The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

No Faffing about - ban du Plessis! The case for and against

21st November, 2016
Advertisement
Ball tampering: they've all done it. (Image: Channel Nine)
21st November, 2016
102
2033 Reads

Proteas captain Faf du Plessis will face an ICC tribunal on Tuesday afternoon at 4:00pm (AEDT), following the footage of him appearing to use a mint to help shine the ball during South Africa’s dominant win in the second Test in Hobart.

So should the stand-in skipper be forced to sit out his country’s first ever day-night Test as a result of his minty treatment? Would a fine suffice? Or should he be let off altogether?

We’ve got two of our editors here at The Roar to break down the cases in favour of and against du Plessis.

Why Faf du Plessis should be pardoned

BJ Conkey

Ball tampering is such a grey area and it has to be so blatant for a conviction to be successful. If you look at the last six years, only one player has been suspended.

That was Shahid Afridi when he was seen biting into a ball in a One-Day International in Australia.

Yes, it’s true Faf was fined 50 per cent of his match fee for the zipper moment in 2013 but that was obvious, and he did plead guilty.

Advertisement

In this case, he’s pleaded not guilty and for good reason.

Having lollies, mints, and chewing gum in your mouth has become such common practice on the cricket field. We learnt about how England used Murray Mints to get the ball hooping around in one of the greatest cricket series of all time in the Ashes of 2005.

It was and still is a common practice in county matches and yet there’s been minimal outrage about it, and no ICC investigation.

The Aussies knew it was happening as well.

Former Australian bowler Nathan Bracken gave an interview in a 2005 AAP piece.

“Every team has lollies and things like that, we had all our lollies checked before the first game to make sure there was nothing illegal that we had,” Bracken said.

“When I was playing at Gloucester a couple of years ago as soon as we needed the ball to go ‘Irish’ the captain would call and they would bring out some of these mints and it would work.”

Advertisement

While the rules say that no artificial substance can be used, the recent precedent is that if that artificial substance isn’t directly applied to the ball then a player is in the clear.

For example, Rahul Dravid was fined 50 per cent of his match fee in 2004 for taking a lozenge out of his mouth and directly applying it to the ball in an ODI.

Dravid wasn’t suspended for that, so it’s hard to see how Faf can be.

So many players are sucking on mints, chewy and who knows what else in professional cricket. Where do you draw the line? Sunscreen is technically an artificial substance but is constantly rubbed on the ball, naturally from mixing with player’s sweat.

It’s up to the ICC to make the rules clearer, but until then Faf should be free to play and this storm in a teacup will eventually disappear.

Faf du Plessis shines the ball with a mint in his mouth

Advertisement

Why Faf du Plessis should be suspended

Daniel Jeffrey

First, let me clarify once again that by calling for Du Plessis’ suspension, I’m not excusing Australia’s miserable performance with the bat in Hobert. Australia’s shocking batting and Du Plessis flaunting the laws of the game are not mutually exclusive events.

Under the laws of cricket, players are prohibited from using an artificial substance to help shine the ball. Sunscreen, hair gel, sugar… if it’s not spit or sweat, it’s not on.

There doesn’t seem to be much doubt that there was a mint in his mouth, so he should be forced to watch the Adelaide Test from the stands.

He has previously been found guilty of ball tampering – he caught rubbing the ball on his zipper during a 2013 Test against Pakistan. On that occasion, he was given little more than a slap on the wrist – a fine of 50 per cent of his match fee.

Had this been his first run-in with the law, I’d be all for a restrained punishment. But now that it’s happened again, albeit in a different manner, what’s the disincentive for him to stop tampering with the ball if the only consequence is a minimal hit to the hip pocket?

Advertisement

Send a message: suspend du Plessis. Make sure he knows that this kind of behaviour, from a Test captain no less, will not be tolerated.

close