Ponting faces Ashes ban

[Jnr.]

Is that a good source?

If that's true;
a) Can't understand why Cricinfo wouldn't have had that on their site
b) Ponting must put on an angry face and mouth "disgrace" when he's happy.

I know it says he was "angry at first" but Jeez, very weird.

It seems a good source. The rest of the news section seems correct and recent. Besides, Cricinfo doesn't report everything, especially when it's such a small matter.

You've answered point b. He says he was "not happy at first" (probably explains the "disgrace" part) then complimented the umpire when he realised it was the right decision.

 

[marc71178]

It seems a good source. The rest of the news section seems correct and recent. Besides, Cricinfo doesn't report everything, especially when it's such a small matter.

And how exactly is this a "small" matter?

Maybe the reason cricinfo didn't report it is because it's a load of fabricated rubbish?

 

[Jnr.]

And how exactly is this a "small" matter?

Maybe the reason cricinfo didn't report it is because it's a load of fabricated rubbish?

Since Cricinfo already had an article up about the matter before the game had finished, they probably did not see a reason to put another one up with a few words from the other on field umpire.

A load of fabricated rubbish? As I say, the headlines of the news in the archives seems consistent with news from other sources. I don't see why this article would be any different.

More fabricated rubbish?

 

[Slow Love™]

I don't think any of this really matters, really, and I'm happy enough to take the content of Jnr's articles at face value.

Either Ponting abused the umpire, calling his decision a disgrace, or he didn't. If he didn't, I have no problems. If he did, I think that's clearly dissent. I don't think praising the umpire later down the track, though admirable (neither article seems to describe an apology being made) really changes that.

Anyhow, he might have not abused the umpire at all. Clearly, the facts seem to be in some question, and I didn't see enough to judge.

 

[marc71178]

Since Cricinfo already had an article up about the matter before the game had finished, they probably did not see a reason to put another one up with a few words from the other on field umpire.

So you think they've changed their editorial policy on just this one occasion before swiftly changing it back then?

I don't.

A load of fabricated rubbish? As I say, the headlines of the news in the archives seems consistent with news from other sources. I don't see why this article would be any different.

More fabricated rubbish?

And how do you know that is from another source?

Since the initial "report" came from "agency", I wouldn't mind betting this is the same.

 

[Jnr.]

I don't think any of this really matters, really, and I'm happy enough to take the content of Jnr's articles at face value.

Either Ponting abused the umpire, calling his decision a disgrace, or he didn't. If he didn't, I have no problems. If he did, I think that's clearly dissent. I don't think praising the umpire later down the track, though admirable (neither article seems to describe an apology being made) really changes that.

Anyhow, he might have not abused the umpire at all. Clearly, the facts seem to be in some question, and I didn't see enough to judge.

Exactly. I don't see any reason why anyone would make up an article like that. I am also not cynical enough to dispute it. While I don't condone Ponting's behaviour in the West Indies match, I think that generally he gets unfairly misrepresented.

James Sutherland gives his view. (Two thirds of the way down, under "Player behaviour")

 

[marc71178]

Oh yes, clearly Mr Sutherland doesn't have Youtube then...