A Kiwi perspective on recent events

What goes up must come down
By RICHARD BOOCK - Sunday Star Times | Sunday, 03 February 2008

Email a Friend | Printable View | Have Your SayRelated Links
• Subscribe to Archivestuff
• Have your say

You've got to give it to Sir Isaac Newton. He really knew what he was on about with that third law thing you know, the one about every action attracting an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, life has consequences; what goes around comes around, and by definition I guess you reap what you sow.


From what I've gathered during an admittedly brief period of research, Zac probably knew bugger all about test cricket during his lifetime, and possibly had no idea when he died (more than 200 years ago) that the theory would apply so well to the debacle across the Tasman.

But when Justice John Hansen released his findings into the "Monkeygate" fiasco last week, it was hard not to suspect at least for a group of over-hyped, self-absorbed and egotistical Australians that a salutary lesson was being learned in far more than code of conduct matters.

For them, it was the apparently astonishing revelation that they were not beyond question, that their word and expressions of honour were not highly valued, and that the ICC-appointed officials weren't prepared to turn a blind eye to their double standards and duplicity.

Hence, after Michael Clarke smashed the cover off the ball during the second innings at Sydney and refused to walk, in the process demonstrating opportunistic tendencies and a predilection towards cheating, it was no surprise to find the appeals commissioner questioning the veracity of his evidence.

"Indeed, Mr Clarke went so far as to say that he did not hear Mr [Andrew] Symonds say anything," noted Justice Hansen in his findings. "Given Mr Symonds' own acceptance that he initiated the exchange and was abusive towards Mr Singh, that is surprising." Yes it is but then when you consider Clarke, maybe it's not.

And after Symonds provoked a controversy with a mindless and abusive attack on an opposition player and then complained about the language he was subjected to in return, it's possibly no great shock that he received little sympathy - least of all from Justice Hansen.

"Mr Singh had innocently, and in the tradition of the game acknowledged the quality of Mr [Brett] Lee's bowling. That interchange had nothing to do with Mr Symonds but he was determined to get involved and as a result was abusive ... Mr Singh was, not surprisingly, abusive back. He accepts that his language was such as to be offensive ... But in my view even if he had used the words alleged, an ordinary person standing in the shoes of Mr Symonds who had launched an unprovoked and unnecessary invective laden attack, would not be offended or insulted or humiliated in terms of [racial vilification]".

In other words, whether Harbhajan called Symonds a big monkey or the Hindi term "teri maki" a common obscenity wasn't an issue. Symonds deserved all he received.

Then there was the Australian cricket media who, with a few notable exceptions, appear to be the most sycophantic group of arse-crawlers ever assembled in one nation, to the extent that it was impossible last week to gain any sort of accurate or at least balanced picture of proceedings. {Ouch!!}


From the moment they alleged the Indian board had arranged a charter flight to whisk the tourists back home, to the nonsense over a baseless claim that Cricket Australia could be sued if the tour was abandoned, and that Indian pressure had led to the charges being reduced, it was clear that they'd given up any pretence of being even-handed, and were now happy to operate as the team's PR arm.

Thankfully, Hansen was able to cut through the fatuous propaganda and expose the manipulation, explaining later that the Indian team management had assured him that there were no preparations for an early departure if their appeal wasn't successful.
He also said that he, and not Ricky Ponting as claimed, had opted to downgrade the charge to one of using abusive or obscene language rather than one of racial vilification, a revelation that made a nonsense of earlier media reports from Australia.
"In the course of submissions I raised directly with counsel for Cricket Australia, Mr [Brian] Ward, what was the level of offence that Mr Symonds took from what was said to him," said Justice Hansen.

"He confirmed that Mr Symonds took the language to be offensive and seriously insulting but did not consider it fell under the requirements of 3.3 [racial vilification].

"Given that is the view of the complainant it is hard to see how the requisite elements of 3.3 could be satisfied."

As for the suggestion Cricket Australia could have been sued for more than $US50 million by television rights holders if the tour was abandoned, this was probably the most ridiculous claim of the lot, given the ICC can hold any team that reneges on its playing responsibilities liable for all losses sustained as a result.
The only interpretation you can take from all of this is that many Australians, whether former players, reporters or simply observers, are so blinded by their sense of nationalism that they're prepared to say anything or believe anything, as long as it reflects advantageously on their own patch.

Like their cricket team, who insist on playing to and beyond the letter of the law and then throw the toys out of the cot at the first sign of a challenge, they leave themselves open to accusations of hypocrisy and ignorance.

When you think about it, Australia had been spoiling for this bunfight all summer, as the New Zealanders discovered during the Chappell-Hadlee series in December, when Ponting swaggered around as if he owned the game, and the local media behaved like the team's attack dog.

It's just a little bit ironic, isn't it?

That they've finally received their fight and are now running around like little girls, squealing about how nasty and mean the opposition are, and how they shouldn't have to put up with that sort of conduct.
I guess they now understand what Sir Isaac Newton was getting at all those years ago. What goes around, comes around.

HH_pink wrote:I'll take a neutral's word any day.

skully wrote:

HH_pink wrote:I'll take a neutral's word any day.

Spoken like a true neutral.

HH_pink wrote:

skully wrote:

HH_pink wrote:I'll take a neutral's word any day.

Spoken like a true neutral.

Of course, there's always the possibility that the neutral is talking out of his arse because that's the only way he can fill in the missing information ... but again ... I'll have fantasy over skewed reality any day.

HH_pink wrote:They're that bitter, eh? Coz there's more sheep in 'straya?

lardbucket wrote:Pinky ... the whole thread is best summarised by the juxtaposition of two words which should never be seen together ... 'Kiwi' and 'perspective'. However it is one of the best literary efforts Buckaroo has posted. Any predictions as to how many sheep Zat might post?

On the 20-20 thread, you may have missed my sarcasm. I can't see any merit in shortening the game. Every abbreviation erodes the subtleties of the game, makes the truly heroic performance less likely, and makes it more of a simple hitting contest.

HH_pink wrote:2222? Nice.

lardbucket wrote:Summary for those that can't be arsed reading Buckaroo posts:

'It's OK that Harbhajan called Symonds a monkey. We are revelling in his discomfort'.

HH_pink wrote:I'll take a neutral's word any day.

skully wrote:

HH_pink wrote:

skully wrote:

HH_pink wrote:I'll take a neutral's word any day.

Spoken like a true neutral.

Of course, there's always the possibility that the neutral is talking out of his arse because that's the only way he can fill in the missing information ... but again ... I'll have fantasy over skewed reality any day.

Pinky, Kiwis have bigger chips on their shoulders about Australia than Queensland do about NSW (and that is saying something). So anything a Kiwi says about Australia can be discounted as rubbish 9 times out of 10.

Batman wrote:

lardbucket wrote:Summary for those that can't be arsed reading Buckaroo posts:

'It's OK that Harbhajan called Symonds a monkey. We are revelling in his discomfort'.

Even if 'allegedly' or 'proven true', whatever the circumstances, hasn't te Kiwi judge himself acknowledged that even if the said word was used, it cannot be dubbed racist since Symo provoked the confrontation in the first place and that he should not be fussing over it after starting it?

.

Batman wrote:

lardbucket wrote:Summary for those that can't be arsed reading Buckaroo posts:

'It's OK that Harbhajan called Symonds a monkey. We are revelling in his discomfort'.

Even if 'allegedly' or 'proven true', whatever the circumstances, hasn't te Kiwi judge himself acknowledged that even if the said word was used, it cannot be dubbed racist since Symo provoked the confrontation in the first place and that he should not be fussing over it after starting it?

Maybe if some crackpots like Nel, Symo, Sree, Bhajji etc all start learning how to behave, everyone will be able to have a clean game remembered fo the correct reasons.

G.Wood wrote:

Batman wrote:

lardbucket wrote:Summary for those that can't be arsed reading Buckaroo posts:

'It's OK that Harbhajan called Symonds a monkey. We are revelling in his discomfort'.

Even if 'allegedly' or 'proven true', whatever the circumstances, hasn't te Kiwi judge himself acknowledged that even if the said word was used, it cannot be dubbed racist since Symo provoked the confrontation in the first place and that he should not be fussing over it after starting it?

.

err no

embee wrote:Does Boocky realise the irony of abusing the Australian media for lack of accuracy and for a lack of balance when his own article falls into the same category?

tac wrote:

G.Wood wrote:

Batman wrote:

lardbucket wrote:Summary for those that can't be arsed reading Buckaroo posts:

'It's OK that Harbhajan called Symonds a monkey. We are revelling in his discomfort'.

Even if 'allegedly' or 'proven true', whatever the circumstances, hasn't te Kiwi judge himself acknowledged that even if the said word was used, it cannot be dubbed racist since Symo provoked the confrontation in the first place and that he should not be fussing over it after starting it?

.

err no

The lack of logic in Batman's post is truly amazing. So if an Indian bowler provokes a batsman by glaring after a delivery, the batsman can call him a farkin black cunut and it wouldn't be racist?

Batman wrote:

tac wrote:

G.Wood wrote:

Batman wrote:

lardbucket wrote:Summary for those that can't be arsed reading Buckaroo posts:

'It's OK that Harbhajan called Symonds a monkey. We are revelling in his discomfort'.

Even if 'allegedly' or 'proven true', whatever the circumstances, hasn't te Kiwi judge himself acknowledged that even if the said word was used, it cannot be dubbed racist since Symo provoked the confrontation in the first place and that he should not be fussing over it after starting it?

.

err no

The lack of logic in Batman's post is truly amazing. So if an Indian bowler provokes a batsman by glaring after a delivery, the batsman can call him a farkin black cunut and it wouldn't be racist?

Thats not my view. I have said it on record that after that talk in Mumbai, Bhajji has no business saying it [even allegedly]. Fact is the Judge has himself questioned Symo's provocation. 'My lack of logic' has no say in the trial or the judge's observations, so go and question the lack of Hensen's logic in this case.

tac wrote:

G.Wood wrote:

Batman wrote:

lardbucket wrote:Summary for those that can't be arsed reading Buckaroo posts:

'It's OK that Harbhajan called Symonds a monkey. We are revelling in his discomfort'.

Even if 'allegedly' or 'proven true', whatever the circumstances, hasn't te Kiwi judge himself acknowledged that even if the said word was used, it cannot be dubbed racist since Symo provoked the confrontation in the first place and that he should not be fussing over it after starting it?

.

err no

The lack of logic in Batman's post is truly amazing.