The Aamer Situation

[Cevno]

I haven't read the whole thread, nor the other threads, neither have I read all about this issue as I have been busy with life and work stuff, and not been all that much in touch with the cricket (apart from following the scores and watching h/l of Trott's and Broad's hundreds). But, on a quick skim all the posts recommending life ban etc seem way too harsh. I frankly don't understand where these comments are coming from. As far as altering the outcome of a match goes, bowling a no-ball is pretty inconsequential (especially in this instance where nothing untoward seems to have hinged on those deliveries) and for another, Aamer is a young man with a lot left to learn. I'd advocate a minimal-moderate punishment with fines and a short term ban from test cricket.

Yeah in Amir's case, I've a bit of sympathy for him. A bit. Considering how easily the chief conspirator (assumedly Butt in this case) would've coaxed him by saying "Hey mate, we are not asking you to underperfrom and throw away a match, and also endanger your career, it's just bowling a couple of no balls, nothing that are going to affect our chances in this test, and yet we get to pocket some good cash..We aren't betraying anyone.. we are going to fight hard.. but just bowl one or 2 no balls..it's a matter of just 2 runs given away.. etcetc "

Agreed.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I haven't read the whole thread, nor the other threads, neither have I read all about this issue as I have been busy with life and work stuff, and not been all that much in touch with the cricket (apart from following the scores and watching h/l of Trott's and Broad's hundreds). But, on a quick skim all the posts recommending life ban etc seem way too harsh. I frankly don't understand where these comments are coming from. As far as altering the outcome of a match goes, bowling a no-ball is pretty inconsequential (especially in this instance where nothing untoward seems to have hinged on those deliveries) and for another, Aamer is a young man with a lot left to learn. I'd advocate a minimal-moderate punishment with fines and a short term ban from test cricket.

The no balls in themselves might be inconsequential but it's a tool used by a crook to prove he can influence events on the field.

 

[zaremba]

The no balls in themselves might be inconsequential but it's a tool used by a crook to prove he can influence events on the field.

And it undermines the integrity of the match as a whole
And it makes the spectators and opposition wonder how much else is fixed
And it raises the question of how the player can mentally switch full commitment on and off
And it brings Pakistani cricket into disrepute
And it brings the entire game of Test cricket into disrepute

Yet all that said I do tend to agree with JBH's position, especially as regards Amir

 

[pasag]

It's not about being fair or just, it's about protecting the sport. This stuff rips apart the foundations of cricket and should be treated like a cancer with no mercy shown. It's sad and all, but the integrity of the game we love comes before worrying about the future of some 18 year old promising fast bowler.

 

[JBH001]

No, totally disagree.

For one I don't agree with all that hot air about the integrity of the game - historically it is just is not true. And even if true, substantively or partially, it lands a huge cross around Aamer's neck - a cross that does not belong around his neck, and is out of all proportion to his specific misdeeds. The same applies, I think, to Mr. Z's forceful points. I can see the validity of most of these points, if not all of them, but again it seems to be making Aamer into the fall guy for a long running issue and for what seems to my mind little more than a lust for blood.

 

[Scaly piscine]

The minimum he should get (if proven guilty) is five years and that's *only if* he co-operates, essentially admitting what he's done and giving evidence against the rest. Otherwise he should be banned for life.

The game is more important than any individual.

 

[zaremba]

It's not about being fair or just, it's about protecting the sport. This stuff rips apart the foundations of cricket and should be treated like a cancer with no mercy shown. It's sad and all, but the integrity of the game we love comes before worrying about the future of some 18 year old promising fast bowler.

What we're talking about is punishment of individuals. You seriously think that fairness and justice don't enter into it? And you don't protect the sport by acting unfairly or unjustly.

Which is not to say you can't throw the book at those found guilty. But in a civilised system (which cricket aspires to be) it's a pretty basic principle that you cannot have sentencers ignoring mitigating factors or acting unfairly in other ways.

 

[Spudsy2061]

What we're talking about is punishment of individuals. You seriously think that fairness and justice don't enter into it? And you don't protect the sport by acting unfairly or unjustly.

Which is not to say you can't throw the book at those found guilty. But in a civilised system (which cricket aspires to be) it's a pretty basic principle that you cannot have sentencers ignoring mitigating factors or acting unfairly in other ways.

AWTA. Part of protecting sport and the integrity of it in general is being fair and and just.

 

[pasag]

No, totally disagree.

For one I don't agree with all that hot air about the integrity of the game - historically it is just is not true. And even if true, substantively or partially, it lands a huge cross around Aamer's neck - a cross that does not belong around his neck, and is out of all proportion to his specific misdeeds. The same applies, I think, to Mr. Z's forceful points. I can see the validity of most of these points, if not all of them, but again it seems to be making Aamer into the fall guy for a long running issue and for what seems to my mind little more than a lust for blood.

lol hot air.

Quite honestly in this day and age if people don't believe what they're watching is real they won't watch. This is by far the biggest issue facing cricket.

Don't give me rubbish like lust for blood because that's the exact opposite of what it is. Could not care less about crime& punishment, retribution, making him pay etc it's about doing whatever it takes to protect the sport. In my mind a "minimal-moderate punishment with fines and a short term ban from test cricket" is absolutely ludicrous.

 

[Furball]

Yeah in Amir's case, I've a bit of sympathy for him. A bit. Considering how easily the chief conspirator (assumedly Butt in this case) would've coaxed him by saying "Hey mate, we are not asking you to underperfrom and throw away a match, and also endanger your career, it's just bowling a couple of no balls, nothing that are going to affect our chances in this test, and yet we get to pocket some good cash..We aren't betraying anyone.. we are going to fight hard.. but just bowl one or 2 no balls..it's a matter of just 2 runs given away.. etcetc "

Not to pick on you, because I'm equally as guilty of this because I love Amir as a cricketer, but it's interesting that absolutely no-one has offered up this arguement as a defence for Asif.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Not to pick on you, because I'm equally as guilty of this because I love Amir as a cricketer, but it's interesting that absolutely no-one has offered up this arguement as a defence for Asif.

Probably just as well seeing that it's such a load of bollox.

 

[Langeveldt]

The minimum he should get (if proven guilty) is five years and that's *only if* he co-operates, essentially admitting what he's done and giving evidence against the rest. Otherwise he should be banned for life.

The game is more important than any individual.

This

Apparently the Sports minister in Pakistan has already confirmed that they will be dishing out some life bans if these people are proven guilty.. However, life ban seems only to be a term banded around..

 

[Furball]

This

Apparently the Sports minister in Pakistan has already confirmed that they will be dishing out some life bans if these people are proven guilty.. However, life ban seems only to be a term banded around..

Considering Mohammad Yousuf was banned for life 6 months ago, I'll take anything coming out of Pakistan with a massive pinch of salt.

 

[Spudsy2061]

Considering Mohammad Yousuf was banned for life 6 months ago, I'll take anything coming out of Pakistan with a massive pinch of salt.

Which is why I think the consequences should be handled by the ICC and not the PCB.

 

[JBH001]

lol hot air.

Quite honestly in this day and age if people don't believe what they're watching is real they won't watch. This is by far the biggest issue facing cricket.

Don't give me rubbish like lust for blood because that's the exact opposite of what it is. Could not care less about crime& punishment, retribution, making him pay etc it's about doing whatever it takes to protect the sport. In my mind a "minimal-moderate punishment with fines and a short term ban from test cricket" is absolutely ludicrous.

I'm sorry, what?

This has been around for ages, in far worse form in the 1990s, I might add, handled far more leniently and I'm yet to see any sign of massive drop offs in audience attendance uncertain and unsure of what they are watching. Please, there are worse issues than this specific instance facing the game if that is the criteria. The game isn't some sort of virtuous entity needing to be guarded from self appointed protectors.

And not hot air? LOL! It's had a long history of this sort of issue and worse, not to mention a whole host of others from apartheid, rebel tours, and treading dangerously on the laws and 'spirit' of the game (not to get too far into all that). What a load of bollocks! On the back of all that, I give little credence to rubbish statements like "It's not about being fair or just, it's about protecting the sport. This stuff rips apart the foundations of cricket and should be treated like a cancer with no mercy shown." Lust for blood, pretty much. And wholly misguided at that.

 

[Jigga988]

As far as altering the outcome of a match goes, bowling a no-ball is pretty inconsequential (especially in this instance where nothing untoward seems to have hinged on those deliveries)

One needs to consider the fact that, once something like this happens once, no matter how inconsequential, whether it be bowling a no ball, or like Samuels, giving information on a pitch, once something like this happens, one is victim to the bookies for life, and there's a fair chance of this happening again...

 

[pasag]

I'm sorry, what?

This has been around for ages, in far worse form in the 1990s, I might add, handled far more leniently and I'm yet to see any sign of massive drop offs in audience attendance uncertain and unsure of what they are watching. Please, there are worse issues than this specific instance facing the game if that is the criteria. The game isn't some sort of virtuous entity needing to be guarded from self appointed protectors.

And not hot air? LOL! It's had a long history of this sort of issue and worse, not to mention a whole host of others from apartheid, rebel tours, and treading dangerously on the laws and 'spirit' of the game (not to get too far into all that). What a load of bollocks! On the back of all that, I give little credence to rubbish statements like "It's not about being fair or just, it's about protecting the sport. This stuff rips apart the foundations of cricket and should be treated like a cancer with no mercy shown." Lust for blood, pretty much. And wholly misguided at that.

I'm sorry almost every sentence here is utter nonsense almost to the point of being irrational, which is nothing out of the ordinary. But to clarify the point about fair and just, I'm referring to the point of this thread where people start saying, well he's young, impressionable, it was only his first offence, so let's give him a chance, which in regular circumstances would be fair and I'd be on board with for lesser things like drugs etc.

Edit: I'm probably being harsh but you have a very annoying posting style. Imagine if I responded to your post with "so basically what you're saying is that players should get off scot-free" it'd be very annoying and not what you said at all.

Once you realise what that my central point is merely a pragmatic one you'll realise that easy catchphrases like "virtuous entity" or "Lust for blood" have absolutely no relevance because this isn't about revenge nor retribution but rather the merely the most effective way with dealing with the problem.

 

[Cruxdude]

I haven't read the whole thread, nor the other threads, neither have I read all about this issue as I have been busy with life and work stuff, and not been all that much in touch with the cricket (apart from following the scores and watching h/l of Trott's and Broad's hundreds). But, on a quick skim all the posts recommending life ban etc seem way too harsh. I frankly don't understand where these comments are coming from. As far as altering the outcome of a match goes, bowling a no-ball is pretty inconsequential (especially in this instance where nothing untoward seems to have hinged on those deliveries) and for another, Aamer is a young man with a lot left to learn. I'd advocate a minimal-moderate punishment with fines and a short term ban from test cricket.

The issue is that the fixer was using these no-balls just to prove that he really has influence. This wasn't the actual fix.

 

[Jacknife]

I'm sorry almost every sentence here is utter nonsense almost to the point of being irrational, which is nothing out of the ordinary. But to clarify the point about fair and just, I'm referring to the point of this thread where people start saying, well he's young, impressionable, it was only his first offence, so let's give him a chance, which in regular circumstances would be fair and I'd be on board with for lesser things like drugs etc.

Spot on and it isn't just about a few no balls,the guy that got arrested was using the no balls to show the undercover reporter, that he had tapped up some of the Pakistani players and that he could influence games in the way he described. In the paper he spoke of the last game that he got them to throw in Australia and games that they were going to throw in the ODi series against England.My opinion is, if this is all proved, the cricket boards,the ICC have to take a tough stance and make the message loud and clear, if you get involved in any way shape or form with any form of match fixing whether it's spot-fixing or session betting,your career is screwed and you will be banned.

 

[JBH001]

I'm sorry almost every sentence here is utter nonsense almost to the point of being irrational, which is nothing out of the ordinary. But to clarify the point about fair and just, I'm referring to the point of this thread where people start saying, well he's young, impressionable, it was only his first offence, so let's give him a chance, which in regular circumstances would be fair and I'd be on board with for lesser things like drugs etc.

Thanks for the ad hominem, not that I expect anything other from you.

I'll be clear about this, the point is does the punishment fit the crime? If the worse aspect of the broader issue is deliberate match-fixing then this falls a long way short of that - a bookie's claims to influence on the field not withstanding (as the evidence of ultimate influence is not something he has claimed in any case). The second is the issue is that it is a young man committing his first offence, a consideration that in all fairness must be weighed. I don't see how assertions to the contrary have any weight.

The other issue is your laughable claim that the game is in threat if extreme measures are not taken and audience participation will fall due to lack of confidence. Why not just leave it to the actual audiences to decide, over the long term, instead of speaking for other people? The only way this might be true is if a long running match fixing scandal involving numerous players and countries over a period of time came to light. But we are clearly a long way short of that. Cricket has always been something of a grubby game - lets not delude ourselves otherwise.

Edit: I'm probably being harsh but you have a very annoying posting style. Imagine if I responded to your post with "so basically what you're saying is that players should get off scot-free" it'd be very annoying and not what you said at all.

Right back at you which may explain my reaction to your original post, But I'm not about to apologise for it, and I still think you are dead wrong in any case.

Once you realise what that my central point is merely a pragmatic one you'll realise that easy catchphrases like "virtuous entity" or "Lust for blood" have absolutely no relevance because this isn't about revenge nor retribution but rather the merely the most effective way with dealing with the problem.

Your 'central' point is far from pragmatic despite your assertions to the contrary. What I am arguing against is that, as seems likely, Aamer is not made to pay for two decades (if not more) of sloppy handling of a contentious issue, and for the repeated ills of Pakistani (and sub-continental) cricket. A lifelong ban would strip away a career and source of income as well as lead to a life of shame and stigma. Lol at your claims of being pragmatic. It may be the most effective way of dealing with the problem (although I'd disagree with that too) but it would also be unjust and unfair on Aamer.

Finally, as to my posting style, you know what to do about it. It would save you reading my ****ty posts and me reading your ****ty posts.