Quinton de Kock.

[Dave Blue]

I heard a black South African journalist saying on the radio this morning that de Kock had done a lot of good work on race relations and was an active supporter of racial equality but that he thought his reasons were that he didn’t believe he should be forced to take the knee as it was a token gesture (though I think the player himself hasn’t actually made a statement yet)

Bamba seemed to be in two minds on Saturday, you could see he was almost trying to take the knee and then stopped himself. The Middlesbrough issue must be because of the booing heard in that area of the country when England played there. The north east in particular seems to be a very confused place at present.

[poc]

its his choice i hope hes not singled out for this, i would bet on a lot more sportsmen feel the same

[Citizen's Nephew]

its his choice i hope hes not singled out for this, i would bet on a lot more sportsmen feel the same

He's replied very eloquently on this today https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...g-to-take-knee

[Citizen's Nephew]

I can understand why Hilts decided not to start a thread on this, I thought was it worth it before deciding to go ahead. The reason I did was the South Africa angle which makes this case different from the more straightforward stuff that has been debated on here before. Given that country's history, it must be a very sensitive issue and for South African sports administrators it must be like trying to walk through a minefield.

What has not drawn much comment as far as I can say is that the game De Kock pulled out of was South Africa's second game in this competition, not their first. De Kock played in the first match when South Africa took on Australia's side consisting of, I'm almost certain, eleven white men and I tried to find out if the team had taken the knee then, but all I got was this unsourced quote from Google;-

"South Africa's players have been told to take a knee ahead of their remaining games at the tournament after "concerns were raised" over their "different postures" before their defeat to Australia in Abu Dhabi on Saturday."

For me, national sporting associations are asking for trouble when they start ordering a team representing their country to make gestures like taking the knee, but it is complicated and, as mentioned earlier, something of a minefield. Take England for example, this story;-

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/crick...-knee-25310878

claims that it would not have been their first choice to take the knee at this World Cup and that they would have preferred to have worn t shirts with anti racism sentiments on them before their matches, only to be told that they were not allowed to wear clothing which has a "political" statement on it.

This brings home the futility and idiocy of claiming that any refusal to take the knee makes the team or person concerned racist - how could someone be if they're wearing a short deploring racism for the world to see? Similarly, I presume Sol Bamba has not been taking the knee before Middlesbrough games because they are one of the sides who don't make the gesture and haven't been dong so for more than a year, yet I'm sure Sol must have been taking the knee before our final few matches of last season when he was named as a sub because I'm sure it would have been pointed out in the media or on social media if he hadn't been doing so while the rest of his team mates were.

It seems to me that Sol is just abiding with a team vote on the subject and I can only imagine that anyone who chose to go against a team vote, be it for or against taking the knee, does so because they have very strong convictions on the matter.

Returning to DeKock, he's South Africa's best player in this format of the game in my view and this, along with the fact that we're talking South Africa with its I'll say chequered history on the subject, must have felt especially strongly on the subject to take a decision which might end up having enormous repercussions on his career.

There is an additional consideration in this case in that DeKock's decision might be founded on a resentment towards being told what to do by the South Arican cricket Board, but he has refused to take the knee before - when asked about this during a tour of the West Indies, he replied “My reason? I’ll keep it to myself. It’s my own, personal opinion. It’s everyone’s decision; no one’s forced to do anything, not in life. That’s the way I see things.”.

I don't think people should rush to conclusions about DeKock yet, but I'd said it's reasonable to ask, and possibly beneficial to the player, that he expands on that rather mealy mouthed justification of his actions.

Great post Bob. He's expanded today. It's just a shame it had to get to this point in the first place as there are still a lot of issues regarding equality in SA cricket. I still think it was a poor decision and not what SA needed.

You may have seen this piece too yesterday https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...hieves-nothing and it highlights why, when only 8.9% of SAs are white, and even less in cricket, three decades on from the Apartheid regime, there're still a lot of problems to sort out. I do think we should be careful of equating taking the knee for CSA as anything like doing so for other sportspeople. It's a way more complicated issue.

[splott parker]

It's a free world and it's understandable you feel that why, perhaps he feels by forcing people or putting pressure upon players is counter productive to the gesture dilutes its impact , some maybe taking too the knee and not wanting too for any number of reasons, there are some black players and teams that don't.

But he hasn’t been forced to do anything. He’s made his choice and, as his captain explains, there are consequences to that decision. Nobody is forcing you to produce your COVID pass to get in down the City but if you don’t the consequences are that you don’t get in, it’s your choice as not taking the knee is de Kock’s.

[the other bob wilson]

Great post Bob. He's expanded today. It's just a shame it had to get to this point in the first place as there are still a lot of issues regarding equality in SA cricket. I still think it was a poor decision and not what SA needed.

You may have seen this piece too yesterday https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...hieves-nothing and it highlights why, when only 8.9% of SAs are white, and even less in cricket, three decades on from the Apartheid regime, there're still a lot of problems to sort out. I do think we should be careful of equating taking the knee for CSA as anything like doing so for other sportspeople. It's a way more complicated issue.

Thanks, he had to clarify his decision and, although there are one or two things in his statement which I could quibble about, this will now, hopefully, be an end to the matter - just looking at it from a cricket viewpoint, any tournament to decide the best team in the world has to have players as good as DeKock in it.

[Eric Cartman]

But he hasn’t been forced to do anything. He’s made his choice and, as his captain explains, there are consequences to that decision. Nobody is forcing you to produce your COVID pass to get in down the City but if you don’t the consequences are that you don’t get in, it’s your choice as not taking the knee is de Kock’s.

Two wildly different things though, one is a reasonable public safety measure and the other is only a gesture, regardless of whether you see it positively, negatively or couldn't care either way.

I think we just need to be a little bit careful about how we approach these types of issues, even if an action seemingly has no negative consequences (like taking the knee).

Parallels could easily be drawn between the reactions to kapernick kneeling for the US anthem and the reactions to de kock choosing not to take a knee.

Its completely lost its meaning as a protest or demonstration of principle and become a bit like clapping the NHS.

[Hilts]

Two wildly different things though, one is a reasonable public safety measure and the other is only a gesture, regardless of whether you see it positively, negatively or couldn't care either way.

I think we just need to be a little bit careful about how we approach these types of issues, even if an action seemingly has no negative consequences (like taking the knee).

Parallels could easily be drawn between the reactions to kapernick kneeling for the US anthem and the reactions to de kock choosing not to take a knee.

Its completely lost its meaning as a protest or demonstration of principle and become a bit like clapping the NHS.

I think the likes of Michael Holding would strongly disagree with you.

[Hilts]

Havent read this but will do.

https://www.worldofbooks.com/en-gb/b...0aAtn4EALw_wcB

[poc]

He's replied very eloquently on this today https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...g-to-take-knee

[Citizen's Nephew]

Havent read this but will do.

https://www.worldofbooks.com/en-gb/b...0aAtn4EALw_wcB

Yes, it's currently top of my reading list for November. You've probably seen this interview with him on Sky but it's worth posting for anyone who hasn't

There's also an article Michael Holding Brilliantly Explains The Importance Of Sportspeople Taking A Knee which is worth posting on this thread too.

[Eric Cartman]

I think the likes of Michael Holding would strongly disagree with you.

So what?

[Eric Cartman]

I think the likes of Michael Holding would strongly disagree with you.

And when you say 'the likes of' you mean other black people right?

[splott parker]

Two wildly different things though, one is a reasonable public safety measure and the other is only a gesture, regardless of whether you see it positively, negatively or couldn't care either way.

I think we just need to be a little bit careful about how we approach these types of issues, even if an action seemingly has no negative consequences (like taking the knee).

Parallels could easily be drawn between the reactions to kapernick kneeling for the US anthem and the reactions to de kock choosing not to take a knee.

Its completely lost its meaning as a protest or demonstration of principle and become a bit like clapping the NHS.

Same outcome though, you don’t get in the ground, he doesn’t get in the squad.

[life on mars]

But he hasn’t been forced to do anything. He’s made his choice and, as his captain explains, there are consequences to that decision. Nobody is forcing you to produce your COVID pass to get in down the City but if you don’t the consequences are that you don’t get in, it’s your choice as not taking the knee is de Kock’s.

He was told , a directive was issued, they told him on the way to ground the team as one were taking the knee ,in my world that's no choice ,so your forced .

[Citizen's Nephew]

He was told , a directive was issued, they told him on the way to ground the team as one were taking the knee ,in my world that's no choice ,so your forced .

Oh give over. In my world that's part of being a team 'as one'. He's even apologised. Move on.

[splott parker]

He was told , a directive was issued, they told him on the way to ground the team as one were taking the knee ,in my world that's no choice ,so your forced .

If that’s true, he still wasn’t forced. If you’re forced to do something, I take it as you actually do it under duress, he didn’t, he made his choice not to. He chose not to, what part of ‘having no choice’ do you not understand?

[life on mars]

""No cricketer should be ( forced ) to take a knee - Quinton de Kock had the right to freedom of choice""

"" The*Quinton de Kock controversy*comes down to one fundamental point: no sportsperson should be told what to do when it comes to expressing their personal views.*""

""Sports boards have the right to demand their players perform a certain way, and prepare properly, but when it comes to expressing political opinions, or views around moral issues, that has to be left to the individual.*""

""Taking the knee only has strength if the person doing it believes in it fully - otherwise it is a hollow symbol. Quinton's problem now is that he has committed to taking the knee despite everyone knowing that he doesn't really believe in it.*""

Comment today by Michael Vaughan

Of course he's being forced 🙄

[splott parker]

""No cricketer should be ( forced ) to take a knee - Quinton de Kock had the right to freedom of choice""

"" The*Quinton de Kock controversy*comes down to one fundamental point: no sportsperson should be told what to do when it comes to expressing their personal views.*""

""Sports boards have the right to demand their players perform a certain way, and prepare properly, but when it comes to expressing political opinions, or views around moral issues, that has to be left to the individual.*""

""Taking the knee only has strength if the person doing it believes in it fully - otherwise it is a hollow symbol. Quinton's problem now is that he has committed to taking the knee despite everyone knowing that he doesn't really believe in it.*""

Comment today by Michael Vaughan

Of course he's being forced ��

He’s not.

[Jimmy the Jock]

He’s not.

Qf course he was, kneel or dont play .That is forced.

[splott parker]

Qf course he was, kneel or dont play .That is forced.

It’s a choice, he chose not to, there were consequences to his choice. I s’pose there’s consequences to most choices in life. I’m not being forced to go to work today but if I choose not to the consequences are I lose a day’s pay.

[Jimmy the Jock]

It’s a choice, he chose not to, there were consequences to his choice. I s’pose there’s consequences to most choices in life. I’m not being forced to go to work today but if I choose not to the consequences are I lose a day’s pay.

He is going to play in the future , going against his beliefs (whatever they are ) he will take the knee.
He has been forced to change his beliefs or he doesn't play.

the analogy you are using has no bearing on this story.

[Citizen's Nephew]

He is going to play in the future , going against his beliefs (whatever they are ) he will take the knee.
He has been forced to change his beliefs or he doesn't play.

the analogy you are using has no bearing on this story.

He hasn't been forced to change his beliefs - as you say, whatever they are. He was directed by his employers to demonstrate a united front against racial inequality. I'm sure we're all subject, daily, to being told to do things we don't want to do. I don't understand this constant bickering over the knee. People put more energy into this than actually dealing with racial inequality and racism. It's bizarre. It's such a shame.

[Jimmy the Jock]

He hasn't been forced to change his beliefs - as you say, whatever they are. He was directed by his employers to demonstrate a united front against racial inequality. I'm sure we're all subject, daily, to being told to do things we don't want to do. I don't understand this constant bickering over the knee. People put more energy into this than actually dealing with racial inequality and racism. It's bizarre. It's such a shame.

I didn't say he has had to change his beliefs . He is going against his beliefs.
I hope I haven't got involved in bickering , just pointing out the obvious.
I haven't expressed a personal view on the matter.

[Citizen's Nephew]

I didn't say he has had to change his beliefs . He is going against his beliefs.
I hope I haven't got involved in bickering , just pointing out the obvious.
I haven't expressed a personal view on the matter.

Sorry if that came across wrongly. I wasn't having a go and I'm checking out of this thread now anyway because I've seen some horror shows on the board recently! Life's too short! Anyway, all's good, I'm getting back to the football, work, and watching old videos of horrendous refereeing decisions to still get worked up about decades after the match!