KEY POINTS:
Cricket, more than any other game, sets great store by sportsmanship," this newspaper pontificated in an editorial on Tuesday. "Not for nothing did the phrase 'it's not cricket' become part of common parlance."
Balderdash.
In fact the entire editorial - condemning Brendon McCullum's quite legitimate runout of Muttiah
Muralitharan in the test match in Christchurch - smacked of something that might have been published in the Boy's Own Paper circa 1906.
"Various excuses have been offered for [the Black Caps'] conduct," said the Herald - when, in fact, no excuses are required.
McCullum did what he is paid to do - dismiss an opposing batsman who strayed out of his crease when the ball was still in play - and he would have needed a whole raft of excuses if he had not done so.
If the paper wants to bemoan today's cricketing standards, then it might take a swipe at all the sledging, the spurious appealing and the catches claimed that aren't really taken that blight all forms of international cricket these days.
It might pine for the good old days when the gentlemen players sipped pink gins, munched cucumber sandwiches and smoked cigars on the sideline between innings, but those blokes wouldn't last a match under today's professional playing conditions.
The simple fact is that the veteran Muralitharan should have stayed in his crease until the ball was dead before bounding off to congratulate his team-mate on scoring a century.
There seems to be the idea abroad that because that's what the mesmerising spin bowler was doing, McCullum's action was improper. But that, too, is nonsense. That the batsman had scored 100 had nothing whatsoever to do with the dismissal.
This is test cricket 2006, one of the most mentally and physically demanding games at international level of any sport. It's played harder than ever it has been.
I'm glad young McCullum is unrepentant and that his skipper Stephen Fleming and his paymaster Martin Snedden, among many others, are sticking up for him.
This young man is one of our fondest hopes for the future of the great game in this country and he is proving already that our hopes will more than likely be realised. He needs the opprobrium cast at him by a bunch of wimps like he needs four byes.
As for comparing the runout to the notorious underarm incident in Australia, that's drawing a very long bow indeed. We all know the Aussies have never been into sportsmanship; they're heavily into gamesmanship instead - and very successful they are too.
However, if I ever see an opposing international rugby winger flying down the sideline, accidentally stepping into touch and being invited by an All Black defender to step right back in and continue his run, then I'll take all this back.
Now, having delivered that brickbat let me deliver a bouquet. The Herald is to be congratulated on its choice of the joint winners of its New Zealander of the Year award.
The Auditor-General and the chairwoman of the Commerce Commission are two people all us Kiwi battlers can be proud of. Kevin Brady and Paula Rebstock are among the far too few who courageously stand up for us against the thievery that goes on in politics and big business.
That they are doing their jobs, and doing them well, is obvious because they are both unpopular with politicians, and Ms Rebstock is also execrated by big business.
It's a real pleasure to discover that Mr Brady isn't, as we might expect of a chartered accountant and bureaucrat, a stuffed-shirt bean-counter with a calculator for a brain.
He is, by all accounts, a regular Kiwi bloke who breeds racing greyhounds, plays bowls, likes a beer and has been known to swear.
He's the chap who lumbered the Labour Party and others with bills for more than $1 million of our money illegally spent on buying - or trying to buy - the last election, and who keeps an eye on all Government spending on our behalf.
Thank heavens someone does because we all know how readily politicians spend taxpayers' money. Not that you can blame them, of course. Who among us wouldn't be liberal if we had other people's money to spend?
In view of the glowing testimonial given to Ms Rebstock by Business Roundtable chief executive Roger Kerr, we can certainly forgive her for being a Yank and welcome her into our hearts.
Mr Kerr told the Herald big business was deeply unimpressed with the commission's "sheriff-like behaviour" and Ms Rebstock's tough language.
"There's been much too much aggressive posturing on the part of the commission and quite dubious actions in the form of seizure of firms' documents. It's extraordinary," says Mr Kerr.
He concludes his testimonial by saying that the commission seems to believe that its role is to redistribute wealth evenly in the economy rather than simply promoting economic efficiency.
I'm sure Ms Rebstock has no intention of trying to redistribute wealth but it does seem to me that if Mr Kerr is so dead set against her, she must be out to put an end to some of the greedier, shonkier and more inhuman practices some businesses - the sort of practices which have ensured that in spite of vast increases in company profits over the past few decades, families are no better off financially than they were in 1981.
