Brett Lee - Protected Species?

[Richard]

There's a surprise - you're Scallywag, I wouldn't expect anything different.
Couldn't possibly have an Aussie being seen in a worse light than someone else, could we?

 

[Richard]

Neither have I but Google bean-ball and beam-ball and you will see what I mean. The phrases and meanings are too similar for it to be a coincidence.

Perhaps it is indeed a case of Chinese whispers - and not just that, but chicken-or-egg too?
Who knows which phrase came first - but they do certainly seem to have evolved from the same root.

 

[Fiery]

You seem to be sitting on the fence on the issue and still contradicting yourself though. Firstly you say:

it was unlikely that Brett Lee did it deliberately considering how difficult it is to do deliberately and it's not something that one practices. .

Followed by:

judging by his reaction to being beamed and his reaction after the beam ball (and that when he's beamed other players, he HAS apologised), he certainly seemed motivated to at least hurt Razzaq.

Sounds to me like you are refusing to admit that he did bowl it deliberately because you "HOPE" he wouldn't when it was blatant to all and sundry that he did. I think if you asked Lee himself if it was deliberate he would probably say "yes" unless he had a lawyer by his side ready to cover his mouth.

 

[Scallywag]

Perhaps it is indeed a case of Chinese whispers - and not just that, but chicken-or-egg too?
Who knows which phrase came first - but they do certainly seem to have evolved from the same root.

Not really Richard, the word bean ball means a ball directed at the head (Meaning "head" is U.S. baseball slang c.1905 (in bean-ball "a pitch thrown at the head").

Beam ball is a ball that is straight as a beam (coming through at the same height as the bowlers arm).

East to confuse but very different.

 

[Top_Cat]

Razzaq must have bowled his second beamer to Lee deliberately without any consideration of the consequences and all the umpires did was take him out of the attack. I dont know why Lee should be banned for six months for bowling a deliberate bouncer when Razzaq bowled one and its considered a trivial event.

For one, there was considerably more doubt as to how deliberate Razzaq's was. To me, he looked either injured or tired because his action was stuffed i.e. not smooth like his usually is. For two, he at least apologised. For three, he was removed from the attack as per the rules. Lee wasn't even spoken to and his appeared far more serious. For four, Lee's beamer, if revenge, would be far more serious an offence than Razzaq bowling a beamer and a strong indictment on his maturity.

A classier response to being beamed (*if* Razzaq's were deliberate which I don't believe they were) would have been to protest to the umpire and then just let it go or accept that dismissing Razzaq would have been revenge enough. A deliberate beamer in response to a beamer which there was considerable doubt as to whether it was deliberate is a disgrace.

 

[Scallywag]

Razzaqs first may have been accidental but there is no way you can say the second one was also accidental and by letting Razzaq get away with bowling a deliberate beam ball the umpire could not then turn around and punish Lee.

Also when you described Lees response you said "when it happened to him, he moaned to the umpire about it"

Then you posted this "A classier response to being beamed (*if* Razzaq's were deliberate which I don't believe they were) would have been to protest to the umpire and then just let it go "

So what is it moaning or a classy response from Lee.

 

[Top_Cat]

You seem to be sitting on the fence on the issue and still contradicting yourself though.

Those statements don't contradict themselves at all. They might be slightly opposing in some ways but a contradiction, no way. Saying on one hand that I think it's unlikely to have been deliberate and then on the other saying he was probably at least motivated to hurt Razzaq does NOT contradict no matter how many times you say it does. Why? Because there are other ways in which he could have hurt Razzaq.

Sounds to me like you are refusing to admit that he did bowl it deliberately

That's right because it is NOT conclusive that he did. And you have no proof otherwise. It may appear 'blatant to all and sundry' but that does not make it true. Ask yourself whether what you're saying would be proveable in court (rather than the hugely biased court of public opinion) and if you know anything about the legal process, the answer would almost invariably be "no". There is sufficient doubt in intent to cast doubt on the conclusion unless you're extremely biased.

THAT SAID, as I said before, the argument that he DID deliberately bowl the beamer is VERY strong but NOT conclusive or at least not conclusive enough for my standards of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'. Y'know what? I actually think it was more likely to be deliberate than not but the evidence just isn't there to support it.

I'm effectively arguing in favour of what you're saying and what do you do? Look for a contradiction that isn't there. Amazing.

 

[Top_Cat]

Razzaqs first may have been accidental but there is no way you can say the second one was also accidental and by letting Razzaq get away with bowling a deliberate beam ball the umpire could not then turn around and punish Lee.

I maintain the second beamer was accidental and you have no evidence to say otherwise except the fact he bowled one earlier inthe over. For that to be the case, you'd have to accept that bowling two accidental beamers in the space of an over is either impossible or so unlikely as to render it there but that's just stupid.

Also when you described Lees response you said "when it happened to him, he moaned to the umpire about it"

Then you posted this "A classier response to being beamed (*if* Razzaq's were deliberate which I don't believe they were) would have been to protest to the umpire and then just let it go "

So what is it moaning or a classy response from Lee.

Lee moaned to the umpire about it. His response was not classy at all. Hedidn't just protest, he berated the umpire. I'm not seeing the contradiction.

 

[Scallywag]

Lee moaned to the umpire about it. His response was not classy at all. Hedidn't just protest, he berated the umpire. I'm not seeing the contradiction.

What did he say to the umpire.?

 

[Fiery]

Those statements don't contradict themselves at all. They might be slightly opposing in some ways but a contradiction, no way. Saying on one hand that I think it's unlikely to have been deliberate and then on the other saying he was probably at least motivated to hurt Razzaq does NOT contradict no matter how many times you say it does. Why? Because there are other ways in which he could have hurt Razzaq.



That's right because it is NOT conclusive that he did. And you have no proof otherwise. It may appear 'blatant to all and sundry' but that does not make it true. Ask yourself whether what you're saying would be proveable in court (rather than the hugely biased court of public opinion) and if you know anything about the legal process, the answer would almost invariably be "no". There is sufficient doubt in intent to cast doubt on the conclusion unless you're extremely biased.

THAT SAID, as I said before, the argument that he DID deliberately bowl the beamer is VERY strong but NOT conclusive or at least not conclusive enough for my standards of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'. Y'know what? I actually think it was more likely to be deliberate than not but the evidence just isn't there to support it.

I'm effectively arguing in favour of what you're saying and what do you do? Look for a contradiction that isn't there. Amazing.

You sound like you would make a good lawyer. I just can't be assed trying to defend someone who is obviously guilty. Your opinion is neither here nor there. You have a leg on either side of the fence which is why I pointed out the some things you had said which I perceived as contradictory. I believe he bowled the beamer deliberately and I think you just don't want to believe it.

 

[Scallywag]

I take it that you dont know what Lee said to the umpire top_cat but made up some crap to cover the fact that you said it was moaning simply because he is Brett Lee and probably wanted to back away from what you said about it being a classy act to complain to the umpire just after you described it as moaning.

 

[Top_Cat]

You sound like you would make a good lawyer. I just can't be assed trying to defend someone who is obviously guilty. Your opinion is neither here nor there. You have a leg on either side of the fence which is why I pointed out the some things you had said which I perceived as contradictory. I believe he bowled the beamer deliberately and I think you just don't want to believe it.

Good on you. He might have but as I said I don't think it's taken as a given and you just repeating what you said earlier doesn't make it any more correct. The fact of the matter is, you don't know for sure; you just believe he's obviously guilty. Big difference.

I take it that you dont know what Lee said to the umpire top_cat but made up some crap to cover the fact that you said it was moaning simply because he is Brett Lee and probably wanted to back away from what you said about it being a classy act to complain to the umpire just after you described it as moaning.

Why? Because I didn't reply instantly? Whatever. No backing away here.

I was going to say how I knew what was said but forget it. It'll give up my sources anyway and I don't want to do that. Rest assured, I know what was said.

 

[Scallywag]

I was going to say how I knew what was said but forget it. It'll give up my sources anyway and I don't want to do that. Rest assured, I know what was said.

You have to that dont you, there is nowhere else to go.

 

[Top_Cat]

You don't believe me, that's fine. I know *I* wouldn't if I was in your position. You have no evidence to suggest you should, really.

 

[Scallywag]

You don't believe me, that's fine. I know *I* wouldn't if I was in your position. You have no evidence to suggest you should, really.

It doesent really matter if I believe you or not Top_cat, I just dont like it when a player is critisized for something and there is no substance to the critisism. Its fine if you dont like Lee, we all have players that we dont like but if you are going to put him down then give the reason for why you make the put down or do something classy like keep mum.

 

[Top_Cat]

It doesent really matter if I believe you or not Top_cat, I just dont like it when a player is critisized for something and there is no substance to the critisism. Its fine if you dont like Lee, we all have players that we dont like but if you are going to put him down then give the reason for why you make the put down or do something classy like keep mum.

You obviously haven't read what I've written then. I've actually defended Lee continuously on this forum in the past more times than I remember and I *do* like him. In addition to that, how you can read what I said and conclude I don't like Lee and then Fiery can read the same and conclude the opposite suggests something is with one of you.

As I've said from the start IF Lee beamed Razzaq deliberately, THEN ban him because it's a disgraceful act. Yes I did say that I thought he might have done it deliberately but I also said there wasn't enough evidence to be sure. I wasn't bashing Lee, (unlike Fiery) I wasn't saying anything resembling that I was SURE he did it deliberately.

Sheesh..........

 

[vic_orthdox]

Top Cat, i thought you might have known that you can't have a balanced view on this forum. it means your a fence sitter with no ticker. you must be really biased either way to have your opinion respected.

 

[Scallywag]

You obviously haven't read what I've written then. I've actually defended Lee continuously on this forum in the past more times than I remember and I *do* like him. In addition to that, how you can read what I said and conclude I don't like Lee and then Fiery can read the same and conclude the opposite suggests something is with one of you.

As I've said from the start IF Lee beamed Razzaq deliberately, THEN ban him because it's a disgraceful act. Yes I did say that I thought he might have done it deliberately but I also said there wasn't enough evidence to be sure. I wasn't bashing Lee, (unlike Fiery) I wasn't saying anything resembling that I was SURE he did it deliberately.

Sheesh..........

Perhaps you didnt read what I wrote, my point was why say Lee was moaning to the umpire when nobody knows what he said to the umpire even though you say you do but your not telling anybody. Its a baseless accusation, so why say anything unless you put up the reason for your critisism.

double sheesh

 

[Top_Cat]

Perhaps you didnt read what I wrote, my point was why say Lee was moaning to the umpire when nobody knows what he said to the umpire even though you say you do but your not telling anybody. Its a baseless accusation, so why say anything unless you put up the reason for your critisism.

Good point. I was meaning to say this earlier but I shouldn't have said it at all if I wasn't prepared to say how/why I know what happened. Didn't think through it fully before posting it.

 

[Fiery]

I can see where you're coming from Top Cat. Your argument is one that a defence lawyer would use. That's fair enough. I don't think you would win the case with that argument but OJ Simpson got off.
vic_orthodox: What's wrong with having a strong opinion one way or the other on something?