Lanka management accuses English media of sour grapes

Lanka management accuses English media of sour grapes

Post by Larry de Silv » Thu, 23 May 2002 00:13:28


http://www.dailynews.lk/2002/05/21/spo03.html

Lanka management accuses English media of sour grapes
Sa'adi Thawfeeq reporting from England

LONDON, Monday - Sri Lanka's cricket team management accused English media
of sour grapes in its criticism of left-arm fast bowler Ruchira Perera's
bowling action which was spotlighted on slow motion television replays
several times over and mentioned constantly in radio commentaries.

Sri Lanka team manager Chandra Schaffter described the replays and comments
made in the media as "disappointing and unfair".

"We were disappointed that something like this should have happened and that
so much emphasis was laid on it. In a little sense we thought it was unfair.
I don't think it helped very much," Schaffter told a media conference on
Sunday.

"Sometimes these things happen. Nothing happens when the guy doesn't do
well. The moment he does well, the ugly head begins to rear itself. Ruchira
has played Test cricket around the world and he has never had any problems
before," he said.

Sri Lanka coach Dav Whatmore said: "There is a process in place to cover
matters of this nature. If there is any doubt in the minds of the umpires,
then they should set it in motion. There was never any doubts before, of his
action".

"Ruchira has got every encouragement from his team mates, his coach and
manager. We have told him to get out there and compete as hard as he can as
he had done in the first innings," said Whatmore.

Schaffter said: "It is not our job to do anything. There are officials
appointed to do that job".

The only occasion when Perera was involved with the umpires was during the
England first innings when he was officially warned twice by Daryl Harper
for running on the pitch.

A similar incident occurred during Sri Lanka's last tour to England in 1998
when the then England coach David Lloyd made spiteful remarks at spinner
Muttiah Muralitharan's bowling action calling it 'unconventional' during Sri
Lanka's famous victory at the Oval.

Muralitharan went on to take 16 wickets in that Test.

 
 
 

Lanka management accuses English media of sour grapes

Post by Spaceman Spif » Thu, 23 May 2002 00:35:09



Quote:
> http://www.dailynews.lk/2002/05/21/spo03.html

> Lanka management accuses English media of sour grapes
> Sa'adi Thawfeeq reporting from England
> [snip]

> Sri Lanka team manager Chandra Schaffter described the replays and
comments
> made in the media as "disappointing and unfair".
>  [snip]
> "Sometimes these things happen. Nothing happens when the guy doesn't do
> well. The moment he does well, the ugly head begins to rear itself.
Ruchira
> has played Test cricket around the world and he has never had any problems
> before," he said.

this is either a blatant, rank lie or amazing ignorance on the part of the
team manager.
prior to this lords test, ruchira had played 5 tests in sri lanka and *1*
test outside sri lanka.
this hardly qualifies as "around the world".
he hadn't played test cricket in india, pakistan, bangladesh, zimbabwe,
australia, new zealand, west indies and (until now) england. that's 8 out of
9 possible foreign countries.

--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff

The fore runner radiates wild help up far now, gun ships pass so far
Pass me a vote, silly, and how we did it all over
Did it all over, did it all over the road

 
 
 

Lanka management accuses English media of sour grapes

Post by samarth harish sha » Thu, 23 May 2002 03:17:55

Quote:



> > http://www.dailynews.lk/2002/05/21/spo03.html

> > Lanka management accuses English media of sour grapes
> > Sa'adi Thawfeeq reporting from England
> > [snip]

> > Sri Lanka team manager Chandra Schaffter described the replays and
> comments
> > made in the media as "disappointing and unfair".
> >  [snip]
> > "Sometimes these things happen. Nothing happens when the guy doesn't do
> > well. The moment he does well, the ugly head begins to rear itself.
> Ruchira
> > has played Test cricket around the world and he has never had any problems
> > before," he said.

> this is either a blatant, rank lie or amazing ignorance on the part of the
> team manager.
> prior to this lords test, ruchira had played 5 tests in sri lanka and *1*
> test outside sri lanka.

While this is true, it doesn't really matter where he's played. Umpires
from all over the world have umpired him. That's what matters. The SL
management have gotten it wrong, of course. It does not matter where he's
played. It matters who has umpired him and why they haven't reported his
action. (If indeed, they haven't.)

-Samarth.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> this hardly qualifies as "around the world".
> he hadn't played test cricket in india, pakistan, bangladesh, zimbabwe,
> australia, new zealand, west indies and (until now) england. that's 8 out of
> 9 possible foreign countries.

> --
> stay cool,
> Spaceman Spiff

> The fore runner radiates wild help up far now, gun ships pass so far
> Pass me a vote, silly, and how we did it all over
> Did it all over, did it all over the road


 
 
 

Lanka management accuses English media of sour grapes

Post by Spaceman Spif » Thu, 23 May 2002 03:30:32



Quote:



> > > http://www.dailynews.lk/2002/05/21/spo03.html

> > Ruchira
> > > has played Test cricket around the world and he has never had any
problems
> > > before," he said.

> > this is either a blatant, rank lie or amazing ignorance on the part of
the
> > team manager.
> > prior to this lords test, ruchira had played 5 tests in sri lanka and
*1*
> > test outside sri lanka.

> While this is true, it doesn't really matter where he's played. Umpires
> from all over the world have umpired him. That's what matters. The SL
> management have gotten it wrong, of course. It does not matter where he's
> played. It matters who has umpired him and why they haven't reported his
> action. (If indeed, they haven't.)

however, that is not what schaffter said. if he had said that, i would have
no argument.

--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff

Knock, Knock, Knockin' on heaven's door

 
 
 

Lanka management accuses English media of sour grapes

Post by Rod Princ » Thu, 23 May 2002 07:14:18



Quote:
> LONDON, Monday - Sri Lanka's cricket team management accused English media
> of sour grapes in its criticism of left-arm fast bowler Ruchira Perera's
> bowling action which was spotlighted on slow motion television replays
> several times over and mentioned constantly in radio commentaries.

So they're adopting the bury the head in the sand technique?

Quote:
> Sri Lanka team manager Chandra Schaffter described the replays and
> comments made in the media as "disappointing and unfair".

What's unfair about them? If the same action was used by any
other bowler I'm sure the same sort of scrutiny would have
been employed at the time.

I'll agree with you that he has undergone somewhat a trial by
media, however, that does not mean that his action doesn't
require further scrutiny.

All the chucking posts tend to be just one big blur to me, but
I do have a hint of you suggesting that you would accept the
decision if the umpire reports or calls a player for chucking.
They're done that and now you're suggesting they're weak willed
and pandering to the tabloid press. I'm waiting for the point
where you suggest that Harper had Venkat subdued while he raced
to the MR like the cheating Aussie umpire that he is.

I've yet to see enough footage to form any sort of opinion. Yet
the only person I've seen suggest that he had no case to answer
for is you. Now, my impression of your impartiality goes to the
extent that if he stood at the bowlers end and shyed at the
stumps at the batsmens end, you'd still call it a legal delivery.

The fact that his action has attracted so much attention would
tend to suggest that his action *is* suspect and that it *does*
require further scrutiny before it can be said that the action
is or isn't legal.

Had Perera had absolutely no case to answer for, doubts would be
cast on the ability of Harper and Venkat to exercise their roles
without being swayed by unofficial channels. The focus of the
media on the action may have brought it to the attention of the
umpires but to suggest that they viewed any footage available to
them and concluded that his action is legal but they didn't want
to upset or too weak to contradict the media is a tenuous stance.

I'm willing to accept that you genuinely believe his action is
squeaky clean, fact is, most have suspicions. I guess
rec.sport.cricket better hunker down for arond 1000 posts of
Perera chucking posts and Larry wheeling out the abuse dictionary
and dishing it out to people who don't share your opinion.

Cheers,
Rod.

 
 
 

Lanka management accuses English media of sour grapes

Post by Rats » Thu, 23 May 2002 07:15:30

Quote:
> this is either a blatant, rank lie or amazing ignorance on the part of the
> team manager.
> prior to this lords test, ruchira had played 5 tests in sri lanka and *1*
> test outside sri lanka.
> this hardly qualifies as "around the world".
> he hadn't played test cricket in india, pakistan, bangladesh, zimbabwe,
> australia, new zealand, west indies and (until now) england. that's 8 out
of
> 9 possible foreign countries.

But don't let the FACTS get in Larry's way!
 
 
 

Lanka management accuses English media of sour grapes

Post by Larry de Silv » Thu, 23 May 2002 10:00:22



Quote:



> > > http://SportToday.org/

> > > Lanka management accuses English media of sour grapes
> > > Sa'adi Thawfeeq reporting from England
> > > [snip]

> > > Sri Lanka team manager Chandra Schaffter described the replays and
> > comments
> > > made in the media as "disappointing and unfair".
> > >  [snip]
> > > "Sometimes these things happen. Nothing happens when the guy doesn't
do
> > > well. The moment he does well, the ugly head begins to rear itself.
> > Ruchira
> > > has played Test cricket around the world and he has never had any
problems
> > > before," he said.

> > this is either a blatant, rank lie or amazing ignorance on the part of
the
> > team manager.
> > prior to this lords test, ruchira had played 5 tests in sri lanka and
*1*
> > test outside sri lanka.

> While this is true, it doesn't really matter where he's played. Umpires
> from all over the world have umpired him. That's what matters. The SL
> management have gotten it wrong, of course. It does not matter where he's
> played. It matters who has umpired him and why they haven't reported his
> action. (If indeed, they haven't.)

The umpires had no problems with Ruchira's action until cricket's new
pressure group bully boys, the terrorist gutter press got their pig noses
into the trough & questioned his action. Of course the***weak umpires
caved right in to this media pressure. What a surprise that is!! So now,
every bowler will have to undergo tests NOT by the ICC but by has been pommy
commentators & their cohorts in the tabloids who wouldn't know a chucker
from a Kylie***shot.

Larrikin

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> -Samarth.

> > this hardly qualifies as "around the world".
> > he hadn't played test cricket in india, pakistan, bangladesh, zimbabwe,
> > australia, new zealand, west indies and (until now) england. that's 8
out of
> > 9 possible foreign countries.

> > --
> > stay cool,
> > Spaceman Spiff

> > The fore runner radiates wild help up far now, gun ships pass so far
> > Pass me a vote, silly, and how we did it all over
> > Did it all over, did it all over the road

 
 
 

Lanka management accuses English media of sour grapes

Post by Larry de Silv » Thu, 23 May 2002 10:21:04


Quote:


> > LONDON, Monday - Sri Lanka's cricket team management accused English
media
> > of sour grapes in its criticism of left-arm fast bowler Ruchira Perera's
> > bowling action which was spotlighted on slow motion television replays
> > several times over and mentioned constantly in radio commentaries.

> So they're adopting the bury the head in the sand technique?

No, they have the ***y guts to stand up to the terrorist western media
vultures who pick & chose targets & victims at will. I would have been very
disappointed if they (or any other board for that matter) did not take a
strong stand against trial by tabloid media who wouldn't have a ***y clue
as to what construes an illegal delivery.

Quote:
> > Sri Lanka team manager Chandra Schaffter described the replays and
> > comments made in the media as "disappointing and unfair".

> What's unfair about them? If the same action was used by any
> other bowler I'm sure the same sort of scrutiny would have
> been employed at the time.

YOU HAVE TO BE ***Y JOKING ROD!!!!! He he he he........that's funny! Can
you REALLY imagine these goons saying this against McGrath & the Aussie
board standing around with their hands in their pockets looking the other
way? This is where this criticism of SL's stand becomes hypocritical.

Quote:
> I'll agree with you that he has undergone somewhat a trial by
> media, however, that does not mean that his action doesn't
> require further scrutiny.

In the MEDIA'S opinion.

Quote:
> All the chucking posts tend to be just one big blur to me, but
> I do have a hint of you suggesting that you would accept the
> decision if the umpire reports or calls a player for chucking.

On their own volition, NOT after having being swayed by the pommy gutter
press. I mean, any fool would have known that these pressure tactics by the
media vultures would have pressured the umpires into doing something that
they probably would not have done if not for this orchestrated tabloid
vendetta.

Quote:
> They're done that and now you're suggesting they're weak willed
> and pandering to the tabloid press. I'm waiting for the point
> where you suggest that Harper had Venkat subdued while he raced
> to the MR like the cheating Aussie umpire that he is.

If Ruchira was reported WITHOUT the media fuss in a lead up game, I would
have accepted it without a problem. Why the umpires didn't see a problem
only last week but saw one this week is a real mystery to me.

Quote:
> I've yet to see enough footage to form any sort of opinion. Yet
> the only person I've seen suggest that he had no case to answer
> for is you. Now, my impression of your impartiality goes to the
> extent that if he stood at the bowlers end and shyed at the
> stumps at the batsmens end, you'd still call it a legal delivery.

OK. That is your opinion & you are fully entitled to it. I agree to disagree
dude.

Quote:
> The fact that his action has attracted so much attention would
> tend to suggest that his action *is* suspect and that it *does*
> require further scrutiny before it can be said that the action
> is or isn't legal.

This fully reinforces the gutter media vendetta. Now watch for it happening
to Murali in the very next test he plays. Simpson this morning has already
let the cat out of the bag as to their intentions. Watch this space for
action by the bully boys of cricket that NO ONE here has the guts to ever
question except me.

Quote:
> Had Perera had absolutely no case to answer for, doubts would be
> cast on the ability of Harper and Venkat to exercise their roles
> without being swayed by unofficial channels. The focus of the
> media on the action may have brought it to the attention of the
> umpires but to suggest that they viewed any footage available to
> them and concluded that his action is legal but they didn't want
> to upset or too weak to contradict the media is a tenuous stance.

> I'm willing to accept that you genuinely believe his action is
> squeaky clean, fact is, most have suspicions. I guess
> rec.sport.cricket better hunker down for arond 1000 posts of
> Perera chucking posts and Larry wheeling out the abuse dictionary
> and dishing it out to people who don't share your opinion.

Nah dude, everybody in entitled to their opinion. Just that I tend to
disagree with most as is my right here or anywhere else. I just show people
how trial by media works and this new wave of tabloid terrorism so that when
it happens to other teams who tour England from now on, they would have
already been warned. Watch out India on your next tour, are least one
bowler, probably more, will attract these pommy comments now that the***
weak umpires have let the tabloid vultures & pig English commentators have a
taste of ***! They will now become insatiable Draculas!! Don't say you
haven't been warned.

Larrikin

Quote:

> Cheers,
> Rod.

 
 
 

Lanka management accuses English media of sour grapes

Post by Andrew Dunfor » Thu, 23 May 2002 12:14:39



Quote:





> > > LONDON, Monday - Sri Lanka's cricket team management accused English
> media
> > > of sour grapes in its criticism of left-arm fast bowler Ruchira
Perera's
> > > bowling action which was spotlighted on slow motion television replays
> > > several times over and mentioned constantly in radio commentaries.

> > So they're adopting the bury the head in the sand technique?

> No, they have the ***y guts to stand up to the terrorist western media
> vultures who pick & chose targets & victims at will. I would have been
very
> disappointed if they (or any other board for that matter) did not take a
> strong stand against trial by tabloid media who wouldn't have a ***y
clue
> as to what construes an illegal delivery.

> > > Sri Lanka team manager Chandra Schaffter described the replays and
> > > comments made in the media as "disappointing and unfair".

> > What's unfair about them? If the same action was used by any
> > other bowler I'm sure the same sort of scrutiny would have
> > been employed at the time.

> YOU HAVE TO BE ***Y JOKING ROD!!!!! He he he he........that's funny! Can
> you REALLY imagine these goons saying this against McGrath & the Aussie
> board standing around with their hands in their pockets looking the other
> way? This is where this criticism of SL's stand becomes hypocritical.

What do you make of the statement Schaffter released today?

"As far as we are concerned there is a procedure in place for dealing with a
report by the umpires on a player with a suspect action. We will follow the
procedure scrupulously and will co-operate with the ICC fully."

<snip>

Andrew

 
 
 

Lanka management accuses English media of sour grapes

Post by dechuck » Thu, 23 May 2002 12:20:59

Quote:

> If Ruchira was reported WITHOUT the media fuss in a lead up game, I would
> have accepted it without a problem. Why the umpires didn't see a problem
> only last week but saw one this week is a real mystery to me.

Just you did with Murali ? as I have said before you would defend a SL even
if he was a proven baby eater just beacause he was from SL.
 
 
 

Lanka management accuses English media of sour grapes

Post by Rod Princ » Thu, 23 May 2002 14:56:41



Quote:
> > All the chucking posts tend to be just one big blur to me, but
> > I do have a hint of you suggesting that you would accept the
> > decision if the umpire reports or calls a player for chucking.

> On their own volition, NOT after having being swayed by the pommy gutter
> press. I mean, any fool would have known that these pressure tactics by the
> media vultures would have pressured the umpires into doing something that
> they probably would not have done if not for this orchestrated tabloid
> vendetta.

So the fact that Perera had the spotlight put on by the media now
makes his action immune to official scrutiny? Help me out here.
By today's coverage standards in international cricket, the
likelyhood of the press grabbing and running with a potential chucking
action is high over a 5 day period. Do you really think an official
will spot a potentially suspect action while on the field that
commentators will miss?

Cheers,
Rod.

 
 
 

Lanka management accuses English media of sour grapes

Post by Larry de Silv » Thu, 23 May 2002 15:18:33


Quote:


> > > All the chucking posts tend to be just one big blur to me, but
> > > I do have a hint of you suggesting that you would accept the
> > > decision if the umpire reports or calls a player for chucking.

> > On their own volition, NOT after having being swayed by the pommy gutter
> > press. I mean, any fool would have known that these pressure tactics by
the
> > media vultures would have pressured the umpires into doing something
that
> > they probably would not have done if not for this orchestrated tabloid
> > vendetta.

> So the fact that Perera had the spotlight put on by the media now
> makes his action immune to official scrutiny? Help me out here.
> By today's coverage standards in international cricket, the
> likelyhood of the press grabbing and running with a potential chucking
> action is high over a 5 day period. Do you really think an official
> will spot a potentially suspect action while on the field that
> commentators will miss?

I'm talking about the gutter media pressure exerted on these umpires to
report Perera, even if they thought that he was OK. I mean they (other
umpires no doubt) passed his action only 7-8 days ago in a lead up game and
now we have all this shit. Cant you see that Rod? Do you deny any pressure
exerted from the media circus & the pommy commentators? Do you think that
these umpires cant read English? This was a fair dinkum set up to squeeze
the umpires into a corner whereas a week ago, they were under no pressure at
all to report Perera. Funny that! What a difference a week makes!

Larrikin

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> Cheers,
> Rod.

 
 
 

Lanka management accuses English media of sour grapes

Post by dechuck » Thu, 23 May 2002 16:41:15



Quote:





> > > > All the chucking posts tend to be just one big blur to me, but
> > > > I do have a hint of you suggesting that you would accept the
> > > > decision if the umpire reports or calls a player for chucking.

> > > On their own volition, NOT after having being swayed by the pommy
gutter
> > > press. I mean, any fool would have known that these pressure tactics
by
> the
> > > media vultures would have pressured the umpires into doing something
> that
> > > they probably would not have done if not for this orchestrated tabloid
> > > vendetta.

> > So the fact that Perera had the spotlight put on by the media now
> > makes his action immune to official scrutiny? Help me out here.
> > By today's coverage standards in international cricket, the
> > likelyhood of the press grabbing and running with a potential chucking
> > action is high over a 5 day period. Do you really think an official
> > will spot a potentially suspect action while on the field that
> > commentators will miss?

> I'm talking about the gutter media pressure exerted on these umpires to
> report Perera, even if they thought that he was OK. I mean they (other
> umpires no doubt) passed his action only 7-8 days ago in a lead up game
and
> now we have all this shit. Cant you see that Rod? Do you deny any pressure
> exerted from the media circus & the pommy commentators? Do you think that
> these umpires cant read English? This was a fair dinkum set up to squeeze
> the umpires into a corner whereas a week ago, they were under no pressure
at
> all to report Perera. Funny that! What a difference a week makes!

Calm down if he does have a problem with his action it will be sorted out by
the excellent system now in place and we all want no cheats ( persons who
contravene the rules) in the game don't we. If his action is considered OK
than let him bowl. Of course if someone in the future feels his action
contravenes the laws than he should again be reported ( this may occur
because as we know just because someone's action is legal at one time it
doesn't mean their action is always legal).
 
 
 

Lanka management accuses English media of sour grapes

Post by Larry de Silv » Thu, 23 May 2002 17:41:36


Quote:







> > > > > All the chucking posts tend to be just one big blur to me, but
> > > > > I do have a hint of you suggesting that you would accept the
> > > > > decision if the umpire reports or calls a player for chucking.

> > > > On their own volition, NOT after having being swayed by the pommy
> gutter
> > > > press. I mean, any fool would have known that these pressure tactics
> by
> > the
> > > > media vultures would have pressured the umpires into doing something
> > that
> > > > they probably would not have done if not for this orchestrated
tabloid
> > > > vendetta.

> > > So the fact that Perera had the spotlight put on by the media now
> > > makes his action immune to official scrutiny? Help me out here.
> > > By today's coverage standards in international cricket, the
> > > likelyhood of the press grabbing and running with a potential chucking
> > > action is high over a 5 day period. Do you really think an official
> > > will spot a potentially suspect action while on the field that
> > > commentators will miss?

> > I'm talking about the gutter media pressure exerted on these umpires to
> > report Perera, even if they thought that he was OK. I mean they (other
> > umpires no doubt) passed his action only 7-8 days ago in a lead up game
> and
> > now we have all this shit. Cant you see that Rod? Do you deny any
pressure
> > exerted from the media circus & the pommy commentators? Do you think
that
> > these umpires cant read English? This was a fair dinkum set up to
squeeze
> > the umpires into a corner whereas a week ago, they were under no
pressure
> at
> > all to report Perera. Funny that! What a difference a week makes!

> Calm down if he does have a problem with his action it will be sorted out
by
> the excellent system now in place and we all want no cheats ( persons who
> contravene the rules) in the game don't we. If his action is considered OK
> than let him bowl. Of course if someone in the future feels his action
> contravenes the laws

No doubt it will come from the self appointed judge & jury members from the
British gutter press and those wonderfully dated pommy commentators.

Quote:
>than he should again be reported ( this may occur
> because as we know just because someone's action is legal at one time it
> doesn't mean their action is always legal).

Don't you worry about that. These gentleman of integrity from the tabloid
press & those magnificently unbiased Pommy commentators will make damn sure
that Perera will never be able to bowl unhindered again & the lemmings who
umpire will pay their homage to their "expert" views.

Larrikin

 
 
 

Lanka management accuses English media of sour grapes

Post by dechuck » Thu, 23 May 2002 18:19:32



Quote:









> > > > > > All the chucking posts tend to be just one big blur to me, but
> > > > > > I do have a hint of you suggesting that you would accept the
> > > > > > decision if the umpire reports or calls a player for chucking.

> > > > > On their own volition, NOT after having being swayed by the pommy
> > gutter
> > > > > press. I mean, any fool would have known that these pressure
tactics
> > by
> > > the
> > > > > media vultures would have pressured the umpires into doing
something
> > > that
> > > > > they probably would not have done if not for this orchestrated
> tabloid
> > > > > vendetta.

> > > > So the fact that Perera had the spotlight put on by the media now
> > > > makes his action immune to official scrutiny? Help me out here.
> > > > By today's coverage standards in international cricket, the
> > > > likelyhood of the press grabbing and running with a potential
chucking
> > > > action is high over a 5 day period. Do you really think an official
> > > > will spot a potentially suspect action while on the field that
> > > > commentators will miss?

> > > I'm talking about the gutter media pressure exerted on these umpires
to
> > > report Perera, even if they thought that he was OK. I mean they (other
> > > umpires no doubt) passed his action only 7-8 days ago in a lead up
game
> > and
> > > now we have all this shit. Cant you see that Rod? Do you deny any
> pressure
> > > exerted from the media circus & the pommy commentators? Do you think
> that
> > > these umpires cant read English? This was a fair dinkum set up to
> squeeze
> > > the umpires into a corner whereas a week ago, they were under no
> pressure
> > at
> > > all to report Perera. Funny that! What a difference a week makes!

> > Calm down if he does have a problem with his action it will be sorted
out
> by
> > the excellent system now in place and we all want no cheats ( persons
who
> > contravene the rules) in the game don't we. If his action is considered
OK
> > than let him bowl. Of course if someone in the future feels his action
> > contravenes the laws

> No doubt it will come from the self appointed judge & jury members from
the
> British gutter press and those wonderfully dated pommy commentators.

> >than he should again be reported ( this may occur
> > because as we know just because someone's action is legal at one time it
> > doesn't mean their action is always legal).

> Don't you worry about that. These gentleman of integrity from the tabloid
> press & those magnificently unbiased Pommy commentators will make damn
sure
> that Perera will never be able to bowl unhindered again & the lemmings who
> umpire will pay their homage to their "expert" views.

> Larrikin

Perera has now been reported, you claimed before that his action was not
suspect because he hadn't been reported so now that he has been reported on
your basis there is a problem. Apperently it wasn't
"These gentleman of integrity from the tabloid press & those magnificently
unbiased Pommy commentators" who did report him it was those aweful umpires.

- Show quoted text -