• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Mohammad Amir retires from tests

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
The idea that spot fixing is not the same as match fixing is bad. "Spots" are elements of a match. By fixing one you totally undermine the integrity of the other.

May as well say someone isn't a poisoner because they only poisoned part of a meal rather than the whole of it.
 

Maximas

Cricketer Of The Year
The idea that spot fixing is not the same as match fixing is bad. "Spots" are elements of a match. By fixing one you totally undermine the integrity of the other.

May as well say someone isn't a poisoner because they only poisoned part of a meal rather than the whole of it.
Why the need to completely lose sight of a sense of scale and severity? Bowling a no ball on cue so some ****er can profit off it just isn't the same thing as throwing a match
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
Yeah, even if he took 6/13 after bowling a spot-fixed no-ball, the match was fixed.
Precisely, it would be like allowing a drop of urine to fall into your drink, and then be told "don't worry, most of the drink is still ok". The entire match was contaminated, and this is reflected in the fact that he was charged (and convicted of) a criminal offence that is habitually used for dealing with match-fixers.
 

Maximas

Cricketer Of The Year
The match was compromised, it's result was influenced, but the result was not fixed - clear difference.

The act was still so wrong as to be criminal, but there still lies a clear distinction between what he did and what the likes of Cronje did
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
The match was compromised, it's result was influenced, but the result was not fixed - clear difference.

The act was still so wrong as to be criminal, but there still lies a clear distinction between what he did and what the likes of Cronje did
Yes, indeed. But both were acts of match-fixing.

The ICC Code on Corruption itself defines match fixing as:

"...contriving in any way or otherwise influencing improperly, or being a party to any agreement or effort to fix or contrive in any way or otherwise influence improperly, the result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of any International Match, including (without limitation) by deliberately underperforming therein."

What Amir did easily falls within the scope of this definition. Easily. Given that the "improper influencing" of "any" aspect of a match is capable of satisfying the definition, the result of the match can be neither here nor there.
 
Last edited:

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The match was compromised, it's result was influenced, but the result was not fixed - clear difference.

The act was still so wrong as to be criminal, but there still lies a clear distinction between what he did and what the likes of Cronje did
You're right but he never should have played again anyway. Just because it's not the worst form of fixing doesnt mean the punishment he got was disproportionate. The guy got off easy. **** like this should be a death sentence for a career. Piss off and a new profession.
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I mean, we've actually gone from people saying a life-ban would be disproportionately harsh (back when the thing happened) to now to saying even the 5 years he served were too much. ****ing absurdity.
 
Last edited:

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
You're right but he never should have played again anyway. Just because it's not the worst form of fixing doesnt mean the punishment he got was disproportionate. The guy got off easy. **** like this should be a death sentence for a career. Piss off and a new profession.
This is the thing. It's not as bad as the Cronje incident, but it is still an instance of the same thing.

It's like the difference between someone who goes out and shoots a bunch of people in cold blood, and someone else who puts a pillow over the face of a relative who is in unimaginable pain and has been asked to be put out of their misery. Both situations involve a murder, but one is of a decidedly different character to the other.
 

Maximas

Cricketer Of The Year
I'm not actually taking a stance on the punishment he received, just disagreeing that there is no difference in severity between the two aforementioned cases.

@sledger was not aware of that definition, seems to me that the term 'spot-fixing' is redundant if we are going to call 'match fixing' anything that improperly influences the progress of the match, hence I actually take issue with that definition, and therefore agree with your points if we were to accept that standard.
 

Maximas

Cricketer Of The Year
This is the thing. It's not as bad as the Cronje incident, but it is still an instance of the same thing.
The same thing being the match was compromised, not that the end result of the match was fixed, which is my point.
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
The same thing being the match was compromised, not that the end result of the match was fixed, which is my point.
I never said the result was fixed tbh. Just that the match, and various constituent elements of it, were.
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
I'm not actually taking a stance on the punishment he received, just disagreeing that there is no difference in severity between the two aforementioned cases.

@sledger was not aware of that definition, seems to me that the term 'spot-fixing' is redundant if we are going to call 'match fixing' anything that improperly influences the progress of the match, hence I actually take issue with that definition, and therefore agree with your points if we were to accept that standard.
I don't think anyone was suggesting there wasn't tbh.
 

trundler

Hall of Fame Member
This is the thing. It's not as bad as the Cronje incident, but it is still an instance of the same thing.

It's like the difference between someone who goes out and shoots a bunch of people in cold blood, and someone else who puts a pillow over the face of a relative who is in unimaginable pain and has been asked to be put out of their misery. Both situations involve a murder, but one is of a decidedly different character to the other.
Are you saying Amir's fixing was good from a utilitarian POV? ITSTL.
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
No.

Edit: Though I think the word you are looking for is altruistic.
 
Last edited:

trundler

Hall of Fame Member
Hmm, maybe I do but you could perhaps make a utilitarian argument for it. Perhaps I should've said consequentialist.
 

Maximas

Cricketer Of The Year
I never said the result was fixed tbh. Just that the match, and various constituent elements of it, were.
Correct, you implied that the result was null and void, which I am sympathetic to, however under most definitions and my own understanding this is what separates match fixing from spot fixing, semantic issue regarding terminology but I consider the two acts to be different crimes, not different expressions of the same crime
 

Top