Andre Nel and sledging

[C_C]

What about by typical seal-clubber standards?

(just introducing another country in a rhetorical anti-Canadian banter sort of way)

Ask Stephen Harper.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I am sorry but i do not see it as a part of competetive sport. No sport should be allowed to progress to such levels of competetiveness that people forget the central objective : that their records mean nothing. They only exist to entertain the masses.
It doesnt kill them to be courteous. Infact, i demand that as a job pre-requisite.

I'm afraid the central objective of professional sportmen is to perform well at their sport. That's why they get paid, and if they fail to do so they will be replaced with another, more competent player, regardless of how entertaining they are. That attitude is equivalent to suggesting that a musician's sole job is to entertain rather than to explore their artistic interests and make music they think is good. The entertainment is a side-effect of the quality of performance, and that's it.

Regardless, plenty of people find the competitive nature of the sport the source of the entertainment. It's wrong to suggest that competitive, aggressive cricket means less entertaining cricket.

Maybe someone should teach Hussey that perhaps the best answer is to shut their collective yaps on the pitch or say things that are passable without an R or X rating ?
I still dont get it - why are you defending nastyness ?

Why? Until this very test, the stump mics were operated in such a way that they improved the viewing experience at home without violating censorship. The process was that they were turned up during the actual delivery, which is why you hear the clear noises of the bowler's feet landing, the ball hitting the bat or the stumps and so on, and then they are turned down afterwards until the next ball is bowled. In this particular test, they were turned up between the deliveries and when the players found out about it (as they were apparently not informed) they complained and suggested that the old system be used instead as young viewers might be disturbed or whatever by the language used on the pitch.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable suggestion to me.

Anyway, I don't see the problem with swearing, in a basic sense. I'm no puritan, and I don't see why cricketers should be held to a higher standard than people in any other sport just because some television company wants to have their mics really loud. As I said earlier, stopping players from abusing or assaulting one another is fine, but I don't see why they should be required to watch their language at all times any more than, say, footballers. I also don't see why they shouldn't be able to engage in verbal attempts to undermine one another and so, which is what sledging amounts to. It's perfectly reasonable competitive behaviour.

If television networks wish to have a broadcast free of forbidden language, it is their responsibility to conduct their broadcast in such a way to ensure that any language used on the field of play isn't picked up and broadcast to the audience. Unless a player goes out of his way to cause trouble (by say talking directly into the stump mic), it has nothing to do with them at all. And unless their foul language crosses the line of competitive behaviour into simple abuse, or it is directed at the umpire, there's no reason for them to be required to cease it. As above, they are professional sportspeople and adults.

 

[C_C]

I'm afraid the central objective of professional sportmen is to perform well at their sport. That's why they get paid, and if they fail to do so they will be replaced with another, more competent player, regardless of how entertaining they are. That attitude is equivalent to suggesting that a musician's sole job is to entertain rather than to explore their artistic interests and make music they think is good. The entertainment is a side-effect of the quality of performance, and that's it.

Regardless, plenty of people find the competitive nature of the sport the source of the entertainment. It's wrong to suggest that competitive, aggressive cricket means less entertaining cricket.

And thats why i think the sporting culture has lost its plot.
The reason- entire fundamental reason sports exist is to entertain people. Period.
There is nothing else to whacking a ball with various differnt body parts or tools.
It exists only to entertain.

Regardless, plenty of people find the competitive nature of the sport the source of the entertainment. It's wrong to suggest that competitive, aggressive cricket means less entertaining cricket.

And far more people find competitive nature is used as an excuse for hooliganism. If you have to resort to verbal diarrea, it automatically implies that your cricketing skills are not enough to get the job done and you arnt ready to accept that.
Besides, you are drawing a completely arbitary line when it comes to nastiness.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable suggestion to me.

About as reasonable as a criminal saying 'if robbery bugs you, dont watch robbers while they are at it'.

Anyway, I don't see the problem with swearing, in a basic sense.

I dont have a problem with swearing when its meant to be joking banter. Beyond that it IS offensive.

I also don't see why they shouldn't be able to engage in verbal attempts to undermine one another and so, which is what sledging amounts to. It's perfectly reasonable competitive behaviour.

Verbal banter in a classy way ( see Viv -Dilley) is fine. Beyond that it isnt fine. Beyond that its being a tosser who wants to win at all costs and cant accept it when beaten.
And i am not holding cricket to a higher standard. I am sideswiping at almost all sports here. The sporting culture is a hostile one and i see no reason to rationalise hostility in such meanial activities as whacking a ball.

f television networks wish to have a broadcast free of forbidden language, it is their responsibility to conduct their broadcast in such a way to ensure that any language used on the field of play isn't picked up and broadcast to the audience.

Err the players have the ultimate responsibility to behave.

As above, they are professional sportspeople and adults.

Therefore, they should act like adults. Not try to find out who does the best Hayden Christiensen impression.

And unless their foul language crosses the line of competitive behaviour into simple abuse, or it is directed at the umpire, there's no reason for them to be required to cease it

And who defines this arbitary line ?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

And who defines this arbitary line ?

The line isn't arbitrary at all. Players aren't allowed to assault one another in an attempt to win the game - it's against the rules. Verbal abuse of players or umpires qualifies as dissent in one case, and in another case is simply pointless and has no relevance to the game whatsoever, and thus should and will be stamped out by the umpires/match refereee/ICC. Sledging (verbally undermining the opposition and similar activities) isn't against the rules of the game and clearly is relevant to it as it is a tactic to gain a mental upper hand. Mental battles are part of cricket, which is obvious to anyone with even a casual interest in the game.

The line is based around the rules and purpose of the game, and nothing more. Players aren't role models or entertainers or anything else. They are there to play cricket and do it well, and that's all. The way they can do that is defined by the umpires and, if you delve deep enough, the ICC.

Regarding the rest of your post, the way you feel about the "sporting culture" has little or no relevance to the issue. I don't particularly like the "sporting culture" either, if you mean the way athletes are placed on a pedestal where they recieve greater attention (and wealth) than people who do things of greater significance, the way children with sporting gifts are treated with greater care than children with intellectual gifts, and so on. I think it's crap. I don't think however that banning sledging will do anything to fix that. I like cricket, regardless of what I think of the cultural obsession with sport, and competitive behaviour (including sledging) is an inevitable and legitimate part of a competitive sport like cricket. I see no reason to attack that when the root of the problems with sport itself run much deeper and are in fact entirely unrelated to the games themsleves (which are fine), but are to do with the way society as a whole relates to those games.

 

[C_C]

The line isn't arbitrary at all. Players aren't allowed to assault one another in an attempt to win the game - it's against the rules. Verbal abuse of players or umpires qualifies as dissent in one case, and in another case is simply pointless and has no relevance to the game whatsoever, and thus should and will be stamped out by the umpires/match refereee/ICC. Sledging (verbally undermining the opposition and similar activities) isn't against the rules of the game and clearly is relevant to it as it is a tactic to gain a mental upper hand. Mental battles are part of cricket, which is obvious to anyone with even a casual interest in the game.

It is utterly arbitary as to what is considered 'proper threat' and 'improper threat' on a cricket field.
As i said, it would be 'legal and fine' to threaten a player's life in UAE.
It is a completely arbitary line.
Mental battles may be a part of cricket - uncouthness isnt. Viv-Dilley is fine. What passes for sledging today is not.
Swearing aggressively at the opposition is not fine. Besides, you are underestimating the mental aspect of it if you think 'mental toughness' is determined by abillity to throw and take uncouth words. You can test someone's mental strength by shutting up too. The fundamental point of cricket is to display your cricketing skills. Not your swearing skills and uncouthness. And if you have to resort to that, its obvious that your cricketing skills arnt good enough and yer not prepared to accept that.

Players aren't role models or entertainers or anything else

Any sportsperson is an entertainer first and foremost. They exist only to entertain the masses. That is their purpose and as such no different from performance artists.
And anyone who is a regular fixture over national airwaves in non-fictional roles have an obligation to act like responsible adults.

Regarding the rest of your post, the way you feel about the "sporting culture" has little or no relevance to the issue. I don't particularly like the "sporting culture" either, if you mean the way athletes are placed on a pedestal where they recieve greater attention (and wealth) than people who do things of greater significance, the way children with sporting gifts are treated with greater care than children with intellectual gifts, and so on. I think it's crap. I don't think however that banning sledging will do anything to fix that. I like cricket, regardless of what I think of the cultural obsession with sport, and competitive behaviour (including sledging) is an inevitable and legitimate part of a competitive sport like cricket. I see no reason to attack that when the root of the problems with sport itself run much deeper and are in fact entirely unrelated to the games themsleves (which are fine), but are to do with the way society as a whole relates to those games.

The purpose of sports and the behaviour of sportsmen are two seperate issues.
I agree with most of the first half of the paragraph above.
I dont have a problem with trying to undermine the opposition verbally but as i have said repeatedly, i have a problem with excessive hostility and uncouth language. And if thats inevitable in competetive sport, its time to make it less competetive.
Whether you like it or not,the reason why sports has become progressively more hostile is because each successive generation grows up with laxer and laxer notion of whats 'acceptable' on the pitch.

 

[Ikki]

I am sorry but i do not see it as a part of competetive sport. No sport should be allowed to progress to such levels of competetiveness that people forget the central objective : that their records mean nothing. They only exist to entertain the masses.
It doesnt kill them to be courteous. Infact, i demand that as a job pre-requisite.

Pardon? They play to entertain us? That's it?

 

[C_C]

Pardon? They play to entertain us? That's it?

Yup. thats all that it boils down to.
Sports is entertainment industry. Ie, recreational stuff that has way too much money and resources allocated to it.

 

[Ikki]

Yup. thats all that it boils down to.
Sports is entertainment industry. Ie, recreational stuff that has way too much money and resources allocated to it.

Yes, but you assume they're playing for us...they're doing it for them. So whatever records they do set to achieve, are theirs and everything merited along with it also.

 

[Dasa]

Yes, but you assume they're playing for us...they're doing it for them. So whatever records they do set to achieve, are theirs and everything merited along with it also.

...but without us (the public) watching them, they wouldn't be doing it in the first place.

 

[Ikki]

And thats why i think the sporting culture has lost its plot.
The reason- entire fundamental reason sports exist is to entertain people. Period.
There is nothing else to whacking a ball with various differnt body parts or tools.
It exists only to entertain.

Again...again...

And far more people find competitive nature is used as an excuse for hooliganism. If you have to resort to verbal diarrea, it automatically implies that your cricketing skills are not enough to get the job done and you arnt ready to accept that.
Besides, you are drawing a completely arbitary line when it comes to nastiness.

You're half-right. No one tolerates hooliganism. However, in these such cases, you're a step too extreme and your rationale is beyond common, so i'd be weary of using "far more people" labelling.

About as reasonable as a criminal saying 'if robbery bugs you, dont watch robbers while they are at it'.

Hardly. If they asked everyone not to say a word and play cricket, what entertainment value would be there to hear batsmen feet shuffle or the wickets wail? The game would lose it's shine fast. Now, if they put the microphones down a tad so that everyone can hear banter as well as everything else, I think that's fair. If they're trying to catch people on cricket doing what they're allowed to do yet causing a hostile backlash, then why can't the players complain? In this sense it is the cricketing body's responsibility to protect the players, and not to let coverages raise the mic's too high without the players knowing.

I dont have a problem with swearing when its meant to be joking banter. Beyond that it IS offensive.

Which is what most cricketing banter is...why are you crying so loud?

Verbal banter in a classy way ( see Viv -Dilley) is fine. Beyond that it isnt fine. Beyond that its being a tosser who wants to win at all costs and cant accept it when beaten.
And i am not holding cricket to a higher standard. I am sideswiping at almost all sports here. The sporting culture is a hostile one and i see no reason to rationalise hostility in such meanial activities as whacking a ball.

A sense an oxymoron...

Cricketing is such a menial act...so we should pursue nagging our cricketers until they act like gentleman?

Err the players have the ultimate responsibility to behave.

And everyone else is responsible for themselves...

Therefore, they should act like adults. Not try to find out who does the best Hayden Christiensen impression.

How about you and I act like adults?

 

[Ikki]

...but without us (the public) watching them, they wouldn't be doing it in the first place.

Why wouldn't they? Would you be playing cricket if someone wasn't watching you?

EDIT: What I mean to say is...they're not really playing for the love of the crowd, moreso the love of the game. As Faaip exemplified, even if actors are working in front of crowds, their own artistic freedom and expression is primary.

 

[C_C]

Yes, but you assume they're playing for us...they're doing it for them. So whatever records they do set to achieve, are theirs and everything merited along with it also.

They are there to entertain. Whatever they are accomplishing on the side is secondary.
Its just that simple. A ballet dancer is there to entertain the crowd first, think about how great a ballet dancer he/she is second.
Same with sportsmen.

 

[Ikki]

They are there to entertain. Whatever they are accomplishing on the side is secondary.
Its just that simple. A ballet dancer is there to entertain the crowd first, think about how great a ballet dancer he/she is second.
Same with sportsmen.

Hahaha...these are the kind of comments that will get you me questioning your experience. You think it's condescending, but really...look at what you just wrote.

 

[C_C]

Again...again...

Awesome reasoning!

You're half-right. No one tolerates hooliganism. However, in these such cases, you're a step too extreme and your rationale is beyond common, so i'd be weary of using "far more people" labelling.

I speak from the overwhelming majority of cricket supporters on this planet. So infact, its your rationale that is beyond common.

If they asked everyone not to say a word and play cricket, what entertainment value would be there to hear batsmen feet shuffle or the wickets wail? The game would lose it's shine fast.

bulldust. Utter complete baloney. before the stump-mics, the spectators could hardly hear a word and cricket was still very entertaining.
And i dont care much for uncouth behaviour being passed off as entertainment.
If you want that, i suggest watching WWE.

If they asked everyone not to say a word and play cricket, what entertainment value would be there to hear batsmen feet shuffle or the wickets wail? The game would lose it's shine fast.

They certainly should not be allowed to get away with abusive language and unecessary hostility.

Which is what most cricketing banter is...why are you crying so loud?

No it isnt. None of the swearing i've ever heard in cricket was said in even the remotest lighthearted fashion.

Cricketing is such a menial act...so we should pursue nagging our cricketers until they act like gentleman?

because they are on tv and international news for non-fictional roles. I expect gentlemanly behaviour in public eye. Below that is uncouth.

 

[C_C]

Hahaha...these are the kind of comments that will get you me questioning your experience. You think it's condescending, but really...look at what you just wrote.

I am sorry but that is the cold hard truth - sportsmen and sport doesnt matter the least bit in the grand scheme of things and i can name several professions that are FAR more important than simple entertainment business.
Their sole reason for existance in the public eye is to entertain the populace.Period.Without that, there is no reason for the existance of sports in the public eye.

 

[Ikki]

Awesome reasoning!

Danke, I knew you would see my point of view.

I speak from the overwhelming majority of cricket supporters on this planet. So infact, its your rationale that is beyond common.

You speak FROM them, not FOR them. Big difference. The gap widens even bigger when one analyses sledging to the eventual happening of murder.

bulldust. Utter complete baloney. before the stump-mics, the spectators could hardly hear a word and cricket was still very entertaining.
And i dont care much for uncouth behaviour being passed off as entertainment.
If you want that, i suggest watching WWE.

Yes, they watched the games at the grounds I'm betting. In any case, they have it now. If they want to shut off the mics, so be it. Let them play.

They certainly should not be allowed to get away with abusive language and unecessary hostility.

They're not allowed to do those things. They are allowed to banter in a reasonable way though, but even that can get them into trouble with some people. I'm glad the decision to decipher which is offensive or not is not in your hands.

No it isnt. None of the swearing i've ever heard in cricket was said in even the remotest lighthearted fashion.

You must be listening to rap while watching cricket.

because they are on tv and international news for non-fictional roles. I expect gentlemanly behaviour in public eye. Below that is uncouth.

Then by definition, it isn't a menial act. Is it? This has gone beyond decency and harmony. This is just judgemental in the 'glass house' way.

 

[Ikki]

I am sorry but that is the cold hard truth - sportsmen and sport doesnt matter the least bit in the grand scheme of things and i can name several professions that are FAR more important than simple entertainment business.
Their sole reason for existance in the public eye is to entertain the populace.Period.Without that, there is no reason for the existance of sports in the public eye.

Sports exist and the interest is from the public eye. Whether or not they're there, sports will exist and so will the people playing them. Let's get back to the Ballet example...it's funny that my girlfriend has been doing ballet for about 20 years but in that time has probably had 2-3 performances at most. What you said was funny though...thanks .

 

[C_C]

Sports exist and the interest is from the public eye. Whether or not they're there, sports will exist and so will the people playing them. Let's get back to the Ballet example...it's funny that my girlfriend has been doing ballet for about 20 years but in that time has probably had 2-3 performances at most. What you said was funny though...thanks .

I am willing to bet, your girlfriend is not exactly in Barishnikov class and neither is she in the public eye. Without entertainment factor,sports is nothing more than childsplay really.

 

[C_C]

You speak FROM them, not FOR them. Big difference. The gap widens even bigger when one analyses sledging to the eventual happening of murder.

Firstly, as i said, threatening murder is legit in certain nations. Just because it isnt in your nation doesnt automatically make it right or wrong.
Secondly, yes, my viewpoints represent the majority of cricket fans, since the majority of cricket fans are subcontinental and in subcontinental culture, random swearing is NOT on.

Let them play.

Indeed. Let them play. Not yap away obscenities.

They're not allowed to do those things. They are allowed to banter in a reasonable way though, but even that can get them into trouble with some people. I'm glad the decision to decipher which is offensive or not is not in your hands.

Oh yes they are allowed to utter crude and obscene language in a hostile way. Not the joking way between mates.

Then by definition, it isn't a menial act. Is it?

Their job is menial. The stage isnt.

 

[Ikki]

I am willing to bet, your girlfriend is not exactly in Barishnikov class and neither is she in the public eye. Without entertainment factor,sports is nothing more than childsplay really.

My girlfriend was very good, but in that class no. That isn't the point either. People do sports not to entertain other people. We entertain ourselves. Whether we're physically or mentally stimulated, it's the self that is important. Cricket is a bunch of men in a field playing the sport. We, as the public, love seeing the best of these players go at it. Thus institutions are set around these talents in helping us watch and admire them, while giving them a comfortable living. With us or not, they're still the same men playing on a cricketing field.