***Official*** India in Australia

[Matt79]

THEN WHY DOES WHETHER AUSTRALIANS CONSIDER IT RACIST OR NOT MATTER.
The massive media storm was only in australia not in india.
If it does not matter if bhajji thinks it is racist or not ,then why does what symonds think matter.
Tomorrow bhajji could claim that anything symonds said was racist and indian media kicks up a storm will it be considered racist?

Because in all of these types of issues, its always the opinion of the victim of the abuse, not the giver of the abuse, that matters. And as I've said in the last few posts, if the Hogg abuse falls within the boundaries of what is forbidden, as it is interpreted by the Indian team, then he should be punished (I'd suggest an official warning and education for a first offence, and a ban if there is any repeat).

Obviously there needs to be some checking of whether what the victim is claiming is a genuine view, eg. Symonds couldn't tomorrow claim that the word 'hello' was a racist term, but I think both "monkey" and "bastard" are probably genuinely offensive to their respective victims.

 

[Cevno]

What we know publicly is the following:
Symonds,Ponting allege Harbhajan used racial slurs.
Harbhajan says he didnt. Sachin backs it up as what he heard was harmless.
Stump mics didnt pick anything like the allegations up.
Umpires say they didnt hear anything (if they did and are not reporting,
they are failing once more in their duties).

If you know more facts, please share.

Wish Mike Proctor will shine more light on it, a 3 match ban is serious.
Until then, I'm afraid it is he said-they said.

Proctor is the most stupid match referee there was.
Though he being the main judge,cuddling up with main prosecutor ponting in the morning of the trial as sunny gavaskar said fid not show his impartiality.

 

[jeevan]

I'm sure he'll be issuing a written report, once he's had a chance to write it, and the ICC review it (they only finished up the hearing about 12 hours ago). You'd think it would be released in the next day or two.

And then should allow us to see the evidence for ourselves at last. Until then, I'm afraid we're all speculating even on if any offence took place or not.

 

[Cevno]

Because in all of these types of issues, its always the opinion of the victim of the abuse, not the giver of the abuse, that matters. And as I've said in the last few posts, if the Hogg abuse falls within the boundaries of what is forbidden, as it is interpreted by the Indian team, then he should be punished (I'd suggest an official warning and education for a first offence, and a ban if there is any repeat).

Obviously there needs to be some checking of whether what the victim is claiming is a genuine view, eg. Symonds couldn't tomorrow claim that the word 'hello' was a racist term, but I think both "monkey" and "bastard" are probably genuinely offensive to their respective victims.

But that is the problem where is the line for these checks?
there is no clarity between abusive or racist or for the fact between abusive and non-abusive.

 

[chalky]

Sky & BBC are reporting that India has suspended its tour of Australia

Shocking news if true

Apparantly the suspension is pending the results of Harbhajan's appeal.

 

[duffer]

Apparantly the suspension is pending the results of Harbhajan's appeal.

What's the difference between that and blackmail then?

 

[Johnners]

Boycott would be extreme: Ponting

 

[Evermind]

The Indians will not boycott the rest of the tour, I guarantee it.

Too much money lost, and the BCCI themselves have said they don't want to sour the relationship with Cricket Australia.

They're only still in Sydney for the Harbhajan appeal (if its occuring) and the Brad Hogg hearing.

Agreed. No way India will cancel the tour - they don't have the guts to, or any real need or motivation to. The team is acting out a soap opera - they are pretty skilled at it after watching all that Ztv trash.

If Hogg's guilty, I'd love to see the punishment be his tongue is cut off. Even if he's not guilty I reckon it should happen.

That's a pretty sick thing to say, man! Ouch.

Hogg of all people - looks like the nicest chap in cricket!

 

[Matt79]

Isn't that the point of the word though? I know around here it's more of a throw around insult with people not considering the background to the word, but in India they may see it more as a direct attack on their parentage?

I think that's how they'll base their case against Hogg, that by saying it to an Indian the context becomes entirely more sinister.

That's what I'm saying, and why I'm saying Hogg should be warned, but not banned on this occasion, and all the Aussie team formally educated on the fact that it is a more serious word to use to an Indian. And if it happens again, they should be banned.

I agree that after what happened here there's no claiming ignorance of the implications of "monkey" to people of African descent. However it's foolish to extend this into a general dismissing of the idea of cultural differences regarding the use/implications of words. It does exist. For example, in many places the "n word" is used frequently and without awareness of what it implies in say the US or the UK.

I myself use mock Nazi salutes at times. I'd get hell for that in the west. Here it's hardly an issue. Swastikas (yes, the Nazi variety) can be seen quite frequently among the "rock" crowd. One of the most well known rock-clothing shops here sells swastika bandanas and tshirts.

Let's say you walk around with a picture of Idi Amin on your shirt. Seriously, who is going to care? A few politically aware people maybe, but it will not evoke the gut-level reaction Hitler will.

I disagree, in the circumstance that you are dealing with someone from another culture. To use your example, if you had a visiting group of Americans, would you use the n-word to them? Or if you had a visiting group of Jewish people, or Gypsies, would you use the Nazi salute or display the swastika near them?

I use "bastard" as a punctuation mark when I talking to other Anglo-Aussies, because I'm comfortable in knowing that they're not going to find it offensive. I would never use it when I talking to someone from a different culture, because obviously it might be a more offensive phrase to them.

 

[Isolator]

Because he DOES have control of his movement and the ball. Certain diving catches cannot be helped by the fielder when putting out his arm to get the ball and fall as gracefully as possible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InR2znAeTKI

But the intent to fall that way and to catch it that way illustrates control.

Ground the ball in order to be control? Doesn't make sense to me. Let's suppose that the ball slipped from Ponting's hands as he landed. So the ball rolls out, instead of him holding it in place (but still touching the ground). I assume you'd say that's not out. But the only difference between this scenario and what actually happened was that Ponting had his fingers on the side of the ball, holding it down. Is that an important factor? I'd say no.

 

[anoop4real]

Funny stuff :-)
Some new rules.....

(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 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 RACIALISM only.



(6) MATCH REFREE decisions will be taken purely on the AUSTRALIAN TEAM advices 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

 

[Matt79]

But that is the problem where is the line for these checks?
there is no clarity between abusive or racist or for the fact between abusive and non-abusive.

Well that's what the referee needs to decide, and why I'm saying that there should be education, not a ban, for a first offence with a word. But to suggest after the incident in October that the Indian team weren't aware that Symonds found 'monkey' genuinely offensive is not credible IMO.

 

[chalky]

What's the difference between that and blackmail then?

There isn't much of a difference really what the BCCI are saying is 'find in our favour or else' . The ICC have to be very careful here if they back down now they are setting a very dangerous prescendent.

 

[vic_orthdox]

But the only difference between this scenario and what actually happened was that Ponting had his fingers on the side of the ball, holding it down. Is that an important factor? I'd say no.

Personally, I say yes.

 

[burr]

Well channel 10 just announced India's suspending it's tour of Aus pending the Harbhajan appeal. Honestly.

 

[jeevan]

Still, if you're going to fix the problem, you have to do just that, so that there isn't any confusion and any further offences can be dealt with decisively.

As i understand it, its not that bastard is a swear word, so much as what the word literally means with regards to your parentage that is the cause of it being particularly offensive? Other swears are still good IMO

Most 'bastards' around the world, not just India, are conceived of men of a higher class/caste/race/socioeconomic strata/winning army imposing themselves on women of a lower " ", whether the woman is married or not.

Atleast that's why I would consider it a very offensive word. Race may come into it elsewhere, but not in India (caste, strata).

ps Do you folks seriously not know this?

 

[Matt79]

Funny stuff :-)
Some new rules.....

(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 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 RACIALISM only.



(6) MATCH REFREE decisions will be taken purely on the AUSTRALIAN TEAM advices 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

I say that this post belongs in the "Cricket humour" section, except that none of it is particularly funny, or even clever, tbh.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Yeah, FSN reporting it now too. Toys, out, pram, etc.

 

[GotSpin]

Funny stuff :-)
Some new rules.....

(


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

Can i go get some tissues for you as well?

 

[Matt79]

Most 'bastards' around the world, not just India, are conceived of men of a higher class/caste/race/socioeconomic strata/winning army imposing themselves on women of a lower " ", whether the woman is married or not.

Atleast that's why I would consider it a very offensive word. Race may come into it elsewhere, but not in India (caste, strata).

ps Do you folks seriously not know this?

People here obviously know what it means literally, but it is not used in that sense in Australia. It just means "bad person" for want of a better definition. If said with a smile, it's not considered offensive, if said in anger, it is offensive, but only mildly.

But as I've said, the fact that people from other countries don't use the word like Australians do needs to be clearly explained to the team, and they need to stop saying it on field.