-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Why do Australians get special treatment?
- Thread starter Bas
- Start date
- Status
Swervy
International Captain
to be honest, this entire thread appears to be based on this sub-continental paranoia thing which crops up every once in a while. For some reason many fans of sub-continent teams think that people are out to get their teams (see the whole India vs Mike Denness debacle).
As far as I can see, people who have done wrong whether they be Indian, Australian or whatever have been punished in a fair and reasonable manner according to the 'crimes' they have committed
As for the media, this is what the media do , all around the world
As far as I can see, people who have done wrong whether they be Indian, Australian or whatever have been punished in a fair and reasonable manner according to the 'crimes' they have committed
As for the media, this is what the media do , all around the world
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
hear hearSwervy said:
I think some people forget what they read sometimes, to say Australia is responsible in some way for Murali's plight shows how anti Australian some people are.
Four umpires reported Murali before Hair no balled him and in the tour match before the test Sri Lanka were warned that Murali's action was suspect. Take the time to find out the facts and you will find Sri Lanka have deliberately played the victim everytime.
http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1995-96/SL_IN_AUS/ARTICLES/MURALI_CALLED_THROWING_27DEC1995
Sri Lankan officials leapt to Muralitharan`s defence yesterday
after Australian umpire Darrell Hair had called him repeatedly in
the course of three traumatic overs, but the International Crick-
et Council urged him to change his action and said he had been
under suspicion for the past three years.
Richards defended Hair`s stand, saying: "The ICC has been aware
for some time of speculation as to the legitimacy of this
player`s bowling action, and has taken the following steps:
"In 1993, the ICC referee Peter Burge spoke privately with
several of the [previous] administration of the Sri Lankan board
to relay his doubts arising from having watched the player bowl
in the home series against India.
Four umpires reported Murali before Hair no balled him and in the tour match before the test Sri Lanka were warned that Murali's action was suspect. Take the time to find out the facts and you will find Sri Lanka have deliberately played the victim everytime.
http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1995-96/SL_IN_AUS/ARTICLES/MURALI_CALLED_THROWING_27DEC1995
Sri Lankan officials leapt to Muralitharan`s defence yesterday
after Australian umpire Darrell Hair had called him repeatedly in
the course of three traumatic overs, but the International Crick-
et Council urged him to change his action and said he had been
under suspicion for the past three years.
Richards defended Hair`s stand, saying: "The ICC has been aware
for some time of speculation as to the legitimacy of this
player`s bowling action, and has taken the following steps:
"In 1993, the ICC referee Peter Burge spoke privately with
several of the [previous] administration of the Sri Lankan board
to relay his doubts arising from having watched the player bowl
in the home series against India.
Legglancer
State Regular
Smith's explanation more unsatisfactory than his ruling
Partab Ramchand - 4 March 2001
Sometimes while explaining controversial actions, one could go deeper into the mire. The explanation can be even more unsatisfactory than the judgement itself. Cammie Smith currently finds himself in this situation.
Of course one must give Smith, a happy go lucky cricketer in his playing days, credit for taking the rare step of publicly defending his case in the absolutely scandalous Michael Slater incident that marred the final day of the Mumbai Test. Smith, who played five Tests in the 60s, including the Brisbane tie, has been a match referee for some years now. Surely his experience, aligned to the yardsticks given to the officials by the International Cricket Council argued for a sterner penalty against the Australian than just the warning he got away with. His rather strange decision - to put it mildly - ignited a fuse among cricketers and fans alike. Even the normally taciturn Australian captain Steve Waugh admitted that "He (Slater) probably went over the top there. He got fired up and emotional about the whole thing. We are conscious that we have to create a good image on the field and it wasn't a good thing to happen."
And yet it must be admitted that Smith, now 67, did not exactly help matters by saying that Slater's clean record saved him from further punishment. By any yardstick, the punishment did not fit the crime but Smith just could not bring himself to either fine or suspend Slater when either of the two penalties would have been in order.
"I looked at the player's track record and have never seen him face a match referee before and took that into account. I am surprised people are concerned by this," Smith is reported to have said in justifying his soft decision on Slater. Well, Mr Smith, we are surprised first by your shocking ruling and then by your unsatisfactory explanation.
Putting his foot into the mouth, Smith is quoted to have said "it is important to note he (Slater) was not showing dissent at a decision made by the umpire. It was just a player's reaction." Well, I am sure anyone who has seen the TV replays would beg to differ with the honourable match referee. Showing dissent at a decision taken by the third umpire - who certainly was in a better position to give a ruling after going through several slow motion replays than Slater who completed the `catch' and appealed on the spur of the moment - arguing with the umpire on the field, indulging in heated exchanges with the batsman concerned and finally using foul language. If, after all this, a player is just let off with a warning, then something is terribly awry with Smith's calculations. Rulings like these make followers of the game question the competence of match referees.
It is all right to say that Slater later apologised to Dravid and "the two had a long and friendly conversation which cleared up any misunderstanding following the incident," as the Australian Cricket Board media manager Brian Murgatroyd put it in an unacceptable effort to play down the incident. That cannot be considered a satisfactory denouement to the eminently forgettable episode. We can also do without the kind of comments made by a former Test cricketer turned TV commentator who dismissed the incident as "that's all right in the heat of the moment." I am sorry, but the kind of behaviour exhibited by Slater and the sort of ruling by Smith is not all right. Neither can be condoned. Messrs Slater and Smith have done little to refurbish cricket's sagging image.
Partab Ramchand - 4 March 2001
Sometimes while explaining controversial actions, one could go deeper into the mire. The explanation can be even more unsatisfactory than the judgement itself. Cammie Smith currently finds himself in this situation.
Of course one must give Smith, a happy go lucky cricketer in his playing days, credit for taking the rare step of publicly defending his case in the absolutely scandalous Michael Slater incident that marred the final day of the Mumbai Test. Smith, who played five Tests in the 60s, including the Brisbane tie, has been a match referee for some years now. Surely his experience, aligned to the yardsticks given to the officials by the International Cricket Council argued for a sterner penalty against the Australian than just the warning he got away with. His rather strange decision - to put it mildly - ignited a fuse among cricketers and fans alike. Even the normally taciturn Australian captain Steve Waugh admitted that "He (Slater) probably went over the top there. He got fired up and emotional about the whole thing. We are conscious that we have to create a good image on the field and it wasn't a good thing to happen."
And yet it must be admitted that Smith, now 67, did not exactly help matters by saying that Slater's clean record saved him from further punishment. By any yardstick, the punishment did not fit the crime but Smith just could not bring himself to either fine or suspend Slater when either of the two penalties would have been in order.
"I looked at the player's track record and have never seen him face a match referee before and took that into account. I am surprised people are concerned by this," Smith is reported to have said in justifying his soft decision on Slater. Well, Mr Smith, we are surprised first by your shocking ruling and then by your unsatisfactory explanation.
Putting his foot into the mouth, Smith is quoted to have said "it is important to note he (Slater) was not showing dissent at a decision made by the umpire. It was just a player's reaction." Well, I am sure anyone who has seen the TV replays would beg to differ with the honourable match referee. Showing dissent at a decision taken by the third umpire - who certainly was in a better position to give a ruling after going through several slow motion replays than Slater who completed the `catch' and appealed on the spur of the moment - arguing with the umpire on the field, indulging in heated exchanges with the batsman concerned and finally using foul language. If, after all this, a player is just let off with a warning, then something is terribly awry with Smith's calculations. Rulings like these make followers of the game question the competence of match referees.
It is all right to say that Slater later apologised to Dravid and "the two had a long and friendly conversation which cleared up any misunderstanding following the incident," as the Australian Cricket Board media manager Brian Murgatroyd put it in an unacceptable effort to play down the incident. That cannot be considered a satisfactory denouement to the eminently forgettable episode. We can also do without the kind of comments made by a former Test cricketer turned TV commentator who dismissed the incident as "that's all right in the heat of the moment." I am sorry, but the kind of behaviour exhibited by Slater and the sort of ruling by Smith is not all right. Neither can be condoned. Messrs Slater and Smith have done little to refurbish cricket's sagging image.
Legglancer
State Regular
Swervy said:
The point is if Slater was perhaps "Indian" he most probably kicked out of the game. ....
Swervy
International Captain
well thats all guess work isnt it..that isnt a factLegglancer said:
and i will reiterate the point i made earlier:
to be honest, this entire thread appears to be based on this sub-continental paranoia thing which crops up every once in a while. For some reason many fans of sub-continent teams think that people are out to get their teams (see the whole India vs Mike Denness debacle).
As far as I can see, people who have done wrong whether they be Indian, Australian or whatever have been punished in a fair and reasonable manner according to the 'crimes' they have committed
Last edited:
Legglancer
State Regular
Swervy said:
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
haha, yeah, I've had that argument with Legglancer before on another thread. Totally neutral point of view there, the same author no doubt applauds Ranatunga's decision to lead his team to the edge of the field all those years ago..marc71178 said:
Legglancer
State Regular
Yeah but you unfortunately do not have the cerebreal caperbility to question the points given by the author, Hence you conveniently decided to attack the author nationality and region ect ..... I simply decided that it is better for me to spend time doing something more productive.Son Of Coco said:
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
No, I don't have the 'cerebral capability' to make unsubtle barbs about people on here who don't a gree with me either. The fact that he comes from the subcontinent and therefore may not be unbiased is a fairly decent point I thought - the same point has been made regarding media in Oz when reporting on Warne etc, and is seen as being valid.Legglancer said:
I won't waste any more of your precious time.......
- Status