Why is everyone jumping the gun (i.e. passing verdicts) on suspension of players in PSL?

[cricwiz]

It's fine to discuss whether it was right or wrong on PCB part to suspend players and give out a strong message to others - Or was it better a strategy to keep things hidden until the suspected players are proven guilty...

What I fail to understand is why everyone is jumping the gun and giving verdicts like the players should be banned for life, it was all due to Amir saga etc. etc. Only PCB by now knows the exact details of it.

What PCB has briefed the media by now is that Sharjeel and Khalid Latif met some alleged bookie. But PCB has not told anything more... So why are we making conclusions here... There are MANY circumstances possible e.g.

1. Fixing happened: There was not only a meeting with a bookie but some deal was finalized and the player(s) played according to the script given to them. Something similar to the trio incident in 2010.

2. Fixing deal was offered and accepted: There was a deal on cards (and PCB has proof of it), where the suspected players were going to do some fix in the future matches of PSL - but PCB caught the players beforehand.

3. Fixing deal was offered and rejected: The players were offered a deal to fix and they knew beforehand the person they are meeting is a suspected bookie. They rejected the offer, but did not report the approach to PCB.

The top three scenarios are quite serious offences. And the first two can land players into life ban category.

4. Players knew before hand that they are meeting a bookie: The players in question knew very well in advance that the person they are meeting is a suspected bookie. But they still went to meet him. There was no offer made, but players did not report the meeting to PCB either.

5. Players did not know they were meeting a bookie (scenario 1): Players met someone who they thought was a fan. But it turned out to be a bookie and he offered them a deal but the players rejected. PCB got the evidence and waited for players to report the incident (and gave them enough time to report) - but the players never reported so.

6. Players did not know they were meeting a bookie (scenario 2): Players met someone who they thought was a fan. But it turned out to be a bookie and he offered them a deal but the players rejected it. PCB caught the players red-handed after that meeting. Did the players have had enough time to report the incident?

7. Players did not know they were meeting a bookie (scenario 3): Players met someone who they thought was a fan. They never got a clue in the meeting that they were meeting a suspected person. The PCB got clue of players meeting with that bookie - and suddenly the players realize that the person whom they met was a bookie.

So these are just SOME of the plausible cases. If it was either 6 or 7, Sharjeel & Khalid Latif will be innocent in all of this. And if it's No. 1 - 5, there can be different set of punishments given for every offence..

So I would request everyone to wait for PCB as well as player's side of story. Than jump the gun !!!

 

[Hawkeye]

Our awaam and media is the judge and the executioner.

This applies to internet warriors too.

Those questioned and now allowed to play just got labeled as cheats here.

I'm all for punishing if someone is found.

 

[Manager101]

Because, unfortunately, the sub-continent people are fond of sensationalism.

 

[kingusama92]

While I agree, the swift nature of their suspension illustrates it was likely 1-3.

Some of the other players Sethi mentioned (i.e. Irfan) might have been in the 5-7 category.

 

[Major]

No one is making conclusions. Everyone is just discussing. And when you do discussion such things are said.

I understand that there are particular players against whom you dont want to hear negativity, but this happens in discussion.

You cannot force others to have different views just because you dont like something being said.


When discussing, you look at things from all three dimensions

 

[Barragan]

5. Players did not know they were meeting a bookie (scenario 1): Players met someone who they thought was a fan. But it turned out to be a bookie and he offered them a deal but the players rejected. PCB got the evidence and waited for players to report the incident (and gave them enough time to report) - but the players never reported so.

I agree.

Also, I think this maybe the scenario, considering guys like Irfan, S Hasan and Zulfiqar have been allowed to continue.

 

[cricwiz]

No one is making conclusions. Everyone is just discussing. And when you do discussion such things are said.

I understand that there are particular players against whom you dont want to hear negativity, but this happens in discussion.

You cannot force others to have different views just because you dont like something being said.


When discussing, you look at things from all three dimensions

90% of people are calling for life bans on the suspected players AND/OR equating it with the trio scandal in 2010.

Doing fixing, accepting to fix is a TOTALLY different thing compared to rejecting to fix a match but failure to report it. Similarly not knowing a person is a bookie beforehand is also a different thing than knowing whom you are going to meet...

But the general sentiment I have seen over here is that players involved are TOTAL guilty here and they should be handed life bans to make an example of ??

 

[super hitter]

pointless thread,

no one thinks the same way so everyone has to come up with there own point. even you have given the scenarios that may have happened so that is all we're discussing.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Scenario 10 :

Sharjeel gets banned for 1 year and everyone can't wait for him to return to international cricket even though he was caught.

And then a year later when some other sooperstar does the same thing, we wonder why it keeps happening to us.

 

[cricwiz]

pointless thread,

no one thinks the same way so everyone has to come up with there own point. even you have given the scenarios that may have happened so that is all we're discussing.

Go and see the general trend ... everyone seems to be suggesting that if Sharjeel and Khalid Latif are found guilty they should be handed life bans

Guilty in what sense?? e.g.

1. Guilty of fixing match?
2. Guilty of planning to fix a match?
3. Guilty of NOT reporting a fixing offer, after REJECTING the offer
4. Guilty of meeting a fixer without any fixing offer

Only the top guilty categories deserve LIFE bans...

 

[LordJames]

Agreed. Lets wait for the investigation and facts before jumping the Gun. Sharjeel doesn't sound stupid and it will be pretty outrageous if he threw away a lucartive International Career for a few bucks.

Sharjeel is not Amir at all.

 

[cricwiz]

Scenario 10 :

Sharjeel gets banned for 1 year and everyone can't wait for him to return to international cricket even though he was caught.

And then a year later when some other sooperstar does the same thing, we wonder why it keeps happening to us.

Caught of what???

If he corroborated with the bookies and accepted any deal to fix match than PCB has to of course deal this with iron hand.

But what if he just met an alleged bookie (without knowing beforehand) but REJECTED to make any fixing deal. Does this also come in your "caught" scenario? The only wrong doing on his part in such a case would be not being able to report the approach (i.e. in case the PCB gave enough time to report the incident - and not like some reports where they said that PCB ACU caught them red-handed)..

 

[kingusama92]

Agreed. Lets wait for the investigation and facts before jumping the Gun. Sharjeel doesn't sound stupid and it will be pretty outrageous if he threw away a lucartive International Career for a few bucks.

Sharjeel is not Amir at all.

Salman Butt did.

 

[cricwiz]

Salman Butt did.

Can we even equate what Salman Butt did with this? When the fixing trio was caught, not many even knew what spot fixing it. So in their "clever" view, Butt and co. were making easy money as they were just fixing parts of the match and not the whole match... After the fixing scenario, spot fixing came into spot light.

ICC came into action, and has briefed players/boards that whether they fix the match or spot fix - ALL is same and there is no compromise. So now if any player is caught spot fixing even after 2010 incident (especially when he is making/destined-to-make huge amount of money through legal means) than it is just stupidity...

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Caught of what???

If he corroborated with the bookies and accepted any deal to fix match than PCB has to of course deal this with iron hand.

But what if he just met an alleged bookie (without knowing beforehand) but REJECTED to make any fixing deal. Does this also come in your "caught" scenario? The only wrong doing on his part in such a case would be not being able to report the approach (i.e. in case the PCB gave enough time to report the incident - and not like some reports where they said that PCB ACU caught them red-handed)..

Met someone without knowing he was a bookie?

PCB probably has a list of everyone and they probably showed that list to the players a million times, that such and such are bookies.

You are giving Sharjeel too much credit of innocence if you genuinely believe that he didn't know the said person was a bookie.

And in the unlikely scenario that he did NOT REALLY KNOW, what HAPPENED TO YEARS OF TRAINING in which everyone was told the ACU code of conduct to report an incident no matter however minor to the concerned authorities.

Even me, WHO IS NOT A CRICKETER, remembers who strongly this is emphasized.

How can Sharjeel forget this?

He probably knew he should have reported the incident but didn't because he thought he could get away with it without having the need to report it.

If above is true, what do you suggest as punishment for someone, who knows that he should report the incident but thought not to report it and try to get away with it?

If you suggest no ban, or only extremely small ban with high degree of leniency, then how do you know that the same individual will not try to get away with it again?

When do laws become enacted?

When someone useless as a cricketer fixes?

And laws become easy when a talented player plays?

My take is simple.

If Sharjeel failed to report an incident, ban him for whatever time is recommended in code book and don't pick him ever for Pakistan cricket team.

If you do, only get ready for more Sharjeels and Amirs in the future, because of the mitigating factor.

Talent.

 

[cricwiz]

Met someone without knowing he was a bookie?

PCB probably has a list of everyone and they probably showed that list to the players a million times, that such and such are bookies.

You are giving Sharjeel too much credit of innocence if you genuinely believe that he didn't know the said person was a bookie.

And in the unlikely scenario that he did NOT REALLY KNOW, what HAPPENED TO YEARS OF TRAINING in which everyone was told the ACU code of conduct to report an incident no matter however minor to the concerned authorities.

Even me, WHO IS NOT A CRICKETER, remembers who strongly this is emphasized.

How can Sharjeel forget this?

He probably knew he should have reported the incident but didn't because he thought he could get away with it without having the need to report it.

If above is true, what do you suggest as punishment for someone, who knows that he should report the incident but thought not to report it and try to get away with it?

If you suggest no ban, or only extremely small ban with high degree of leniency, then how do you know that the same individual will not try to get away with it again?

When do laws become enacted?

When someone useless as a cricketer fixes?

And laws become easy when a talented player plays?

My take is simple.

If Sharjeel failed to report an incident, ban him for whatever time is recommended in code book and don't pick him ever for Pakistan cricket team.

If you do, only get ready for more Sharjeels and Amirs in the future, because of the mitigating factor.

Talent.

Lot of conflicting statements here....

When a useless/talented cricketer fixes or even agree to fix a match - there should be no leniency at all. A straight case for life ban, without ifs & buts. This is where ICC did wrong in Amir/Butt/Asif's case. They fixed the match.

When a useless/talented cricketer DENIES/REJECTS to fix a match, but fails to report the incident than this is a whole lot different scenario. There is also a great deal of honesty in player's part that he is not ready to fix a match for money purposes. If he fails to report the incident, than this is not match fixing in my opinion, but a case where some kind of limited ban applies.

Even in such a scenario, if a player thinks that he will get away with all this without reporting to anyone than a player is guilty of not reporting. But if a player is blackmailed of consequences if he reports the incident to anyone, than this is another ball game.

So for me, this is not about talent etc. It's about integrity of the player. A player who fixes or agrees to fix is a corrupt one - simple as that. If a player fails to report a fixing offer, this may reflect cowardness on player's part - but doesn't show him to be dishonest.

Sorry, but I cannot treat both kind of players with same stick - and as I said... its not about TALENT.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Lot of conflicting statements here....

When a useless/talented cricketer fixes or even agree to fix a match - there should be no leniency at all. A straight case for life ban, without ifs & buts. This is where ICC did wrong in Amir/Butt/Asif's case. They fixed the match.

When a useless/talented cricketer DENIES/REJECTS to fix a match, but fails to report the incident than this is a whole lot different scenario. There is also a great deal of honesty in player's part that he is not ready to fix a match for money purposes. If he fails to report the incident, than this is not match fixing in my opinion, but a case where some kind of limited ban applies.

Even in such a scenario, if a player thinks that he will get away with all this without reporting to anyone than a player is guilty of not reporting. But if a player is blackmailed of consequences if he reports the incident to anyone, than this is another ball game.

So for me, this is not about talent etc. It's about integrity of the player. A player who fixes or agrees to fix is a corrupt one - simple as that. If a player fails to report a fixing offer, this may reflect cowardness on player's part - but doesn't show him to be dishonest.

Sorry, but I cannot treat both kind of players with same stick - and as I said... its not about TALENT.

You are willing to take the player's word that he didn't report because he was blackmailed, or felt cowardly or (insert favorite excuse here) and do not want him banned despite laws saying it is a clear crime if you fail to report.

How do you know the player is genuinely truthful or was just biding his time till a better opportunity arose where he would have turned the tables by accepting the offer?

Ever hear the saying "Nip the evil in the bud".

If you wait so long till the player is clearly caught in the act and fail to stop it when he first met bookies, you are just encouraging him to indulge in shady meetings till the windfall is right.

You know why they cut the hand of a person who steals or who is caught stealing? So he doesn't do it again. Why don't they cut one finger or two? Its less painful and surely the person will learn his lesson and not steal again?

Because as long as the hand is there albeit less fingers, he will be tempted to steal.

As long as you pardon crimes (failure to report is a crime) with minor slaps, you will keep losing cricketers.

 

[cricwiz]

You are willing to take the player's word that he didn't report because he was blackmailed, or felt cowardly or (insert favorite excuse here) and do not want him banned despite laws saying it is a clear crime if you fail to report.

How do you know the player is genuinely truthful or was just biding his time till a better opportunity arose where he would have turned the tables by accepting the offer?

Ever hear the saying "Nip the evil in the bud".

If you wait so long till the player is clearly caught in the act and fail to stop it when he first met bookies, you are just encouraging him to indulge in shady meetings till the windfall is right.

You know why they cut the hand of a person who steals or who is caught stealing? So he doesn't do it again. Why don't they cut one finger or two? Its less painful and surely the person will learn his lesson and not steal again?

Because as long as the hand is there albeit less fingers, he will be tempted to steal.

As long as you pardon crimes (failure to report is a crime) with minor slaps, you will keep losing cricketers.

But you don't cut hands of someone for rejecting to steal .. or do you?

So my point is simple.. If they (or anyone else) fixed/planned to fix - end of line...

If they (or anyone else) rejected to fix a match but failed to report - than it is another thing...

 

[Pete Rose]

I am happy to pile on without proof (matter of time) because in two situations it is easy to assume:
- any Pakistani offspinner suspected of chucking is usually chucking
- any Pakistani player suspected of match fixing is usually match fixing

 

[Mamoon]

I am happy to pile on without proof (matter of time) because in two situations it is easy to assume:
- any Pakistani offspinner suspected of chucking is usually chucking
- any Pakistani player suspected of match fixing is usually match fixing

End of thread.

 

[Varun]

With Pakistan cricket it's now six times bitten, dozens of time shy.

 

[jazbati]

Because we have always been involved in match fixing. It's funny to read comments such as 'let's just wait' or 'there has to be some misunderstanding' or 'India is behind it'. The guys were sent back so they would have something substantial against them.

 

[blackanhyellow]

The only recent players I would rule out from fixing are Misbah, Afridi, Younis Khan, Hafeez, Azhar Ali, and believe it or not Ahmed Shehzad.

If allegations of fixing came about those above, I would not believe them until proven.

Everyone else, its disappointing, but not all that surprising.

 

[JibranAnsari]

Apparently Nasir Jamshed was the middle man according to reports.