Andre Nel and sledging

[C_C]

Also, why is "****ing" derogatory in this case if it adds no meaning to the sentence?

In that case, i am sure you have no problems if the IOC chief, announcing (hypothetically) the next olympic games at Sydney says ' And the next game will be held in ****ing Australia'.
I am not interested in semantics really.
You know perfectly that ****ing can be used in a very derogatory way and the context in this case is highly derogatory.

Lucky git = derogatory = offensive.

By your standards, "lucky git" is offensive, too.

Actually thanks for pointing that out. Yes, lucky git is offensive too.
My entire point is, the reason sports is degenerating more and more into violent or antagonistic behaviour is because people are trying harder and harder to win at all costs.
They forget - winning isnt important. They are there primarily to entertain the crowd.
I am beginning to like the idea of amatuerising sports more and more every passing day.
Way too much attention, resources and money being thrown for whacking a whole different kinda balls with different kinda sticks.
Perhaps 'back to the 1880s' wouldnt be too bad an idea for cricket.

 

[viktor]

Next time a bowler threatens batsman by saying he's gonna shove an AK 47 up his rear end after the match, i guess that too is a part of 'mental disintegration'.

Brian McMillan apparently did that to Shane Warne once.

 

[Sanz]

"Choo Choo" never happened.

Says who, Team Australia ?

 

[Smudge]

Says who, Team Australia ?

Team Australia, Chris Cairns, anyone who was involved in the match...

 

[Dasa]

I really don't see why - you're still calling him a "lucky git", just adding a random, pointless swear word in front of it.

It may be pointless, and needless, but IMO not more offensive.

Swear words aren't pointless, otherwise they wouldn't be used. They are used to place importance on whatever you're saying, or to catch the attention. There have always been words that are taboo, and it certainly increases the offensiveness of "lucky git" if you put ****ing in front of it.

 

[Sanz]

I have never heard the denial anywhere but I dont really read NZ/Aus newspapers either so I will take your word for it.

 

[Autobahn]

I have never heard the denial anywhere but I dont really read NZ/Aus newspapers either so I will take your word for it.

Wasn't it in someone's biography?

 

[C_C]

Wasn't it in someone's biography?

Perhaps...but on a slightly different note, whats with biographies ? since when are they considered indisputable sources ??

 

[Autobahn]

Perhaps...but on a slightly different note, whats with biographies ? since when are they considered indisputable sources ??

Well lying about people, places or events tends to land people with libel cases, maybe not an accurate source of infomation but most likely true.

 

[Smudge]

Besides, I don't think Cairns would have been able to control himself if it had been said. There's borderline stuff and then there's beyond the pale. Such a comment would definitely fall into the latter category.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

It's not indisputable, but I'll take Chris Cairns' word for it.

 

[C_C]

Well lying about people, places or events tends to land people with libel cases, maybe not an accurate source of infomation but most likely true.

Do you really think people are gonna sue you for misrepresentations that dont damage anyone or anything ? Do you really think if i claim ' I had coffee with Matty Hayden once' in my autobiography, Hayden is gonna sue me ?
Please get real !
Its hard to sue through autobiographies because autobiographies are largely personal impressions. Unless there is a factual misrepresentation that can be proven, its no big deal colouring the truth.

 

[Sanz]

I dont think the point is if it was actually said or not. Point is will it be deemed offensive if something like this happened ? IMO it would.

Same goes for Sanga, he crosses limit a lot of times and IMO next time he does that ICC should slap him a 5 match ban or 50000 $ fine or both. I can almost guarantee that he will think 10 times before doing it again and if he does it again, the fine should be doubled.

 

[C_C]

I dont think the point is if it was actually said or not. Point is will it be deemed offensive if something like this happened ? IMO it would.

Same goes for Sanga, he crosses limit a lot of times and IMO next time he does that ICC should slap him a 5 match ban or 50000 $ fine or both. I can almost guarantee that he will think 10 times before doing it again and if he does it again, the fine should be doubled.

Yup.
Its the normalising brigade that encourages the progressive degenerative behaviour in society really.... There are codes of conduct and minimum decency to be observed or it might as well be allout war. The disciplinary aspect have been nothing more than slaps on the wrist...i mean..suspended for 2 ODIs or 4000 bucks fine...whopee ding. Thats like fining me $1.50 and saying 'i cannot go out on next saturday'.
For eg, there have been so much racist abuse in OZ this time around....I wonder how much of that would persist if the abusive person's name was taken down and promptly placed on a 5 year ban from ALL Cricket Australia facilities.
Or like Tony Greig saying what OZ players sledge about is unspeakable...well... i wonder how much of that would be true if the next time someone yells ' black c*nt' he is promptly banned from all international cricket for 5 years.
Crack down hard and you will see results.
I am pretty tolerant myself but i dont tolerate hooliganism.

 

[Autobahn]

Do you really think people are gonna sue you for misrepresentations that dont damage anyone or anything ? Do you really think if i claim ' I had coffee with Matty Hayden once' in my autobiography, Hayden is gonna sue me ?
Please get real !
Its hard to sue through autobiographies because autobiographies are largely personal impressions. Unless there is a factual misrepresentation that can be proven, its no big deal colouring the truth.

Well of course not you plonker, saying you had a coffee with someone doesn't damage his/her's reputation, saying that they took the **** out of someone's dead relative, when they didn't does!

And i said while biographies may not be totally accurate, they are unlikely to tell out and out lies.

 

[C_C]

saying that they took the **** out of someone's dead relative, when they didn't does!

Its your word vs my word. Especially when recounting a private convo. Good luck proving who said what in a court of law. If i have dinner with you in private and then fabricate a recollection in my memoirs saying how you were doing the Seig Heil and lambasting Jews, you have no way to prove me wrong in a court of law.
People dont sue others for such menial things...especially when both are 'giants' by reputation and all it will do is sully yer name in the tabloids. How many hollywood people sue each other for improper conduct ? I can tell you that in many many many cases, there would've been a lawsuit if the guy wasnt named Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise or something like that. Same applies with sportsmen. They simply dont bother unless yer accusing them of being a cheat.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Its your word vs my word. Especially when recounting a private convo. Good luck proving who said what in a court of law. If i have dinner with you in private and then fabricate a recollection in my memoirs saying how you were doing the Seig Heil and lambasting Jews, you have no way to prove me wrong in a court of law.
People dont sue others for such menial things...especially when both are 'giants' by reputation and all it will do is sully yer name in the tabloids. How many hollywood people sue each other for improper conduct ? I can tell you that in many many many cases, there would've been a lawsuit if the guy wasnt named Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise or something like that. Same applies with sportsmen. They simply dont bother unless yer accusing them of being a cheat.

Okay, two things.

Firstly, if you were to say such a thing about me when it was untrue and I took you to court over it, I wouldn't really have to prove conclusively that I didn't say it, I'd merely have to prove it likely that I didn't say it. As you can imagine, there are quite a lot of ways to do that, including character evidence and so on. Usually in a case like that, if I took you to court and said I have nothing against Jewish people and I would never say any such thing, and you can't produce some sort of reasonable argument for why I said it, I'll have some success.

Secondly, most incidents discussed in bios are going to be on the cricket field, which is the public sphere. If Cairns had claimed Waugh had made said comment and Waugh had denied it, called in Ian Healy who also denied it, and say the umpire who denied it as well, Cairns would almost certainly lose.

You're right that only the most serious matters would be taken to court, because of the costs, the time, and other issues, but I'm quite sure that if Cairns said Waugh made a crack about his sister being hit by a train and he didn't, Waugh would be inclined to sue.

Anyway, if Cairns said in his bio that the incident never occured, given that it's such a serious matter and Cairns would have been the one who was offended by it, I'd say it's pretty conclusive that it didn't.

 

[Sanz]

Secondly, most incidents discussed in bios are going to be on the cricket field, which is the public sphere. If Cairns had claimed Waugh had made said comment and Waugh had denied it, called in Ian Healy who also denied it, and say the umpire who denied it as well, Cairns would almost certainly lose.

You are making an assumption that everyone will speak in favor of Waugh, what if they dont, then Waugh will lose, right ?

And even if all of them speak in Waugh's favor, What if Cairns insists on a Lie detector test and passes the test or the other kiwi batsman speaks in Cairns favor ?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

You are making an assumption that everyone will speak in favor of Waugh, what if they dont, then Waugh will lose, right ?

And even if all of them speak in Waugh's favor, What if Cairns insists on a Lie detector test and passes the test or the other kiwi batsman speaks in Cairns favor ?

I'm just speculating here. Obviously if Cairns had said it was true and Waugh had sued him for libel, the outcome would depend on all sorts of things. I'm simply saying that Cairns would be at risk of such things if he claimed something that wasn't true in a book, especially something so damaging to Waugh's image.

As it is, he said it didn't happen, so it's a moot point.

 

[viktor]

Oh yes, i've heard the occasional '****ing hell' comments....eddie made a comment about that too....so lemme clarify a bit. In footy, you have remarkable uncouthness over the last 10 years or so. Much much more than before. And even then, most of the comments arnt directed at anyone in particular.
I have no problem with a bowler looking skyward and yelling '****ing hell !!! aaaaaaaaah!' to vent his frustration. I do have a problem with them directing it at another player.
Huge difference. 90% of cricketing uncouthness is directed at a particular player. 90% of soccer uncouthness is directed at no one in particular.

You are changing goal-posts now C_C. Earlier in the thread you said you had problems with swearing because it would affect the kids. How is swearing at nobody in particular not going to affect them the same way?