@scepticsview@FOXFOOTY It was controversial because they hate Feee Agency compo and the Academies. What was controversial is that Brisbane ended up with value for Starca but wouldn’t have got anything if he left as a free agent because they signed two free agents.
@Aky_19_MUFC@averma12@bhaleraosarang You need to read the news correctly. On the square, not the pitch…and it started with the groundsmen being rude to staff members and the coach standing up for them.
@Massivetoe @saisund33013985@bhaleraosarang I agree! The groundsmen should totally cop a fine or ban. What’s missing from most of the dialogue is where it all started. The rudeness started towards some of the Indian staff and escalated a while before this transcript even starts.
@JamesDiMichele3@Barts761@PrimeWalsh Actually, it was a workplace. In Australian safe work standards a workplace Christmas party where someone performed these same actions and a complaint was made would be justified grounds for instant dismissal. Some fines and suspensions are light going.
@JamesDiMichele3@Barts761@PrimeWalsh If trivializing and reenacting sexual crimes is ‘fun’ then no, players can’t have ‘fun’ any more. Players should never have been having ‘fun’ and anybody more upset for the players than the victims of sexual crimes and terrorism needs to reconsider that view.
@Uncle_Barrels @DanKilgrave2 The issue with your comparison is that the dress up and handholding was not a comporable level to what we understand the GWS players are being sanctioned for. The costumes, like the Cats ones, were in poor taste, but it was the skits. We should have been more upset by cats tho
@hasumpstuffedup @DrBlackVelvet @AFL Rubbish. He called stand and Charlie moved. He could have given 50m there and then but his common sense was not to call 50 but to get him to hold the position. He gave grace and common sense whilst maintaining order. It felt strange but the stand rule is a strange one as well.
@MattWallace888 It’s a load of crap. There is no new report, no new evidence, and nothing that changes the cop being cause of death. Fact-check before you post crap that fits you’re narrative.
@El_Duderino_788@vmainard@piersmorgan *sigh in return. Carey made a genuine stumping attempt…that is why it was given out. You prefer it wasn’t the laws of cricket and I can understand why…but what makes it a genuine stumping attempt is if by the laws it is a genuine stumping. Bairstow: stumped Carey bowled Green
@TelOdell @ReeDiamond2 @BigOtrivia I counter he did not sneak, he just threw it. Sneaking would be waiting until he stopped looking and then threw. On that I would say it was dead because Carey indicated he wasn’t playing the ball. Then it would also be sneaky and underhanded. If Bairstow looked he would have seen
@TelOdell @ReeDiamond2 @BigOtrivia No question it was premeditated, they have identified Bairstow as a guy who zoned out like this for years. I think it is taking an advantage because test cricket tests skills, techniques, physical and mental endurance. Bairstow was cutting corners on mental.
@TelOdell @ReeDiamond2 @BigOtrivia Maybe it’s also because I played a lot of indoor cricket where ball is rarely dead and you never leave your ground until you hear the words of over. This is an always applied rule in Aus cricket where your job as a batsmen is to remain focused.
@TelOdell @ReeDiamond2 @BigOtrivia Dude, this isn’t a loophole, it is the everyday applicable rule of cricket. It’s an unusual outcome because a batsmen usually doesn’t leave their ground. I grew up playing the game to NEVER leave your crease until over is said. Every ball ever innings.
@TelOdell @ReeDiamond2 @BigOtrivia Yeah even some Aussie fielders would have taken it for granted it would have been over. But…it wasn’t. If that ball missed the stumps, if Bairstow stayed in his ground…OVER! Just because umpires we not in a fraction of a second consumed does not make their timing wrong.