Why should Warnie wear all the blame?

So. Shane Warne swears to himself in frustration and suddenly he's roundly condemned by everyone with a conscience. Why??

I always thought we respected and paid Shane for his ability to make cricket balls change direction and thereby dismiss batsmen. I wasn't aware that this ability was affected by his vocabulary or his moral rectitude (or lack of it).

It is more than a little regrettable that Shane's invective was broadcast to the ears of every cricket fan in the county, but I want to take up two issues with that event. First, how was such a predictable event allowed to pass the broadcast's production equipment and, second, what is this problem we have with athletes swearing?

I wish to point out that I am ambivalent to the morality of Shane's actions in swearing in the manner he did. I do not condone that or condemn it. My intention here is to recognise that it happened and examine the media's reaction to it.

It's hard to avoid the feeling that, when events like this occur, the media rush to point fingers at the athlete in order to deflect attention from their own complicity in the broadcast.

It takes two parties to bring such obscenity to the homes of cricket fans: one party to swear and another to broadcast it (repeatedly). Given that the broadcaster has a more heightened awareness of the need for and mechanisms of censorship (they bleeped it in the newscasts), it is difficult to decide which party is more irresponsible.

There was a similar incident before a State of Origin Rugby League match at Lang Park some years ago. As part of the pre-match buildup, the cameras went down onto the field and took close-up footage of the Queensland team huddle.

It was entirely predictable: just as I was thinking "I wouldn't put that microphone so close to a bunch of highly charged football players this close to the start of a game", Mal let fly. Mal Meninga, Queensland and Australian Captain, stalwart of the game, devout Christian and all-round nice bloke, let fly a with a couple of inspirational expletives in his pre-match rev-up of his team-mates.

As I recall, no-one was particularly upset about that one. It was reasonably predictable and quite understandable and the particular TV station apologised and has not been so silly (at football matches) since. The only time cameras go near footy players before a game these days is when they're lined up singing their respective National Anthems. When the sound is on, this is arguably even more offensive that Mal or Shane's language.

This use of language is in a different class from the incident in which US one-hit wonder Ugly Kid Joe's lead singer Whitfield Crane expressed (more than his own) dissatisfaction with the annual, nationally televised, Australian Music Awards (or was it the Logoes?) by describing it as "One big f****** Karaoke machine". In that case, the outburst was not part of the carefully-scripted formula, though that fact alone should have made it even more predictable.

Why was there no-one on hand to mute Warnie's stump mike? Since the ball was nowhere near the stumps, there can have been no value in leaving the sound on to pick up the "death rattle" of the collision between ball and wicket. Since an obviously frustrated player was standing over the stumps (and we all know Warnie's no Saint), someone should have discretely turned the sound down. Which brings me to the second point.

What is this sudden issue with elite athletes swearing? Is there some doubt that it happens? Does anyone seriously think that a game like this is conducted with the players addressing each other using honorifics and anatomically-correct language?

Now, I'm not very good at reading lips, but I have no doubt that in the heat of the moment they don't, whether I can hear it or not. And in those (silent) cases it's broadcast in full, sometimes repeatedly. The commentators have even been known to refer to lip-reading the exchanges. Why delude ourselves that it's not happening?

We can't expect athletes of any kind to construct full sentences and carefully articulate their feelings during a match. One of the best ways to express frustration, which they all must feel at some stage, is an expletive (or a string of them). I know one of those always makes me feel better after I've stubbed my toe yet again on the same corner of the kitchen table.

That's not to say that there isn't a time and a place for it. If Warnie had been in the outfield no-one would have noticed, much less been offended. If Warnie had waited until a drinks break or at least and ad break, the public would have been none the wiser.

Of course, the "Captain Grumpy" incident, in which Allan Border notoriously berated a player for dissent, shows that the media can record much more than events near the stumps. "Cameraman Joe" provided further evidence of this, so where and when is the correct "time and place"?

As for the "role model" argument - I'd rather model my children's behaviour on an elite athlete who expresses himself openly and honestly (with discretion) and persists and triumphs than on one who bottles up their emotions and puts on a façade for public display. That's the kind of person I try to be and I'd like my kids to be the same.

Greg Chappell's account of the frustrations he felt on the day of the under-arm bowling incident shed a whole new light on the events of that day. I wonder whether his decision, and public reaction to it, would have been different had he not been quite so frustrated.

Besides, at least Warnie's latest boo-boo has given us something to talk about besides the virtues of our invincible cricket team. One thing I hate much more than public profanity is public vanity. The public posturing and arrogance of Olympic basketball's "Dream Team" was far more offensive than Warnie's outburst. At least it's not the Australian cricketers who are talking themselves up - it's the same media pundits who lambasted Shane Warne.

So, what to do about it?? Well, I'm open to suggestions, but I'd recommend that each of the parties involved do one thing each to improve things in future:

The broadcaster: Get used to it. Things like this are going to happen and you are in the best position to prevent it becoming an issue - over microphones or in pictures;

The critics: Get over it. It's a callous, unrealistic world where a bloke can't express his frustrations without being howled at. And finally;

Warnie (and Glen McGrath): be a bit more careful, son!