But it was treated as Banter by Aus and NZ fans.

Is it irreponsible of ICC to let these things slide or should it be sensitive to cultural differences and punish players for remarks that are highly offensive in other cultures. Especially considering all games are now shown live around the world ?

If it lets these things slide isnt then the ICC responsible if say SL fans form a low opinion of Symonds and dont sympathise with him when he is the target of abuse ?

I believ the ICC and cricketers are all equally responsible to educate themselves of cultural differences. Ignorance is no excuse.

Well, the word bastard is taken very offensively in India and the subcontinent. It can be disturbing for players as well. This is the very reason why I am supporting a complete ban on sledging in my other thread.

__________________
My computer can beat me at chess.....but its no match for me at kick boxing.

Are you suggesting that describing someone as a "big b*stard" while bowling at him, and not loud enough for anyone to hear on the field (it was only picked up because he was commentating) is either in any way comparable to racial abuse that half the team heard or an excuse for racial abuse from a 3rd party who took a dislike to him on TV?

Have you played senior cricket ever ?

1/2 the team heard ? are you sure ? last time I checked the news a no. of Australian playerss had not heard anything.

I am not giving excuse. i asked a question about players/ICC being more considerate towards different cultures.

I have. Monkey said with a glare would be ans extremely lame sledge. 'B*stard' said with a smile hugely offensive.

'Cultural differences'

Agreed Amit, but only to those who know the meaning of "culture".

The last report I heard said about 13 people had to give evidence at the hearing, so two umpires, 2 batsmen and that leaves presumably 2 team managers and half a dozen fielders. Theres surely a limit to how many people who weren't on the field can be giving their two penneth worth. Also he did not receive the minimum ban, which suggests the evidence was quite strong against him, in turn suggesting that thre were a lot of witnesses.

Your line saying the ICC is responsible if people think its OK to abuse him is nothing if not an excuse. You are saying that Sri Lankans (an example you gave not a particular case) are entitled to racially abuse people and do not have to make judgements on right/wrong or acceptable/unacceptable conduct. Blaming someone else for such actions is ignorance of the highest level, and "ignorance is no excuse".

May be you should read the news before making claims next time and not trust your mathematical skills so much. Ponting, Gilly said they heard nothing, nor did the umpires and tendulkar. Symonds + 2 Aus players said they heard it (i.e 3 quarter dozen not half a dozen).

Coming back to the original point. Please use the quote button to point where I have said it is OK to abuse anyone. It is never OK. I am saying there should be a uniformity in application. If Symonds called Murali a 'b*stard' it would be as offensive as bhaji calling him a 'monkey'.
I am sure you agree with that. I am saying people will have less sympathy if an abuser is abused. And they 'could' see symonds as an abuser considering he called oram a 'b*stard' in front of millions.
I am surprised I have had to explain this 3 times.

Absolutely true. I am not going to generalise the reaction to the b-word in the Western circles; having lived in England for 22 years, I have met locals who would be as offended by it as someone from the subcontinent. But Amit is right in that the b-word is considered far, far more insulting in the subcontinent than calling someone a monkey. Perhaps the reverse is true elsewhere, particularly if it has racial connotations built-in. That's the reason that IMO no sledging should be allowed in sport and transgressors should be very severly reprimanded.