What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

155.6

El Duque

Bench
Messages
3,845
Batting slowly when in a winning position is not underperforming.

Purposely not scoring runs to lose is underperforming.


 

imported_JoeD

Juniors
Messages
653
Is there a difference between batting slowly and purposely not scoring runs?

There are some valid reasons to bat slowly in cricket although most of them are when playing a test match. ie to protect a lower order batsmen. I would not consider this underperforming. However batting slowly for the sole reason of making the opposing team look better than they actually are, I would consider this underperforming.
 

El Duque

Bench
Messages
3,845
You can call it all you like but the fact is when the run rate required is bugger all it doesn't say you have to try and score off every ball.

They cruised to victory and had A LOT of overs to spair and you call that underperforming :(
 

imported_JoeD

Juniors
Messages
653
"contriving or attempting to contrive the result of any match". carries a life ban.

Now there is no definition in the Code of conduct as to what the word "result" means but if you asked me what the result of a particular match was I might say "NZ won by 5 wickets" or "Australia lost by 153 runs". My point is the word "result" doesn't necessarily mean just whether you won or lost. It also describes the winning margin. Under this definition of the word 'result'. It could be argued that Waugh did contrive it.
 
D

dubopov

Guest
JoeD...I haven't been following this Post closely,but do you think Fleming should have been banned for life?..
 

imported_JoeD

Juniors
Messages
653
They cruised to victory and had A LOT of overs to spair and you call that underperforming :(

No matter how you want to word it batting slowly for the sole reason of making the opposing team look better than they actually are is under performing.

 

El Duque

Bench
Messages
3,845
I might say "NZ won by 5 wickets" or "Australia lost by 153 runs".

Joe, you're clutching at straws. NZ didn't win and Australia didn't lose.

Fleming admitted conceding a bonus point so therefore he had to throw the match to do so. He should be banned.

No matter how you want to word it batting slowly for the sole reason of making the opposing team look better than they actually are is under performing.

The West Indies looked good?

They were flogged :(

 

imported_JoeD

Juniors
Messages
653
I didn't say the WI looked good, I said Australia played to make them look better. Subtle difference but important.

Fleming admitted conceding a bonus point so therefore he had to throw the match to do so.

I am not disputing that at all. The rules that saypeople should be banned for life were written to stop people profitting from fixing matches. Fleming did not profit financially from throwing that match. However if you were to follow the letter of the law maybe he should be banned. However if you were to follow the letter of the law then maybe also Waugh should be banned. Like i've said a number of times before, if Fleming did something wrong then he was only taking his lead from Waugh.
 

imported_JoeD

Juniors
Messages
653
Hypothetically what if Waugh had placed a large bet that Australia would score the winning runs after the 40th over. Australia are cruising and look to score the winning runs in the 35th over. Waugh tells them to put on the breaks Australiaends up winning in the 41st overand Waugh makes a tidy profit.

Would you say that Waugh had fixed the match in this situation?
 

imported_midas

Juniors
Messages
988
Joe
Your hypo is what the septics call fixing the points spread which is just as big an offence as fixing the result over there.Don,t know if we have any rules in place to cover it here.We certainly have rules to cover fixing a result .
 
Messages
140
Let's deal with reality, eh Joe!

how about when dennis lillie and rod marsh bet against australia and then the team lost an unlosable test. is that real enough for you ?

funny how both are still national heroes.

time to get off your high horse el duque.


 

El Duque

Bench
Messages
3,845
Huh.

You're trying to go backwards to go forwards.

If you want them banned it's a bit late as they've retired.

Fleming hasn't.

Back to reality, eh realraul!
 
Messages
140
no, i was trying to bring you back to reality. you, as most of the australian public, seem to think that australian athletes are pure and saintly. they are as crooked as the rest of them.

that's all.

 

El Duque

Bench
Messages
3,845
No realraul you're trying to go off on another tangent.

I don't think there were even rules against what they did then as there are now.

There are rules against what Fleming did and he should be punished accordingly.
 
Top