I posted this on PA......but freediver's translantions will be interesting to read:






Jim Maxwell (7.30 Report tonight) can bite my arse, and bugger off.

He wants Australia to show more 'humility' in victory. What the bugger?

Singh, after getting Ponting out, runs a bloody marathon towards the boundary at the SCG, with forefinger prominent, "look at me" expression, then performs the second worst hands over roll, and then the worst hands over roll, was showing 'humility' in victory?

Get buggered Maxwell. Played any cricket? At what level?

As for the 'monkey' thing. The Indian Bride knows sweet bugger all about cricket. She says that if an Indian calls someone a 'monkey' it is not an insult. It means, she says that the descriptee is cheeky, mischievous etc.

Like I said, she knows sfa about cricket.

As opposed to Singh.

He knew, after our recent tour of India, that Australians take offence at one of ours, being black, being referred to as a monkey in a cricket context. Cricketers at Test level are not cheeky or mischievious........

Singh knew very bloody well that to refer to Symonds as a 'monkey' meant, "You black front bottom.....you are not not far out of the trees.'

Werd.

Bugger defeat.

Nasty taste.

I was 'there' when the Windies (even as far back as Wes Hall, Marshall, Garner et al) were dominant, and before when McCosker had his jaw bone broken by a Pom ( .....Willis.....?)

Bugger this humility crap.

When we win, we should blow hard, big time, because when we were being trashed, my generation had to suck big time.

Get buggered India!

.....ummmm,

Yeah, that's 16.

Duh.

But, how about these whinging smacking Indians........(beware, I am married to The Indikan Bride.)

It may not be racist, but Indian society is still largely divided along class lines, which is just as bad.

Aussie, you are missing the point with the humility bit. I feel embarrassed when I see my own side 'blow hard' when they are on a winning streak. It's petty and childish to take out on the Indians what are obviously sore wounds left by the Windies. It's not a glarifying victory, it's a bunch of losers on winning streak.

And it's just not cricket.

................. Quote:


How does one 'pickle a tranny?

Got the recipe Aussie..?

Joking- good post. 

Article except:

[The heroes of this Australian team say that in cricket you cop the good with the bad. That's exactly what captain Ponting conspicuously failed to do in this Test. In the first innings he was given not out when clearly out. Quite some runs later he was given out when he was not out. Did he cop it? No, he stood and glared at the umpire. He should have been fined for dissent. He should have acknowledged it was an easy mistake to make, given the bat was next to the pad, making the deflection all but imperceptible. And it wasn't just the heat of the moment: the tantrum continued at the dressing-room. He should have been ashamed of himself. Back to the Bourbon and Beefsteak, mate.

But Ponting is not ashamed. "I really can't see how we have done anything wrong by the spirit of the game," he said when the furore blew up. I can. So can a lot of others.]


Source: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/01/08/1199554654309.html

Acid Monkey wrote on Jan 9^th, 2008 at 4:42pm:



I have played this game at not quite elite level.  I am one of very few non batsman bowled by a Kim Hughes off break (which failed to break!)......a zillion years ago.

'Play the whistle,' was the Golden Rule.........for a very simple reason.

I have been given out 'caught behind' far more times than I was given 'not out' when I hit it.

We have Umpires to make decisions.  That is why they are there, yes.

If not, let's do away with them completely, and what then?

Who decides.

Personally, I'd go with the 11 on the field, even though the batting two are armed.

Aussie wrote on Jan 9^th, 2008 at 9:08pm:


Cool. My brother-in-law would be impress. You topped his achievement where he recently played a Twenty20 match for Richmond with Cameron White. He didn't do too well - only made 3 runs but got a wicket (c&b) on the last over. Richmond lost in the end. He is a sports bookie specialising in cricket.

All's fair in love, war and sports.

From crikey, a new racism charge and some itneresting details on the monkey comment:

While the media continues to spout moral outrage at Australia’s behaviour during the second test, India’s complaint against Brad Hogg for racism has garnered far less attention. In what cynics claim is an act of pure revenge for the Australian’s protest against Harbhajan Singh, India has made an official complaint after Hogg said that “I can't wait to run through you bastards.”

The comments were made to Indian captain, Anil Kumble and wicketkeeper, Mahendra Dhoni.

In making the complaint, the Indians have managed to achieve what many thought impossible: behave in a worse manner than the Australians.

Not only is the petulant Indian cricket board still effectively blackmailing the ICC over Singh’s racism suspension, but they have now launched a revenge claim over a comment which does not appear to be racist in its intent or effect.

The Indians claimed that Hogg’s comments breached Section 3.3 of the ICC’s Code of Conduct (which coincidentally, was the exact same section under which Singh was penalised). Section 3.3 provides that players or team officials are barred from:

Using language or gestures that offends, insults, humiliates, intimidates, threatens, disparages or vilifies another person on the basis of that person's race, religion, gender, colour, descent, or national or ethic origin.

The Indians argue that the term “bastard” is offensive in India as it implies that one is of a low social standing.

There is no doubt that the term is offensive, probably far more offensive than Hogg actually intended, however, the comment does not seem to fit within the categories from section 3.3 of the Code. In clutching at straws, India claims that Hogg’s comments vilified the players on the basis of “descent’. Upon reading the Code, it would be difficult for anyone with legal training to imply that the intention of word “descent” relates to the marital status of one’s parents. The intention of the section is ostensibly aimed clearly at racism (as can be implied by the surrounding words). Perhaps the Indians would have a stronger case if the ICC changed the rule to include the term “parents’ marital status”.

The Indians further claimed that the term indicates that one is of a low social standard – by implication, had Hogg called Kumble a “beggar” would he be facing the same charges?

Further, there would be doubt whether the language actually offended, insulted, humiliated, intimidated, threatened, disparaged or vilified the Indian players. Unless Kumble or Dhoni actually are ‘bastards’, proving that they were actually insulted may be difficult. For example, the term “N _ _ _ _ r” is extremely insulting to many Americans – however, if you use that slur towards a white person, it would be difficult for them to make a claim of racism. Presumably, for the offence to made out, there needs to be an element of truth underlying the comment.

Harbajan Singh was counseled not to use the term “monkey” towards Andrew Symonds. The term is clearly racist and Symonds had in the past, complained about such comments being made. The Indian team was told prior to the tour to specifically avoid using that term. Despite the warning, Singh was heard by three players as calling Symonds a “monkey”.

To charge Hogg under the same law is to grossly diminish Singh’s offence and trivialise the racist actions which occurred – but then again, that is probably exactly what the Indians are trying to achieve.

aussie - hahahahahh