responsibilities towards the Spirit of Cricket and role models but nothing that really resembles justice. After the Benn-Haddin-Johnson incident, one could have been forgiven for thinking that physical contact on the cricket field was a clear no-no. Nothing ambiguous about that. Both Gambhir and Benn were suspended on the basis of making physical contact with an opponent, regardless of provocation. Fair enough too. So long as that applies to everyone. How then does Johnson, a repeat offender in the last three months, escape with a mere 60% fine when it was clear that he headbutted Styris (albeit fairly gently - quite sensible too considering Styris was wearing a helmet!)? One explanation is that the Australians and New Zealanders know how to play it just that bit smarter when it comes to limiting the post-match post-mortems. They both explain it away with quotes like "harmless banter, heat of the battle, nothing untoward out there, a friendly exchange, part of the game, international cricket is competitive etc etc" which then ensures that both parties provide a bit of protection for each other and the case is then judged through more tolerant eyes. Isn't it funny how similar incidents involving Benn and Gambhir weren't explained away so casually? Would Styris have been that forgiving if his opponent had been Benn or Gambhir? Or is just something unique about Australia v New Zealand that makes this, as Styris said, “nothing more than normal”. “The Australians play good competitive cricket and I'd like to think that we'll match them in that competitiveness; there wasn't anything untoward out there,” he said. On the question of a head clash, he actually feigns some ignorance, claiming only that "he might have come quite close. I don't know, he may have done." Perhaps it's a cultural thing where some cultures are more accustomed to this sort of competitiveness on the field, which would explain both Johnson and Stryris being relatively unfazed by the incident. The problem with this convenient explanation is that these same cricketers generally seem to be much less relaxed when their opponents don't share the same cultural values. Also, the argument fails on another front too; considering that Chris Broad was Match Referee for the Benn and Gambhir incidents, you would think that he too would share similar laissez-faire views on these sorts of incidents. Instead, surprisingly, we find that Ranjan Madugalle is the only Match Referee who shares the Aussie-Kiwi sense of competitiveness that Styris dismissed so casually. The inherent danger with adopting a cultural tolerance when ruling on such cases is that it then becomes open to suggestions of bias, based on race, ethnicity or colour, even if it was never intended that way. Cricket's family is too global and too dispersed to allow such latitude in interpreting the rules of engagement. As we saw a few years ago, Brad Hogg was given a slap on the wrist for calling an Indian player a "bast***" because it was deemed that in his cultural make-up, such an insult was not too offensive but to another person from a different background, this might be a deep insult. With something like physical contact, why should there be any grey areas of uncertainty? If you make deliberate contact with an opponent, how can one player cop a two-match penalty and the other get a small fine? Oh, that's right - plead guilty and you can play the next game. Easy as that. Cop a small fine, pay it from petty cash reserves and put it down to "good competitive cricket". And when you do it again in three months time, plead guilty again and so it goes. Meanwhile, some other players who fight for justice cop two-match bans. That's justice? Interestingly, in todays Australian newspaper, the coverage of the cricket was buried deep, three pages into the sports section. Completely coincidence of course that Australia lost this match! More revealing was the writer's preview of the incident, referring to "the talkative Styris". Clearly, the Australians keep their mouths shut at all times and only ever get caught up in friendly fire. Poor lambs! We keep talking of consistency from umpires when it comes to lbw decisions or wide calls or anything else on the field. Likewise, match referees need to adopt a similar stance when dealing with clear breaches that apply to any cricketer, regardless of which country they come from. If not, there will be accusations of bias, of East v West of Rich v Poor. And cricket does not need that sort of divisiveness. "Justice is a ***** that won't let herself be stiffed, and collects the wages of shame even from the poor" said Karl Krauss in The Good Conduct Medal. I tend to think that Anatole France was more on the money in Crainquebille: "Justice is the means by which established injustices are sanctioned".

http://blogs.cricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2010/03/where_is_the_justice.php

[achilles]

Excellent piece by Michael Jeh. Aussies are bunch of moronic thugs. First to be bloody whiners when scorned but NEVER men enough to admit that they were wrong. Their superiority complex is a shame to the world of cricket. I would love to see cricket being played without Australia being a part of it. Anyways, their only contribution to the game is SLEDGING. We all hate Australia's attitude and the no. of posts for a BLOG posted just 23hrs ago goes on to show that. Australia, we are sick of you. Please behave, for once!

[99.94]

Haha, yeah, cause India are a bunch of ****ing saints huh?

[Sachinism]

Haha' date=' yeah, cause India are a bunch of ****ing saints huh?[/quote'] Its not about being saints or not, but consequences for behaving like a douche should be the same for everyone

[thevortex]

I am glad Jeh came up with this. Saved me a bit of vitriolic venting :). There are no two ways about it. Australia has to walk the talk. And the ICC match referees have to be questioned about the logic used in such cases.

[99.94]

Its not about being saints or not' date=' but consequences for behaving like a douche should be the same for everyone[/quote'] How is it our fault? This has nothing to do with out team, and so comments like cricket would be better without Australia are completely stupid.

[Sachinism]

How is it our fault? This has nothing to do with out team' date=' and so comments like cricket would be better without Australia are completely stupid.[/quote'] I don't know who said that, but its a silly comment to make. I don't blame the Aussies, well a bit since they seem to make the most of the leeway they get, but its upto ICC match referees to sort themselves out.

[99.94]

I think this has all been blown out a bit to be honest. I didn't see much in it, I think a match ban would have been a bit harsh for Johnson (considering he also pleaded guilty). I don't think Styris did anything wrong, his fine was harsh. I think Johnson behaved like an idiot, but I don't think there was too much to it.

[thevortex]

99.94 - please read that article by Michael Jeh at Cricinfo. It is culturally natural for you to think that there is nothing great in that act of Johnson. But cricket is global. And the rules exist there for a reason. And above the rules there is the spirit of the game. Would you like for the Johnson-act to be repeated again by somebody else? Then, punish him as prescribed by the law. What Ranjan Madugalle did was strange - and that is putting it kindly. Johnson had already gotten away lightly on the Benn incident. Him and Haddin.

[99.94]

I think if anyone else had done that and copped a 60 percent fine I would have been fine with that. I think Benn was mainly at fault for that incident.

[thevortex]

I think if anyone else had done that and copped a 60 percent fine I would have been fine with that. I think Benn was mainly at fault for that incident.

99.94 - can you explain to us what Benn's fault was when Haddin asked him and gestured with his bat to go back to the bowling crease? Can you explain to us what Benn's fault was when Johnson pushed the former with hand full on the chest in the middle of the pitch? Can you explain to us what Benn's fault was when Haddin - the instigator of this entire incident kept on smiling and commenting which served to exacerbate the situation? I think Australian cricket needs to learn is that aggression is not in abusing and physically threatening the opponents. It is not even in bad mouthing them. It is in approaching the game in keeping with its spirit and respecting its opponents - regardless of whether they are losing or winning.

[achilles]

Haha' date=' yeah, cause India are a bunch of ****ing saints huh?[/quote'] Saints or no saints, people atleast respect us, dawg :finger:. Heck, forget us, even Australians hate the Australian players. Don't you browse your news websites? :hehe:

I think Benn was mainly at fault for that incident.

I understand you are patriotic, but you shouldn't act dumb. Haddin had no business cussing Benn. He started it. And then wet his panties when a man twice his size took him to task. You can try fooling yourself all your life that Benn was at fault. But a million people disagree.

[Riley's Girl]

Haha' date=' yeah, cause India are a bunch of ****ing saints huh?[/quote'] Read the thread. Nobody claimed that the Indian players are saints.

[achilles]

Oh and btw, 99.94FM :hehe: I'm waiting for your "logical" explanation as to how Benn was wrong ! :hmmm:

Read the thread. Nobody claimed that the Indian players are saints.

Tasks done- An Aussie ranting.... CHECK

[achilles]

99.94 - can you explain to us what Benn's fault was when Haddin asked him and gestured with his bat to go back to the bowling crease? Can you explain to us what Benn's fault was when Johnson pushed the former with hand full on the chest in the middle of the pitch? Can you explain to us what Benn's fault was when Haddin - the instigator of this entire incident kept on smiling and commenting which served to exacerbate the situation? I think Australian cricket needs to learn is that aggression is not in abusing and physically threatening the opponents. It is not even in bad mouthing them. It is in approaching the game in keeping with its spirit and respecting its opponents - regardless of whether they are losing or winning.

Buddy, it serves no purpose to utilize your energy, devote so many cells of your brain and write long replies, when they chip in with a one-lined rant, completely disregarding the cruz of your opinion. I advice you to leave it. We know, he knows and so does Brad that who was at fault and who wasn't. I understand he's being patriotic. The only thing is, he has chosen the wrong occasion to. Its like a padosi user saying, "Afridi was just tasting the ball", when even he knows he was eating it. Forget it yaar. :icflove:

[achilles]

I'd like to add the law of nature to this discussion- As you sow, so shall you reap. Andrew Symonds got away a million times but fate took him to task. Ditto with Glenn McGrath, Steve & Mark Waugh, Shoaib Akhtar (although he did cope a few fines), etc etc etc.

[yoda]

Slightly headbutting a player with a helmet on isn't going to hurt them, in fact it would of hurt Johnson more. But a 60% fine is fair enough, a match ban would have been too much. The talk by mr achilles about Johnson was excessive like all his other anti-australian rants.

Ok so you have gone from nothing to something. So, pushing and shoving isn't going to hurt a player either, so you think they should get away with a non-ban fine for that as well? According to your logic, the only time a player gets a match ban is if the other guy has a bloodied nose or a broken bone. That might be be the rule iin other sport like may be rugby, but cricket is one where the players get fined for not leaving the ground immediately after an umpiring decision. So the bar is supposedly much lower. The only question is these fines seem to be determined rather differently when it comes to different teams.

[Bradman99]

Ok so you have gone from nothing to something. So, pushing and shoving isn't going to hurt a player either, so you think they should get away with a non-ban fine for that as well? According to your logic, the only time a player gets a match ban is if the other guy has a bloodied nose or a broken bone. That might be be the rule iin other sport like may be rugby, but cricket is one where the players get fined for not leaving the ground immediately after an umpiring decision. So the bar is supposedly much lower. The only question is these fines seem to be determined rather differently when it comes to different teams.

Alrighty then mr yoda likes to take things out of context does he ? I don't believe I said that there, if you do then you aare a bit silly. I believe I said somewhere along the line that if he had pushed him or shoved him I would of understood him getting banned. In this case, the use of the word 'headbutt' is almost excessive because it was more or less the slightest contact possible. Heck even Styris was unsure there was even contact. If it was any other nation, I would share the same opinion. Would all of you ? I highly doubt it. I also doubt mr achilles would start calling one of his players what he is calling Johnson.

[thevortex]

Bradman99 - tell me something. How is the reaction to this back home? Michael Jeh had written that this was pushed to a small section off the sports page and the sentence describing this event started with 'talkative Styris'. What is the general reaction of the Australian fans on this incident? Is anybody critical of this at all? I am curious.