Will Ponting get disciplined ?

[Jamee999]

Sorry.

Hard to remember the guy's name when he never appears at the ground to undertake his 12th man duties.

He plays for his county.

 

[luckyeddie]

Umm, Sherlock, you'd find that England, RSA, NZ and OZ are of the same predominant ethnic composition when it comes to cricket teams....therefore saying 'one rule for the aussies another for the rest' hints towards favouritism of a particular team instead of racism.

That's C_C's way of saying "You whiteys are all the same"

 

[Dasa]

To be honest I find that attitude existing with people Indian/Pakistan origin who come to Australia to play with. Man they get so fired up and take it so seriiously. I think it's a given and reported by most visitors that Australia is a very laid back place

That also may be true to an extent. Unfortunately, there can be a bit of a (not entirely unjustified) attitude that they're under threat for being different.

 

[luckyeddie]

He's apologised, meaning he'll probably get off a ban - not that he should.

A one-match ban for Ponting, meaning he missed the deciding Test, would be unquestionably THE SINGLE FUNNIEST THING EVER. If there's one thing that could make the whole of Australia suffer more (other than perhaps an injury to Warne) it's that.

If Ponting were banned for the final test, they'd probably give it to Warney - and we'd get murdered.

 

[Slats4ever]

how dasa?

 

[Dasa]

Can you blame them? You just took a thread about the behaviour of an Australian cricketer and whether or not he should be fined, and used it as a forum to launch a broad, sweeping attack on the whole country and its entire identity. Picture me making a similar post about how say India as a nation were a bunch of cheats after Dravid's lolly-on-the-ball incident, and imagine how people might react to that.

There's a difference with your example - I've had experience of both cultures. I'm sorry if you took offence, and I'm not for one moment saying that Indian/American/whatever culture is without faults. However, what I'm trying to do is find the basis for the characterising of Aus cricketers as ugly Australians. At any rate, it's not surprising that sport is such a big thing here. Unfortunately, Australia as a nation (again, generalising) has an ugly history (particularly with treatment of the indigenous population) and for better or worse, a national identity has been formed around sport.

 

[Dasa]

how dasa?

Can you clarify that? I'm not sure what you're asking.

BTW, I may not be able to answer whatever your question is until tomorrow.

 

[Shounak]

Exactly... I can't believe certain people here are trying to defend Ponting's actions...it was disgraceful. What is particularly galling is that Ponting is still trying to defend his actions with his 'apology'. Ridiculous.

I agree with this thread.. Spot on..

It's simply damage control on Pontings part.

 

[Shounak]

Y'know... there's a reason people "jump all over Australia" when it comes to their disciplinary infractions. There is, I believe, a sporting culture in Australia that is quite negative. Throughout all age levels, all abilities of cricket (or sport in general), there is an aura of sport being much more than just enjoyment - that, I believe, is not a good thing.

Australia is a laid back kind of a place. As someone above mentioned. If you want light hearted, lackadaisical, indifferent attitude towards sport, stick to recreational sport. Have a bit of a hit out with mates. You can do whatever the fu(k you want with em, it's all good. The same does not apply to sport at a competitive level.

Australians take sport much too seriously - a simple misfield is met with abuse, a poor throw the same...even the whole culture of sledging, and how it is almost seen as a good thing!t.

What are you comparing with? What is the ideal amount of seriousness that should be maintained? Seeing as you're attacking Australia as a whole, it would only seem logical that you would offer another national as being as close to your ideal as possible. Who is the sport unlikeable for anyway?

To me, it speaks of a nation that is searching for an identity, and is finding it only in sport - thus, you take it too seriously and become unlikeable as a resul

Who is it unlikeable for? Unlikeable for England not being able to match Australia's level of seriousness? Are England not liking the game as much because of it?

Or is it unlikeable for you because you don't like the serious Australian towards the sport? I've been playing competitive club cricket from the ages of 8 - 14 and I personally think that the extra passion makes you go that much harder. It raises the bar. That constantly rising bar is the reason the Australian team has been so good.

sporting culture that has sucked the fun out of the game. You may call it passion, but I think it is something far worse.

It is passion. When you get to serious competition in sport, there is a high level of seriousness. But to get to that level, let's just say international, you need to maintain that high level of seriousness throughout your career. Any international player would have taken the game very seriously at the age of 15. IIRC noone in the Australian team has completed their secondary schooling, I doubt any of them have a Bachelors Degree. Does that mean they're not intelligent. No. It means they're serious about their cricket, and always have been.

Does their seriousness mean that they don't have fun playing? I doubt it. I strongly doubt that any of the 11 fielders on the field would rather not play. I'm sure that the 12th man is jumping out of his skin to start playing.

This does not scream a lack of fun.

I'm sure I'll have people jumping on me for this post, calling me racist and whatnot. That is not the case, whatever you may believe.

When Nixon said "I am not a crook", it had only one effect. Everybody thought of him as a crook. Even if he may or may not have been.

 

[Shounak]

That also may be true to an extent. Unfortunately, there can be a bit of a (not entirely unjustified) attitude that they're under threat for being different.

That's victim thinking. I find that I feel more threatened for being different in India. (BTW, I was born in Australia to Indian parents.)

If you think you're under threat for being different, you'll find yourself finding ways of it happening. Or you can just get over it. Australia's a very equitable place, not perfect. But much more equitable then India (and most other places) I think.

 

[Jono]

Ponting's actions were beyond disgraceful, and it really doesn't matter what the issue is. He's brought it up with the match referee before hand, so there was no excuse (not that there ever can be) for him laying into the English pavillion like that. Coming from a captain, its an even bigger disgrace.

Look, when a batsman starts b*tching about a tough decision they received, they get fined. They just can't have a spray at the umpire or the opposition, no matter how right their case is. So it doesn't matter if you believe what Ponting said was right, the manner he did it was appalling.

Just disgraceful. And Ponting has been pushing the limit this whole series with his garbage "I think ill approach the umpire and attempt to intimidate him when a decision doesn't go my way". Well he's gone too far this time.

Duncan Fletcher's comment, "You want to take a run to a cover fielder and get run out, whose fault is that?" is quite humorous actually. He should probably be aiming all the frustration at himself for being an idiot. That or Damien Martyn, whoever he wants to blame for the run out. Not a fielder for hitting the stumps.

 

[Shounak]

Perfectly justified response by ponting, in no way sourgrapes. Why should he get disiplined?

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

If he did nothing wrong, Why would he apologise? Greg Blewett's attempt at making your same arguments were making me nauseous. He'd worked hard for the innings, who cares? You can't behave like that on the cricket field. We're not playing soccer or football here folks. That kind of behaviour is completely unacceptable and should be punished accordingly.

I don't know how you can even think about justifying Ponting's childish actions.

 

[Shounak]

Folks, Australia is not a 'race', so quit with this racist mudflinging.

What's all this stuff about Australia not being a race.

1.A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2.A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3.A genealogical line; a lineage.
4.Humans considered as a group.

The stuff above does not apply to every Australian. But applies to the vast majority. I'd say that's enough to call Australians a race, just as I'd call the English a race. Even with the large migrant population in England.

 

[dinu23]

ponting will definitely get disciplined, no doubt about that. Madugalle won't let him get away easily.

 

[biased indian]

Will Katich get disciplined for his out burst???

i dont think so, because he will apologise tomorrow

 

[Shounak]

Will Katich get disciplined for his out burst???

i dont think so, because he will apologise tomorrow

Bringing the game into disrepute.. Swearing at the crowd.

The justification for that one was that "someone must have said something to him" and "he's worked really hard this innings". This kind of goes back to the Dizzy example. It's no excuse. They're international cricketers, they need a thick skin. Especially when they're in front of thousands of people and being watched by millions.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Bringing the game into disrepute.. Swearing at the crowd.

The justification for that one was that "someone must have said something to him" and "he's worked really hard this innings". This kind of goes back to the Dizzy example. It's no excuse. They're international cricketers, they need a thick skin. Especially when they're in front of thousands of people and being watched by millions.

Totally agree. Katich got an absolute stinker, no doubts about it, but you have to suck it up. Be a man. Otherwise where does it end?

I'm sure Lehmann's charming little outburst a few years back was due to his working hard in his innings too....

 

[Beleg]

The 'DEFINATION' of race according to my pocket OXFORD dictionary:

race: 1. Each of the major divisions of mankind, each having distinct physical characteristics. 2. Fact or concept of division into races. 3. Genus, species, breed or variety of animals or plants. 4. Group of persons, animals, or plants connected by common descent. 5. any great division of living creatures (the human race)

So there are given five different definations of the word 'race' and none of them explicitly show the Australian people to be one.

1.A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.

Calling Australians a 'more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics is ludicrous.

2.A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.

Will you call a Turk having a German nationality a member of the 'german race?' I dunno where you pulled this one from but it seems to me to be sweeping from an entirely too broad a brush here. We might as well succumb to the big brother and lump all the definations under one big catch-all phrase.

Here is what a website called racerelations has to say about the defination of race,

http://racerelations.about.com/od/skillsbuildingresources/g/racedef.htm

Compare this with their defination of 'ethnicity': term which represents social groups with a shared history, sense of identity, geography and cultural roots which may occur despite racial difference and you'll find that we often mistake one for another when they are two entirely different phenomenon and muddling them will only lead to confusion for all.

Reading through the wikipedia article (and IMO it is one of their best works) on race, I came upon a sentence I had a hunch would be there:

In Blumenbach's time, followers of Johann Gottfried von Herder applied race to nationalist theory to develop militant ethnic nationalism. They posited the historical existence of national races such as German and French, branching from basal races supposed to have existed for millennia, such as the Aryan race, and believed political boundaries should mirror these supposed racial ones. Later, one of Hitler's favorite sayings was, "Politics is applied biology". Hitler's ideas of racial purity led to unprecedented atrocities in Europe. Since then, ethnic cleansing has occurred in Cambodia, the Balkans and East Africa. In one sense, ethnic cleansing is another name for the tribal warfare and mass murder that has afflicted human society for ages, but these crimes seem to gain intensity when believed to be scientifically sanctioned.


No where have I come across a widely accepted defination of race based on nationalistic divisions. Indeed, almost everything seems to indicate otherwise. There might be fringe academics who declare so, and zealots who would take up the cry for their personal agenda ( ala the above example), but I have always felt that by confusing race and ethnicity we fall into the pit of muddling the seperate issues carried by each.

 

[Shounak]

Mine's a dictionary.com definition.

Calling Australians a 'more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics is ludicrous.

The vast majority of Australian would have genetically transmitted physical characteristics which are common, so it's not ludicrous. The white person.

2.A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.

Yes, this is Dictionary.Com's take on the issue. I trust it.

The difference between race and ethnicity is clearly arbitrary. But with regards to this thread, completely irrelevant. Any comments which may or may not be construed as racist might now be thought of as 'ethnicist' (if it wasn't a word, it should be).

BTW, you started a thread on the incorrect definition of a word by spelling definition incorrectly. Just food for thought.

 

[social]

He plays for his county.

If it's good enough for every other 12th man in international crisket to undertake his test duties, then it should be good enough for England.

Alas, the rules do not dictate this to be so.