Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Outraged seems extreme. Not sure why people keep using it.
I think it would still be inappropriate workplace behaviour technically but harassment is unsolicited and unwelcome advances. Her reciprocating would show she wasn't embarrassed, humiliated or disappointed as she put it and so it wouldn't be much of an event.
The wider story is Gayle has offended others in this way and the accounts of other journalists shows it is not limited to Gayle. The concern is really the bigger issue aside from Gayle.
Never thought there would be a day where I disagree with you ODN, but here we goAre you being deliberately obtuse?
I have an interest in workplace harassment, not media reports on flirtatious tennis players.
I had zero knowledge of it until today and I gave an opinion on it when asked. I said that on the surface it is not appropriate but she may skate by because her compliments him on something that is actually a tool of his trade, his manner of speaking. She then talks about paying attention to his form, which is probably flirtatious in the way she said it, but could still be talking about his manner of speaking. It is further muddied by the fact that he reciprocated the compliments so it appears whatever was happening was mutual.
I asked you on a couple of occasions if these other examples you raised invalidated the McLaughlin example and you ignored it.
Oh and it's not a case of being outraged. It's a case of recognising why a female journalist would be offended.
It's in your best interests to make the opposing argument sound extreme however, because you haven't got much aside from rhetoric to support yours.
So if Mel took it well and there were no issues between her and Gayle, would that have made what he did okay?
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
What's she doing there then?
So the defences of his behaviour essentially amount to
- It was a bit of harmless fun
- She is hot and works in the media so she has to cop this
- He is a cricketer and can do what he wants in interviews
- Everyone is racist
- Not harassment cause its not a workplace
Have i missed any here?
the guy after MT.There's no strength in attempting to demonise Chris. While it's understandable to not respect Chris's words. Failing to acknowledge his intent exaggerates the problem.
blackcat Mark Taylor had 50 sexual partners on the 91 Caribbean tour?
No you haven't missed any. In fact, a fairly comprehensive list of cliches of which no person is saying.
You know, not everything has to be an extreme in life.
The positions are NOT simply 1) Chris is a sexist bastard that should be banned for life or 2) Oh it was fine and humorous.
There is a grey area in between, where most of the population lies, which would view this exchange and summarise that it was cringeworthy, inappropriate, warranted an apology but not worthy of further analysis and media comment for days afterwards.
Kelli Underwood did not last long as a commentator, Sam Lane on BeforeTheGame does not count cos that is more of an entertainment showoh really
![]()
P.S
This is what she'll look like in 20 odd years
![]()
Boris Becker conceived a child with a waitress.It's like I'm reading A Brief History of Sport in the Twentieth Century, by Yoda.
Utter stupidity. Again, if it's not her workplace what's she doing there? She's a journalist. It's her job. It's her workplace.God what a media beat-up over something so insignificant.
He said he wanted to talk with her, that initial statement was fine in my opinion.
She seemed to be massively irritated with that, and got stroppy on screen. So Gayle then went and dug himself a hole in an attempt to patch it over.
When he added 'don't blush baby' - that was then very inappropriate.
Accordingly, Gayle apologised for the comment. And Ten apologised for the broadcast of it. End of.
This inane over analysing of a five second statement made by a sportsperson two secs after coming off the field is ridiculous.
Not everything in life has a deep and hidden meaning. Why did the magpie fly into the window? What was it looking at? Did the window do something to cause it? Should the window apologise?
No, it was just a magpie that flew into a window. It happened. It was unfortunate. It was unintentional. End of. Jesus Christ.
I keep hearing people bleating about workplace harassment etc etc.
Mel is employed by Network Ten.
Chris is employed by the Melbourne Renegades / Cricket Australia.
It's like saying Channel 9's camera man making an inappropriate comment to a WACA hot chips vendor is workplace harassment. Chris is NOT a colleague of Mel's. While you find it cringeworthy and daggy, a chat up line to a random female is not illegal or harassment of any sort.
Utter stupidity. Again, if it's not her workplace what's she doing there? She's a journalist. It's her job. It's her workplace.
She is at work. She is in her workplace. She was made to feel uncomfortable whilst doing her job. Simple. Come up with whatever abstract hypotheticals you like, or try to twist it by arguing it's not technically "workplace harassment". She was at work and made to feel uncomfortable whilst doing her job. Whatever you say, it won't change that simple truth.Dude are you for real? Did you read what I posted, or not? Of course it's her workplace. I explicitly stated she is employed by Network Ten. I also explicitly stated that Chris is NOT a colleague of Mel's - and therefore, choose whatever phrase you want in the universe to describe it - it's not workplace harassment.
That's not a comment on the remarks themselves or their importance. Just a fact.
A police officer on duty being taunted by a member of the public is not workplace harassment.
A window cleaner being hit on the head by a stone chucked by a delinquent twerp on the street is not workplace harassment.
A garbo abused by a passing motorist is not workplace harassment.
A police officer rubbing against a fellow police officer outside her cubicle is workplace harassment.
A window cleaner being bullied by his superiors is workplace harassment.
A garbo having sexual advances made on him by a fellow garbo employed by the council is workplace harassment.
I can't believe I've had to explain something so simple to you.
As you said, utter stupidity. READ slowly and carefully next time.
No you haven't missed any. In fact, a fairly comprehensive list of cliches of which no person is saying.
You know, not everything has to be an extreme in life.
The positions are NOT simply 1) Chris is a sexist bastard that should be banned for life or 2) Oh it was fine and humorous.
There is a grey area in between, where most of the population lies, which would view this exchange and summarise that it was cringeworthy, inappropriate, warranted an apology but not worthy of further analysis and media comment for days afterwards.
She is at work. She is in her workplace. She was made to feel uncomfortable whilst doing her job. Simple. Come up with whatever abstract hypotheticals you like, or try to twist it by arguing it's not technically "workplace harassment". She was at work and made to feel uncomfortable whilst doing her job. Whatever you say, it won't change that simple truth.
kNo worries mate. You're arguing around in circles - I can't be bothered. I think I comprehensively covered the position in my post.
It's OK to admit you're wrong sometimes. Even if you don't want to admit it - just sit in silent defeat and take it humbly.![]()
Find I think you will, called Angela the waitress was, hmmm?Boris Becker conceived a child with a waitress.
He just met the waitress.
It was called Noma.
Dude are you for real? Did you read what I posted, or not? Of course it's her workplace. I explicitly stated she is employed by Network Ten. I also explicitly stated that Chris is NOT a colleague of Mel's - and therefore, choose whatever phrase you want in the universe to describe it - it's not workplace harassment.
That's not a comment on the remarks themselves or their importance. Just a fact.
A police officer on duty being taunted by a member of the public is not workplace harassment.
A window cleaner being hit on the head by a stone chucked by a delinquent twerp on the street is not workplace harassment.
A garbo abused by a passing motorist is not workplace harassment.
A police officer rubbing against a fellow police officer outside her cubicle is workplace harassment.
A window cleaner being bullied by his superiors is workplace harassment.
A garbo having sexual advances made on him by a fellow garbo employed by the council is workplace harassment.
I can't believe I've had to explain something so simple to you.
As you said, utter stupidity. READ slowly and carefully next time.
If it offends her, upsets her or angers her it is completely unacceptable to believe the joke didn't fall wide of the mark and wasn't inappropriate. It is still a joke though.Again, I implore everyone to go and listen to Neroli Meadows and Melinda Farrell discuss it.
It's only a joke if the journalist is in on it. If it offends her, upsets her or angers her, it's completely unacceptable for him to try and maintain that it's a joke.
Never thought there would be a day where I disagree with you ODN, but here we go
The bolded bit is where the 'argument' breaks down. Because Gayle is being flamed for being inappropriate in the workplace - it didn't really matter how Mel reacted in the sense that what Gayle did was unnecessary and uncalled for, regardless. (So goes the story, anyway)
Now I'm no expert on gender equality, but I would have thought that the exact same standard must be upheld by both male and female sports starts in this instance. You're basically saying in the Sharapova case that because he took it well it more or less makes it okay? So if Mel took it well and there were no issues between her and Gayle, would that have made what he did okay? The answer can only be yes using the above logic. And that goes completely against those who are up in arms about this.
Oh. My. God. Did anyone listen to SEN the past hour when they were discussing this?
Admittedly it was Schibeci, Rodney Hogg, and a confused-sounding Smokey Dawson, so I wasn't exactly expecting a meeting of Mensa. But they managed to be sexist, racist, and virtually every other "ist" you can imagine.
Among the humdingers they came up with were:
* Asking Mel to go out was just the same as if he'd asked a male journo to go for a beer after the game.
* T20 is "fun and games", so Mel has to "expect" that kind of behaviour.
* Mel is an attractive female, so her primary function is eye candy and to be hit on.
* Gayle has form with being sleazy to women, so if Mel was surprised or upset, then it's her fault for not doing her research.
* Female journos shouldn't interview West Indies players "unless they know what they're getting in for". Cause, you know, all black men are randy womanisers who can't keep it in their pants for 5 minutes.
There was also a nice Audio Blackface with one of them pretending to be Gayle doing an interview with a male journo, to show how "harmless" it was.
Yeah. Real Classy.![]()
I can't believe people here and the media are still going on about this.
A few stupid flippant remarks made in a brief boundary side interview in a hit and giggle cricket game and suddenly it's blown up into WW3.
The way this country over reacts to every minor non PC incident these days is both ridiculous and embarrassing, even Mel McLaughlin said she's accepted Gayle's apology and wants to move on while Gayle must be shaking his head at the media witchhunt of him which has resulted in him having to pay an unnecessary $10k fine just to appease the frothing media/PC brigade.
Good grief.
No she doesn't - Gayle did this.The whole incident and reaction is a load of crock
The guy was fooling around, no harm intended.
Mel, says this does not need the reaction or the air time it has received.
Move on people, nothing to see here.....