Prohibition Doesn't Work: Cricket & Gambling Edition

ajs

Lee Kwan Yiew (forgive spelling please) would have dealt with it it Singapore. Oh Yes. Make him Head of the World Cricket Organisation at once.

Beer Moth

If someone took money, to deliberately bowl a no-ball, then the whole match is voided. Bowled properly, it might have altered the course of the match. That is why we like to watch bowlers bowl.

There is also the wider point that if a player/some players are out there on the field, in such a frame of mind, then it is not merely the said 'no-ball' that is under question. Their whole contribution can only be regarded as lacking commitment. This at the pinnacle of the sport.

Where is the consolation in any of that?

Thirladean

Unless there is evidence of match-fixing - and none has been offered to date - the reactions to this seem excessive, and talk of a life-time ban ridiculous. On a scale of 1 to 10, agreeing to bowl a no ball in a given over must rate at 1. It might be a means of ripping off bookmakers, but can make no difference to the cricket match itself. Nobody who watched Amir and Asif, both bowling beautifully on Friday, could suppose they weren't trying to dismiss English batsmen - and making a good job of it too. To my mind their actions, even if proved, are less despicable and - even - less against the spirit of cricket than the sledging in which Test teams indulge, something of which England are as guilty now as anyone. Sledging, euphemistically called psychological warfare, is itself a form of cheating, an attempt to talk, rather than bowl, a batsman out.

Nor do I see any ethical difference between cheating to win and cheating to lose. Both make a mockery of the game.
As for Alex's suggestion that doping a horse to win doesn't rob the public as surely as running a non-trier does, it nevertheless robs those who have backed the second horse to win

Thirladean

An anecdote, to lighten the mood. At the tea interval one day, Walter Robins said to Denis Compton. "Funny that I never see a strong chap like you hit a straight six." "All right then," said Denis, "watch the third ball after tea. Bet you a tenner." "Done". So third ball after tea soared over the sightscreen. I imagine Denis had had a word with the bowler, asking him to put it in the right spot. perhaps offered to stand him a pint, and the bowler had said, "it's going to cost that bastard Robbie a tenner, you say? You're on; happy to oblige." And did so.

David Vinter

Only the weak and stupid would take a bet on whether or not a 'no ball' will be bowled at a specific time----It has to be rigged!

Noa Zrk

"There are different kinds of cheating and some offend us more than others".

Presumably what Alex Massie means is that there are different degrees of cheating and therefore some acts as less reprehensible than others.

So, a no ball is not like deliberately losing the match.

that's moral relativism for you. You compromise, explain, rationalise and excuse so much that your ideals and beliefs, what you stood for and everything that you held to be of value, becomes worthless.

Which is the value of Pakistan cricket now,

Thirladean

To Noa Zrk: what's the value of Harlequins rfc after the Bloodgate affair? Worthless?

Noa Zrk

Thirladean

Both Bloodgate and Lordgate are deplorable and
contemptible, but are they really comparable?
The former was motivated primarily by individuals, keen to win at any cost. The latter appears to demonstrate mainly a systemic financial greed.

Noa Zrk

...but the punishment should be the same.
Ban the individuals for life the club, or nation for five years, or until purged.

Mr Adequate

This specific instance was a spot-fix, but it was instigated in order to prove that the fixer could do what he said he could.
He clearly indicated that matches in the past had been fixed and that there was the capability and intent to do so in the future.

There is also a clear moral difference between cheating to win and throwing a game. Presumably those who disagree would be in favour of lifetime bans for deliberate handball / knock-on?

Austin Barry

The ICC should just ban Pakistan from international cricket.

The country's corruption is endemic and its theocratic terrorism means its national team can never again play a home series.

And now every ball bowled and every wicket lost will be suspect. A match with Pakistan will be, or rather is, as meaningless as a professional wrestling bout.

DavidDP

"but are they really comparable?"

I don't know, you compromise, explain, rationalise and excuse so much that your ideals and beliefs, what you stood for and everything that you held to be of value, becomes worthless.......
but are they really comparable?

Sarah AB

I don't think it's 'moral relativism' to place crimes in a suggested order of seriousness. That would mean that it was 'moral relativism' to say that murder was worse than theft. But even though what has happened isn't so bad as throwing a match, a no ball just might affect the outcome, and I agree with AM that it's somehow worse to cheat to lose than cheat to win.

Rhoda Klapp

Murder you say? Well, the effort to ban it has come to nothing, as we all knew it would. Better legalize it, or at least de-criminalize it, so we can keep murder under control without people having to resort to back-street murders which are of course uniquely evil.

dearieme

"Only the weak and stupid would take a bet on whether or not a 'no ball' will be bowled at a specific time": or someone laundering money?

The Clouds

Forgive me for stating the blindingly obvious, but Islam forbids any earnings that are not made from honest work and effort. Gambling is one of the deeds that is considered haram in Islam, and expressly forbidden to Muslims.

Lifting prohibition in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is as likely as Paul Ross frying his hand in Helmsdale next Tuesday.

Vern

Yes, but that's the kind of detail you can't expect the utopian Mr. Massie, he of the grand ideas that are fun to declare aloud because they will never be put into practice, to take into account, or indeed, be aware of. The pleasing inner glow of self righteousness trumps fact every time.

Or are we about to get a blog on the folly of Islam and its many prohibitions? Thought not.

Noa Zrk

DavidDP 10:13am

"but are they really comparable?".

Ouch! Yes, a clear example of thinking whilst writing, hence my later post at 9.54am.

It doesn't matter, they're both guilty of cheating and should be punished appropriately to protect the game, otherwise the sport loses any meaning. Much as society needs to treat crime in order to survive.

St Bruno

‘Bringing the game into disrepute’

Thought that would cover it.

That is if the News of the World has it right and proper of course. Still, the sad piece of news should rattle a few cages, both at home and abroad.

Victor Southern

A lifetime ban would be very suitable. These are all too common events in Pakistani cricket.

The bookies who take bets on when exactly a non-ball will be bowled deserve to become insolvent - they are too stupid for their business.

Fergus Pickering

What I can't understand is why on earth the two best bolwers in Pakistan, who can surely earn a fortune from cricket (or can they - put me right on this one) should bowl no balls for peanuts. As for moral relativism - come of it. Hands up all those people who have never stolen something from work. Like stationery, paper clips or pencils for instance. I always considered it a perk of the job. Hands up all those who have never inflated an expense claim. What NEVER? Well, hardly ever. Of course bowling a no ball for money isn't the same as throwing a match. If it were proved that the Pakistanis deliberately dropped all those catches in the first test, why then that would be very serious indeed. But frankly I don't think so.

W.G. Grace on being bowled replaced the bails. 'They've come to see me bat, not you bowl,' and continued his innings. Bradman was caught on 28, refused to go and stayed to make 187. Were Bradman and Grace better or worse than these guys? In 1958-59 Australia beat England by employing fast bowlers, Meckiff and Rorke, who threw the ball from eighteen yards. The Australian umpires were complicit. Australia, after all, hadn't beaten England since 1951.

Oh, and after the Bodyline series, the establishment in England and Australia got rid of Larwood and Jardine and agreed not to bowl bouncers AT ALL in the next series. Bradman couldn't play bouncers. Bouncers made their reappearance (and how!) after the war,in the hands of Lindwall and Miller. England didn't have any fast bowlers so suffered for years until Frank Tyson happened along.

Grassmarket

Fergus: the point of bowling no balls was not to gain money but to prove to the punter (ie the NotW journalists) that these bowlers, the captain and other team members were under the control of the middleman and could be bribed to do even more.

Fergus Pickering

Like what exactly, Grassmarket? Are we sure it wasn't just a way of relieving the sheikh, or whatver he was, of money. For nothing. For nothing.

Ben G

The most damning aspect of the affair is this;

Amir agreed to bowl a no-ball in the middle of one of the best spells of fast bowling we have seen for years. He had England on the rack. But he let them off to make a few quid.

In many respects his behaviour is the most disgraceful, and any talk of leniency is misplaced.