RE:Fantastic Piece Prem
by RB on Jan 09, 2008 02:42 PM Permalink
Simple awesome! That is the word. Very well said Prem sir. please do keep these pouring in..there are a whole bunch of us here who want to give a mouthful and penful to these bunch of convicts at the lowest rung of human ladder...Cheers
RE:Fantastic Piece Prem
by Viju Jacob on Jan 09, 2008 02:57 PM Permalink
Hi RB, Such strong language isn't needed. Let's keep the discussion decent. Thanks
Prem u r great!! what a bouncer to the aussie press. It seems proctor can not see or hear any one who is not white!! do our players need to use the white cream to protect themselves ( not form sun)???
RE:Cricket with prem panicker
by Gautam Shrrof on Jan 09, 2008 01:44 PM Permalink
Bucknor gave Symonds not out since he too was born in the West Indies. Malcolm Speed is supporting Bucknor since he too is an African American and all these idiots are supporting Australia.
RE:Cricket with prem panicker
by jason dooley on Jan 09, 2008 02:34 PM Permalink
Get your tinfoil hat, the great anti Indian conspire theory is about to begin. What a way to defend racism but to say that everyone else is racist but the guy who made the racist remark. lol what a joke
RE:Cricket with prem panicker
by Why Care on Jan 09, 2008 02:40 PM Permalink
yeah, just like when brett lee defended sledging as gamesmanship in a cricinfo column last week.
mcgrath said 'they boys always play the game fair and square'. yeah, fair play as in calling someone a black monkey, but hey, aussies immunities from this kinda stuff, it only matters when they got talked to. can talk shit all they want, but can't take it back. what sissys!
dooley save yourself more embarrassment and run before you're chased out.
RE:RE:Cricket with prem panicker
by jason dooley on Jan 09, 2008 03:16 PM Permalink
racism is different and should not be tolerated in any form, period. But I guess that's alright with you folks
RE:Cricket with prem panicker
by Why Care on Jan 09, 2008 03:22 PM Permalink
No, it's not. And I think Bhajji's suspension would've only given India a chance to field a better spinner for the next couple of games- did Murali Karthik make it to Australia? Stupid of ICC to have complained about a non-issue and not stood up against what matters here.
RE:Cricket with prem panicker
by jason dooley on Jan 09, 2008 03:29 PM Permalink
I guess racism is not considered too important to a country with a caste system, think you guys would have learned something from the injustice the English bestowed on you. guess not.
RE:Cricket with prem panicker
by Why Care on Jan 09, 2008 03:35 PM Permalink
you better not talk about something which you don't fully understand. india's caste system didn't prevent us from having a dalit president. nor did the hindu majority population prevented sikhs and muslims from being its presidents.
you self-proclaimed champion of equality, how come goolagong, gillispie, and the woman that lit the olympic pyre at sydney are the only aborigines that we get to hear about in a 100 years of australian sports? how many aborigines do you have in the australian cabinet?
and abt the english- the lesser said the better it is about a nation of shopkeepers.
RE:Cricket with prem panicker
by Indian on Jan 12, 2008 04:52 AM Permalink
Ya Jason:
Caste system = Racism.. another convenient definition out of your books.. Cannot expect anything better from you mate..
And your preaching is fantastic.. English beat us down and did injustice on us.. so that should teach us to get in practice and take the injustice from everyone else?? I laugh at your argument mate..
RE:Cricket with prem panicker
by Srinivas Mandalika on Jan 16, 2008 06:18 PM Permalink
Hey Jason, Emotions run high and there will be so many irrelevant comments flying around. But I would like to suggest to you that look up the history of the game and see how many teams from past decades have said that aussies have crossed the limit. Why do you guys believe that positive aggression in the form of sledging has nothing to do with playing fair? Do you think VVSLaxman played that innings against the aussies because of his aggression/sledging abilities? If you can look deep down within your self and answer it fairly you will perhaps understand what racism is. Its about sticking to doing things your way and not accepting something better from the other people. If you can see that and understand that - you will know that this issue is the most petty thing being discussed around. Just Think about it.
After watching the test match, someone has written some rules have to be incorporated by ICC to give the other teams a perfect clarification
(1) *Ricky Ponting %u2013 (THE TRULY GENUINE CRICKETER OF THE CRICKET ERA AND WHOSE INTEGRITY SHOULD NOT BE DOUBTED*) should be considered as the *FOURTH UMPIRE*. As per the new rules, *FOURTH UMPIRE* decision is final and will over ride any decisions taken by any other umpires. *ON-FIELD* umpires can seek the assistance of *RICKY PONTING* even if he is not on the field. This rule is to be made, so that every team should understand the importance of the *FOURTH UMPIRE*.
(2) While *AUSTRALIAN TEAM* is bowling, If the ball flies anywhere close to the *AUSTRALIAN FIELDER(WITHIN 5 metre distance)*, the batsman is to be considered *OUT* irrelevant of whether the catch was taken cleanly or grassed. Any decision for further clarification should be seeked from the *FOURTH UMPIRE*. This is made to ensure that the cricket is played with *SPORTIVE SPIRIT* by all the teams.
(3) While *BATTING*, *AUSTRALIAN* players will wait for the *ON-FIELD UMPIRE* decisions only (even if the catch goes to the *FIFTH SLIP* as the ball might not have touched the bat). Each *AUSTRALIAN* batsman has to be out *FOUR TIMES* (minimum) before he can return to the pavilion. In case of *THE CRICKETER WITH INTEGRITY*, this can be higher.
(4) *UMPIRES* should consider a huge bonus if an *AUSTRALIAN* player scores a century. Any w
RE:rules for the teams *VISITING AUSTRALIA*
by jason dooley on Jan 09, 2008 02:20 PM Permalink
also you forgot (5) any Indian batsman should not be given out after choking to part time bowler in the closing stages of a match. If said batsman is dismissed the Indian team shall be permitted to spit the dummy, blackmail the ICC and take its bat and ball and go home.
Seriously, knuckle up and be men. Sure, you can talk about playing aggressive BEFORE a test series but when it comes to proving it on the field........ No one denies the poor umpiring decisions made in this test, yet do Indian supporters forget the poor decision that went in their favor against England at lords. If Australian would have been on the unfair end of the decisions they would have hardened up and faced the challenge instead of folding like 3rd grade cricketers under pressure. Why? Because that is what champions do.
RE:rules for the teams *VISITING AUSTRALIA*
by Why Care on Jan 09, 2008 02:35 PM Permalink
We are well aware of what australia do when they face the challenge. what they did when defeat seemed imminent at 134-6 and 30-2 is out there for everyone to see. Winning by hook or by crook is no winning at all- its called dishonesty in a civilized world. but why should anyone expect the aussies to know anything abt being civilized?
even ICC has asked CA to reign in their army of kindergarten cops. the criticism has been widespread and from all quarters, including some of their own. and yet, lowlifes like jason dooley aka doogie howser aka duncan the apeman don't get it. they'd rather bang their heads trying to drive their point home with laughable and senseless arguments.
RE:rules for the teams *VISITING AUSTRALIA*
by Why Care on Jan 09, 2008 02:51 PM Permalink
and team that resorts to cheating would've faced the challenge. by doing what? cheating even more? and isn't that what they're doing now- having been dishonest all throughout the sydney are still lying about not having done anything wrong?
RE:rules for the teams *VISITING AUSTRALIA*
by Why Care on Jan 09, 2008 02:54 PM Permalink
what champions do? champions take defeat in the right spirit, and don't wait to get back to the victors in the most unethical way after been beaten by them earlier. it's the humiliation from the 20-20 semi-final, isn't it?
RE:rules for the teams *VISITING AUSTRALIA*
by Kunal Kundu on Jan 09, 2008 04:01 PM Permalink
Jason dear, did anybody ever teach you to look inside or, like most aussies, you'd prefer to throw filth, your own if I may say. Why do you think every country playing u guys complains about u all. The world beating West Indians did not need that. But Australins do and now they need even the umpires to pitcn in for them. Your worthy captain thinks its his birthright to stay put even when he is clearly out, he appeals for a catch (remember Dhoni) even after grassing the ball (see the picture in the previous article by Panicker, provided ofcourse that you are not selectively blind), keeps his gentlemanly promise to Kumble by indicating that Sourav was out despite Michael Clarke grassing the ball twice. By the by, you have a worthy successor for Ponting. I mean Clarke. He stays put even after seeing the ball being clearly edged, says he's taken a catch after grassing it twice. A perfect con artist to succeed the master conman. Arrogant brutes, if I may say he aussies are. One is only capable of giving what one has, methinks and the aussies have nothing else to give other than terrible attitude and worse language. Kunal
RE:rules for the teams *VISITING AUSTRALIA*
by Ruchi on Jan 09, 2008 03:43 PM Permalink
It seems like everything seems fair to Australians if in the end they get to win a contest.
Human errors during umpiring is not something new, but if out of 10 umpiring blunders, 9 are against one side, and the opponents are Australia, then the possibility of foul play cannot be ruled out from the host side.
This is specially true in wake of the humiliation suffered by so-called World Champs, at the hands of India, in 20-20 World Cup. I am sure that they are still licking their wounds from the same.
Also, it seems like the copyright for riling and provoking opposition players, cheating, and lying unashamedly have been bouhgt by Australian cricket team. And also, for them, aggression is a great thing if they are giving it to someone, but difficult to stomach, when they are at the receiving end.
What a bunch of hypocrites this Australian team is!! The saying, "As the Captain so the Team" rings 100% true here.
RE:RE:rules for the teams *VISITING AUSTRALIA*
by pravin attarde on Jan 09, 2008 02:59 PM Permalink
YOUR SHIT TALK PROVES THAT YOU ARE AUSTRALIAN BECAUSE ONLY AUSTRALIAN TALK SHIT EVERYWHERE. IN FACT, A BAN SHOULD BE ON RICKY PONTING FOR ALL THE MISCHIEF THAT HE KEEPS ON DOING ON THE GROUND.
RE:rules for the teams *VISITING AUSTRALIA*
by raviram jones on Jan 09, 2008 02:34 PM Permalink
gimme an instance when australia has been at the receving end of umpires decisions which has cost them the test series...Pls do point out any other instance apart from the ashes u guys lost to england or rather flintoff...
This article mirrors what I and most of my friends feel about the whole thing and it puts it so eloquently. If CA and Australians in general are "bemused" about the Indian reaction, read this to understand better.
US senator from the State of Virginia, George Allen, called an Indian guy SR Siddarth as Macaca (Monkey) last year and he was reprimanded severely. In fact he lost the senate elections due to this.
RE:Macaca
by Ramakrishna Panicker on Jan 09, 2008 11:27 AM Permalink
Once more you read the column then comment on the subject. Anybody can blame others, but hearing the bullock gave birth a calf, only fools may sometimes go to see the calf.
RE:Macaca
by raj on Jan 09, 2008 04:11 PM Permalink
first bhajji never called symonds a monkey.
next. dude. in india, unmindful of the cricketing controversy or your yankee instance. an average school boy would say " DONT ACT LIKE A MONKEY" thats not remotely close to a racial slur. however, given the context of the game - if symonds indeed felt hurt, he should also reciprocate, and not indulge in swearing and reminding people that they were not born of their official parents. plan and simple.
The Orlando Magic and the NBA banned Magic fan Hooman Hamzehloui from attending any league games this season and revoked his season tickets after he directed a racial slur at Houston Rockets center Dikembe Mutombo Thursday night during a preseason game at TD Waterhouse Centre.
Hamzehloui, a Windermere resident and realtor, was ejected by security at TD Waterhouse Centre. He later conceded he called Mutombo a "monkey" and made monkey-like gestures.
He said he didn't know saying monkey could be construed as a racial slur. Mutombo had to be restrained during the game from going after Hamzehloui and wanted the league to take action.
Hamzehloui sent a letter of apology to Mutombo and offered $5,000 to a charity of his choice. But the league and the Magic wanted to set an example and put some teeth in the Fan Code of Conduct it instituted after the Detroit Pistons-Indiana Pacers brawl. Courtesy: Orlando Sentinel
RE:Monkey is a banned word in the NBA
by raj on Jan 09, 2008 04:15 PM Permalink
i'd presume *astard is a legal word, that can be taught to a school boy ?
in india, unmindful of the cricketing controversy or your yankee instance. an average school boy would say " DONT ACT LIKE A MONKEY"
its a different story if someone was specifically targeted for racial abuse mindful of the racial slur in their culture.
My My..... That's the best article i have read in some time now.... Keep it up Prem.... You really have some good points there.... And the "Poda Korangu" part was hilarious....
