*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[C_C]

That sledging and crowd control is almost impossible (in the manner you seem to want) and that the only one here who should (as have others) is be professional about it.

It is not impossible- it needs a concerted efforts from the nation in concern and a pro-active stance by the rest of the populace, who show zero-tolerance for something of this nature. Not stand by and allow despicable behaviour to get away scot free.
Like i said, in most countries i've been to(and believe me, the list is in several dozens), hate crimes can and are prosecuted even if the victim doesnt lodge a complaint. especially when the behaviour is caught on national tv with the legitimacy of the charge being a non-factor.

PS: Realities are not something that magically happens - realities of human interaction(s) stem from the behaviour of the individual, magnified several million-folds. And as such,every reality is subject to change provided people make an effort to change it, instead of showing social lazyness.

 

[marc71178]

Calling a person a chucker will be an unpopular action, but is it legal and I think people are within their rights to do as such.

Unless it's the Barmy Army calling Brett Lee it of course...

 

[marc71178]

No, i am implying its tolerance. If i kill a man and sit in the crowd scot-free, it shows that the crowd is tolerant of my killing. If i taunt a player racially and sit in the crowd scot-free, it shows that the crowd is indicretly complicit by tolerating the intolerable.

Or maybe it shows that the crowd are scared of a bloke who was obviously off his face...

No, instead you again play the Australia = racist card.

 

[C_C]

Or maybe it shows that the crowd are scared of a bloke who was obviously off his face...

No, instead you again play the Australia = racist card.

i played the 'racism = tolerated in Aussie stands' card.
As per racism in OZ - there have been several independent authorities commenting about it and deploring the situation. So shut up about the 'normalisation' defensive crap.
And yes, a few thousand people scared of an unarmed half drunk racist tosser...what a brilliant thing to come up with. I wonder if they would be equally scared of me if i painted my face white, painted something like ' whitetrash idiots' and sit in between them.

 

[luckyeddie]

I wonder if they would be equally scared of me if i painted my face white, painted something like ' whitetrash idiots' and sit in between them.

I'd be blooming terrified of you.

 

[Top_Cat]

And yes, a few thousand people scared of an unarmed half drunk racist tosser...what a brilliant thing to come up with. I wonder if they would be equally scared of me if i painted my face white, painted something like ' whitetrash idiots' and sit in between them.

Joy, a well-established area of psych is the Bystander Effect. It states that in an emergency/distressful situation of any sort, the greater the number of people present, the less likely there is going to be someone to do something about it. Why? We take our social cues from others in those situations and the diffusion of responsibiliy permeates through the crowd meaning that far there being more people able to act, no-one will act at all. In NY years ago, Kitty Genovese was murdered in a street by a serial killer in public. Over 30 people in apartments above the crime scene watched her get murdered even though she was screaming for help. Even then, someone only rang the Police half an hour after it was over.....

So in that crowd, there was probably a proportion of them who secretly agreed with the guy, another percentage who just thought he was funny but I would say that there was a significant proportion of that population who were effectively waiting for someone else to take charge and deck the guy. It actually takes quite a strong personality to overcome such social situation and say "That's not right!", especially since you'd have no idea of how much support the guy had in the crowd. The primary human instinct is self-preservation, after-all. So people will be mentally paralysed and just won't act.

 

[C_C]

Joy, a well-established area of psych is the Bystander Effect. It states that in an emergency/distressful situation of any sort, the greater the number of people present, the less likely there is going to be someone to do something about it. Why? We take our social cues from others in those situations and the diffusion of responsibiliy permeates through the crowd meaning that far there being more people able to act, no-one will act at all. In NY years ago, Kitty Genovese was murdered in a street by a serial killer in public. Over 30 people in apartments above the crime scene watched her get murdered even though she was screaming for help. Even then, someone only rang the Police half an hour after it was over.....

So in that crowd, there was probably a proportion of them who secretly agreed with the guy, another percentage who just thought he was funny but I would say that there was a significant proportion of that population who were effectively waiting for someone else to take charge and deck the guy. It actually takes quite a strong personality to overcome such social situation and say "That's not right!", especially since you'd have no idea of how much support the guy had in the crowd. The primary human instinct is self-preservation, after-all. So people will be mentally paralysed and just won't act.

Its much clearer now. Thanks for explaining it to me. I suppose i can see that angle, even though i dont understand it, since i've always been proactive in situations like that. Usually my response in a situation like that ( and i've been in three where someone was either threatening physical violence or instigating it) is to just take action.
I suppose in one aspect where i differ from most human beings is that my instict for self preservation is not that high on the list of priorities. So i guess it is a bit alien for me to truely understand why a group of people will stand by and watch a tosser create mayhem when they can nip it in the bud.

 

[honestbharani]

I think you might be taking what is said the wrong way mate. No one is saying he didn't have a right to be upset. The point is whether someone of his stature diminish his own integrity. Two wrongs do not make a right my friend, and for all your sympathy for the sub-continental sentiments, the rule of law stands firm in Australia.

You're right that people should change in terms of their behaviour, but what you're asking is easier said than done, and instead of whinging about the problem, maybe offer a solution? It would be a very hard process in keeping up with people just because they're taunting a bowler. As I said, people will label you as a chucker or fat or any other slurs no matter who you are. Just because 1% of the population is ignorant enough to make it racial it is not suffice to punish the larger populus.

I understand you're upset, obviously you're a big fan of Murali, but his retaliation, if not legitamtely correct, should NEVER be condoned. It can be excused, but you're condoning it.

I only said it was UNDERSTANDABLE. It certainly wasn't JUSTIFIABLE. I said the same thing about Katich's reaction to that shocker of a LBW decision by Aleem Dar in the Ashes. You can check one of the Ashes threads for that.


Murali deserved the reprimand and some of the condemnation he received for his gesture. Like I said, it is understandable but it is not justifiable. But didn't the guy who provoked him deserve some kind of punishment as well? And I don't see why stopping the crowd from sledging is so difficult over there. It is easily done here in India. Some guys shouted "Wasim down down" here in Chennai and there were a team of policemen immediately there, asking them to cool it or get out.

 

[honestbharani]

Here is my stance:

Racists: Bad Murali's reaction: Bad

I do not condone either behaviour. But one has to take the realities into account. That sledging and crowd control is almost impossible (in the manner you seem to want) and that the only one here who should (as have others) is be professional about it. Murali here is the one who is in the public light. So as that has advantages it also has disadvantages and he will be scrutinised harsher. These are the realities you have to come to terms with.

As has been mentioned, substantial aggrevation was exhibited and Murali reacted as any normal human would under a lot of pressure. Yet, there is a reason why the ICC are taking action towards Murali's retaliation and that is the point you're missing.

What about the cause and effect here? Isn't it the racist remarks THAT CAUSED Murali to react the way he did. So, shouldn't the racist idiots deserve more condemnation than Murali? I don't know how stuff works over there, but here in India (at least in Chennai), you only have to call a player by the slightest of swear words and police are on your back immediately. I have seen at least 10-20 people being evicted over my time of watching cricket here at the MAC stadium at Chennai.

 

[Dasa]

Here is my stance:

Racists: Bad Murali's reaction: Bad

I do not condone either behaviour. But one has to take the realities into account. That sledging and crowd control is almost impossible (in the manner you seem to want) and that the only one here who should (as have others) is be professional about it. Murali here is the one who is in the public light. So as that has advantages it also has disadvantages and he will be scrutinised harsher. These are the realities you have to come to terms with.

As has been mentioned, substantial aggrevation was exhibited and Murali reacted as any normal human would under a lot of pressure. Yet, there is a reason why the ICC are taking action towards Murali's retaliation and that is the point you're missing.

You seem to be saying that each action was as bad as the other, when that is clearly not the case...

 

[Ikki]

I only said it was UNDERSTANDABLE. It certainly wasn't JUSTIFIABLE. I said the same thing about Katich's reaction to that shocker of a LBW decision by Aleem Dar in the Ashes. You can check one of the Ashes threads for that.


Murali deserved the reprimand and some of the condemnation he received for his gesture. Like I said, it is understandable but it is not justifiable. But didn't the guy who provoked him deserve some kind of punishment as well? And I don't see why stopping the crowd from sledging is so difficult over there. It is easily done here in India. Some guys shouted "Wasim down down" here in Chennai and there were a team of policemen immediately there, asking them to cool it or get out.

In my opinion he SURELY does. But why are some here pointing the fingers at the wrong people? As I stated earlier, the general manager himself decided not to go through with it, for whatever reason, you cannot look to the Australian people and imply them accomplices for not doing something when the team itself didn't.

What about the cause and effect here? Isn't it the racist remarks THAT CAUSED Murali to react the way he did. So, shouldn't the racist idiots deserve more condemnation than Murali? I don't know how stuff works over there, but here in India (at least in Chennai), you only have to call a player by the slightest of swear words and police are on your back immediately. I have seen at least 10-20 people being evicted over my time of watching cricket here at the MAC stadium at Chennai.

As I mentioned, unfortunately the harsher criticisms will be for players rather than fans. This is the same for anyone in the spotlight no matter what profession. I do agree with you on having a stable environment and providing a safeguard to people who aren't there to watch cricket and the primary cause is to make trouble. However, personally, I wouldn't like it to go to any extreme and to stay roughly in the middle of both sides of this spectrum.

You seem to be saying that each action was as bad as the other, when that is clearly not the case...

No, that wasn't what I was trying to imply at all. As I have already said plenty of times, that I understand and I do not blame Murali for reacting the way he did. However, I do NOT condone it, and neither should anyone else. To understand it is one thing, to let him get away with it is another. The rule of law as aforementioned is ever present in this case. What I specifically said was that someone like MURALI who is in the public light will be dealt harsher criticisms because of it and someone in the crowd making an obscene gesture will be forgotten in a weeks time. Who knows this man's name? Anyone? Such is his importance, but for Murali, anything he does, on or off, he will be judged by. So really, I do not see why so many are in disagreence when I give my two cents and I encourage Murali to not demean his own integrity and to be an example. The more he lets this bother him the worse the situation will get for HIM.

 

[honestbharani]

Without wanting to add further fuel to this debate, today's game was the first one I have seen LIVE in this year's VB series and except for concerted and LOUD chants of No Ball, nothing else was happening and I think Murali can live with that. Perhaps most of the guys shouting the "No Ball" chant themselves may not think that he has an illegal action and maybe they are just having some fun. As long as nothing else is being said and taunted at Murali, I think it is ok.

 

[honestbharani]

In my opinion he SURELY does. But why are some here pointing the fingers at the wrong people? As I stated earlier, the general manager himself decided not to go through with it, for whatever reason, you cannot look to the Australian people and imply them accomplices for not doing something when the team itself didn't.



As I mentioned, unfortunately the harsher criticisms will be for players rather than fans. This is the same for anyone in the spotlight no matter what profession. I do agree with you on having a stable environment and providing a safeguard to people who aren't there to watch cricket and the primary cause is to make trouble. However, personally, I wouldn't like it to go to any extreme and to stay roughly in the middle of both sides of this spectrum.




No, that wasn't what I was trying to imply at all. As I have already said plenty of times, that I understand and I do not blame Murali for reacting the way he did. However, I do NOT condone it, and neither should anyone else. To understand it is one thing, to let him get away with it is another. The rule of law as aforementioned is ever present in this case. What I specifically said was that someone like MURALI who is in the public light will be dealt harsher criticisms because of it and someone in the crowd making an obscene gesture will be forgotten in a weeks time. Who knows this man's name? Anyone? Such is his importance, but for Murali, anything he does, on or off, he will be judged by. So really, I do not see why so many are in disagreence when I give my two cents and I encourage Murali to not demean his own integrity and to be an example. The more he lets this bother him the worse the situation will get for HIM.

I never BLAMED the Aussie public in the slightest. I am only blaming the authorities. And in fact, BLAME is too big a work. I am just WONDERING why they can't try to take action against these isolated idiots who spoil the fun for the rest of the crowd.


And BTW, Murali was awesome in today's game.


Edit: I do agree with you about Murali being the public figure and therefore having to conduct himself better even when provoked to the highest degree. But I guess every man has his boiling point and as long as this is a one off, which I think it will be, we should just leave it at that. He made the gesture and was warned for it and I think he realizes his mistake. End of story.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

So, I return to my earlier point..... Is it okay if some crowds in India and around the world starts calling Shane Warne "you ****ing *** addict, drug cheat and wife-cheater" etc ?

Basically, yes.

It's not desirable exactly, but it's part of the game and every player faces it. I find it so utterly ridiculous that people are making this about Australian crowds, when in the middle of this summer Australia toured New Zealand and were showered with bottles.

I don't blame Murali for complaining about getting crap from the crowd, but offering the same in return or refusing to tour the country because of it is pretty poor form. If Warne was so sensitive, how many countries would he be refusing to tour, I wonder?

Racial abuse, physical intimidation, thrown objects etc should be stamped out, certainly. But sledging? If they're allowed to do it on the pitch, why not from the stands?

 

[Top_Cat]

Racial abuse, physical intimidation, thrown objects etc should be stamped out, certainly. But sledging? If they're allowed to do it on the pitch, why not from the stands?

You know it never stops there with Murali. Ragging Murali for being a chucker is one thing or yelling no-ball but pulling the old black-face routine is beyond the pale. Nothing Warnie gets or has ever gotten worldwide would compare to the humiliation or sheer insult-value of that. Not to mention, Warnie has a history of spitting the dummy more than Murali anyway.

Geez, am I the only one who thinks his reaction has been blown at of proportion though? I mean so what? He gave someone the finger. Big deal. In his shoes, I would have been tempted to do some instant facial surgery. At the very least, said yobbo would have gotten a huge verbal spray from me. Only those who've been the subject of racial abuse could understand just how little, by comparison, Murali reacted to provocation like that.

I dunno, maybe it's an indicator of my lack of sophistication but an extended middle-finger just isn't that insulting to me anymore. Yet they way you'd hear some tell it, it's the worst insult imaginable. In a world of terrorism, death, destruction, natural disasters and pain in general, hasn't everyone got more to worry about than whether a cricketer, pushed to his limits, reacts with a physical gesture? Are we so thin-skinned? Have some of us not been through enough trauma in our lives to put something like this in its context?

 

[Ikki]

I never BLAMED the Aussie public in the slightest. I am only blaming the authorities. And in fact, BLAME is too big a work. I am just WONDERING why they can't try to take action against these isolated idiots who spoil the fun for the rest of the crowd.


And BTW, Murali was awesome in today's game.


Edit: I do agree with you about Murali being the public figure and therefore having to conduct himself better even when provoked to the highest degree. But I guess every man has his boiling point and as long as this is a one off, which I think it will be, we should just leave it at that. He made the gesture and was warned for it and I think he realizes his mistake. End of story.

Sorry, I didn't mean you when I wrote "you" I was addressing everyone. In fact I am with Murali on this case as I've stated from the start. I'm of a "don't let em bother you Muttiah and work your stuff" attitude. That is why I want him to come here and to play. And yeah, for heaven's sake plenty of players have done plenty of stuff. This whole thing is a bit too heated I think.

 

[Ikki]

You know it never stops there with Murali. Ragging Murali for being a chucker is one thing or yelling no-ball but pulling the old black-face routine is beyond the pale. Nothing Warnie gets or has ever gotten worldwide would compare to the humiliation or sheer insult-value of that. Not to mention, Warnie has a history of spitting the dummy more than Murali anyway.

Geez, am I the only one who thinks his reaction has been blown at of proportion though? I mean so what? He gave someone the finger. Big deal. In his shoes, I would have been tempted to do some instant facial surgery. At the very least, said yobbo would have gotten a huge verbal spray from me. Only those who've been the subject of racial abuse could understand just how little, by comparison, Murali reacted to provocation like that.

I dunno, maybe it's an indicator of my lack of sophistication but an extended middle-finger just isn't that insulting to me anymore. Yet they way you'd hear some tell it, it's the worst insult imaginable. In a world of terrorism, death, destruction, natural disasters and pain in general, hasn't everyone got more to worry about than whether a cricketer, pushed to his limits, reacts with a physical gesture? Are we so thin-skinned? Have some of us not been through enough trauma in our lives to put something like this in its context?

I am with you on that. I just think if you play the lamb and do that then you're going to get a response directly opposite of what probably is appropriate. If he had complained without having done that, he would get a wider audience to agree. To do that just gave others an argument to base something upon.

 

[dinu23]

Murali highest wicket taker along with Lee: http://sl.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2.../STATS/VBS_JAN-FEB2006_ODI_BOWL_BEST_AVS.html

who said Murali don't like Aussie pitches?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Murali highest wicket taker along with Lee: http://sl.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2.../STATS/VBS_JAN-FEB2006_ODI_BOWL_BEST_AVS.html

who said Murali don't like Aussie pitches?

He has a fair number of wickets, but an average of 33 and an economy rate of over 5 suggest it's been a pretty average series for him. He's also had his two worst matches in terms of figures during the series (including the worst by anyone ever). Also take note of his performances against Australia and then against South Africa, who handle him a lot worse.

Against Australia: 7 wickets @ 49.71, eco: 5.80
0/67 (10)
1/54 (10)
2/35 (10)
1/53 (10)
3/40 (10)
0/99 (10)

Against South Africa: 8 wickets @ 18.88, eco: 4.08
2/34 (9)
2/45 (10)
3/44 (10)
1/28 (8)

Overall, Bandara has been much more impressive.

 

[luckyeddie]

Murali highest wicket taker along with Lee: http://sl.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2.../STATS/VBS_JAN-FEB2006_ODI_BOWL_BEST_AVS.html

who said Murali don't like Aussie pitches?

I'll see your 'In defence of Murali' and raise you The worst ODI figures in a 50 over match