why forcing pcb to act is just a 'righteous' move...

shared by straight point on Thursday, September 16, 2010

there have been calls that cricket fraternity should force pcb to act so that the corrupt players are not let off with mild punishment making the mockery of cricket war against match or spot fixing given the past record of pcb...

well... i don't have issues with other boards forcing pcb to act decisively... but what would penalising three tainted players will achieve...? will cricket become immune to the fixing just by getting rid of three tainted players...?

what about all boards collectively forcing icc to make acsu not only capable enough to act proactively but accountable to such glaring lapses when they were literally caught with their pants down by NOTW...?

a classic example of how acsu function... first they cleared the kamaran's sydneygate test of any suspicion of match fixing but now they are reinvestigating the same test after the NOTW exposé... means either their inquiry into sydney test earlier was shoddy and hurried... or they just want to be seen on working sincerely gauging the prevalent sentiment now...

till we have these customary watch dogs that exists just for the sake of it... that take millions to sleep at work... i am sure we are not far behind from exposing another tainted players of match fixing coz if only stringent actions against the culprits would decidedly serve as the deterrent... we would never see a murder in life...

9 comments:

elegantstroke said...

what would penalising three tainted players will achieve...?
Penalizing the players (if they're tainted) will be a strong deterrent for players considering spot-fixing in the future.
swift action ensures that ICC and PCB are capable of dealing with the situation promptly.
will cricket become immune to the fixing just by getting rid of three tainted players...?
No :) but its at least a step in the right direction.

till we have these customary watch dogs that exists just for the sake of it... that take millions to sleep at work..

you should see Hayden's comments recently on this. He said that the amount invested towards preventing/detecting fixing is minuscule compared to the investment in the tournament itself. it is a runaway train.

but your general point is correct.
The ACSU is toothless but it can be better only if the right people and more money is pumped into it.

elegantstroke said...

what would penalising three tainted players will achieve...?
It would be a deterrent for players considering spot-fixing. Severe punishment means that players are less likely to involve in a fix.. but for this to be powerful, action needs to be swift and prompt - which I doubt if ICC/PCB will do.

will cricket become immune to the fixing just by getting rid of three tainted players...?

No :), but its at least a step in the right direction.

till we have these customary watch dogs that exists just for the sake of it... that take millions to sleep at work...

Going by Hayden's recent comments on this, the investment ICC makes on ACSU towards preventing/detecting corruption is minuscule compared to what is invested in conducting the tournament itself..so it is a runaway train.

I agree with your general point, ICC needs to pump in more money and put the right people on the job to make ACSU useful, otherwise it'll continue to be toothless as it is now.

straight point said...

ah!...

es... tell me when we go aborad why we dont spit on paan's peek on roads... why we patently wait in ques for our number irrespective of our status... why we always stop our vehicle before stop line... why we always cross the road on zebra crossing...?

elegantstroke said...

because violating the law is not the norm abroad..but I don't see how this is related to my reply above?

straight point said...

es... we do not do it there coz we now the system the watch dog is not only powerful but capable of swift action... that is why even the compulsive spitter won't spit paan peek abroad... coz he know the moment he will do it he will be comprehended...

this is what my argument is... more than the punishment the swiftness and strictness of system works more as deterrent... :)

elegantstroke said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
elegantstroke said...

sp, i'm not saying anything different in my first comment above.. however my point is, even if the decision takes time - it needs to be dealt with. Because dealing with it and closing the issue fully is better than pushing it under the carpet.. (pak board has a history of doing that in the past)

Megha said...

Guys...i know i am going in a totally different direction to the theme of the post here...but that paan ki peek example is not a good one...just visit Wembley and u'll know :)

On the topic at hand..while i dont disagree with ur assessment of ACSU and that they need to improve, that doesn't mean that the players who have been exposed as being suspect, need not be dealt with in a stringent manner until the ACSU is better at what it does....

straight point said...

exceptions only proved rules megha... :)

regarding your observation... i think you hv got me bit wrong...

as i said in the post itself i do not have qualms if boards are pressurising pcb to act tough but my grudge it why not AT THE SAME TIME they can't talk tough to icc to buckle up acsu?

about me...

BCC!straight point (sp) is restless... relentless... but a fun loving guy... likes to live life to fullest... trying to discover himself through cricket... welcome to this little world of his...

sp is also a bored member at BCC!

sp tweets

     


    © straight points
    straight points by sp is licensed under a creative commons attribution noncommercial-no derivative works 2.5 india license. based on a work at straightpoints.blogspot.com
    this blog takes no responsibility for statements posted by participants

    this blog is best viewed with Mozilla FireFox at a resolution of 1280 x 800 pixels
    thanks for the visit!!