As for the OP, it's a really good question. I think we're all more revolted by fixing than cheating, but there's really no good reason for that. Either way you compromise the integrity of the game. The idea that the cheat is somehow the more noble for actually trying to win is a hard one to sustain.
It's a bit like being asked whether you'd prefer to die by being fried, boiled or roasted. None of them are pleasant and when you analyse them, they're all pretty sub-optimal.
On the day in 1948 when the Crims scored 700 against Essex, Keith Miller is said to have deliberately chucked his wicket away first ball*.
Applying Jono's logic, "for that one ball, Miller was trying to lose."
But personally I don't think that what Miller did was remotely as serious as it would have been had he (or his captain) deliberately tried to lose the match.
You can say of course that Miller chucking his wicket away didn't matter, because his team-mates were scoring so heavily that it couldn't possibly influence the outcome of the match. Couldn't a lot of spot-fixing be described in the same way?
Just a thought. Probably a crap one, but hey, that's never stopped me before.
* It's recently been suggested by David Frith that this may not in fact be true. But whether or not that's so, it doesn't really alter the point.
Yeah I don't get the "spot fixing is exactly the same as match fixing" argument. It's not really that black and white though. For instance, if you steal something, then you stole. However, would you punish someone that stole a can of soda the same way you would punish someone that stole millions of dollars? What about killing someone? Is manslaughter the same as murder? In both cases, a life was lost. Yet the legal system treats them differently. I'm fine with someone saying that they feel spot fixing is as bad as match fixing. However I'm just surprised if you don't draw a distinction between the two.
For me, they are to all extents and purposes the same crime but with differing degress of severity rather than two different crimes.
Now onto your point. I see what you are getting at. However I think that example is Keith Miller being a smartarse/lazy. The key difference is he didn't have ill intentions in doing so.
What if a player has been told by the bookies that his team cannot win by more than 4 wickets, and they are 5 wickets down, 2 runs to win and 50 balls left. He knows his team is going to win, he knows it. There is no way they will lose, and him losing his wicket will have no impact on the success of his team, only the margin. He then purposely gets bowled (disguising it as a **** shot) and the next batsman to come in scores the 2 runs and his team wins by 4 wickets.
The bookies are happy.
The team is happy.
He is happy.
Is this not still fixing a match?
Pre-meditated murder and murder in the heat of the moment are both still murder. One gets a more severe sentence to the other.
Losing on purpose match fixing or spot fixing a specific point in a match are both match fixing. One gets a more severe sentence to the other.
Last edited by Jono; 22-09-2011 at 07:46 PM.
"I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."
Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.
No that's a fair point. But if Aamer's intention was not to lose the match, then his punishment should be less severe to match fixing. And that has happened.
I think when people say that match fixing and spot fixing are the same, they are being misinterpreted here (and perhaps zaremba has taken me too bluntly, which is my fault for my wording).
We aren't saying that they should both receive the same bans. We are saying they both bring the game into disrepute, and the match is tainted forever because of the incident, even if it is just one ball (or one over that is less than 6 runs scores on purpose etc. one intentionally missed goal in a game of football)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)