Fit hitting the shan

Invader Zim wrote:

ojitarian wrote:

lardbucket wrote:

ojitarian wrote:

lardbucket wrote:But they upheld the spirit of the game at all times.

Was this before or after they barged into the umpires and kicked the stumps?

That's what I meant.

I know...

But do you know that he knows that you know, you know?

*head explodes*

Because he did it, furriner. Same as Lehmann did it, same as some of our AFL players have done it (no "proof" there, either), same as Latif did it, same as Karthik still thinks it's funny to post a comment about 'monkeys' in his blog (see leg glancer's post, lg apparently thought it was funny too).

This isn't going to go to a court of law. It's about a game where people (often people who aren't very intelligent) get fired up and say things they shouldn't, often when they have a history of saying similar things previously.

lardbucket wrote:Because he did it, furriner. Same as Lehmann did it, same as some of our AFL players have done it (no "proof" there, either), same as Latif did it, same as Karthik still thinks it's funny to post a comment about 'monkeys' in his blog (see leg glancer's post, lg apparently thought it was funny too).

This isn't going to go to a court of law. It's about a game where people (often people who aren't very intelligent) get fired up and say things they shouldn't, often when they have a history of saying similar things previously.

Not good enough for me lardy. 'Because he did it' does not cut it. Not when a reputation is at stake, in fact at no time. Tomorrow Kumble can say Ponting called him a dirty wog. You want to take Kumble's word?

Ponting is a tozzie, but why would he call Kumble an italian?

Invader Zim wrote:Ponting is a tozzie, but why would he call Kumble an italian?

Wog is an offensive term for many Indians. Like 'monkey' for many others, including me.

*Buckaroo* wrote:Kiwis are civilized, cultured.

You've posted some rubbish in your time on here, but that just about takes the biscuit.

furriner wrote:

lardbucket wrote:Because he did it, furriner. Same as Lehmann did it, same as some of our AFL players have done it (no "proof" there, either), same as Latif did it, same as Karthik still thinks it's funny to post a comment about 'monkeys' in his blog (see leg glancer's post, lg apparently thought it was funny too).

This isn't going to go to a court of law. It's about a game where people (often people who aren't very intelligent) get fired up and say things they shouldn't, often when they have a history of saying similar things previously.

Not good enough for me lardy. 'Because he did it' does not cut it. Not when a reputation is at stake, in fact at no time. Tomorrow Kumble can say Ponting called him a dirty wog. You want to take Kumble's word?

Don't be silly. The incident was obvious at the time, the only question was what was said, and from Symonds' immediate reaction, there seemed little doubt. Harbajhan's immediate 'holy shit, this time I've gone too far' reaction that followed was illuminating and Tendulkar's response to the scene was mostly anger with Harbajhan, and calming him down, whilst trying to play peacemaker with the Australian players.

What is it that makes someone like Karthik STILL think it's funny to have a 'monkey' reference in the opening paragraph of his blog article for the day?

ojitarian wrote:

lardbucket wrote:It would be terrible if they went home. A terrible decision, terrible for Test cricket, a terrible exapmle to every child who had thought about playing the game. You know that, furri. It would be the new world standard sook*.

* 100 centimudges to the mudge
* 100 mudges to the inzi

They could preserve the Indian team and put them on display in the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in Paris.

Farkin gold!

Invader Zim wrote:

furriner wrote:Now we also need to know what Procter based his decision on. Y'all are backing what Symmo and Ponting heard. I'm backing my team. There can be no compromises on this- we have to know how and why the judgment was made precisely, and why a cricketer was condemned of racism. Until then there will also be a new standard of stupidity.

So when you said you'd back the decision of the match ref you meant only if you liked it.

Show me where I said it. I said I want due process and complete transparency.

I have also gone out of my way to quote Procter in cricinfo, which I am doing again:

Announcing his verdict, Procter said: "I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Harbhajan Singh directed that word at Andrew Symonds and also that he meant it to offend on the basis of Symonds' race or ethnic origin."


This tells me that Procter knows something. In the interests of cricket we must know what it is, so we can get this behind us.

Again, backing out of the tour is an act of complete fcukery.

lardbucket wrote: Don't be silly. The incident was obvious at the time, the only question was what was said, and from Symonds' immediate reaction, there seemed little doubt. Harbajhan's immediate 'holy shit, this time I've gone too far' reaction that followed was illuminating and Tendulkar's response to the scene was mostly anger with Harbajhan, and calming him down, whilst trying to play peacemaker with the Australian players.

You're being silly, judging a man on what was 'obvious'. I can put an entirely different scenario on what we saw on TV. Who is to know who's correct? You condemn a man, do it on less flimsy reasoning.

lardbucket wrote:What is it that makes someone like Karthik STILL think it's funny to have a 'monkey' reference in the opening paragraph of his blog article for the day?

I don't speak for Karthik.

"I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Harbhajan Singh directed that word at Andrew Symonds and also that he meant it to offend on the basis of Symonds' race or ethnic origin."

But isn't that it furry? - the bloke charged with doing a job has done it & announced the outcome.

Furry, in my heart of hearts I believe that something was said by Harby in the heat of the moment. I agree with you, however, that without evidence he shouldn't have been banned. Therefore, I must wonder what came out in the hearing. What concerns me most is why Benson covered his mouth when speaking with Harby, and what did he speak to Harby about.

Until this comes out, all is conjecture. Procter must feel justified in his decision, and he knew that it would be protested, so why ban Harby unless he thinks the coviction will stand?

[quote="furriner"'Because he did it' does not cut it. [/quote]

The point is that he shouldn't have done it.

Mick Sawyer wrote:"I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Harbhajan Singh directed that word at Andrew Symonds and also that he meant it to offend on the basis of Symonds' race or ethnic origin."

But isn't that it furry? - the bloke charged with doing a job has done it & announced the outcome.

... twice today, I don't think you're a banjo at all.

"agree with you, however, that without evidence he shouldn't have been banned"

tac, I presume you mean some kind of "independant" witness to events. Mate, courts make convictions every day without a smoking gun tabled in evidence and make do with the credibility of the testimony of those questioned.

Mick Sawyer wrote:"I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Harbhajan Singh directed that word at Andrew Symonds and also that he meant it to offend on the basis of Symonds' race or ethnic origin."

But isn't that it furry? - the bloke charged with doing a job has done it & announced the outcome.

He has Mick, and his statement has convinced me that he has proof. Like in any court of law I want to know what that proof is.

tac wrote:Furry, in my heart of hearts I believe that something was said by Harby in the heat of the moment. I agree with you, however, that without evidence he shouldn't have been banned. Therefore, I must wonder what came out in the hearing. What concerns me most is why Benson covered his mouth when speaking with Harby, and what did he speak to Harby about.

Until this comes out, all is conjecture. Procter must feel justified in his decision, and he knew that it would be protested, so why ban Harby unless he thinks the coviction will stand?

Fair statements tac. All of them, even from your perspective, the first one. See also my reply to Mick.

lardbucket wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:"I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Harbhajan Singh directed that word at Andrew Symonds and also that he meant it to offend on the basis of Symonds' race or ethnic origin."

But isn't that it furry? - the bloke charged with doing a job has done it & announced the outcome.

... twice today, I don't think you're a banjo at all.

phurt - you're just paying attention today, that's all

Mick Sawyer wrote:"agree with you, however, that without evidence he shouldn't have been banned"

tac, I presume you mean some kind of "independant" witness to events. Mate, courts make convictions every day without a smoking gun tabled in evidence and make do with the credibility of the testimony of those questioned.

Yes, Mick. But read on . . . I believe that Procter must have had something to risk banning Harby.

furriner wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:"I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Harbhajan Singh directed that word at Andrew Symonds and also that he meant it to offend on the basis of Symonds' race or ethnic origin."

But isn't that it furry? - the bloke charged with doing a job has done it & announced the outcome.

He has Mick, and his statement has convinced me that he has proof.

Well, he's convinced me that he's satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. A different thing altogether.

taipan wrote:[quote="furriner"'Because he did it' does not cut it.

The point is that he shouldn't have done it.[/quote]

My point taipan was that we need proof to show he did it. I was quoting lardy when he said that he believes Harby should be punished simply because lardy believes he did it ( which is the abbreviated 'because he did it'). That is lardy's belief, not evidence or proof to convict a man, surely.

Unofficial 2 "Test" series: Australia vs Australia A. GO!

Beyond reasonable doubt, furri. I do not have the smoking gun and I doubt Procter does, either. Same as we wouldn't know that Lehmann said what he said unless he admitted himself. When I hear pounding hoofbeats, I think of horses, not rampaging hordes of three-toed sloths.

lardbucket wrote:Beyond reasonable doubt, furri. I do not have the smoking gun and I doubt Procter does, either. Same as we wouldn't know that Lehmann said what he said unless he admitted himself. When I hear pounding hoofbeats, I think of horses, not rampaging hordes of three-toed sloths.

Could be zebras, mate. Or a horde of rampaging and horny goats.

"Like in any court of law I want to know what that proof is"

But it's not a court where the beak is compelled to make a written finding furry.

He's a match referee. His charter does not extend to finally satisfying every last shred of doubt or dispute held by you, me or anyone else.

FFS this world is bogged down in litigation. Enoughhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Remember India pulled out of a test in SA not that long ago.