Rajan Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Just wanted to check out your views on that- Symonds was gagged by Cricket Australia, after he went "tom, tomming" that he told Harbhajan , what he thought of him, for tapping Lee on his bottom! Symonds was the reason for the entire controversy. He wanted to "mentally disintegrate" Harbhajan to break the partnership with SRT. It was none of his business in the first place, when Lee did not even bother aboit the tapping. Also, going by his statement " i am a strong believer in sticking up for my teammates", I suspect Hayden, being a very close buddy of Symonds,supported the "monkey" accusation. My point is, can Symonds go scot free after questioning Harbhajan understandably on -Homosexual preference? is there anything on the code of conduct on this?if yes, why should the indian team miss out on that? Link to comment
aussiefan Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 what does Bhajji's mum think? we better ask her.. guys pls, jesus, can we devote out energy discussing things other than, "clarke said SRT looked silly in blue" we better ban him or "ponting once glared at the indian team, lets burn some effigies" it's rather childish and silly... Link to comment
Rajan Posted January 9, 2008 Author Share Posted January 9, 2008 OK, You are talking about the Aussie point of view- calling symonds allegedly as a monkey, is "racist". but dont you understand that, alleging a straight guy, as a homosexual is very offensive , in india? becaue Homosexuality is a criminal offence, with jail term over here! it is not so simple that some one stares some one or caling some one silly. cultural difference should be applied equally! let us see what is the Judgement of the Hogg case! Link to comment
aussiefan Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 maybe we should sit down and have you tell me everything that is offensive in India.,....it seems to me everything is.... Link to comment
Rajan Posted January 9, 2008 Author Share Posted January 9, 2008 it is not just an offence according to my whims and fancies, according to Indian law, indian penal code,indian judiciary, it is an OFFENCE, mate. But certainly I can assure you, calling some one "monkey" is not(even if u assume Harbhajan had called A.S that! Link to comment
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 convicts are always the main culprit in sledging is' their invention .. tha's why whole powrld protested Link to comment
gs Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 what does Bhajji's mum think? we better ask her.. guys pls, jesus, can we devote out energy discussing things other than, "clarke said SRT looked silly in blue" we better ban him or "ponting once glared at the indian team, lets burn some effigies" it's rather childish and silly... Either you sledge or you dont!!! There are no rules when it comes to sledging. Especially so with the language barrier and cultural gap. Bastard/Homosexual might be a casual comment to the Aussies, but Indians might get offended by the literal meaning of those words. But things like monkey/donkey are very casual non-racial words in an Indian context. So who is to decide what is acceptable and what is not?!? Should we create a rulebook for sledging then??!! Either you should not do it or just SUCK IT UP when someone dishes it back!!!! Link to comment
beetle Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Either you sledge or you dont!!! There are no rules when it comes to sledging. Especially so with the language barrier and cultural gap. Bastard/Homosexual might be a casual comment to the Aussies' date=' but Indians might get offended by the literal meaning of those words. But things like monkey/donkey are very casual non-racial words in an Indian context. So who is to decide what is acceptable and what is not?!? Should we create a rulebook for sledging then??!! Either you should not do it or just SUCK IT UP when someone dishes it back!!!![/quote'] So true. I support complete ban on sledging and use of more microphones on the field. Link to comment
aussiefan Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 there is a difference between me saying to an indian batter he's can't bat, can't bowl on the field and being racist in calling him anything related to his ethnicity. BIG DIFFERENCE Link to comment
beetle Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 >>> there is a difference between me saying to an indian batter he's can't bat, can't bowl on the field and being racist in calling him anything related to his ethnicity. How about the other comments by aussies like the one about bhajji loving his bowlers...are those ok? Link to comment
Chandan Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Let's ban sledging Cricket shouldn't just be trying to ban racism, it should ban sledging January 8, 2008 Ponting is a sledger too, and he and Harbhajan have been needling each other on and off for nearly seven years © Getty Images It's a drama unfolding on the other side of the world, and I wasn't watching the match. But something about the Harbhajan Singh affair doesn't feel right. In fact, three things don't. First, it takes two to tangle. Andrew Symonds is a well-known sledger, as is Harbhajan. Mike Procter is asking us to believe that one party was severely at fault while the other was not at fault at all, and that doesn't ring true. The second problem is that Procter listened to eight hours of evidence and then swallowed Ricky Ponting's view of things whole. Ponting is a sledger too, and he and Harbhajan have been needling each other on and off for nearly seven years. Ponting has often got out cheaply to Harbhajan: if anyone were to call him Bhajji's bunny, it would be harsh, and cheap, but fair. The third problem is the amount that is being asked of Procter. The guy's an ex-cricketer, not a high-court judge. His job as a match referee requires him to decide whether Harbhajan called Symonds a monkey, and if so, what he meant by it. Procter had to look at the remark through the lens of racism, but he might equally well have peered through the lens of speciesism. Bringing monkeys into a sportsmen's spat is demeaning to monkeys. It does seem likely that the remark was intended as a racial insult, if it was ever made: the India fans who chanted it at Symonds a few months ago clearly meant it that way. But that was recorded on video, whereas this time, there is doubt over whether the offending remark was made. The eight hours of evidence are a vivid demonstration of that doubt - this is a vastly magnified version of those moments when an umpire takes so long to decide about a thin edge or an lbw that you just know he should keep his finger down. And if there was doubt, then Harbhajan should have been given the benefit of it. Cricketers say a lot of stupid things to each other. It has been known for one to address another as a Pommie bastard, or Pommie ******. Is that racism? There isn't (usually) a skin-colour dimension to it, but it's still racial. And pathetic. If the pot calls the kettle black, is it being racist too? You can argue endlessly over whether one remark or another has a racist element. What is needed is a big, simple, magnanimous response. Beneath it all lies a deeper malaise: sledging itself. Cricket shouldn't just be trying to ban racism. It should ban sledging. This is a front on which every team is guilty. Australia have often led the way, but Sri Lanka have had their moments, as did India especially under Sourav Ganguly, and so have South Africa and even those nice, educated boys from New Zealand. England are certainly not innocent bystanders: one reason it was a relief to see Matt Prior dropped this week is that he was particularly potty-mouthed - and when he was criticised for it, the England coach, Peter Moores, was dumb enough to argue that the answer was to switch off the stump mike. Not that Duncan Fletcher was any better: he makes it clear in his recent book that Chris Read was ditched as keeper because he didn't join in Paul Collingwood's doomed attempt to out-sledge Shane Warne in his final Test. Sledging has been rife for years, and it stinks. It's a sad, feeble way to try and take a wicket. Bowlers should use the ball, and their talent: that's what they're for. Batsmen who answer in kind, like Kevin Pietersen, who allegedly yelled "Fetch it!" at Symonds last year to give the impression that he was a specialist fielder, are little better. It's sometimes said that fans wouldn't enjoy watching a game conducted largely in silence. But the outpouring of emotion on all sides this week - including an impressive number of two-eyed Australia fans - shows that the cricket-loving public are deeply disgruntled as it is. And silence is no problem at all. Curtly Ambrose didn't sledge, and people loved watching him. Talking is the commentators' job. And the fans'. And the captains' - as long as they are addressing their own side, or the umpires, or the media, and not saying anything as crass as Ponting's claim that this row was "one little incident". If it was so little, why did he report it to the umpires, and set the ball rolling towards turning the incident into a diplomatic one? Twelve years ago, a great Australian cricketer was asked for his views on sledging. "If a fellow attempted it under me," the old fellow replied, "I would have given him one warning and, if he repeated it, I would have made sure he was not selected again." That was Sir Don Bradman, speaking at the age of 87. Bradman wasn't always right, but he certainly was on that occasion. Sledging demeans everyone who practises it. It sours the game. After five years as England captain, and more Test victories than any of his predecessors, Michael Vaughan has the authority to take that sort of stand. After five years as Australia's captain, and 16 victories in a row, Ponting has it even more so. So if the ICC won't ban sledging, Ponting and Vaughan should agree a pledge and ask the other national captains, Test and one-day, to sign up to it. It should be short and simple enough to be expressed in the modern sportsman's preferred form of off-field verbal communication: a text message. Their fellow players might give them a few funny looks, or even a verbal onslaught. But cricketers know, deep down, that sledging is wrong. You can tell by the fact that they use euphemisms to denote it, like factory workers making sure they put on rubber gloves to handle the toxins they include in everyday products. Steve Waugh called it "mental disintegration"; others prefer "a bit of banter" or "a bit of chirp". Rare is the player who will call a sledge a sledge while he is still playing. But they know it's not cricket. If somebody seizes this moment and takes a stand, the whole cricket world, sooner or later, will thank them. Andrew 1 Link to comment
gs Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 there is a difference between me saying to an indian batter he's can't bat, can't bowl on the field and being racist in calling him anything related to his ethnicity. BIG DIFFERENCE Doesnt matter!! Cricket can be played without sledging!!! Only cricketing skills are required on the field - not your sarcastic humor or smartass comments!! Going by the literal meaning, doesnt bastard question the character of your mum? Is that less offensive than calling someone's ancestors apes? Why get into it at all in the first place?!? :hatsoff: Link to comment
Rajiv Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 what does Bhajji's mum think? we better ask her.. guys pls, jesus, can we devote out energy discussing things other than, "clarke said SRT looked silly in blue" we better ban him or "ponting once glared at the indian team, lets burn some effigies" it's rather childish and silly... maybe we should sit down and have you tell me everything that is offensive in India.' date=....it seems to me everything is.... The first line would be considered slightly offenive About the 2nd part: Everything which is OK by the Aussies is offensive Link to comment
PatAU Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Doesnt matter!! Cricket can be played without sledging!!! Only cricketing skills are required on the field - not your sarcastic humor or smartass comments!! Going by the literal meaning' date=' doesnt bastard question the character of your mum? Is that less offensive than calling someone's ancestors apes? Why get into it at all in the first place?!? :hatsoff:[/quote'] In Australia, racisim laws are mostly in place to protect non-whites from insults and discrimination by whites. Based on our racist history, that many of you have commented on, we take that very seriously as we are a little ashamed of our past. You must understand this having centuries of racisim from the british and each other. So yes... we consider the race question to be far more sensitive than the question of insulting ones sexual preferences. For now. The strange thing is, we have these rules out of respect to *you*. Yet you question them! I just dont understand. Dont you enjoy laws and conventions that stop whites from insulting non-whites? or browns from blacks? Link to comment
Dinx - the Jinx Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 dude.. go tell this to ur clown in chief.. it was he who went to the refree like a crying baby... tat started allthis Link to comment
Dinx - the Jinx Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 what does Bhajji's mum think? we better ask her.. guys pls, jesus, can we devote out energy discussing things other than, "clarke said SRT looked silly in blue" we better ban him or "ponting once glared at the indian team, lets burn some effigies" it's rather childish and silly... dude.. go tell this to ur clown in chief.. it was he who ran to the refree like a crying baby.. Link to comment
Dinx - the Jinx Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 there is a difference between me saying to an indian batter he's can't bat, can't bowl on the field and being racist in calling him anything related to his ethnicity. BIG DIFFERENCE so u aussie thugs call a batsman a homosexual and a bowler a bastard.. is it? Link to comment
Dinx - the Jinx Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Doesnt matter!! Cricket can be played without sledging!!! Only cricketing skills are required on the field - not your sarcastic humor or smartass comments!! Going by the literal meaning' date=' doesnt bastard question the character of your mum? Is that less offensive than calling someone's ancestors apes? Why get into it at all in the first place?!? :hatsoff:[/quote'] very well sed.. on the money... Link to comment
PatAU Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 so u aussie thugs call a batsman a homosexual and a bowler a bastard.. is it? sometimes... and forum posters with names starting with D Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now