The Aamer Situation

[taipan1]

Don't think anyone is giving Gibbs a pass. Someone brought his name up in comparison to Amir.

Butt should get life. Cronje and Ahzarudin did.

 

[Top_Cat]

TBF, I think Butt's involvement runs far far deeper than Gibbs ever was.

Absolutely but hypothetically speaking, imagine if all he was guilty of was the incident I mentioned. Would people be happy for 6 months for him then?

Myself, Gibbs was no naive youngster and should have been gone for 2 years at least but I don't think the legislation was well developed at the time.

 

[GotSpin]

Absolutely but hypothetically speaking, imagine if all he was guilty of was the incident I mentioned. Would people be happy for 6 months for him then?

Myself, Gibbs was no naive youngster and should have been gone for 2 years at least but I don't think the legislation was well developed at the time.

Oh yeah. Skimmed your post before.

Yeah sure Gibbs deserved a a longer ban, as would Butt if they were in similar circumstances. Probably 2-5 years to ensure the message sinks in - Gibbs accepted the money right?

 

[Sir Alex]

TBF, I think Butt's involvement runs far far deeper than Gibbs ever was.

How?

 

[GotSpin]

How?

Are you being serious?

 

[Top_Cat]

Oh yeah. Skimmed your post before.

Yeah sure Gibbs deserved a a longer ban, as would Butt if they were in similar circumstances. Probably 2-5 years to ensure the message sinks in - Gibbs accepted the money right?

Don't think he ever saw it, tbh.

 

[GotSpin]

Don't think he ever saw it, tbh.

I guess it'd depend if he'd already accepted the money or not as well.

 

[Teja.]

Gibbs didn't carry it out either

Gibbs gave 3-4 chances in his 80-odd and looked extremely edgy, especially initially tbh.(as TEC mentioned in an earlier post)

It's sad that Gibbs was not given a life ban.

 

[morgieb]

Just because Gibbs forgot/didn't get under 20, doesn't mean he wasn't a match fixer.

Just look at the final Super Six game in the 99 World Cup. Still don't believe that that 'drop' was not on purpose.

 

[zaremba]

Can't see how point 3 comes into it at all. Extending that rationale the other way, does that mean that it should be a more serious issue to murder a talented young sportsman than it is to murder a mediocre kid, because the former has lost 'more'.

Regarding the second point, a life ban is not a purely punitive move, so I don't think we need to get tangled up in issues of whether it would affect Amir for a hypothetically longer time than others. It is a move for the protection of the cricketing community.

Point 3 (more to lose) comes into it because it's relevant to how serious a life ban actually is. If I were banned from Test cricket for life, it'd be a much less harsh penalty than it would be to, say, a young Sachin Tendulkar. Any Court sentencing an individual would have regard to what they (and third parties) stood to lose in the event that a particular sentence was imposed. This does not diminish the seriousness of the offence itself but is a mitigating factor nonetheless, because it's relevant to the practical effect of a potential sentence on the offender.

Point 2 (life ban lasts longer) comes into it for the same reason. Regardless of whether the move is primarily or exclusively punitive, it's a truly basic principle of any sentencing system that the sentence must be fair and proportionate.

 

[Noble One]

Just because Gibbs forgot/didn't get under 20, doesn't mean he wasn't a match fixer.

Just look at the final Super Six game in the 99 World Cup. Still don't believe that that 'drop' was not on purpose.

You do realise Gibbs scored 101 in the South African innings?

 

[Athlai]

You do realise Gibbs scored 101 in the South African innings?

But don't you see! ITS THE PERFECT CRIME!

 

[Noble One]

But don't you see! ITS THE PERFECT CRIME!

I'd love the after match conversation between bookie/hansie and Gibbs with Gibbs to explain just how he played his end of the bargain.

"Sorry Hansie that 100 was just a ploy to fool them all. $200,000 please"

 

[taipan1]

Just because Gibbs forgot/didn't get under 20, doesn't mean he wasn't a match fixer.

Just look at the final Super Six game in the 99 World Cup. Still don't believe that that 'drop' was not on purpose.

What a pile. It wasn't a drop and in many people's eyes he had the ball under control.

 

[Uppercut]

Interesting people essentially giving Gibbs a pass. Would you do the same for Butt were the only allegation against him the one brought up recently where he agreed to play out a maiden but didn't because the ball was doing heaps and he couldn't guarantee it so pulled out? In my opinion, it only marginally lessens the culpability because he didn't actually follow-through. To bring up the murder analogy again (not that I agree with it but eh), if you have a phone convo where someone says they're planning to kill someone but don't, the person is still in trouble.

Well yeah, but in a hell of a lot less trouble than if you actually killed the person. Which makes Gibbs's shorter ban perfectly sensible .

He could have got a life ban and I wouldn't have particularly minded, but I do think it makes a pretty big difference that he didn't follow through. It's much more sickening for the cricketing community to look back on an innings and think, "he got out on purpose" than, "he planned on getting out on purpose but then didn't".

 

[vcs]

Well yeah, but in a hell of a lot less trouble than if you actually killed the person. Which makes Gibbs's shorter ban perfectly sensible .

He could have got a life ban and I wouldn't have particularly minded, but I do think it makes a pretty big difference that he didn't follow through. It's much more sickening for the cricketing community to look back on an innings and think, "he got out on purpose" than, "he planned on getting out on purpose but then didn't".

Could say that Aamer did not allow the no-balling to stop him from bowling a sensational spell either.

You can either take the lenient route with both, or ask for maximum punishment in both cases.

I must say I was always a little bitter that Gibbs came back to play in 6 months while Ajay Jadeja's career was virtually terminated.

 

[Uppercut]

You could, but I wouldn't. All of Gibbs's known misdeeds regarding fixing occured off the cricket field. That's a key distinction between what he did and what Amir did, imo.

Banning both would have been fair enough, mind.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Seems to me pretty rational to think leniency to be appropriate in his case

(1) because his youth is quite obviously a mitigating factor,

(2) because his youth means a life ban would in reality be a longer sentence than for a player nearer the end of his career, and

(3) because his outstanding talent means that he (not to mention the cricket world) has so much more to lose if he's banned for life.

1) Not necessarily. What's the cut off point where youth is not an excuse and he can be held responsible wholly for the decisions he makes?

2) Being young, he has the opportunity for cutting his losses and making it good in an alternative career. It's more harsh on someone who's spent 10 years or so knowing of nothing but the game as a career.

3) Why is that even a factor?

 

[Teja.]

3) Why is that even a factor?

Point 3 (more to lose) comes into it because it's relevant to how serious a life ban actually is. If I were banned from Test cricket for life, it'd be a much less harsh penalty than it would be to, say, a young Sachin Tendulkar. Any Court sentencing an individual would have regard to what they (and third parties) stood to lose in the event that a particular sentence was imposed. This does not diminish the seriousness of the offence itself but is a mitigating factor nonetheless, because it's relevant to the practical effect of a potential sentence on the offender.

.

 

[Uppercut]

A life ban isn't about retribution so much as it's about keeping filthy cheats out of our glorious sport.