Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Very sad news.

Rio banned fo 3 matches and fined £25000 for using a derogatory word on twitter.

35 years old, he might have to grow up if he wants to coach

Rio needs to learn that if he's using twitter, he needs to be very careful what he says, because so many people are out to get him. He needs to take a leaf out of the book of his former defensive partner Sol Campbell, and avoid social media completely.

That said, this is a massive over-reaction...the word he was banned for is "sket", which is of Jamaican origin. And the BBC Breakfast reporters are saying this word is so "bad" that they can't use it on live TV>

All these journalists writing about a word they don't use, and quoting an English dictionary that similarly doesn't know hwat the word really means. When I told my wife the word he was banned for, she was astonished, and feels the reaction is over the top. This is a word used in regular conversation in Jamaica!

A "sketel" is not a "whore or promiscuous woman", as the media and the English dictionaries tell us....

It is a woman who dresses inappropriately when she goes out, i.e. wears batty-riders, dyes her black African hair blonde, etc. So, she's not even a "loose woman". if Rio can be banned for this, then maybe it's time to force ITV to change the name of their TV show "Loose Women", because that's so much worse!

Only in England will they ban someone for using an abbreviation of the word "sketel", but tolerate a situation where there's only one black manager in 90-odd teams in the English League....

Would it be the same as calling someones mother a slut? Never heard the word before the Rio uproar.

Maybe the ban was also heavy as he has a bit of history on Twitter. Didnt he call Ashley Cole a choc ice in a tweet once?

Rio is really his own worse enemy. As you say Mike he needs to get off social media. And if he plans to be a manager, then he really does need to grow up.

At 35 with all his experience, he must know better. Perhaps he actually has no managerial plans.

We all know what Rio meant when he used that word. He was obviously using the UK slang word and not the Jamaican one...

Whether he should be banned for it is another matter.

dan08 wrote:We all know what Rio meant when he used that word. He was obviously using the UK slang word and not the Jamaican one...

Whether he should be banned for it is another matter.

I agree. I think he deserves a ban for that as well as consistently acting like a prat on Twitter. He's not a young player, who may not know better any more.

Here's my issue...Rio should've got a warning for this - nothing more.

It's rich that a country like England should slap such a harsh ban on Rio for a gender complaint, when English sports actively discriminates against women. In football, men are paid so much more than women; in cricket, men are paid so much more than women; in rugby, men are paid so much more than women. In the sport where England's women do so well ( netball) the whole sport is neglected by the media, in contrast to other countries where netball is successful - Australia, New Zealand and Jamaica. In those three countries, netball gets so much better media coverage than in England. The one sport which gets column inches in the English press, where women earn as much as men, is tennis, and in England there is so much griping over this (women play three sets while men play five, blah, blah, blah), while in other countries it's not such a big deal.

The fact of the matter is that there's a lot of misogyny in English sports, and English media sports coverage, that this ban on Rio is hypocritical at best, and vindictive at worst....

mikesiva wrote:Here's my issue...Rio should've got a warning for this - nothing more.

he probably would have only got a warning for this if he hadn't been in trouble before for things he has said on twitter

they don't deal with things in isolation

I'm guessing Rio hasn't posted his reaction to the ban on Twitter.

That is utterly moronic and senseless babble. Women's sport is actively being discriminated against? Can you explain how so??

WSL average attendance...... 573 people per game
Women's Champions League Final.... 11,000 last year
Women's world cup final.... not a sell out despite wide marketing support

So we should give the WSL winners £21,000,000 because its fair? Just to let you know, the current 14 game/8 team format, in order just to generate that money through ticket sales to have that prize money amount to pay to a winner, and we are also talking in the fantasy world where all costs to the side don't exist, the ticket price for an average game would have to be £323. Not sure if you were charging that much money, you would get the incredibly high figure of 573 to each game.... Liverpool Ladies, the current dominant force in the WSL, charge £5.00 for the highest price ticket, £2.50 for the lowest. The bus to the ground costs more to see it, and still the numbers are low.

Assuming they get the average gate, paying £5, that's £20,055 income per year..... that wouldn't even pay a reserve team mans player for a week, or roughly what Luis Suarez was on a day. Can you tell me how the WSL expect to generate this prize money? Or do the FA have to pay 2,000 times the average season gate revenue just to make things equal?

Women don't earn as much because, lets not beat around the bush, NO ONE CARES AND NO ONE GOES TO GAMES!!!!

Its pure economics. To argue that rugby, cricket and football for women generates anywhere near the interest or money as the men's game is simple a lie, its not backed up by any reality.

sussexpob wrote:That is utterly moronic and senseless babble. Women's sport is actively being discriminated against? Can you explain how so??

WSL average attendance...... 573 people per game
Women's Champions League Final.... 11,000 last year
Women's world cup final.... not a sell out despite wide marketing support

So we should give the WSL winners £21,000,000 because its fair? Just to let you know, the current 14 game/8 team format, in order just to generate that money through ticket sales to have that prize money amount to pay to a winner, and we are also talking in the fantasy world where all costs to the side don't exist, the ticket price for an average game would have to be £323. Not sure if you were charging that much money, you would get the incredibly high figure of 573 to each game.... Liverpool Ladies, the current dominant force in the WSL, charge £5.00 for the highest price ticket, £2.50 for the lowest. The bus to the ground costs more to see it, and still the numbers are low.

Assuming they get the average gate, paying £5, that's £20,055 income per year..... that wouldn't even pay a reserve team mans player for a week, or roughly what Luis Suarez was on a day. Can you tell me how the WSL expect to generate this prize money? Or do the FA have to pay 2,000 times the average season gate revenue just to make things equal?

Women don't earn as much because, lets not beat around the bush, NO ONE CARES AND NO ONE GOES TO GAMES!!!!

Its pure economics. To argue that rugby, cricket and football for women generates anywhere near the interest or money as the men's game is simple a lie, its not backed up by any reality.

couldn't have said it better myself

Rio was given a warning when he racially abused Ashley Cole.

As for this word not being too bad in Jamaica, maybe its slipped your attention...but.... we AREN'T in Jamaica, we are in England where it is offensive.

As for Rio, he was very active with his mouth when it came to John Terry and his brother, and the irony is that it was cases like that which bred this overtly sensitive air towards public comments. Not that I am saying that is wrong, or that he wasn't a proper victim of that horrible affair (or condoning JT), but once those guys jumped on the bandwagon and tried to paint going to a Premier League match like attending a Nuremburg Rally, they also kickstarted the reaction towards this.

Once the FA are backed into a corner where every minute problem, every isolated incident, was indicative of a serious problem, and that their apparent responses were completely inadequate towards matters of race, ethnicity or sex, then the Pandora's box was opened. Now, say something that from even a tertiary level can be on some level construed as unpleasant or offence, then you get hung, that's that. Its the reality we live in.

It wasn't the FA that created this, they are simply reacting towards people saying they need to do more. Everywhere we have people who are only concerned with fronting their own view as being a stakeholder in the game, and its these people who act largely in self promotion of their cause which will construct anything to picture the status quo as problematic.

I mean, for example, its easy for a black unemployed manager to paint the "lets go for the Rooney Rule" or blame his lot on racism. Its easy for a women politician to ignore the vast money generation and pure economics of sport in the UK and argue that the fact women get paid less is sexist!! What about a black journalist or lawyer who has much to gain in their own career making issues in the press that just so happen to have the secondary benefit of making them an identifiable voice, a profitable asset to the argument? What would these organisations or players who have left the game do if there wasn't racism? What would "Black managers for Justice" or "Women for Equality in sports" do if they didn't stoke the fires, or if there was decent acknowledgement that the issues are being handled correctly?

They wouldn't exist, they wouldn't have a voice...... The hypocrisy does not stem from those who enact the resultant demands, it comes from those who make them. Black managers maybe an issue, but when the biggest hope for a high profile black manager spends his free time being racist and sexist on Twitter, where are the same people tearing him down??? Where is our very vocal detraction about this potential role model? In this instance, complaining he is hard done by, maybe inferring that to punish someone for a rather innocuous remark is wrong, or even racist in its application. Yet what would have happened if this was a comment construed to be racist rather than sexist? What would have happened if John Terry had called "Ashley Cole" a "Choc ice"?

The problem is, its easy to start a fire, its harder to put one that is raging out. People get away with all kinds of witch hunts and conspiracy theories based on no evidence whatsoever, simply because there are too many people to benefit from a continuation of representing a problem. Until the press culture and public consciousness cries out for evidence, or cries out for the truth, rather than press bites, then this will never change. Women's sport is victimised because men earn more? Men generate more, simple fact.... No black Managers? Is this linked to racism, where is the proof? Why are there no black managers? Has anyone cared to do anything other than the lazy conclusion that its racist?

sussexpob wrote:That is utterly moronic and senseless babble. Women's sport is actively being discriminated against? Can you explain how so??

WSL average attendance...... 573 people per game
Women's Champions League Final.... 11,000 last year
Women's world cup final.... not a sell out despite wide marketing support

So we should give the WSL winners £21,000,000 because its fair? Just to let you know, the current 14 game/8 team format, in order just to generate that money through ticket sales to have that prize money amount to pay to a winner, and we are also talking in the fantasy world where all costs to the side don't exist, the ticket price for an average game would have to be £323. Not sure if you were charging that much money, you would get the incredibly high figure of 573 to each game.... Liverpool Ladies, the current dominant force in the WSL, charge £5.00 for the highest price ticket, £2.50 for the lowest. The bus to the ground costs more to see it, and still the numbers are low.

Assuming they get the average gate, paying £5, that's £20,055 income per year..... that wouldn't even pay a reserve team mans player for a week, or roughly what Luis Suarez was on a day. Can you tell me how the WSL expect to generate this prize money? Or do the FA have to pay 2,000 times the average season gate revenue just to make things equal?

Women don't earn as much because, lets not beat around the bush, NO ONE CARES AND NO ONE GOES TO GAMES!!!!

Its pure economics. To argue that rugby, cricket and football for women generates anywhere near the interest or money as the men's game is simple a lie, its not backed up by any reality.

You gotta come round to this PC world, sussex.

I'll give you Athletics, Winter sports and the occasional game of tennis. All other women's sport is of massively minority interest and should have minimal tv coverage.

The bbc are into minority sports so they can have it all presented by Claire Balding and Hazel Irvine.

It's not misogyny it's plain fact that hardly anyone, men or women, are interested in watching womens football, rugby and cricket in this country. The main reason for that is that the standard is so poor compared to the men's game and sadly comparisons will always be made.