Butt/Amir/Asif - Spot Fixing Trial

[zaremba]

No, if he'd been truly innocent then Asif wouldn't have bowled the no-ball in the first place. The whole scandal emerged because the NOTW's reporter was told "Amir will bowl a no-ball on this delivery, Asif will bowl a no-ball on this delivery" and that's exactly what transpired. If Madjeed had been telling the NOTW a pile of ****e then there would have been no story. There's two explanations; that Asif's no ball was a massive coincidence, or he was guilty of some degree to spot fixing.

Yep, I agree with your analysis completely.

Actually a third explanation would be some sort of duress argument - I or my family have been given death threats - but no-one has (yet) wheeled that one out so far as I'm aware.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

No, if he'd been truly innocent then Asif wouldn't have bowled the no-ball in the first place. The whole scandal emerged because the NOTW's reporter was told "Amir will bowl a no-ball on this delivery, Asif will bowl a no-ball on this delivery" and that's exactly what transpired. If Madjeed had been telling the NOTW a pile of ****e then there would have been no story. There's two explanations; that Asif's no ball was a massive coincidence, or he was guilty of some degree to spot fixing.

No, look at the scenario where Asif is innocent:

Butt and Majeed conspire and decide that Asif will bowl no-ball at a particular moment. Asif isn't involved but Salman and Majeed know that he will comply without question because that's how things are done in Pakistan. Plus Butt could actually say on the field that 'look Asif why don't you overstep to intimidate the Batsmen, get a quicker delivery down there' It makes perfect sense for Asif to then say yes boss.

 

[zaremba]

Got you there.

No but seriously it isn't that much of a far fetched argument that his captain told him to do it. Ignore the 'I don't know what match fixing is, I really was joking there.

Well I agree to the extent that the team captain is obviously in a position of great influence in the team. That's why he's captain, and because he's captain. But he's not just going to ask the bowler out of the blue while the game is in play. Far too risky. Think what Butt has riding on (a) getting it right and (b) nor giving the game away. So, the bowler gets persuaded before play begins. He will have plenty of time for the obvious reality of the situation to dawn on him.

 

[Furball]

No, look at the scenario where Asif is innocent:

Butt and Majeed conspire and decide that Asif will bowl no-ball at a particular moment. Asif isn't involved but Salman and Majeed know that he will comply without question because that's how things are done in Pakistan. Plus Butt could actually say on the field that 'look Asif why don't you overstep to intimidate the Batsmen, get a quicker delivery down there' It makes perfect sense for Asif to then say yes boss.

It makes even more sense for Asif to say "quicker delivery? I've been making these guys look utterly clueless all summer despite not bowling any quicker than 80mph."

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Well I agree to the extent that the team captain is obviously in a position of great influence in the team. That's why he's captain, and because he's captain. But he's not just going to ask the bowler out of the blue while the game is in play. Far too risky. Think what Butt has riding on (a) getting it right and (b) nor giving the game away. So, the bowler gets persuaded before play begins. He will have plenty of time for the obvious reality of the situation to dawn on him.

I am only presenting a scenario that could be used to get away with cheating on Asif's part. I am sure, just like you that Asif was involved and that it was all preplanned. What I am saying that Asif could use the argument and persuade the panel (considering if there is no further evidence against him) that he really was innocent and was only following orders because the captain wanted him to overstep in order to get a faster one and thus surprising the batsman.

 

[zaremba]

I am only presenting a scenario that could be used to get away with cheating on Asif's part. I am sure, just like you that Asif was involved and that it was all preplanned which involved him. What I am saying that Asif could use the argument and persuade the panel (considering if there is no further evidence against him) that he really was innocent and was only following orders because the captain wanted him to overstep in order to get a faster one and thus surprising the batsman.

It'd be difficult for him now to run that defence if he's up till now given a contradictory explanation, ie it was an accident.

Also, he only overstepped fractionally - the "quicker ball" explanation was much more easily available to Amir who stepped over enormously.

And was the Asif no ball actually a quicker ball?

 

[Furball]

Also with regard to the cricketing culture, I'd say fatally undermining a captain you don't like is far more ingrained into the culture of Pakistani cricket than meek subservience.

There's far too much of a risk to Salman Butt to not have Asif involved prior to the event. It would be a huge gamble on Butt's part to assume that either asking Asif outright to bowl a no-ball, or imply that he should bowl one (by saying "hey Mo, why not put in a real effort ball with this delivery) would be met with Asif's agreement, particularly given the shenanigans sorrounding the captaincy in Pakistan - Salman Butt wasn't exactly a widely respected senior the way Inzamam was; he was (IIRC) Pakistan's third Test captain of 2010 after Mohammad Yousuf got binned after the Australia tour and Shahid Afridi decided after one Test back that he couldn't be bothered with Test cricket, so the idea that all his players would just blindly do his bidding is somewhat naive. Asif's own personal history - having a cricket bat fight with Shoaib, or getting caught with drugs in the UAE - doesn't suggest that he's the sort of man who will obey authority, no questions asked.

What you're essentially asking us to believe is that Asif wasn't in on things in the slightest and that his delivering the no-ball at precisely the time Majeed said he would is nothing more than an unfortunate coincidence.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

It'd be difficult for him now to run that defence if he's up till now given a contradictory explanation, ie it was an accident.

Also, he only overstepped fractionally - the "quicker ball" explanation was much more easily available to Amir who stepped over enormously.

And was the Asif no ball actually a quicker ball?

So he could say 'I tried to make it look innocent' (hence the small overstep).

That's why It's odd that he didn't use that for his defence, when Amir did.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Also with regard to the cricketing culture, I'd say fatally undermining a captain you don't like is far more ingrained into the culture of Pakistani cricket than meek subservience.

There's far too much of a risk to Salman Butt to not have Asif involved prior to the event. It would be a huge gamble on Butt's part to assume that either asking Asif outright to bowl a no-ball, or imply that he should bowl one (by saying "hey Mo, why not put in a real effort ball with this delivery) would be met with Asif's agreement, particularly given the shenanigans sorrounding the captaincy in Pakistan - Salman Butt wasn't exactly a widely respected senior the way Inzamam was; he was (IIRC) Pakistan's third Test captain of 2010 after Mohammad Yousuf got binned after the Australia tour and Shahid Afridi decided after one Test back that he couldn't be bothered with Test cricket, so the idea that all his players would just blindly do his bidding is somewhat naive. Asif's own personal history - having a cricket bat fight with Shoaib, or getting caught with drugs in the UAE - doesn't suggest that he's the sort of man who will obey authority, no questions asked.

What you're essentially asking us to believe is that Asif wasn't in on things in the slightest and that his delivering the no-ball at precisely the time Majeed said he would is nothing more than an unfortunate coincidence.

But the panel don't know that Asif and Butt aren't good friends. Asif could just say when asked all this stuff - Butt is like an older brother, so I didn't really question him. Plus they can't find him guilty for being stupid (he could always go down that route).

 

[zaremba]

So he could say 'I tried to make it look innocent' (hence the small overstep).

So he deliberately oversteps to surprise the batsman with extra pace, yet deliberately keeps the overstep to less than an inch?

I seriously doubt that an extra inch of pace is going to unsettle the batsman.

 

[Furball]

It'd be difficult for him now to run that defence if he's up till now given a contradictory explanation, ie it was an accident.

Also, he only overstepped fractionally - the "quicker ball" explanation was much more easily available to Amir who stepped over enormously.

And was the Asif no ball actually a quicker ball?

I'm pretty sure the no-ball in question was the last ball of the 10th over, which cricinfo's commentary has at 82.7mph.

The speeds of the other 6 balls in the over were 81.6, 81.2, 80.8, 80.4, 79.7 and 79.7.

So it was faster, but it's not significantly quicker than the rest of the delveries that over.

Asif's other no-ball in the innings was 81.0mph according to cricinfo, with the other 6 deliveries of that over being clocked at 81.6, 81.5, 81.1, 80.9, 80.8 and 80.3mph.

It was the quicket delivery Asif bowled that day, but he had other legal deliveries clocked at 82.5mph and 82.4mph, so how much you can read into it I don't know.

 

[zaremba]

I'm pretty sure the no-ball in question was the last ball of the 10th over, which cricinfo's commentary has at 82.7mph.

The speeds of the other 6 balls in the over were 81.6, 81.2, 80.8, 80.4, 79.7 and 79.7.

So it was faster, but it's not significantly quicker than the rest of the delveries that over.

Asif's other no-ball in the innings was 81.0mph according to cricinfo, with the other 6 deliveries of that over being clocked at 81.6, 81.5, 81.1, 80.9, 80.8 and 80.3mph.

It was the quicket delivery Asif bowled that day, but he had other legal deliveries clocked at 82.5mph and 82.4mph, so how much you can read into it I don't know.

Great work GF.

Ties in quite well with his "accident" defence tbh.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

As I have said he could have used the argument that 'me and Butt were best buddies, and I bowled the no-ball when asked'.

 

[Furball]

Great work GF.

Ties in quite well with his "accident" defence tbh.

I'd need to see footage of it again, I'm trying to work out what sort of ball a batsman would get a single "with a controlled prod towards point" from.

 

[Furball]

As I have said he could have used the argument that 'me and Butt were best buddies, and I bowled the no-ball when asked'.

Which still implicates him in the ICC's investigation.

Different ball game for the criminal investigation he's now undergoing.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Which still implicates him in the ICC's investigation.

Different ball game for the criminal investigation he's now undergoing.

How does that implicate him under the ICC's investigation? If my captain is my friend and he asks me to bowl a no-ball, there is a chance that I will do it without question because I might overlook why he wants me to do it in the first place. I might think it's because he is frustrated and wants something different.

 

[Furball]

How does that implicate him under the ICC's investigation? If my captain is my friend and he asks me to bowl a no-ball, there is a chance that I will do it without question because I might overlook why he wants me to do it in the first place. I might think it's because he is frustrated and wants something different.

Because he has delivered a no-ball at precisely the moment a man who's claiming he has bribed several members of the Pakistan team has said he will.

 

[zaremba]

How does that implicate him under the ICC's investigation? If my captain is my friend and he asks me to bowl a no-ball, there is a chance that I will do it without question because I might overlook why he wants me to do it in the first place. I might think it's because he is frustrated and wants something different.

The problem with that defence is that Asif is not a complete cretin.

Edit: and what GF said.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I guess that's where we differ. I would want a little bit more substantial than that where as you would be OK. But I am fine with that and can completely understand why the ICC banned him.

 

[Furball]

I guess that's where we differ. I would want a little bit more substantial than that where as you would be OK. But I am fine with that and can completely understand why the ICC banned him.

Where the criminal investigation differs is that you also need proof that Asif was in on it; a lack of phone evidence coupled with no NOTW money being found in Asif's hotel room certainly raises enough doubt on that front.