Match fixing or doping?

[zaremba]

Not the No-balls though. At the max they were giving a free run, they would still have to bowl the 6 regular balls.

Yep, quite. In this respect there's no difference (other than the measly additional run) with a bowler pulling out in his delivery stride.

 

[Howe_zat]

An interesting argument, but I'm not sure it really works, because by universalising the dishonesty in both cases you distort the comparison. A key facet of the problem with doping is the fact that someone has dishonestly procured for themselves an unfair advantage. In your hypothetical situation where everyone is on steroids, you have re-created a level playing field. No-one now has an unfair advantage relative to anyone else. And so you've completely changed the comparison.

Well yes, that's a very good point. There would be unfair advantages there - for example between those who have previous success and can afford certain drugs or the knowhow to use them, and those who are new and can't obtain these things. But you're right, I have removed a lot of the nastiness of doping in that argument.

My point is essentially that cheating to gain an advantage is clearly wrong, but at least you're still aiming for the sporting contest, because you're trying to win.

Sport after all is loaded with unfair advantages, rightly or wrongly, publicly or underhand, for whatever reason - look at the Champion's League, for example - but any moment of fakery, for me, just isn't sport.

 

[four_or_six]

Not the No-balls though. At the max they were giving a free run, they would still have to bowl the 6 regular balls.

Um... if you're not pissing around bowling no-balls then one or more of those balls may be a wicket. Not to mention the fact that you would be concentrating during your spell on what you're meant to be concentrating on.

Get the wicket on one of those balls and then the subsequent match result may be different.

 

[zaremba]

Um... if you're not pissing around bowling no-balls then one or more of those balls may be a wicket. Not to mention the fact that you would be concentrating during your spell on what you're meant to be concentrating on.

Get the wicket on one of those balls and then the subsequent match result may be different.

Sorry 4o6 but I have real difficulty with that. If you get a "wicket" with that ball, it's irrelevant. So far as taking a wicket is concerned, that ball is a non-event, a nullity, a nothingness, just as if the bowler had pulled out of his delivery stride.

Another way of looking at it is that the bowler loses the chance of taking a wicket with that ball, but gains an exactly equal chance of getting a wicket with the 7th ball of his over which he wouldn't otherwise have bowled.

 

[four_or_six]

Sorry 4o6 but I have real difficulty with that. If you get a "wicket" with that ball, it's irrelevant. So far as taking a wicket is concerned, that ball is a non-event, a nullity, a nothingness, just as if the bowler had pulled out of his delivery stride.
Another way of looking at it is that the bowler loses the chance of taking a wicket with that ball, but gains an exactly equal chance of getting a wicket with the 7th ball of his over which he wouldn't otherwise have bowled.

But imagine, making players up for arguments sake...

India are playing Australia, boxing day test. Shane Watson and Michael Clarke have taken a bribe to bowl the fourth ball of the 23rd over as a no-ball. On that ball, Sachin nicks to second slip and Ponting takes a screamer... The Aussie players start to celebrate but are interrupted by the no-ball call.

You're telling me that that would have the same impact on the output of the game, on Watson's subsequent performance, on Clarke's concentration levels, on team morale, as if Sachin pulls back because he has a fly in his eye and Watto has to run in again?!

 

[Migara]

It's better than doing both together

 

[Migara]

You're telling me that that would have the same impact on the output of the game, on Watson's subsequent performance, on Clarke's concentration levels, on team morale, as if Sachin pulls back because he has a fly in his eye and Watto has to run in again?!

Imagine if Sachin was paid to pull out of his 17th delivery facing acting as a fly in his eye. Now how would that scenario compare with doping and match fixing?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Sorry 4o6 but I have real difficulty with that. If you get a "wicket" with that ball, it's irrelevant. So far as taking a wicket is concerned, that ball is a non-event, a nullity, a nothingness, just as if the bowler had pulled out of his delivery stride.

Another way of looking at it is that the bowler loses the chance of taking a wicket with that ball, but gains an exactly equal chance of getting a wicket with the 7th ball of his over which he wouldn't otherwise have bowled.

What if instead of concentrating on bowling a foot over the crease, Amir took a wicket?

 

[zaremba]

Quite right. But in that sense, the two things (the wasted no-ball and the additional 7th ball) simply cancel each other out.