Leigh,

By defining Bagaric's shoulder-chip as Baltic you have, apparently unwittingly, made a racist comment. You have thus demonstrated how deeply racism is ingrained in our culture.

I accept that we are racist, although not as overtly so as many other people - consider the endless inter-tribal warefare in Africa! I think it is part of the human condition - an inevitable consequence of the Selfish Gene theory of Richard Dawkins. This theory suggests, among other things, that we will generally favour those who are most genetically similar to us at the expense of those who are less similar.

Once again we have Liegh who is no doubt white telling us that Australians are not racists. Only a white person in Australia would be stupid enough to say Australia is not a racist country because most minority groups especially Aboriginal people will tell you it is based on the number of racially based incidents against minorities by whites.

Leigh forgets that this country was invaded by whites because they claimed we had no law and weren't white or christian, and that the white Australian conststution wrote into law various laws that denied Aboriginal people rights for 67 years untill the referendum.

Aboriginal people in Australia under the same constitution have no real property or civil rights than an illegal immigrant, with any proposed changes to that being met with hostility by the mainly white australian community.

The culture and institutions created by whites are designed to exclude Aboriginal people in particular and the fact that major change is in the wind upsets Leigh and people like her/him so the defence of racism is just a smoke screen to camoflage the truth.

I don't know anything about cricket its far to slow a game for me prefering pistol shooting, but if this beat up means that the game will be cancelled and something decent will come on tv then I am all for it.

It is clear you are an armchair cricketer, Mirko.

>>And as for the controversy over Symonds not walking... the rules state that a batsman that is caught is out. But this rule is subordinate to the rule that the final judge of whether or not a batsman is out is the umpire. Hence, Symonds was right to stand his ground and let the umpire make the, albeit factually wrong, decision.<<

As a statement of fact, this is utter rubbish. Even as an opinion, it is woefully underinformed.

The rule is that if the batsman is caught, he is out. It is not negotiable. The umpire is there to adjudicate when there is doubt, and rule in the batsman's favour where there is such doubt. There is no case for this adjudication to have primacy over the fact that the batsman is, without doubt, out.

This was not a case of a tight lbw decision, or a close run-out call. Having tickled the ball into the wicketkeeper's gloves, an act which he freely admitted that he had been aware of, Symonds was out, caught behind. He should at that point have tucked his bat under his arm, and walked. The fact that he did not do so means that he is a cheat.

>>[Refusing to walk] is the best way to ensure a rough degree of fairness on the cricket field. Walkers distort this equilibrium in a manner that is detrimental to their team and country.<<

That was essentially the Symonds defence. If I walk, my team mates will be upset with me, and after all, it is a team game.

The only reason that would occur is if you have a captain who approves of cheating, and sets an example as a cheat himself.

It does not however absolve a player from his responsibility to the game of cricket.

If being successful outweighs the game itself, the game is inevitably diminished. Why would anyone watch a match where cheating is condoned - even, if we use Mirko's logic, encouraged as being a natural and necessary facet of the game.

Dear Leigh,

Spoken like a true blue eh? And no one could accuse you of racism
could they?

You believe in the "fair-go" ethic obviously. "If they don't like it, they can go back ..." To where?

After three generations - and several mixed marriages some folks may have trouble trying to figure out where you'd like them to go back to. And being born in Australia - they just may really feel that this is where they belong...

Playing the game I_ do agree has to be done by the rules, with respect
for your opponents coming from both sides. It has to be mutual, or it doesn't work. Both sides should shake hands and move on. Both did not
behave well.

Pericles – I would have to disagree seeing that if every batsman took your advice the only time the batsman wont walk will be when he generally did not hit it. Even then he maybe given out by the umpire thus making things unbalanced. I think it is a noble thing to walk but if you stand your ground you have every right too.

The only way to do the job properly is to get the third umpire to call it.

Should we bring in the third umpire more? I don’t know!

Oh and how did Mirko Bagaric turn an article which started off with an Australian being racially abused by some foreigners into an article about how racist he thinks Australians are?

Besides if it had been an Australian calling a Indian a monkey I am sure Mirko would have been baying for blood.

Yindin

It will always be convenient for the indigenous people to label the whites as racist. Interesting that people from just about every other nation are able to get along with white Aussies (bar a few red necks). The chip on the shoulder that many aborigines have seem to totally blinded them to their own faults. They will never climb out of their victim mentality until they face up to their own problems and shortcomings. All people to some degree are racist and the black Australians are among the worse.