Sledging Vs Racism

Decent article

Interesting point about proudly trumpeting mental disintegration and then complaining about its consequences when they succeed.

Article seems to be ignoring the fact that singh is widely renowned as one of the biggest sledgers in the game as has been since before he even came into test cricket.

To somehow say that as a result of sledging he was goaded into racially abusing a player is quite frankly ridiculous.

Racial abuse in cricket has been going on for years but only recently the authorities have been clamping down on it.

I also wonder if during the highly acrimonious Indian vs England series if people would have said a player getting racially abused was simply a foreseeable and inevitable consequence of the sledging and gamesmanship that soured that series.

please don't yell wrote:I also wonder if during the highly acrimonious Indian vs England series if people would have said a player getting racially abused was simply a foreseeable and inevitable consequence of the sledging and gamesmanship that soured that series.

That's a fair point. I think it would have been, but whether that would have been said is a different matter.

please don't yell wrote:I also wonder if during the highly acrimonious Indian vs England series if people would have said a player getting racially abused was simply a foreseeable and inevitable consequence of the sledging and gamesmanship that soured that series.

Why would the series be acrimonious?The only acrimonious series is the ones the Aussies play in,after all they are the bullies.That is what we are being spoon-fed by a lot of journalists.I wonder what that nasty sledger Vaughan said to Sree to make him shoulder barge him?That man should not be captain.
Sack him.

What a pile of shite.

But the word "monkey" had form, as everybody knew that Symonds had supposedly suffered such insults last year from Indian crowds.

There was no 'supposedly' about it.

It does sicken me that so many people are backing Harbhajan and condeming Symonds, Ponting et al. Imagine if an Australia cricketer was found gulity of using a racial slur. They would be hung out to dry. Yet Harbhajan seems to have the backing of the entire cricketing community.

PearlJ wrote:What a pile of shite.

But the word "monkey" had form, as everybody knew that Symonds had supposedly suffered such insults last year from Indian crowds.

There was no 'supposedly' about it.

It does sicken me that so many people are backing Harbhajan and condeming Symonds, Ponting et al. Imagine if an Australia cricketer was found gulity of using a racial slur. They would be hung out to dry. Yet Harbhajan seems to have the backing of the entire cricketing community.

I really don't think that's right. Harbajhan (on occasions) is a piece of work, and I can easily believe that he used the term monkey and meant it in a hurtful way. What I am uneasy with (and, I think many others on here) was the willingness of Mike Proctor to impose a ban in the absence (so we are led to believe) of any supporting evidence. Would that stand up in a court of law? I think not.

Basil wrote:

PearlJ wrote:What a pile of shite.

But the word "monkey" had form, as everybody knew that Symonds had supposedly suffered such insults last year from Indian crowds.

There was no 'supposedly' about it.

It does sicken me that so many people are backing Harbhajan and condeming Symonds, Ponting et al. Imagine if an Australia cricketer was found gulity of using a racial slur. They would be hung out to dry. Yet Harbhajan seems to have the backing of the entire cricketing community.

I really don't think that's right. Harbajhan (on occasions) is a piece of work, and I can easily believe that he used the term monkey and meant it in a hurtful way. What I am uneasy with (and, I think many others on here) was the willingness of Mike Proctor to impose a ban in the absence (so we are led to believe) of any supporting evidence. Would that stand up in a court of law? I think not.

Fair enough, but he was still found gulity. Many fans are happy to accept that he is innocent and it is in fact Ponting and Symonds who are in the wrong.

PearlJ wrote:

Basil wrote:

PearlJ wrote:What a pile of shite.

But the word "monkey" had form, as everybody knew that Symonds had supposedly suffered such insults last year from Indian crowds.

There was no 'supposedly' about it.

It does sicken me that so many people are backing Harbhajan and condeming Symonds, Ponting et al. Imagine if an Australia cricketer was found gulity of using a racial slur. They would be hung out to dry. Yet Harbhajan seems to have the backing of the entire cricketing community.

I really don't think that's right. Harbajhan (on occasions) is a piece of work, and I can easily believe that he used the term monkey and meant it in a hurtful way. What I am uneasy with (and, I think many others on here) was the willingness of Mike Proctor to impose a ban in the absence (so we are led to believe) of any supporting evidence. Would that stand up in a court of law? I think not.

Fair enough, but he was still found gulity. Many fans are happy to accept that he is innocent and it is in fact Ponting and Symonds who are in the wrong.

Yes, but the verdict has been devalued by the process. As regards other issues, well, you have to agree that there were some unsavoury incidents, which should not be ignored. Frankly, it's a bloody mess and is trashing the reputation of the game we love.

PearlJ wrote:

Basil wrote:

PearlJ wrote:What a pile of shite.

But the word "monkey" had form, as everybody knew that Symonds had supposedly suffered such insults last year from Indian crowds.

There was no 'supposedly' about it.

It does sicken me that so many people are backing Harbhajan and condeming Symonds, Ponting et al. Imagine if an Australia cricketer was found gulity of using a racial slur. They would be hung out to dry. Yet Harbhajan seems to have the backing of the entire cricketing community.

I really don't think that's right. Harbajhan (on occasions) is a piece of work, and I can easily believe that he used the term monkey and meant it in a hurtful way. What I am uneasy with (and, I think many others on here) was the willingness of Mike Proctor to impose a ban in the absence (so we are led to believe) of any supporting evidence. Would that stand up in a court of law? I think not.

Fair enough, but he was still found gulity. Many fans are happy to accept that he is innocent and it is in fact Ponting and Symonds who are in the wrong.

No no no, you miss the point about the unease of many. The finding of guilt on what seems to be nothing more than one set saying oh yes he did and another set saying Oh no he/I didn't is inappropriate. It seems that Proctor has decided that only one team was telling the truth ( I believe he has said this). As has been rehearsed a number of times on this forum, this is insufficient evidence to make a finding of guilt, especially on such a serious charge. The imposition of such a severe ban is the icing on the cake.

Not that anybody cares about the reputation of cricket outside the game of cricket.

doctorspin wrote:

PearlJ wrote:

Basil wrote:

PearlJ wrote:What a pile of shite.

But the word "monkey" had form, as everybody knew that Symonds had supposedly suffered such insults last year from Indian crowds.

There was no 'supposedly' about it.

It does sicken me that so many people are backing Harbhajan and condeming Symonds, Ponting et al. Imagine if an Australia cricketer was found gulity of using a racial slur. They would be hung out to dry. Yet Harbhajan seems to have the backing of the entire cricketing community.

I really don't think that's right. Harbajhan (on occasions) is a piece of work, and I can easily believe that he used the term monkey and meant it in a hurtful way. What I am uneasy with (and, I think many others on here) was the willingness of Mike Proctor to impose a ban in the absence (so we are led to believe) of any supporting evidence. Would that stand up in a court of law? I think not.

Fair enough, but he was still found gulity. Many fans are happy to accept that he is innocent and it is in fact Ponting and Symonds who are in the wrong.

No no no, you miss the point about the unease of many. The finding of guilt on what seems to be nothing more than one set saying oh yes he did and another set saying Oh no he/I didn't is inappropriate. It seems that Proctor has decided that only one team was telling the truth ( I believe he has said this). As has been rehearsed a number of times on this forum, this is insufficient evidence to make a finding of guilt, especially on such a serious charge. The imposition of such a severe ban is the icing on the cake.

Once again nobody actually knows what went on in that appeal room. Yet some people seem to think it went like this:

Symonds/Hayden/Clarke: "He said Monkey"

Harbhajan: "No, I didn't"

Procter: "Harbhajan, you are a liar. 3 match ban for you"

And are basing their opinions on the assumption that this is all that happened.

Racism is bad, but is it uniquely so? Circumstances differ. An experienced player may well find being called a monkey less offensive than, say, references to his recent divorce and possible reasons for it. It is also sheer hypocrisy to equate an insulting remark made in cold blood to unsettle another player with a retort elicited by a barrage of taunts.

Making racist comments a uniquely bad offence turns it into an exploitable commodity both for those who are baiting players of different ethnicity and those who are victims (real or alleged) of it. IMO there should be blanket rules on sledging.

PearlJ wrote:

doctorspin wrote:

PearlJ wrote:

Basil wrote:

PearlJ wrote:What a pile of shite.

But the word "monkey" had form, as everybody knew that Symonds had supposedly suffered such insults last year from Indian crowds.

There was no 'supposedly' about it.

It does sicken me that so many people are backing Harbhajan and condeming Symonds, Ponting et al. Imagine if an Australia cricketer was found gulity of using a racial slur. They would be hung out to dry. Yet Harbhajan seems to have the backing of the entire cricketing community.

I really don't think that's right. Harbajhan (on occasions) is a piece of work, and I can easily believe that he used the term monkey and meant it in a hurtful way. What I am uneasy with (and, I think many others on here) was the willingness of Mike Proctor to impose a ban in the absence (so we are led to believe) of any supporting evidence. Would that stand up in a court of law? I think not.

Fair enough, but he was still found gulity. Many fans are happy to accept that he is innocent and it is in fact Ponting and Symonds who are in the wrong.

No no no, you miss the point about the unease of many. The finding of guilt on what seems to be nothing more than one set saying oh yes he did and another set saying Oh no he/I didn't is inappropriate. It seems that Proctor has decided that only one team was telling the truth ( I believe he has said this). As has been rehearsed a number of times on this forum, this is insufficient evidence to make a finding of guilt, especially on such a serious charge. The imposition of such a severe ban is the icing on the cake.

Once again nobody actually knows what went on in that appeal room. Yet some people seem to think it went like this:

Symonds/Hayden/Clarke: "He said Monkey"

Harbhajan: "No, I didn't"

Procter: "Harbhajan, you are a liar. 3 match ban for you"

And are basing their opinions on the assumption that this is all that happened.

Well the reports in reputable british papers on the 2 page report from the meeting (seems someone has seen the report) says that this was the sum content of the 4 hour hearing. Can't remember which paper, either Guardian, Telegraph or Times (OK The Times is Murdoch owned and therefore disreputable....what nationality is Murdoch again? )

mynah wrote:Racism is bad, but is it uniquely so? Circumstances differ. An experienced player may well find being called a monkey less offensive than, say, references to his recent divorce and possible reasons for it. It is also sheer hypocrisy to equate an insulting remark made in cold blood to unsettle another player with a retort elicited by a barrage of taunts.

Making racist comments a uniquely bad offence turns it into an exploitable commodity both for those who are baiting players of different ethnicity and those who are victims (real or alleged) of it. IMO there should be blanket rules on sledging.

Good points. This is what a number of cricket journalists are arguing.

doctorspin wrote:

mynah wrote:Racism is bad, but is it uniquely so? Circumstances differ. An experienced player may well find being called a monkey less offensive than, say, references to his recent divorce and possible reasons for it. It is also sheer hypocrisy to equate an insulting remark made in cold blood to unsettle another player with a retort elicited by a barrage of taunts.

Making racist comments a uniquely bad offence turns it into an exploitable commodity both for those who are baiting players of different ethnicity and those who are victims (real or alleged) of it. IMO there should be blanket rules on sledging.

Good points. This is what a number of cricket journalists are arguing.

Agreed, but when the rules are applied.....................

"what nationality is Murdoch again"

A citizen of the USA

It does sicken me that so many people are backing Harbhajan and condeming Symonds, Ponting et al. Imagine if an Australia cricketer was found gulity of using a racial slur. They would be hung out to dry. Yet Harbhajan seems to have the backing of the entire cricketing community.

Why does it always dismay Aussie fans that their players are always criticised? It's not without reason. Is it really that much of a shock? People don't just say,"Hmm.....let's just pick on those Aussies again for the sake of it".

They bring it on themselves with their unsavoury on field behaviour, and if they want to be liked by the general public and perhaps receive the benefit of the public's doubt, they should look at cleaning up their act, rather than spouting off with all these,"What's all the fuss about?" remarks.

Henry wrote:

It does sicken me that so many people are backing Harbhajan and condeming Symonds, Ponting et al. Imagine if an Australia cricketer was found gulity of using a racial slur. They would be hung out to dry. Yet Harbhajan seems to have the backing of the entire cricketing community.

Why does it always dismay Aussie fans that their players are always criticised? It's not without reason. Is it really that much of a shock? People don't just say,"Hmm.....let's just pick on those Aussies again for the sake of it".

They bring it on themselves with their unsavoury on field behaviour, and if they want to be liked by the general public and perhaps receive the benefit of the public's doubt, they should look at cleaning up their act, rather than spouting off with all these,"What's all the fuss about?" remarks.

If you really think Australia is any worse than the rest of the world you are deluding yourself. Australia are No.1 so people take aim at them. It's pathetic really.

Even when Australia wasn't the number 1 team, they were widely known as the kings of on field sledging. I guess it's a bit hard for you to see otherwise through those green and gold tinted glasses of yours.

Trev in "talking out of his @rse" shock.

Henry wrote:Even when Australia wasn't the number 1 team, they were widely known as the kings of on field sledging. I guess it's a bit hard for you to see otherwise through those green and gold tinted glasses of yours.

Kings of on field sledging? That's pretty tame compared to what India, SL and Pakistan are kings of.

mynah wrote:Racism is bad, but is it uniquely so? Circumstances differ. An experienced player may well find being called a monkey less offensive than, say, references to his recent divorce and possible reasons for it. It is also sheer hypocrisy to equate an insulting remark made in cold blood to unsettle another player with a retort elicited by a barrage of taunts.

Making racist comments a uniquely bad offence turns it into an exploitable commodity both for those who are baiting players of different ethnicity and those who are victims (real or alleged) of it. IMO there should be blanket rules on sledging.

great post. i have been advocating this for a while. i dont even know why they call it sledging, they should call it for what it is, filthy abuse that would not be acceptable in most cultures. ridiculous as it may sound to many of the worldly-unwise on here, bastard is a much more offensive term than monkey in many cultures. to laugh it off as something used often in a particular society just shows your own ignorance and lack of intelligence, much like an indian calling a black man a monkey even after its racial connotation is pointed out to him

please don't yell wrote:Article seems to be ignoring the fact that singh is widely renowned as one of the biggest sledgers in the game as has been since before he even came into test cricket.

To somehow say that as a result of sledging he was goaded into racially abusing a player is quite frankly ridiculous.

Oh please. Stop sooking on that. It's pretty much obvious that Aussies are whingers of the highest quality [Or is that the lowest?]. They love giving it out to the other teams but don't like getting it back without running off to the school teacher to whinge about it. They will talk about playing hard and fair and in spirit and all that bull shite they believe in while continously abusing players of the other team and then they will throw up a big sook about the pitches if they lose a test in India. Be sporting. Don't give out if you don't have the stomach to take it.