Is Chris Gayle some sort of perverted misogynist or can everyone just settle down?

[Prince EWS]

When I play backyard cricket, you cannot throw stuff at other people. It will result in two runs. These "things" incldue little gumnuts off tree, grass, shoes (yes, shoes) and other things. the rule was brought in at the arrival of the shoe, as it happened I got out, after Sanka threw a shoe at me. He won the innings due to this, with the worst bowler (Matt) still haveing 3 balls to go, off which I neede 1 run.


Well one day, needing 4 runs to rake the lead (and virtaully win) and to reach my double century (dont ask, wierd scoring system), Nick got me out. I was so dissapointed, knowing I had lost.


The next bastman in was David, whos average was only twenty and high score was 104. Yes we actually calculate this. He had no hope of reaching 200, so Nick (the one who got me out) was going to win.


Sanka (the shoe guy) then decided he didnt want Nick to win and threw 4 gumnuts at me! results in 8 runs, winning me the match and giving me my first double centrury. Nick was so dissapointed and annoyed at Sanka that he began yelling and screaming at him.


Since then the throwing rule has changed, as have the scoring system. Well, the thrpowing rule hasnt really cganged, just the scoring system making less attractive. Now bowling is included to your score, subtracting it from a HUGE batting total, sometimes over 300, but most scores end up at about 60. This meaning that if you throw something at someone, they get 10 runs and you have ten runs against your bowling, giving you a lower final score.
And if the outcome of your score has already been decided, the runs go to the next innings.

 

[indiaholic]

That was your first post? Absolute legend.

 

[Prince EWS]

That was your first post? Absolute legend.

Nah I'd made a few posts before that. I believe it was my first post typed up at school though.

 

[91Jmay]

How old were you? ****ing hell. Did you do a lot of LSD as a youngster?

 

[weldone]

I really want some kind of serious punishment for this Malcolm Knox guy for writing that article, whoever he is. It is a seriously disgraceful article and shouldn't be tolerated imo.

 

[Prince EWS]

How old were you? ****ing hell. Did you do a lot of LSD as a youngster?

I was 14-15 I think. Poor typing/spelling etc can partly be attributed to the fact that I was meant to be doing school work and typed it up on the sly but even when I re-typed it a couple of years ago I realised the story itself was pretty ridiculous in the most bog-standard way something can be ridiculous.

In my youth, I regularly played backyard cricket with some of my neighbours who were roughly the same age as I. We developed some really unorthodox rules to counteract the environmental hazards at play.

One such rule outlawed throwing anything at the other players, particularly while they were batting. Penalty runs would ensue if this rule was broken. The reason behind this was fairly simple; players used to throw all sorts of random objects that could found on the field at the batsman to distract him. Gumnuts, grass and eventually even shoes were thrown, which saw to the introduction of the eventual rule after a shoe cost me a match to the shoe-thrower.

These penalty rules essentially got me a win one day. I was four runs short of victory when I was dismissed, before one of the fielders decided to throw gumnuts at me. It was a deliberate concession of penalty runs out of spite, to stop another player he was having a tiff with from finishing on top. The rules had to be tinkered again after that.

Good times.

 

[weldone]

Michael Bevan wasn't a very good ODI batsmen.

That's actually true for any batsman.

 

[Ikki]

Seriously tho. Why would anyone be against equality of the ***es?

I guess some people can be culturally against it, especially in the middle-east cultures. Personally, I'm not concerned with equality in results as I am opportunity. It's one kind of difference that will separate a lot of people even if they agree with no discrimination based on ***. Which is I guess the problem in people deciding what will bring about equality.

 

[91Jmay]

I just love the 'eventually shoes' part. As if that is the logical progression from gumnuts (what the **** is a gumnut btw).

 

[GIMH]

I really want some kind of serious punishment for this Malcolm Knox guy for writing that article, whoever he is. It is a seriously disgraceful article and shouldn't be tolerated imo.

punished by who exactly?

 

[91Jmay]

I really want some kind of serious punishment for this Malcolm Knox guy for writing that article, whoever he is. It is a seriously disgraceful article and shouldn't be tolerated imo.

this kind of post belongs on fetlife tbh.

 

[smash84]

Okay this thread is boring again. Someone say something stupid. Just need another 150 posts.

Am I late to the party?

Bradman was lucky he played before India and Pakistan became good sides otherwise he would've been Sami and Ishant's bunny.

 

[weldone]

punished by who exactly?

Media regulatory bodies to start with...after that I think Gayle is within his rights to sue him in any case

That guy should get an exemplery punishment.

I am no expert in Australian Law, but from a humanitarian PoV it will be shameful if that guy gets scot-free and that kind of articles are allowed to be written and published.

 

[Daemon]

Okay this thread is boring again. Someone say something stupid. Just need another 150 posts.

weldone

 

[cnerd123]

Yup. Weldone to the rescue for once. Should be able to drag this out for another 20-30 posts now.

 

[sledger]

Media regulatory bodies to start with...after that I think Gayle is within his rights to sue him in any case

That guy should get an exemplery punishment.

I am no expert in Australian Law, but it will be shameful if that guy gets scot-free.

Sue him for what?!

 

[indiaholic]

Nothing sledger, just a lame attempt to try and reverse the situation. Gayle says something stupid, he gets fined. Knox writes a terrible article, he should be fined too

 

[weldone]

Sue him for what?!

Racism of course (if it's considered a crime in Australia at all - as I said I am no expert in Australian Law).

Malcolm Knox is just using Chris Gayle's '***ism' to be racist. That article is like 'You can be ***ist and say sorry. I can also be racist and say sorry.'

I haven't heard of him before, but from that one article he comes out as a disgrace to journalism. He should just be thrown out of journalism and start posting in cricsim.

 

[sledger]

Racism per se almost certainly isn't a crime, and generally speaking, even if it was, you can't sue people for committing criminal offences.

 

[Prince EWS]

Racism per se almost certainly isn't a crime, and generally speaking, even if it was, you can't sue people for committing criminal offences.

Australian law is such that if Gayle was deemed reasonably likely to be offended by the comments and Knox sought to profit from them, he could indeed actually be sued by Gayle. I don't think he'd be at all likely to be successful in this case but there's legislation and precedent for journalists straight up being sued for being racist.

This is an absolutely ridiculous line to go down though. I think the thread may have hit a new low. Pull your head in weldone.