Planet Rugby Forum

Thomas wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

grievous wrote:

Thomas wrote:Old mate saffee was suggesting that sledging is a solely Australian past time which is always the argument trotted out.

Past instances suggest all teams do it.

Trouble is you need the cricket to back it up and only Oz and India can do that right now.
SA were pathetic this test, they know it so they had to pull the old your wife so and so.....thats all they have.

Couple of points here and I think you've both sort of narrowed in on what keeps the thread churning...

yeah, all teams seem to indulge in sledging to varying degrees. It's definitely not just the Aussies. However, it usually gets elevated to ridiculous degrees when Australia are involved and while the Aussie team are happy to get into the faces of their opponents it does look as if they struggle when it comes back. That seems to be a trend that is growing. Perhaps other teams are getting better at taking it back to them or... and here's a rub. Smith came out in his press conference and said with a straight face it was instigated by deKock and Warner was innocent, so perhaps there's an attitude about being untouchable that leads to over reaction.

Either way, this shit definitely revolves around the Australian team to a greater degree than it does other teams and it's getting worse. It's not a good look.

Maybe Smith is correct? We won't ever find out.

But, gee. That footage was leaked pretty damn quickly, wasn't it?

guy smiley wrote:

Bindi wrote: the braying mob.

guy smiley wrote:

Bindi wrote: the braying mob.

Big Nipper wrote:I shall place some sort of PR related bit on the poster as well, for you guys to spot on the TV

Tehui wrote:

Big Nipper wrote:I shall place some sort of PR related bit on the poster as well, for you guys to spot on the TV

A multi choice option with Gavin Henson might be appropriate.

ovalball wrote:Tribunal have been pretty smart with Warner - find him guilty but put him on 3 points, 1 away from a ban - the points stay with him for 24 months - so he'll have to rein in his behaviour for a long time.

And you can be sure that his opponents will make hay while he's got his hands tied - there'll be plenty of baiting going on, trying to get another little meltdown out of him. No doubt the SA crowds might have a word or two for him as well.

De Kock has gone down the Not Guilty route - expect plenty of Aussie outrage if he's successful.

Rinkals wrote:

ovalball wrote:Tribunal have been pretty smart with Warner - find him guilty but put him on 3 points, 1 away from a ban - the points stay with him for 24 months - so he'll have to rein in his behaviour for a long time.

And you can be sure that his opponents will make hay while he's got his hands tied - there'll be plenty of baiting going on, trying to get another little meltdown out of him. No doubt the SA crowds might have a word or two for him as well.

De Kock has gone down the Not Guilty route - expect plenty of Aussie outrage if he's successful.

I don't think South African crowds are quite as aggressive as Australian crowds are.

And I don't think the Saffer players are quite as effective verbally, either, so I suspect the ICC action does little more than let Warner off the hook. All he needs to do is make sure that any verbals are out of range of the stump mikes for a year or two and he'll be all right. I doubt either of these umpires will take any action that might result in a ban for him.

jimmy speights wrote:To avoid future incidents of this nature Warner and the ‘Strayans need to provide clear guidelines on what the ‘line’ is when it comes to responding to their ‘it’s all part of the game’ mental disintegration tactics. Alternatively if Plum Warner jnr is going to dish it out he should, in the words of Chopper Reid, harden the fudge up.

Big Nipper wrote:

Tehui wrote:

Big Nipper wrote:I shall place some sort of PR related bit on the poster as well, for you guys to spot on the TV

A multi choice option with Gavin Henson might be appropriate.

sorCrer wrote:Here's what kicked it off.

https://youtu.be/Xqy4SZ6BIJA

ovalball wrote:

Rinkals wrote:

ovalball wrote:Tribunal have been pretty smart with Warner - find him guilty but put him on 3 points, 1 away from a ban - the points stay with him for 24 months - so he'll have to rein in his behaviour for a long time.

And you can be sure that his opponents will make hay while he's got his hands tied - there'll be plenty of baiting going on, trying to get another little meltdown out of him. No doubt the SA crowds might have a word or two for him as well.

De Kock has gone down the Not Guilty route - expect plenty of Aussie outrage if he's successful.

I don't think South African crowds are quite as aggressive as Australian crowds are.

And I don't think the Saffer players are quite as effective verbally, either, so I suspect the ICC action does little more than let Warner off the hook. All he needs to do is make sure that any verbals are out of range of the stump mikes for a year or two and he'll be all right. I doubt either of these umpires will take any action that might result in a ban for him.

Very hard to sledge the batsman out of range of the stump mikes.

And, it doesn't seem to require much to wind him up.

Rinkals wrote:

ovalball wrote:Tribunal have been pretty smart with Warner - find him guilty but put him on 3 points, 1 away from a ban - the points stay with him for 24 months - so he'll have to rein in his behaviour for a long time.

And you can be sure that his opponents will make hay while he's got his hands tied - there'll be plenty of baiting going on, trying to get another little meltdown out of him. No doubt the SA crowds might have a word or two for him as well.

De Kock has gone down the Not Guilty route - expect plenty of Aussie outrage if he's successful.

I don't think South African crowds are quite as aggressive as Australian crowds are.

And I don't think the Saffer players are quite as effective verbally, either, so I suspect the ICC action does little more than let Warner off the hook. All he needs to do is make sure that any verbals are out of range of the stump mikes for a year or two and he'll be all right. I doubt either of these umpires will take any action that might result in a ban for him.

saffer13 wrote:

sorCrer wrote:Here's what kicked it off.

https://youtu.be/Xqy4SZ6BIJA

So much for "leaving it out on the field" What a plum

saffer13 wrote:

sorCrer wrote:Here's what kicked it off.

https://youtu.be/Xqy4SZ6BIJA

So much for "leaving it out on the field" What a plum

Thomas wrote:

Rinkals wrote:

ovalball wrote:Tribunal have been pretty smart with Warner - find him guilty but put him on 3 points, 1 away from a ban - the points stay with him for 24 months - so he'll have to rein in his behaviour for a long time.

And you can be sure that his opponents will make hay while he's got his hands tied - there'll be plenty of baiting going on, trying to get another little meltdown out of him. No doubt the SA crowds might have a word or two for him as well.

De Kock has gone down the Not Guilty route - expect plenty of Aussie outrage if he's successful.

I don't think South African crowds are quite as aggressive as Australian crowds are.

And I don't think the Saffer players are quite as effective verbally, either, so I suspect the ICC action does little more than let Warner off the hook. All he needs to do is make sure that any verbals are out of range of the stump mikes for a year or two and he'll be all right. I doubt either of these umpires will take any action that might result in a ban for him.

What crowds?

Thomas wrote:

Rinkals wrote:

ovalball wrote:Tribunal have been pretty smart with Warner - find him guilty but put him on 3 points, 1 away from a ban - the points stay with him for 24 months - so he'll have to rein in his behaviour for a long time.

And you can be sure that his opponents will make hay while he's got his hands tied - there'll be plenty of baiting going on, trying to get another little meltdown out of him. No doubt the SA crowds might have a word or two for him as well.

De Kock has gone down the Not Guilty route - expect plenty of Aussie outrage if he's successful.

I don't think South African crowds are quite as aggressive as Australian crowds are.

And I don't think the Saffer players are quite as effective verbally, either, so I suspect the ICC action does little more than let Warner off the hook. All he needs to do is make sure that any verbals are out of range of the stump mikes for a year or two and he'll be all right. I doubt either of these umpires will take any action that might result in a ban for him.

What crowds?

Rinkals wrote:

ovalball wrote:

Rinkals wrote:

ovalball wrote:Tribunal have been pretty smart with Warner - find him guilty but put him on 3 points, 1 away from a ban - the points stay with him for 24 months - so he'll have to rein in his behaviour for a long time.

And you can be sure that his opponents will make hay while he's got his hands tied - there'll be plenty of baiting going on, trying to get another little meltdown out of him. No doubt the SA crowds might have a word or two for him as well.

De Kock has gone down the Not Guilty route - expect plenty of Aussie outrage if he's successful.

I don't think South African crowds are quite as aggressive as Australian crowds are.

And I don't think the Saffer players are quite as effective verbally, either, so I suspect the ICC action does little more than let Warner off the hook. All he needs to do is make sure that any verbals are out of range of the stump mikes for a year or two and he'll be all right. I doubt either of these umpires will take any action that might result in a ban for him.

Very hard to sledge the batsman out of range of the stump mikes.

And, it doesn't seem to require much to wind him up.

I see South Africa have three players facing bans: Rabada, du Plessis and de Kock, while Australia only have Warner, so your suggestion that the ICC have allowed open season on Warner doesn't really scan.

I'm a little surprised that Ian Chappel has waded in as he hasn't shown any inclination to be over fond of South Africans in the past.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/22674045/smith-lehmann-culpable-warner-episode-chappell

ovalball wrote:

saffer13 wrote:

sorCrer wrote:Here's what kicked it off.

https://youtu.be/Xqy4SZ6BIJA

So much for "leaving it out on the field" What a plum

Puts the lie to Smith's utterings on the subject - he needs to get control of his players.

argus wrote:Pity the people do not turn up like they do in Oz

Such great viewing when the crowd is into it

sorCrer wrote:

Bindi wrote:Good to see Sook declared guilty and awarded a naughty point. No place for verbally attacking women in the game.

Half the Saffa team must be on reprimand now. Pack of wild dogs, some would say.

handyman wrote: But no, some posters still think De Kock's to blame.

Clogs wrote:

BBB wrote:Just seen some footage on Foxsports.

Warner sledges de Kock on the boundary rope by calling him a “f$&king sook...” as the 2 S.A batsmen are taking off their helmets on the boundary rope after they’ve gone off for the tea break,FFS.

Yep just seen it. Ordinary.

mr bungle wrote:

Clogs wrote:

BBB wrote:Just seen some footage on Foxsports.

Warner sledges de Kock on the boundary rope by calling him a “f$&king sook...” as the 2 S.A batsmen are taking off their helmets on the boundary rope after they’ve gone off for the tea break,FFS.

Yep just seen it. Ordinary.

Davey dumb dumb.

saffer13 wrote:That "two to tango" comment is a bit silly at times. You can resist all you want but there comes a time when the bully just needs to be throat punched.

Thomas wrote:

saffer13 wrote:That "two to tango" comment is a bit silly at times. You can resist all you want but there comes a time when the bully just needs to be throat punched.

So you're saying Warner should have punched De Sook?

Interesting.

saffer13 wrote:

Thomas wrote:

saffer13 wrote:That "two to tango" comment is a bit silly at times. You can resist all you want but there comes a time when the bully just needs to be throat punched.

So you're saying Warner should have punched De Sook?

Interesting.

Yes, Warner's the victim here, I forgot

saffer13 wrote:

Thomas wrote:

saffer13 wrote:That "two to tango" comment is a bit silly at times. You can resist all you want but there comes a time when the bully just needs to be throat punched.

So you're saying Warner should have punched De Sook?

Interesting.

Yes, Warner's the victim here, I forgot

Outright disgusting': Warner slams South African for wife sledge
http://www.watoday.com.au/sport/cricket ... 4z3cc.html

argus wrote:

saffer13 wrote:

Thomas wrote:

saffer13 wrote:That "two to tango" comment is a bit silly at times. You can resist all you want but there comes a time when the bully just needs to be throat punched.

So you're saying Warner should have punched De Sook?

Interesting.

Yes, Warner's the victim here, I forgot

Still over reaction by QDK

got called a "sook" (wtf is a sook?) and he had a go at the guys wife

odd144 wrote:Poor innocent Davey, shame on you bully boy Sef Africans, FOR SHAME!

Outright disgusting': Warner slams South African for wife sledge
http://www.watoday.com.au/sport/cricket ... 4z3cc.html

“I think you guys are well aware that I cop it left, right and centre, especially off the field from spectators. I am used to that and it doesn’t bother me," Warner said.

"But in the proximity of my personal space and behind me, a comment that was vile and disgusting and about my wife and just in general about a lady, was quite poor I felt. My emotional response, you saw, was just (to) something that I don’t believe should have been said. And as I said, I will always stick up for my family. And in that case, my teammates as well.

"I’ve always felt that when it comes to family or racism comments or anything like that, that’s just a no-go zone. I’ve been called everything under the sun out the field and that, quite frankly, doesn’t bother me"