***Official*** India in Australia

[honestbharani]

Wasn't it Procter who said a while back that it was in the Australians' nature to sledge etc, and it was different when dealing with them? I'm sure it was a major official who said something along those lines.

Pretty sure it was him....

 

[micks80]

What do you guys suggest for Perth Test?

Hi Guys,
After all the stuff that Indian Cricket Team went through in MCG, they need to come back strongly in Perth and teach the Aussies a lesson.Aussies will also try their best to increase their winning streak to a record 17 matches.What changes Indian Team should do for the Perth Test.

I would suggest the following changes:

Wasim Jaffer(out) -> Virendar Sehwag (in)
Yuvraj Sing (out) -> Dinesh Karthik(in)
Ishant Sharma(out)-> Irfan Pathan(in)

So, what do you guys suggest?

 

[Evermind]

I would imagine too. And I don't think they are the kind of comments you go and have a "beer after the game". Which is what Sunil was referring to. I am fine with saying the Aussies want to keep things on the field where the two parties can get together in the end and have a beer over, but definitely not things as serious as that. But largely, Australia's sledging is not abuse of the 2nd kind and usually of the 1st kind mentioned. As for the kind like the ones above, a lot of test nations have such controversies onfield.

But seldom do controversies lead to 3-match bans. We're talking about severe abuse here - let's leave all abuse that doesn't involve bad language or hurtful personal insults out of this discussion altogether.

There is every reason to believe that in almost every match involving Australia, abuse that is personally insulting does appear. Justin Langer has said the Australians go too far, Mahanama reported Jayasuria being hurt by being called a "black monkey" by McGrath. Do you think these deserve punishment?

So since you agree that this sort of abuse is not acceptable, do you think McGrath should've been banned for at least a match? It seems perfectly reasonable to me that he should've. Yet, nothing was done. "It stays on the field, mate" is the only explanation for that. I also believe that it was simple inertia - the subcontinent players and the West Indians seem to have been so used to such abuse that even though it hurt them, they simply took it to be a part of the game. Now what everyone's saying is if this issue with Harbhajan is unacceptable, so is, what, at least a few decades of onfield sledging?

They have, like Lehmann and were punished for it rightly. However, these are not the kind of statements Australians want to keep on the field or the ones where you can leave behind and have a beer later with the opposition. Gavaskar has equated two different kinds of personal abuse and you've mixed them up.

Incorrect? I've not mixed them up at all, fella. I perfectly know the difference - racist abuse is bad, other types of personal abuse is not as bad (allegedly, and rather arbitrarily) but still very bad. Now, we have 3-match bans for racist abuse, and no ban or repurcussions whatsoever for the other types. I'm not mixing them up, I'm logically extrapolating from racist abuse to other types. It makes no stinkin' sense to let all others go by.

According to the methods of the status quo, Harbhajan gets 3 matches for "monkey", but if an Aussie player says "go f*** yourself you worthless piece of butt-ugly pommie b****" that's no problem at all because "Australians play the game hard and fair, and that's just a part of their game".

Only Lehmann has been punished so far. McGrath hasn't - for either of his incidents. Doubtlessly others haven't - Gavaskar talks about that. Should this go on?

There is no double-standard. I have never heard Australians say racial abuse should stay on the field.

They have never said it but that's been the implicit practice until the past few years.

No it isn't. It's policy for the team to not behave so insultingly and those remarks equate in seriousness. Just because these happened to be different doesn't make them okay. It just proves that even Aussies have stepped outside of their policy to keep the game competitive but clean.

Sorry, you're not allowed to get away with just "proof that even Aussies have stepped outside of their policy to keep the game competitive but clean". Whenever they step outside of this policy, they are breaking the rules of sportsmanship and should be punished. Because if Harby's comments have repurcussions, then so do Hogg's, and McGrath's, and whoever else's. Bear in mind that it's just the stuff we've actually heard. There is a lot that isn't heard and that's kept on the field that's no doubt equally insulting.

Yeah, I am okay with foul language.

Others are not. You can't apply your own standards to everyone. If racism is bad, others might feel that foul language is bad too. Ban it all.

You're not getting the point. The kinds of comments which Gavaskar refer to about Aussies keeping on the field are not racist or overtly personal. These comments are common. The racist comments, like Harbhajan's, ARE NOT COMMON. Hence there is no correlation.

You're not admitting something that's clear as day. Every single (especially subcontinental) team has accused the Aussies of PERSONAL ABUSE and that it should be punished also. Thus, it IS COMMON and should be acknowledged. Denial of facts is not going to make them go away. It is simply that they're NOT REPORTED to the refree as official complaints. Hell if even someone like Justin Langer says they go too far, there must be something to it?

Actually, I know exactly what you're talking about with regards to using 'bastard' against sub-continental people. They get furious, as I've experienced and don't take it in a mate-ship/jokish was Aussies do. Which is why the ICC should probably clamp down on the seriously offensive stuff said.

Excellent! We're getting somewhere. Since Hogg used the term, we agree that he should get a ban then? How long should his ban be? I'd say 2 matches. Since it's not as severe as racist abuse - we can all admit that - it's only right that he gets a bit less, but not too much less.

HOWEVER, that is in no way relative to what Gavaskar/Grieg were trying to say by making it out as if what Harbhajan said and what the Aussies 'usually' say are the same. They're absolutely not.

They're not the SAME but they can be equally insulting. Do you think making fun of someone's looks is ok? So if Harbhajan had called Symonds an "ugly b****" that would've been 100% ok, because it's not racist? It doesn't make a damn bit of sense.

How are you sure at all? Stop with the petty and false accusations of Australians doing/saying things they haven't. There are enough examples of stupidness to choose from so you don't have to be 'certain' about anything.

http://content-www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/95739.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/26/2127355.htm

I'm pretty tired of finding the links. They're all over the net.

Really, I'd doubt Harbhajan would let something about his turban go as Sikh's really wouldn't take that any different to how Symonds took being called a 'monkey'.

I'm not sure if you know it, but Sikhs are made fun of when it comes to their turbans all over India. There're jokes about Sikhs exactly as there are "blonde jokes" in the west - except these are often used to make fun of them. There's no doubt that Harby's been at the receiving end at times - especially from his own team-mates!

It is a pandora's box which is open now and the ICC will have to choose one way or another. Not everything said can be 'kept' no the field. Certainly no racial/***ual/religious/etc comments. And I have never heard Australians advocating these kinds of comments be kept on the field for there even to be a double-standard.

Why, then, wasn't McGrath banned for either incident? They obviously do it all the time! How can you be so naive?

Here's something from the counties:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/06/1091732055253.html?from=storylhs&oneclick=true

Calling someone's mother a whore isn't on, is it? What was done to Warne? Nothing. Where's the rule-book and the code of conduct now? Where was it during McGrath's comments?

What? Maybe Lee didn't think it as a big deal like Symonds did.

Symonds has no business thinking anything about a friendly pat on the butt from one player to another. Why did he involve himself at all? He isn't the Umpire.

I'm saying something very simple. It was either assault, or it was friendly. Right? Brett Lee obviously didn't report it, and Harbhajan isn't a mental patient, so it wasn't assault. It if was friendly, then Sy

But you were saying maybe Symonds made a homosexual remark about him in which Harbhajan shot back with
"monkey". To which common sense would dictate that remark much more severe than getting tapped with a bat. And if anything, Harbhajan would use that as a mitigating factor (provocation) in appeal. The fact that he didn't is your made-up story and yours alone.

?! I'm not saying for certain it was at all. I was reasonably speculating. (Just like our friend Mike Procter it seems). Just like you are.

I'm speculating that Symonds might've made a homophobic remark. You're saying it was something as simple and innocent as "that's not on, mate". Knowing history, I'd much rather go for my speculation than yours.

Your assertion that Harbhajan didn't use it as a mitigating factor and so it didn't happen is just poor logic. There could be a million and one reason why he might not have used it. Since Harbhajan has denied making the comments altogether, there is most likely to have been no talk of any provocation at all.

If it was more, it would be used as a mitigating factor. Common-sense. Harbhajan hasn't said Symonds said anything that bad, all he has done is denied saying anything himself. Don't assume something that really you have no proof of nor does it really fit.

Why would Harbhajan deny that he made any comments at all, and yet assert that he was provoked? You're not making any sense at all, man. The accusation came from Ponting's side. If Harby denies making the comments altogether, all talk of provocation is moot and will work against him! So why would he mention it?

Rubbish. They've had incidents like other test nations have, but it certainly has not been apart of the Aussie culture to do things like that and 'keep it on the field and have a beer after'.

You're living in a bubble, if you believe the Aussies are no worse at onfield nastiness and abuse compared to other countries. Pretty much the entire worldwide cricketing community other than the Aussie team and their cronies agree. If even neutrals are firmly sided with one party, and if that's the case, surely something must be the matter.

And if I hear once again that "people are just jealous of Australia's success" I'm gonna shove a Pete Sampras photograph up the person's left nostril.

 

[honestbharani]

So, if you say something like, "Send him back to re-string his raquet" or, "There's more jumping than a Kris Kross video out here" or, "That's the wrong grip for a 4iron" is personal abuse?

I don't think people will find it offensive, but if a particular group does, then their sensitivities have to be obliged.. Cricket is not played by only one population, is it????? Even if it sounds absolutely stupid and ludicurous to us, if it hurts a certain party, then it should be avoided... End of story.

 

[social]

Hi Guys,
After all the stuff that Indian Cricket Team went through in MCG, they need to come back strongly in Perth and teach the Aussies a lesson.Aussies will also try their best to increase their winning streak to a record 17 matches.What changes Indian Team should do for the Perth Test.

I would suggest the following changes:

Wasim Jaffer(out) -> Virendar Sehwag (in)
Yuvraj Sing (out) -> Dinesh Karthik(in)
Ishant Sharma(out)-> Irfan Pathan(in)

So, what do you guys suggest?

I'd keep Ishant but replace Harby with Pathan as the wicket will be quick and wont help spin

 

[Evermind]

Hi Guys,
After all the stuff that Indian Cricket Team went through in MCG, they need to come back strongly in Perth and teach the Aussies a lesson.Aussies will also try their best to increase their winning streak to a record 17 matches.What changes Indian Team should do for the Perth Test.

I would suggest the following changes:

Wasim Jaffer(out) -> Virendar Sehwag (in)
Yuvraj Sing (out) -> Dinesh Karthik(in)
Ishant Sharma(out)-> Irfan Pathan(in)

So, what do you guys suggest?

Looks good. I'd definitely play Sreesanth if he were available. Also, Harby out for him. Not sure if the extra spinner is worth his place in Perth.

If only for the opportunity to let Symonds throw the word "monkey" back India's way.

 

[honestbharani]

I understand that emotions are running high, and that you are more than a little annoyed at the outcome- and with good reason. Still, I really think that this does yourself a bit of a disservice. Yes, the umpiring performance was poor, and yes, India got the rough end of the pineapple. No dispute at all there.

If all of the decisions went one way, then you could make a case. But your contention that the horrendous decisions went ONLY against the Indians is just not the case. There were some pretty bad decisions that went the other way also- albeit certainly not in the same volume as suffered by India.

Whilst it is obviously fair to condemn the umpires for not performing to the level that a competent umpire should, the suggestion that they were corrupt just rankles at me. There is nothing that constitutes even the slightest case that the poor decisions were based on corruption, rather than incompetence.

good post and I do have to admit that with a couple of exceptions (a few were predictable and a couple were surprising), the general standard of posting from the Aussies here in this issue has been top-notch and I do agree that my initial posts on this issue were a bit OTT.


And you do make good points reg. the bias issue. But the point is, this is not the first time Bucknor has done this against India... He has been poor against other sides, but the way he talks to the Indians, the way he handled Parthiv and the way he made fun of Dravid and the whole ball tampering issue... I think too much has happened far too frequently to just be considered coincidences. I do think it is reasonably possible that Bucknor has a bit of a bias against India, for whatever reasons....


Benson, on the other hand, to me, just seems plain incompetent. I really don't think he is biased or anything, having watched the replays and stuff...


but gr8 posting, mate... even though u ve made only 3 or 4 posts on this issue.

 

[social]

But seldom do controversies lead to 3-match bans. We're talking about severe abuse here - let's leave all abuse that doesn't involve bad language or hurtful personal insults out of this discussion altogether.

There is every reason to believe that in almost every match involving Australia, abuse that is personally insulting does appear. Justin Langer has said the Australians go too far, Mahanama reported Jayasuria being hurt by being called a "black monkey" by McGrath. Do you think these deserve punishment?

So since you agree that this sort of abuse is not acceptable, do you think McGrath should've been banned for at least a match? It seems perfectly reasonable to me that he should've. Yet, nothing was done. "It stays on the field, mate" is the only explanation for that. I also believe that it was simple inertia - the subcontinent players and the West Indians seem to have been so used to such abuse that even though it hurt them, they simply took it to be a part of the game. Now what everyone's saying is if this issue with Harbhajan is unacceptable, so is, what, at least a few decades of onfield sledging?



Incorrect? I've not mixed them up at all, fella. I perfectly know the difference - racist abuse is bad, other types of personal abuse is not as bad (allegedly, and rather arbitrarily) but still very bad. Now, we have 3-match bans for racist abuse, and no ban or repurcussions whatsoever for the other types. I'm not mixing them up, I'm logically extrapolating from racist abuse to other types. It makes no stinkin' sense to let all others go by.

According to the methods of the status quo, Harbhajan gets 3 matches for "monkey", but if an Aussie player says "go f*** yourself you worthless piece of butt-ugly pommie b****" that's no problem at all because "Australians play the game hard and fair, and that's just a part of their game".

Only Lehmann has been punished so far. McGrath hasn't - for either of his incidents. Doubtlessly others haven't - Gavaskar talks about that. Should this go on?



They have never said it but that's been the implicit practice until the past few years.



Sorry, you're not allowed to get away with just "proof that even Aussies have stepped outside of their policy to keep the game competitive but clean". Whenever they step outside of this policy, they are breaking the rules of sportsmanship and should be punished. Because if Harby's comments have repurcussions, then so do Hogg's, and McGrath's, and whoever else's. Bear in mind that it's just the stuff we've actually heard. There is a lot that isn't heard and that's kept on the field that's no doubt equally insulting.



Others are not. You can't apply your own standards to everyone. If racism is bad, others might feel that foul language is bad too. Ban it all.




You're not admitting something that's clear as day. Every single (especially subcontinental) team has accused the Aussies of PERSONAL ABUSE and that it should be punished also. Thus, it IS COMMON and should be acknowledged. Denial of facts is not going to make them go away. It is simply that they're NOT REPORTED to the refree as official complaints. Hell if even someone like Justin Langer says they go too far, there must be something to it?



Excellent! We're getting somewhere. Since Hogg used the term, we agree that he should get a ban then? How long should his ban be? I'd say 2 matches. Since it's not as severe as racist abuse - we can all admit that - it's only right that he gets a bit less, but not too much less.



They're not the SAME but they can be equally insulting. Do you think making fun of someone's looks is ok? So if Harbhajan had called Symonds an "ugly b****" that would've been 100% ok, because it's not racist? It doesn't make a damn bit of sense.



http://content-www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/95739.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/26/2127355.htm

I'm pretty tired of finding the links. They're all over the net.



I'm not sure if you know it, but Sikhs are made fun of when it comes to their turbans all over India. There're jokes about Sikhs exactly as there are "blonde jokes" in the west - except these are often used to make fun of them. There's no doubt that Harby's been at the receiving end at times - especially from his own team-mates!



Why, then, wasn't McGrath banned for either incident? They obviously do it all the time! How can you be so naive?

Here's something from the counties:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/06/1091732055253.html?from=storylhs&oneclick=true

Calling someone's mother a whore isn't on, is it? What was done to Warne? Nothing. Where's the rule-book and the code of conduct now? Where was it during McGrath's comments?



Symonds has no business thinking anything about a friendly pat on the butt from one player to another. Why did he involve himself at all? He isn't the Umpire.

I'm saying something very simple. It was either assault, or it was friendly. Right? Brett Lee obviously didn't report it, and Harbhajan isn't a mental patient, so it wasn't assault. It if was friendly, then Sy



?! I'm not saying for certain it was at all. I was reasonably speculating. (Just like our friend Mike Procter it seems). Just like you are.

I'm speculating that Symonds might've made a homophobic remark. You're saying it was something as simple and innocent as "that's not on, mate". Knowing history, I'd much rather go for my speculation than yours.

Your assertion that Harbhajan didn't use it as a mitigating factor and so it didn't happen is just poor logic. There could be a million and one reason why he might not have used it. Since Harbhajan has denied making the comments altogether, there is most likely to have been no talk of any provocation at all.




Why would Harbhajan deny that he made any comments at all, and yet assert that he was provoked? You're not making any sense at all, man. The accusation came from Ponting's side. If Harby denies making the comments altogether, all talk of provocation is moot and will work against him! So why would he mention it?



You're living in a bubble, if you believe the Aussies are no worse at onfield nastiness and abuse compared to other countries. Pretty much the entire worldwide cricketing community other than the Aussie team and their cronies agree. If even neutrals are firmly sided with one party, and if that's the case, surely something must be the matter.

And if I hear once again that "people are just jealous of Australia's success" I'm gonna shove a Pete Sampras photograph up the person's left nostril.

You really should stop citing Mahanama - guy wasnt even playing in the match and his claim has never been supported by anyone

 

[honestbharani]

Worst argument. Why would Hayden and Clarke insist Symonds was racially abused if he wasn't?

no idea... But why would the senior players be so upset abt the decision and the hearing and the charge itself if Harby had insulted Symonds racially???


No way anyone can be conclusive of anything... But u guyz seem real confident that Harby did say racist stuff...

 

[honestbharani]

Not really needed, hb.

well, I don't think Sean's "how it brings up the worst out of some ppl" was exactly needed either.....


Anyways, apologies...

 

[honestbharani]

Hb how can you be so sure about all the things you are saying, till the things aren't clear and there is no proof regarding it, everything that you or timmy say regarding the racism episode is just mere speculation!

tats wat I m saying all along... it is speculation.


And given that, I would rather take Tendulkar's word than Ponting's if it is just mere speculation... It has nothing to do with Tendulkar being Indian...

 

[social]

no idea... But why would the senior players be so upset abt the decision and the hearing and the charge itself if Harby had insulted Symonds racially???


No way anyone can be conclusive of anything... But u guyz seem real confident that Harby did say racist stuff...

You do realize that the reason they took this route is because the BCCI swept similar accusations under the mat during the ODIs in India?

Did it once, not all that big a stretch to believe he's done it again

 

[silentstriker]

Looks good. I'd definitely play Sreesanth if he were available. Also, Harby out for him. Not sure if the extra spinner is worth his place in Perth.

If only for the opportunity to let Symonds throw the word "monkey" back India's way.

May not be a bad idea to try out this Pankaj kid. He might be able to get some good bounce.

 

[honestbharani]

You do realize that the reason they took this route is because the BCCI swept similar accusations under the mat during the ODIs in India?

Did it once, not all that big a stretch to believe he's done it again

he did it once??? WHEN?

 

[Raghav]

May not be a bad idea to try out this Pankaj kid. He might be able to get some good bounce.

Pankaj is such kind of a bowler who needs assistance from the pitch. He needs movement of the pitch. He can not just rely on his bounce. I do not think he is will make an impact if he is gonna get selected.

 

[social]

he did it once??? WHEN?

Mumbai

 

[Bracken]

good post and I do have to admit that with a couple of exceptions (a few were predictable and a couple were surprising), the general standard of posting from the Aussies here in this issue has been top-notch and I do agree that my initial posts on this issue were a bit OTT.

And you do make good points reg. the bias issue. But the point is, this is not the first time Bucknor has done this against India... He has been poor against other sides, but the way he talks to the Indians, the way he handled Parthiv and the way he made fun of Dravid and the whole ball tampering issue... I think too much has happened far too frequently to just be considered coincidences. I do think it is reasonably possible that Bucknor has a bit of a bias against India, for whatever reasons....

Benson, on the other hand, to me, just seems plain incompetent. I really don't think he is biased or anything, having watched the replays and stuff...

but gr8 posting, mate... even though u ve made only 3 or 4 posts on this issue.

Heh. I think my last 30-40 posts have been on this issue in one thread or another.

 

[Agent TBY]

Mumbai

Haha, what?

 

[Ikki]

jobs have NEVER been handed out based on color of the skin in India... And neither have people been denied other social opportunities based on that...


And secondly, it should have been flimsy evidence... Otherwise, it is very very hard to explain the outburst of the senior Indian players, all of whom are very very highly regarded in terms of discipline and behaviour.....

Don't have to be denied. The preference of lighter skin over darker skin in a culture itself is racist. How could you deny it isn't? It's the definition of racism.

 

[Ikki]

But seldom do controversies lead to 3-match bans. We're talking about severe abuse here - let's leave all abuse that doesn't involve bad language or hurtful personal insults out of this discussion altogether.

But you can't leave that aside. You responded to my post where I was talking about Gavaskar equating Aussies' regular banter with racism. It's not the same thing.

There is every reason to believe that in almost every match involving Australia, abuse that is personally insulting does appear. Justin Langer has said the Australians go too far, Mahanama reported Jayasuria being hurt by being called a "black monkey" by McGrath. Do you think these deserve punishment?

Yes, because not only is that personal it is racist.

So since you agree that this sort of abuse is not acceptable, do you think McGrath should've been banned for at least a match? It seems perfectly reasonable to me that he should've. Yet, nothing was done. "It stays on the field, mate" is the only explanation for that. I also believe that it was simple inertia - the subcontinent players and the West Indians seem to have been so used to such abuse that even though it hurt them, they simply took it to be a part of the game. Now what everyone's saying is if this issue with Harbhajan is unacceptable, so is, what, at least a few decades of onfield sledging?

Yes, I do agree it deserves a ban.

However, it's not apart of the stuff that 'stay on the field'. Not even in the same vicinity.

Merv was called a fat bus conductor, now that's personal against an Aussie and the kind of stuff which isn't too serious and should stay on the field.

If Merv's mother was called a fat whore, I could see the logic in equating some personal comments and racist comments.

Incorrect? I've not mixed them up at all, fella. I perfectly know the difference - racist abuse is bad, other types of personal abuse is not as bad (allegedly, and rather arbitrarily) but still very bad. Now, we have 3-match bans for racist abuse, and no ban or repurcussions whatsoever for the other types. I'm not mixing them up, I'm logically extrapolating from racist abuse to other types. It makes no stinkin' sense to let all others go by.

You have mixed them up. You're saying all the personal stuff that the Aussies say are the same as racist remarks. Wrong. They have often, at times, like other players from other nations, said the kind of personal remark that crosses the line and is no different to the racist remarks made. HOWEVER, that is not regular and is certainly not the kind of behaviour Aussies refer to as best kept on the field and have a beer later.

According to the methods of the status quo, Harbhajan gets 3 matches for "monkey", but if an Aussie player says "go f*** yourself you worthless piece of butt-ugly pommie b****" that's no problem at all because "Australians play the game hard and fair, and that's just a part of their game".

Again. Not the kind of thing someone is going to accept and have a beer after the match for. Things which Gavaskar is referring to. It is not the norm and nor should it be condoned or accepted.

Only Lehmann has been punished so far. McGrath hasn't - for either of his incidents. Doubtlessly others haven't - Gavaskar talks about that. Should this go on?

No. Because this these instances are no different to the racist remarks made. HOWEVER, the are much different to the normal sledging Gavaskar sources and makes a false parallel with.

They have never said it but that's been the implicit practice until the past few years.

Hahahaha, WHAT?! They've been implicitly saying RACIAL ATTACKS should stay on the field?

Sorry, you're not allowed to get away with just "proof that even Aussies have stepped outside of their policy to keep the game competitive but clean". Whenever they step outside of this policy, they are breaking the rules of sportsmanship and should be punished. Because if Harby's comments have repurcussions, then so do Hogg's, and McGrath's, and whoever else's. Bear in mind that it's just the stuff we've actually heard. There is a lot that isn't heard and that's kept on the field that's no doubt equally insulting.

But you keep failing to realise comments like Hogg's and McGrath's are not a every-inning thing. There should be repercussions but there is no correlation to the policy breaking and playing it the 'Aussie way'. It actually goes against the notion that you could make those comments and be friendly after the game. You can't. Stuff like that, if it happened all the time, would end up in bust-ups. So obviously, there is no connection here.

Others are not. You can't apply your own standards to everyone. If racism is bad, others might feel that foul language is bad too. Ban it all.

Well, others may find offense by Sikhs and Hindu's too. Can we per chance ban all religious symbols/ways?

It doesn't take a genius to know there is a line that is not to be crossed. It doesn't mean we have to put that line so far back that essentially the game's colour is lost.

You're not admitting something that's clear as day. Every single (especially subcontinental) team has accused the Aussies of PERSONAL ABUSE and that it should be punished also. Thus, it IS COMMON and should be acknowledged. Denial of facts is not going to make them go away. It is simply that they're NOT REPORTED to the refree as official complaints. Hell if even someone like Justin Langer says they go too far, there must be something to it?

No, you're not admitting that subcontinental players ALSO have history in saying things or getting into quarrels on the field. It is not a national problem for any test team. It is a problem where individuals go out and say things to spoil the game for others. It doesn't have to be racial abuse.

But to say that Aussies cross the line on a regular basis, as if it's their culture - as that is what Gavaskar is actually implying - then you're on your own in believing that non-sense.

Excellent! We're getting somewhere. Since Hogg used the term, we agree that he should get a ban then? How long should his ban be? I'd say 2 matches. Since it's not as severe as racist abuse - we can all admit that - it's only right that he gets a bit less, but not too much less.

I've been saying this all along.

This is where you're confused. I am referring to Gavaskar or Grieg, or anyone, trying to make it out as if Aussies are saying THESE kinds of things should stay on the field. That THESE kinds of things can be put to rest at the end of the match and mate-ship can continue. Rubbish. It can't, and that the Aussie cricketing culture is not regularly promoting THESE kind of things no matter how hard-nosed they seem to be.

They're not the SAME but they can be equally insulting. Do you think making fun of someone's looks is ok? So if Harbhajan had called Symonds an "ugly b****" that would've been 100% ok, because it's not racist? It doesn't make a damn bit of sense.

Can't know what you censored there but let's say it's bad. No, it is not 100% okay. It'd be best if personal insults, even uncouth ones like that, are kept out of the game.

BUT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME AS RACISM. THEY ARE NOT EQUAL. SO LET'S NOT PRETEND THAT THE AUSSIES ARE BEING HYPOCRITES BY COMPLAINING.

http://content-www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/95739.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/26/2127355.htm

I'm pretty tired of finding the links. They're all over the net.

What? You didn't find ONE link that referred to what I said.

I asked you: how are you sure what Harbhajan reacted to was a homophobic comment? You didn't get 1 bit of proof.

Secondly, as I implied in that post, if such a thing DID happen it would SURELY be used as provocation and both players would be under scrutiny. Obviously, using common-sense, it did not happen because a) there is no proof of that and b) if there were the Indians would counter and provide it.

So don't go making up non-sense.

I'm not sure if you know it, but Sikhs are made fun of when it comes to their turbans all over India. There're jokes about Sikhs exactly as there are "blonde jokes" in the west - except these are often used to make fun of them. There's no doubt that Harby's been at the receiving end at times - especially from his own team-mates!

Oh okay, So Harbhajan is a tough boy and isn't going to take it seriously if someone makes fun of his religion. Then a few ***** offs* don't seem likely to incur a racial remark in reply.

Why, then, wasn't McGrath banned for either incident? They obviously do it all the time! How can you be so naive?

Here's something from the counties:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/06/1091732055253.html?from=storylhs&oneclick=true

Calling someone's mother a whore isn't on, is it? What was done to Warne? Nothing. Where's the rule-book and the code of conduct now? Where was it during McGrath's comments?

They don't do it all the time, otherwise you would hear of something like this in every test match. IMO, such things SHOULD get bans, but just because they don't it doesn't mean the Australians are propagating their use when the ICC itself doesn't take care of it.

Symonds has no business thinking anything about a friendly pat on the butt from one player to another. Why did he involve himself at all? He isn't the Umpire.

Pardon? Symonds has more business to protect his teammate than Harbhajan does hitting Lee on the arse with his bat.

I'm saying something very simple. It was either assault, or it was friendly. Right? Brett Lee obviously didn't report it, and Harbhajan isn't a mental patient, so it wasn't assault. It if was friendly, then Sy

Oh, , so Symonds should have waited for Lee to report it and then confront Harbhajan. I see.

?! I'm not saying for certain it was at all. I was reasonably speculating. (Just like our friend Mike Procter it seems). Just like you are.

I'm speculating that Symonds might've made a homophobic remark. You're saying it was something as simple and innocent as "that's not on, mate". Knowing history, I'd much rather go for my speculation than yours.

Your assertion that Harbhajan didn't use it as a mitigating factor and so it didn't happen is just poor logic. There could be a million and one reason why he might not have used it. Since Harbhajan has denied making the comments altogether, there is most likely to have been no talk of any provocation at all.

While you're speculating, you might as well speculate anything. There is no reason to even think as such. Because if there were, the first reference to it would be by the Indians.

And it is the BEST logic. If Harbhajan IS being provoked it is a mitigating factor. If he is found guilty, he can no longer use that as a defense as his story already has no evidence providing as such.

Why would Harbhajan deny that he made any comments at all, and yet assert that he was provoked? You're not making any sense at all, man. The accusation came from Ponting's side. If Harby denies making the comments altogether, all talk of provocation is moot and will work against him! So why would he mention it?

That's IF he didn't say it. I am assuming he did, based on the large fact that more people are testifying he did and Proctor also seems to believe he did. So, if in fact we find out he did, you can't assume he was provoked. Easy.

You're living in a bubble, if you believe the Aussies are no worse at onfield nastiness and abuse compared to other countries. Pretty much the entire worldwide cricketing community other than the Aussie team and their cronies agree. If even neutrals are firmly sided with one party, and if that's the case, surely something must be the matter.

Neutrals are saying the Aussies play hard and want that to stay on the field and be friends later. In fact, the people we are speaking of, Gavaskar and Grieg, are proposing that was the tradition at the time they were playing.

However, now they ask why Australians are complaining for what Harbhajan did, as if the kind of things that THEY used to have a beer after the match about are one and the same. It's almost idiotic.

And if I hear once again that "people are just jealous of Australia's success" I'm gonna shove a Pete Sampras photograph up the person's left nostril.

In a way, that's in some part true. What makes it seem that way in my eyes, right now, is when you hear some baffling comments as if Benson and Bucknor are on the Aussie payroll. You have the Indian captain not only disrespecting the umpires but the Australian side too.