England players urinate on Oval Pitch

First topic message reminder :

By doing thus his team mates dedicated this to Monty


http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/england-players-urinate-on-the-oval-20130826-2sl43.html

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/england-players-urinate-on-the-oval-20130826-2sl43.html

SYDNEY: In an embarrassing display about five hours after the last Ashes Test was stopped due to bad light with England close to victory, the players gathered near the Oval pitch and urinated on it in turns to the cheers of their teammates.

According to news.com.au, while the centre of the ground was quite dark, lights were on in the grandstands with dozens of people still cleaning up after a late finish, which saw the game go beyond usual time.

A number of players including Stuart Broad, Kevin Pietersen and James Anderson are said to be involved in the act, the report said.

Curator Cam Sutherland said that it was not a good look and called it unfortunate.

KPfan this and the Monty incident are completely different. Monty has apparently been warned about his off field behaviour before, this is just a drunken incident that hasn't actually caused anyone any harm.

hampo171 wrote:KPfan this and the Monty incident are completely different. Monty has apparently been warned about his off field behaviour before, this is just a drunken incident that hasn't actually caused anyone any harm.

--yes the urinations are diffrent...one was at work place and other off work...one is a pub/ bar where people drink and brawl and the other on a cricketing shrine.

--If one pisses at his office reception....no one his harmed.....but you know what will be consequences

--what Monty does off-field shouldn't be his employers business.

-- and even if his employers know he has off-field issues.......did they formally talk about it.....where ?

--if they informally / unofficially leaked their employees personal problems then they are guilty or breach of confidential personal info.

Should I be rather disturbed than KP_fan thinks Wee weeing on people is more acceptable than Wee weeing on grass?

If I went out and did what Monty did I can guarantee my manager would have something to say about it. He is no different, if he's been warned in the past then don't put yourself in the position to do something stupid again.

hampo171 wrote:If I went out and did what Monty did I can guarantee my manager would have something to say about it. He is no different, if he's been warned in the past then don't put yourself in the position to do something stupid again.

How do we know that Monty did something like that in the past ?
and how do we know his managers had warned him about it in the past ?

We don't, however with things like this there is rarely smoke without fire. If it was his first time I doubt Sussex would have reacted in such a way either.

hampo171 wrote:We don't, however with things like this there is rarely smoke without fire. If it was his first time I doubt Sussex would have reacted in such a way either.

good thanks for confirming we don't .

rest is all speculative imagination.

speculative imaginations minus any concrete knowldge can be used to malign anyone under the sun

Sussex agreed to terminate his contract and there was a lot of talk about them sacking him. You said a boss would turn a blind eye, if they where going to turn a blind eye then don't you think all of this would have been brushed under the carpet instantly?

KP_Fan no doubt you will claim not to be a WUM or an Internet troll, on most things England Cricket. But surely you can see why some people think you are, when two days and two pages later you are still going on about a relatively trivial matter than most people are not that bothered about.

Anyway ECB have issued an apology on behalf of the players. Can this be the end of it?

I can't see the problem. We use to wee on each other in the shower after a game of Cricket.

There's been an official apology this morning, although as is always the case, it's very carefully worded.
Brings to mind other mea culpas that might have been issued: "Mr Hitler would like to apologise for any offence he may have caused during World War 2"
"The White Star Line would like to apologise for any inconvenience suffered by passengers during the Titanic's maiden voyage."

There has been an apology issued by English players throuhg through ECB.
ECB first reactions was to act like this did not happen....and now under pressure they issued an apology and are hoping that with this apology issue will die.

I also hope it will die........on the flip side by acknowldeging the crime ECB have opened themselves to be challanged and pressured...that the apology ain't sufficient....a real punishment is required.

KP_fan wrote:There has been an apology issued by English players throuhg through ECB.
ECB first reactions was to act like this did not happen....and now under pressure they issued an apology and are hoping that with this apology issue will die.

I also hope it will die........on the flip side by acknowldeging the crime ECB have opened themselves to be challanged and pressured...that the apology ain't sufficient....a real punishment is required.

I'll ask again, why do you really care?

Dorothy_Mantooth wrote:

KP_fan wrote:There has been an apology issued by English players throuhg through ECB.
ECB first reactions was to act like this did not happen....and now under pressure they issued an apology and are hoping that with this apology issue will die.

I also hope it will die........on the flip side by acknowldeging the crime ECB have opened themselves to be challanged and pressured...that the apology ain't sufficient....a real punishment is required.

I'll ask again, why do you really care?

why do you ask that question only of me ?

Again I ask what punishment is needed for a few drunk lads having a p1ss on some grass when celebrating a huge series win

Olly wrote:Again I ask what punishment is needed for a few drunk lads having a p1ss on some grass when celebrating a huge series win

why even apologise for something that is as trivial as you indicate

An apology to Surrey was needed that much is obvious. Anything else would be going way to OTT

Olly wrote:An apology to Surrey was needed that much is obvious. Anything else would be going way to OTT

apology is an admission of wrong-doing.
wrong-doing may incurr punishment.

by apologizing they have opened themselves to the question " why no punishment"

there might be " bringing game to disrepute" code of ICC as first category under whihc punishment might be meted.
and some civil criminal offences of urinating in a public place that sports stadium fall under in England. I am sure pee-ing in parks / stadiums and otehr open public places must be an offence like it is everywhere in the world

Sounds like only KP fan and a few disgruntled Australian journos cared about this in the first place. Would think an apology has settled it now even to their satisfaction...
Plenty more important things going on in the world - and some of them even relate to cricket  

KP_fan wrote:

Olly wrote:An apology to Surrey was needed that much is obvious. Anything else would be going way to OTT

apology is an admission of wrong-doing.
wrong-doing may incurr punishment.

by apologizing they have opened themselves to the question " why no punishment"

there might be " bringing game to disrepute" code of ICC as first category under whihc punishment might be meted.
and some civil criminal offences of urinating in a public place that sports stadium fall under in England. I am sure pee-ing in parks / stadiums and otehr open public places must be an offence like it is everywhere in the world

And now you are just getting silly. It has nothing to do with the ICC. There will be no "punishment".

Look for something else to troll about , please ...

alfie wrote:Sounds like only KP fan and a few disgruntled Australian journos cared about this in the first place.  

yeah but KP_fan and a few disgruntled Journos are important enough that the sports minister of the country called for an Investigation and the ECB / England team apologized.

I am flattered at the importance KP_fan and a few journos carry:yahoo: 

alfie wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Olly wrote:An apology to Surrey was needed that much is obvious. Anything else would be going way to OTT

apology is an admission of wrong-doing.
wrong-doing may incurr punishment.

by apologizing they have opened themselves to the question " why no punishment"

there might be " bringing game to disrepute" code of ICC as first category under whihc punishment might be meted.
and some civil criminal offences of urinating in a public place that sports stadium fall under in England. I am sure pee-ing in parks / stadiums and otehr open public places must be an offence like it is everywhere in the world

And now you are just getting silly.  It has nothing to do with the ICC. There will be no "punishment".  

.

you are yourself not convinced but hope so
that it has even come so far as acknowledging and issuing a public apology is the source of concern...that it might go further

KP_fan wrote:

alfie wrote:Sounds like only KP fan and a few disgruntled Australian journos cared about this in the first place.  

yeah but KP_fan and a few disgruntled Journos are important enough that the sports minister of the country called for an Investigation and the ECB / England team apologized.

I am flattered at the importance KP_fan and a few journos carry:yahoo: 

KP_fan
People apologize for all sorts of things.
If you accidentally bump into someone do you not say "sorry". An apology doesn't mean that what you've done isn't trivial. England players were in the wrong to wee on the pitch and have apologized, but it is still a trivial matter.

KP_fan wrote:

alfie wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Olly wrote:An apology to Surrey was needed that much is obvious. Anything else would be going way to OTT

apology is an admission of wrong-doing.
wrong-doing may incurr punishment.

by apologizing they have opened themselves to the question " why no punishment"

there might be " bringing game to disrepute" code of ICC as first category under whihc punishment might be meted.
and some civil criminal offences of urinating in a public place that sports stadium fall under in England. I am sure pee-ing in parks / stadiums and otehr open public places must be an offence like it is everywhere in the world

And now you are just getting silly.  It has nothing to do with the ICC. There will be no "punishment".  

  .

you are yourself not convinced but hope so
that it has even come so far as acknowledging and issuing a public apology is the source of concern...that it might go further

You want to bet ? Dead and buried , so dream on...

I reckon KPF has placed a bet on how long he make this thread last!

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:I reckon KPF has placed a bet on how long he make this thread last!

True...I am rather ashamed of myself for aiding and abetting him by answering his drivel ...No more , I promise...

English media on why the current bunch is not like the class of 2005 or 2009


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/theashes/10271678/Ashes-2013-Splashgate-is-just-not-cricket-or-at-least-not-as-we-would-like-to-recognise-it.html


Ashes 2013: 'Splashgate' is just not cricket – or at least not as we would like to recognise it
When Graeme Swann and his merry men performed a novel twist on their ‘sprinkler’ routine on the venerable Oval greensward, it appeared that England’s Ashes conquerors had morphed into the national football team circa 1996.

Visions of Gazza having some heinous cocktail of spirits squirted down his throat in a Hong Kong ‘dentist’s chair’ squared in sudden symmetry with our cricketers’ puerile prank.

Acts of crass delinquency, if we care to be reminded of rugby players being caught up in dwarf-tossing in a Queenstown backpackers’ bar, are increasingly infecting our gentlemen sports.

To judge by the supposed apology for Sunday night’s incident, dismissed by Swann as a “call of nature”, the England and Wales Cricket Board is also mirroring football’s capacity for insipid PR-speak. “As a team we pride ourselves on respecting all things cricket,” the statement read.

Well, besides not respecting the opposition, the pitch, the over rate, or the concept of a batsman walking when he is out, what precisely do this side respect? It is difficult to conceive an action more inherently disrespectful than one where, after a compelling final day’s action, the winners then decide to relieve themselves on the very same patch of grass.

In cricket, just as in rugby, the apologists will always advance the tiresome ‘boys will be boys’ defence. The wisdom prevails that as soon as stumps are drawn, the lads are free to engage in whatever outlandish form of hedonism floats their boat.

Stuart Broad, England’s unlikely enfant terrible of this Ashes series, naturally refused to comment on the issue on Wednesday. He merely spoke vapidly of “the end of the matter”, denying he had seen any newspaper headlines on a story that had colonised the agenda for three days.

Normally it is the football players who display this carefully cultivated remoteness, distancing themselves from controversy with a few meaningless banalities. But certain members of our cricket team are a breed apart when it comes to their engagement, or lack of it, with the subject at hand


He is the emblem, alas, of a group of young men quite conspicuously unloved. While Alastair Cook’s side savour the satisfaction of a 3-0 series win, they ought to reflect upon how their uncompromising, occasionally cynical style of play denies them the acclaim that would otherwise be their due.

The ‘spirit of cricket’ can be a nebulous concept at the best of times but it refers, essentially, the notion of giving a little back to the game.

This is one department where Cook’s men – whether it be Broad’s time-wasting at Trent Bridge in taking off his shoe, or the England top order’s tactic of killing the match at the Oval with a glacial first-innings run rate – have been falling short all summer long.

On scoreline alone, England’s class of 2013 should command a place in the Ashes pantheon. And yet they are garlanded with nothing like the tributes showered upon the victorious teams of 2005 and 2009, when an open-top bus parade brought Trafalgar Square to a standstill or when Vauxhall residents would hang out of their balconies beside the Oval to watch the triumphant denouement.

The latest crop are a hardheaded, ferociously pragmatic bunch, but not in a fashion that redounds to their credit.

What they represent, as the ‘Splashgate’ after-party would illustrate, is just not cricket – or at least not as we would like to recognise it.

Threadbump v200