FootballNews

God is an Englishman wrote:

Cooper wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:Exageratted?

Lyon throws the ball at a bloke on the ground and has been fined part of his match fee. FACT.

Warner tried to start a fight as the players walked off the pitch. FACT.

What happened for Warner to react that way?

Well according to Smith (who isn't a reliable source) de Koch said something about his wife. Probably something about her loving kiwi grenache on pub toilets.

Have you noticed that whenever an aussie cricketer behaves like an idiot there's always an unsubstantiated reason? Strange that there's never any witnesses.

And if Smiths say so of accounts is true do you think Warner was justified in his actions?

Not as easy as that though.

1. Smith didn't even hear it.
2. What did Warner say to provoke that reaction?


Now if de Koch said something unprovoked about his wife then I would certainly have reacted the same way as Warner did. However, if rumours are true about Warner's comments to Bairstow then I struggle to believe that it's not a case of warner being able to dish it but not take it.

Then again, it's all rumours.

God is an Englishman wrote:Not as easy as that though.

1. Smith didn't even hear it.
2. What did Warner say to provoke that reaction?


Now if de Koch said something unprovoked about his wife then I would certainly have reacted the same way as Warner did. However, if rumours are true about Warner's comments to Bairstow then I struggle to believe that it's not a case of warner being able to dish it but not take it.

Then again, it's all rumours.

Fair enough, its just another he said she said case.

Doesn’t matter what was said, it’s only words. Facts are aussies had (yet again) a premeditated tactic of ‘sledging’ or verbal intimidation of the opponent for this test. In these circumstances what happens on the pitch must stay on the pitch but wee davie warner chose to take it off the pitch and for this he should be punished severely by CA….. if CA had any integrity.

God is an Englishman wrote:Exageratted?

Lyon throws the ball at a bloke on the ground and has been fined part of his match fee. FACT.

Warner tried to start a fight as the players walked off the pitch. FACT.

Throws the ball or dropped it near him? There's your sensationalist headline. And Warner hurling abuse isn't evidence he "tried to start a fight".

I'm glad you don't practice law.

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:Exageratted?

Lyon throws the ball at a bloke on the ground and has been fined part of his match fee. FACT.

Warner tried to start a fight as the players walked off the pitch. FACT.

Throws the ball or dropped it near him? There's your sensationalist headline. And Warner hurling abuse isn't evidence he "tried to start a fight".

I'm glad you don't practice law.

He does throw it, it's in the video.

Being pulled back by a few people, no he wasn't starting a fight he was just trying to discuss politics.

So you can read people's minds now????

Maybe he wanted to congratulate him for showing more ticker in 2 sessions than what the POMs did during the whole summer.

N5 1BH wrote:Doesn’t matter what was said, it’s only words. Facts are aussies had (yet again) a premeditated tactic of ‘sledging’ or verbal intimidation of the opponent for this test. In these circumstances what happens on the pitch must stay on the pitch but wee davie warner chose to take it off the pitch and for this he should be punished severely by CA….. if CA had any integrity.

Warner wasn't the only one to take it off the pitch though

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:Exageratted?

Lyon throws the ball at a bloke on the ground and has been fined part of his match fee. FACT.

Warner tried to start a fight as the players walked off the pitch. FACT.

Throws the ball or dropped it near him? There's your sensationalist headline. And Warner hurling abuse isn't evidence he "tried to start a fight".

I'm glad you don't practice law.

He does throw it, it's in the video.

Being pulled back by a few people, no he wasn't starting a fight he was just trying to discuss politics.

He drops it in the video I saw, much like bowlers do at fall of wicket or end of over. "Throws it at a bloke on the ground" sounds like it was malicious and clearly it wasn't malicious at all. Lyon copped it on the chin and if he threw it as many would interpret a "throw" then surely it would have meant far more serious consequences, don't you think?
And do you really think Warner was going to try and hit him? If you do, then you're either a mind reader as suggested and/or wouldn't know how to look at any confrontation in its true context.
End of, looks like both Warner and Dekockhead have been penalised, so on with the show.

Bomber wrote:He drops it in the video I saw, much like bowlers do at fall of wicket or end of over. "Throws it at a bloke on the ground" sounds like it was malicious and clearly it wasn't malicious at all. Lyon copped it on the chin and if he threw it as many would interpret a "throw" then surely it would have meant far more serious consequences, don't you think?
And do you really think Warner was going to try and hit him? If you do, then you're either a mind reader as suggested and/or wouldn't know how to look at any confrontation in its true context.
End of, looks like both Warner and Dekockhead have been penalised, so on with the show.

You don't have to be a mind reader to think something. What do you think Warner was going to do if he got hold of him. After all, he has history of unprovoked attacks on opposition players.

Lyon - if you drop a ball it goes straight down, it didn't it went at and angle into the batsmen. He has been fined and quite rightly so. Obviously, someone else sees he didn't drop the ball.

3 players charged from this game and I have so far seen no provable reason why de Kock has been charged at all. Surely he will get a not guilty and Warner could be looking at a ban for poor behaviour AGAIN.

What do you think Warner was going to do if he got hold of him.

there you go again.....assuming to know what someone was going to do.....how do you know he would've "got hold of him"...

Cooper wrote:

N5 1BH wrote:Doesn’t matter what was said, it’s only words. Facts are aussies had (yet again) a premeditated tactic of ‘sledging’ or verbal intimidation of the opponent for this test. In these circumstances what happens on the pitch must stay on the pitch but wee davie warner chose to take it off the pitch and for this he should be punished severely by CA….. if CA had any integrity.

Warner wasn't the only one to take it off the pitch though

CA don't have responsibility for SA players

MegaBonus wrote:

What do you think Warner was going to do if he got hold of him.

there you go again.....assuming to know what someone was going to do.....how do you know he would've "got hold of him"...

There you go again, not reading what was written. It shouldn't be this easy to pull apart your posts. 4/10 you need to try harder.

Cooper wrote:

N5 1BH wrote:Doesn’t matter what was said, it’s only words. Facts are aussies had (yet again) a premeditated tactic of ‘sledging’ or verbal intimidation of the opponent for this test. In these circumstances what happens on the pitch must stay on the pitch but wee davie warner chose to take it off the pitch and for this he should be punished severely by CA….. if CA had any integrity.

Warner wasn't the only one to take it off the pitch though

From the video, only one person is taking it off the pitch and that's the midget.

MegaBonus wrote:So you can read people's minds now????

Maybe he wanted to congratulate him for showing more ticker in 2 sessions than what the POMs did during the whole summer.

Do you watch cricket at all?

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:He drops it in the video I saw, much like bowlers do at fall of wicket or end of over. "Throws it at a bloke on the ground" sounds like it was malicious and clearly it wasn't malicious at all. Lyon copped it on the chin and if he threw it as many would interpret a "throw" then surely it would have meant far more serious consequences, don't you think?
And do you really think Warner was going to try and hit him? If you do, then you're either a mind reader as suggested and/or wouldn't know how to look at any confrontation in its true context.
End of, looks like both Warner and Dekockhead have been penalised, so on with the show.

You don't have to be a mind reader to think something. What do you think Warner was going to do if he got hold of him. After all, he has history of unprovoked attacks on opposition players.

Lyon - if you drop a ball it goes straight down, it didn't it went at and angle into the batsmen. He has been fined and quite rightly so. Obviously, someone else sees he didn't drop the ball.

3 players charged from this game and I have so far seen no provable reason why de Kock has been charged at all. Surely he will get a not guilty and Warner could be looking at a ban for poor behaviour AGAIN.

You didn't watch Foxsports last night re Dekock I take it.

Warner attacked verbally, yes, and in response to a verbal attack on him. So what? He got fired up - how dare he in the heat of battle. Teammates ushered him away and that was it.

Lyon has copped his punishment, albeit a petty incident at best.

yes, I do!!!

ive read your posts....you're assuming to accurately predict future behaviour based on previous behaviour....and that's were your argument fails...

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:He drops it in the video I saw, much like bowlers do at fall of wicket or end of over. "Throws it at a bloke on the ground" sounds like it was malicious and clearly it wasn't malicious at all. Lyon copped it on the chin and if he threw it as many would interpret a "throw" then surely it would have meant far more serious consequences, don't you think?
And do you really think Warner was going to try and hit him? If you do, then you're either a mind reader as suggested and/or wouldn't know how to look at any confrontation in its true context.
End of, looks like both Warner and Dekockhead have been penalised, so on with the show.

You don't have to be a mind reader to think something. What do you think Warner was going to do if he got hold of him. After all, he has history of unprovoked attacks on opposition players.

Lyon - if you drop a ball it goes straight down, it didn't it went at and angle into the batsmen. He has been fined and quite rightly so. Obviously, someone else sees he didn't drop the ball.

3 players charged from this game and I have so far seen no provable reason why de Kock has been charged at all. Surely he will get a not guilty and Warner could be looking at a ban for poor behaviour AGAIN.

You didn't watch Foxsports last night re Dekock I take it.

Warner attacked verbally, yes, and in response to a verbal attack on him. So what? He got fired up - how dare he in the heat of battle. Teammates ushered him away and that was it.

Lyon has copped his punishment, albeit a petty incident at best.

If you don't think Warner and Lyon crossed the line then that's concerning. De Kock may have crossed the line but I've not seen proof of that. Do you have any proof to show me?

MegaBonus wrote:yes, I do!!!

ive read your posts....you're assuming to accurately predict future behaviour based on previous behaviour....and that's were your argument fails...

I'm not convinced you do watch it. I think someone tells you a little bit and you then use it to attempt to troll. Your posts on here certainly show that.

You need to read the posts again, there's a little word in there that you're missing. Go on, give it a read again and see if you can redeem yourself.

God is an Englishman wrote:
If you don't think Warner and Lyon crossed the line then that's concerning. De Kock may have crossed the line but I've not seen proof of that. Do you have any proof to show me?

Fox sports TV - look up "The back page" - last night's episode.

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:
If you don't think Warner and Lyon crossed the line then that's concerning. De Kock may have crossed the line but I've not seen proof of that. Do you have any proof to show me?

Fox sports TV - look up "The back page" - last night's episode.

Have seen it via somewhere else, couldn't make out what he said. What was it?

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:
If you don't think Warner and Lyon crossed the line then that's concerning. De Kock may have crossed the line but I've not seen proof of that. Do you have any proof to show me?

Fox sports TV - look up "The back page" - last night's episode.

Have seen it via somewhere else, couldn't make out what he said. What was it?

Something about his missus and some of it deliberately "toned down" probably due to colourful language - and I doubt it was anything to do with the colour of her seat covers. :wink:

So we still don't have any actual proof then.

I've been told he asked about LBW and warner thought he said SBW.

God is an Englishman wrote:So we still don't have any actual proof then.

I've been told he asked about LBW and warner thought he said SBW.

Proof? Plenty of players were there - ask them.

Still amazes that blokes will be "man enough" to face quick bowlers bowling bouncers at their heads and what not, yet a few words are exchanged and all hell breaks loose. Give each other heaps, who cares, but leave family/sex/race out of it maybe?

That said, lets face it - with a name like "de Kock" you'd expect the odd jibe to come your way.

Whilst I agree family should be off-limits it clearly isn't if the rumours of what was said are true.

If Warner has said anything (and i mean anything) about anyone's family members then he must expect a comment or 2 about his wife given her history.
The fact he can't take the verbal despite being an avid sledger just shows him to be quite pathetic.

2 stories I've heard about it are great.

[warner can say what he likes about someone's mum and sister but mention his cum guzzling wife and he has a cry

The other I've heard is that midget was taking the piss out out his surname and quentin replied:

If you're going to worry about any grenache's it should probably be Sonny Bill's.

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:So we still don't have any actual proof then.

I've been told he asked about LBW and warner thought he said SBW.

Proof? Plenty of players were there - ask them.

Still amazes that blokes will be "man enough" to face quick bowlers bowling bouncers at their heads and what not, yet a few words are exchanged and all hell breaks loose. Give each other heaps, who cares, but leave family/sex/race out of it maybe?

That said, lets face it - with a name like "de Kock" you'd expect the odd jibe to come your way.

Paine has said he crossed the line, not what he said.

Smith said it was about midget's wife hut has said he didn't hear it.

As for his name, i hope the story I just heard is true.

Storm/teacup.

Play on.

Should be a good second test and maybe a bit more fire than usual - seems test cricket in Saffer needs it.

God is an Englishman wrote:Exageratted?

Lyon throws the ball at a bloke on the ground and has been fined part of his match fee. FACT.

Warner tried to start a fight as the players walked off the pitch. FACT.

Oh dear.... someone needs to calm down

God is an Englishman wrote:2 stories I've heard about it are great.

[warner can say what he likes about someone's mum and sister but mention his cum guzzling wife and he has a cry

The other I've heard is that midget was taking the piss out out his surname and quentin replied:

If you're going to worry about any grenache's it should probably be Sonny Bill's.

Whatever was said is not the issue, either true or not; but if the remark was about Warner's wife/daughter well then that's not-on.
I bet you would stand up for your daughter if someone said something degrading about her???

end of the day, Sledging on the field has been going on for ages, but personally attacking someone else's wife/daughter is just pathetic and spineless.