Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Exactly right Mike. Of course they are innocent until proven guilty but when a man says he aims to fix a couple of ODIs in the upcoming series and, to all intents and pourposes, proves his ability to fix incidents via the no balls, its inconceivable that the players involved then play in the same one say series he says he can fix.

An axe murdeder is innocent until proven guilty but you dont let him roam the streets carrying the axe until the trial.

But suspending the 3 in question ( 4 if you count Kamran Akmal ) wouldn't definatly stop the ODIs being rigged if he has another 3 players 'in his pocket'

I would think youd have to be a loony to try any match rigging now. These ODIs will be clean.

But imagine if Amir plays and bowls a no ball....the game just doesnt need the suspicion.

BTW thought it was remarkable that hed never bowled a no ball in first class cricket. Till this series.

Wow lots of things happened over the weekend!

Kim wrote:An axe murdeder is innocent until proven guilty but you dont let him roam the streets carrying the axe until the trial.

That comparison is inapt, Kim. The guidance on bail is that it should normally be granted unless there is a compelling reason why it should not. In your axe case, there is; in the case of Mazhar Majeed, there isn't.

DeltaAlpha wrote:Unless I were a lawyer specialising in the field, sussex, I would hesitate to delve to such depth into the law regarding entrapment...

I feel comfortable im adequately qualified to make somekind of detailed assessment.

Kim wrote:Basic reason why entrapment is not a defence is the obvious one: the person entrapped has still done the dirty deed whatever the reason for doing it. They still have criminal intent.

If, god knows why, anyone wants to know more this is a directly relevant simple summary - mentions the NOW as well..

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/in-practice ... entrapment

Interesting that your directly relevant simply summary actually quotes the same 4 stage test from R v Loosely that I did above.

Interesting? Not sure why but Ill take your word for it. Only skimmed all this stuff myself.

Kim wrote:I would think youd have to be a loony to try any match rigging now. These ODIs will be clean.

But imagine if Amir plays and bowls a no ball....the game just doesnt need the suspicion.

BTW thought it was remarkable that hed never bowled a no ball in first class cricket. Till this series.

How did you find that about his no-balls, Kim? I have been poking around half-heartedly at cricinfo looking at his test bowling, and I concluded the only I would find his career no-balls would be to look test by test. I found a no-ball in his third test, then stopped poking.

Holding mentioned it on Sky yesterday regarding tests - then Gower said he hadnt bowled any in FC cricket till this summer. Had a half hearted look up myself but too much hard work.

mikesiva wrote:The wisest course of action that the PCB could take is to suspend them pending an investigation. A lot of employers would've done that. For them to continue in their current roles can't be good for the morale of the ODI side.

I dont think many people would be suspended from work following an initial line of questioning that leads to no charges being made. If they are, it would be grossly unfair to do so on a moral level( although legally i couldnt comment....employment law is not my strongest point).

DeltaAlpha wrote:

Kim wrote:An axe murdeder is innocent until proven guilty but you dont let him roam the streets carrying the axe until the trial.

That comparison is inapt, Kim. The guidance on bail is that it should normally be granted unless there is a compelling reason why it should not. In your axe case, there is; in the case of Mazhar Majeed, there isn't.

Stroller95 wrote:How did you find that about his no-balls, Kim? I have been poking around half-heartedly at cricinfo looking at his test bowling, and I concluded the only I would find his career no-balls would be to look test by test. I found a no-ball in his third test, then stopped poking.

I believe that Kim may have read the no ball fact, but I dont believe that can be true in the slightest. I player doesnt get to test level having never bowled a new ball, I think this maybe a twisted factor to try and "beef" up the crime to an non no ball understanding, cricket ignorant public. Try make out that its something that happens rarely to make the scandal bigger.

Whilst I think that the spot fixing allegations, in this last test, are pretty compelling giving the evidence, I'm yet to be convinced by the Sydney test claims. I'm not a fan of these 'sting' operations, because the objects of the stings are seemingly, either very keen to make wild claims in order to try and secure more money by 'over-egging their own pudding' (politicians... cabs on ranks), or have been lured into making claims or statements (through confusion/stupidity) because the 'meeting' has turned in a direction that they weren't necessarily expecting (Dalallio/Erikson) and they don't want to blow the deal that they originally thought they were trying to secure.

Still, for once, the NOTW has performed a great service in highlighting just how vulnerable the game of cricket actually is to these sorts of grubby influences.

Kim wrote:Holding mentioned it on Sky yesterday regarding tests - then Gower said he hadnt bowled any in FC cricket till this summer. Had a half hearted look up myself but too much hard work.

Had a little look.

Ill never believe a word Gower and Holding say again

Well here we go again.

I suppose really it is only to be expected considering the endemic corruption in a country that wastes critical resources sandbagging an assassinated leader's tomb while the common people drown or have the livelihoods destroyed.

"I dont think many people would be suspended from work following an initial line of questioning that leads to no charges being made. If they are, it would be grossly unfair to do so on a moral level( although legally i couldnt comment"

It happens. And as long as they stay on full pay etc.. its OK.

gollygosh wrote:Well here we go again.

I suppose really it is only to be expected considering the endemic corruption in a country that wastes critical resources sandbagging an assassinated leader's tomb while the common people drown or have the livelihoods destroyed.

That comparison's a bit harsh, golly....

I really don't see the relevance of the two instances. All countries have things that they should be ashamed of.