Australia v India
-
@NTA said in Australia v India:
At the same time, the press photographers around the boundary apparently didn't hear anything.
A few years ago, it was only Symonds who heard something ... holder of the line adn all that
See how it plays out. There's always some muppets, but as you say they should be easy to identify
-
Based on that Stuff article I think we want India to lose this:
What’s left (max 180 points):
-Australia 2 away tests (30pts per win, 10pts per draw)
-England 4 home tests (30pts per win, 10pts per draw)What they need to top 70 per cent:
120 more points (win 4 out of 6 against Australia and England; or win 3 and draw 3)Zero points here means they need 4 wins from 5
(I can't see England winning 3 of 4 in India)
-
-
@akan004 said in Australia v India:
Not sure why Smith is shaking his head for. It's clearly out.
Same reason WG Grace used to replace the bails if he ever got bowled for fuck all and tell the bowler that people came to watch him bat, not to watch them bowl.
Cock.
-
@MN5 said in Australia v India:
@akan004 said in Australia v India:
Not sure why Smith is shaking his head for. It's clearly out.
Same reason WG Grace used to replace the bails if he ever got bowled for fuck all and tell the bowler that people came to watch him bat, not to watch them bowl.
Cock.
Thats quite funny actually
-
@voodoo said in Australia v India:
@MN5 said in Australia v India:
@akan004 said in Australia v India:
Not sure why Smith is shaking his head for. It's clearly out.
Same reason WG Grace used to replace the bails if he ever got bowled for fuck all and tell the bowler that people came to watch him bat, not to watch them bowl.
Cock.
Thats quite funny actually
True too apparently.
-
-
@Donsteppa said in Australia v India:
Both sides this series have been guilty of winning a game, and then believing their own press for the next one.
Bingo.
I think Adelaide was such an odd result for India they could bounce back from it fairly easily.
-
-
@NTA said in Australia v India:
A small group ejected. Good. Even if it wasn't racial, the rest of the crowd is on Dickhead Notice.
Bans for all.
You want them all banned even though you don't know what they did, or even if they did it?
-
@Crazy-Horse "bans for all those found guilty"
Bloody lawyerville up in here 🙄
-
Some are calling for life bans on social media. I'd be happy with 5 years so they can be rehabilitated from stupidity.
@Crazy-Horse clause : IF FOUND GUILTY. 😉
-
@NTA said in Australia v India:
Some are calling for life bans on social media. I'd be happy with 5 years so they can be rehabilitated from stupidity.
@Crazy-Horse clause : IF FOUND GUILTY.
I am guessing they are just getting evicted at the most. It would be hard to convict them of anything. You would have to prove exactly who said what, who did what. You would need multiple witnesses prepared to give up their time for court.
-
Unless those who get accused make admissions they would probably be more likely to receive a ban. At the most I am guessing it would only need to be on the balance of probabilities to ban someone, to prosecute requires beyond a reasonable doubt and that can be pretty hard to reach.
