There is a thin line in sport, as in life, between pushing the law and breaking the law. Ball tampering at the moment is turning out to be an art in lingering right on that fine line, although it has no business to be there.
Cricket is the only sport played across three different formats. From bat and ball to the 22-yard pitch and the ground dimensions and conditions, everything is flexible within a range.
That is why it is one sport which is extremely dependent on conditions, of pitch, of weather and sometimes even outfield.
Ignoring ball tampering as a minor offence in such a scenario is ironic considering the number of ways in which it virtually manhandles the letter of the cricket laws.
The recent South Africa-Sri Lanka match has come to a conclusion. In the end, South Africa romped home in style.
Sri Lanka can only save the series now and South Africa can win it with just a draw in the second Test, keeping their impressive away record intact.
However, bluntly put, it is a tainted victory.
South Africa pressed forth the advantage in the first innings largely on the back of a Dale Steyn five-for, three of which came in a spell of five overs with a ball that was eventually used for 97.2 overs, the same ball Vernon Philander pleaded guilty to tampering with.
It would be ridiculous to believe Steyn wouldn’t get those wickets if the ball weren’t tampered, due to his greatness and his track record in sub-continental pitches. However, one can never be sure if the tampering didn’t accentuate the devastation wreaked.
In modern day Test cricket, that is extremely competitive compared to what it was two decades ago, a lot is at stake.
Bats are bigger, edges broader and grounds are so small. A good edge can send the ball sailing over the boundary. The other side of the argument is a law that doesn’t sternly punish the culprit not nearly sternly enough.
75 per cent of the match fee was what Philander was docked for pleading guilty.
Would that be the same punishment doled out to a bowler who deliberately bowls a no ball, read match-fixing? How is tampering the ball to make it more favourable for bowlers any smaller a crime?
How is it worthy of such a pardon or a feeble punishment by modern day standards, where international cricketers are generally rich?
Between the need and the repercussions, bowlers don’t have much to lose when they tamper with the ball and a lot to gain, especially on pitches that almost look like a cement graveyard for the bowlers, with an extra topping of tar to deal with.
If involvement of a top class bowler like Philander isn’t ringing bells at the top echelons, then there is surely something amiss. Whether it is addressed as a crime or a sign of frustration that should be mollified is up to the decision makers.
Interestingly, another series between England and India, could be taken as a classic example, of what needs to be done in cricket. The solution sometimes is so beautifully simple, one wonders why it isn’t followed all the time.
In two Tests, from Trent Bridge and Lord’s, the cricketing world is seeing the difference between what a good pitch can do to the state of Test cricket. The Lord’s curator has produced an ode to cricket, nearly as perfect a pitch as is possible in Test cricket, rewarding batsmen and bowlers all through the match and filtering out average performers.
With pitches like this, ball tampering can easily be weeded out. After all, why would a bowler like Vernon Philander, who can move the ball both ways from the corridor of uncertainty, resort to tampering when the pitch gives him enough assistance?
At the same time, the laws need to be less blurry and more decisive when it comes to doling out punishment for an activity that goes against the spirit of the game. Docking match fees definitely doesn’t cut it and if a clear message needs to go out to the players, it has to be something they would fear.
If two consecutive yellow cards in football can get you a suspension, there is no reason why cricket shouldn’t follow suit and raise the stakes!
AGB
Guest
Forfeit the match and ban from 2 to 4 matches. its against the current rules and as it stands it is cheating. This activity undoubtedly affects the game and its nonsense to say x player would have taken those wickets without altering the condition of the ball. if so, why was it done in the first place? At the very least it affects team momentum, slows scoring and takes wickets improperly. Bat construction as it stands is not against the current rules. If a bat is altered against the rules, same penalties to apply. I have no dobt there have been the odd bottle cap in the trouser pocket...just give the ball a bit of a rub on the pocket. who hasn't seen a cricketer wipe the ball across their forehead....put whatever you like on there sweets, sun cream, etc
Stellenbosched
Guest
The problem is Prof that many of us no longer believe in the ICC. As far as I am concerned it has been tampered with beyond recognition.
Jack
Guest
Exactly prof. Especially if they suffer from a birth defect.
Professor Rosseforp
Guest
Anyone suspected of ball-tampering should be reported to the ICC. The ICC can send him for scientific testing. If the bowler does not tamper with the ball by more than 15%, then his tampering should be allowed and umpires should not be able to call him. If he is found to tamper by more than 15%, the ICC will consider a rule change to make the tampering legal, at a figure 1% greater than the amount of tampering detected in the bowler.
formeropenside
Guest
between ball tampering and chucking, its not the game it was
WHen did Dale Steyn tamper with the ball?
Shouts Chen
Guest
Is Dale Steyn like Peter Siddle? Peter Siddle tampered the ball in the 1st test against Sri Lanka back in 2012-13 Cricket Season. He went on to play the Boxing Day Test at the MCG. Dale Steyn? He might face a 3 match ban for this ball tampering incident.
It really is a simple issue. If there is proof you have tampered with the ball and you are found guilty, your team forfeits the match.
Henry
Guest
Why have batsmen been allowed to tamper with their blades for decades now and have not been reined in ? Is it all good and fine to have a bat that has 20-30% greater rebound off the surface than say a bat in 1990 and put bowlers and umpires in mortal danger? " Caught and Bowlds" in Test cricket are down 37% since 2000 becasue the ball arrives 20-30% quicker . Spinners now play a holding game bowling flat and quick while mishits carry the boundary easily. You don't have to be a superiorly skilled batsmen nowadays to make runs. Bland pitches, cannons made from willow and a DRS that gives a nonsensical margin of error to the batsmen all add up to the game going one way. Exciting and tension filled cricket does not come in high scoring cricket of any format. You need to take wickets to keep the crowd engaged. The current first class ball has virtually no seam, therefore it won't swing much and it certainly wont deviate off the bland pitches that are seved up for batsmen tofeast on - especially in the sub-continent. The Laws of the game have always allowed bowlers to alter the condition of the ball - by natural means. What do you want next ? Banning any player from shining the ball ??? The reaction to bowlers altering the ball is way over the top. Its about time standard parameters were applied to cric ket bats so we can return some balance to the game ... and maybe reintroduce spin as major drawcard to spectators.
Jawad Yaqub
Roar Guru
I definitely agree with this. It seems that more recently players are being let off the hook a little for ball tampering. Shahid Afridi in 2010 was given a two match ban by the ICC for trying to readjust the seam, whilst Faf du Plessis only gets fined for rubbing the ball on his zipper. Afridi's incident may have looked worse on television, with him visibly trying to bite the ball, but the punishment definitely fitted the crime. And that is what is so annoying to see, Afridi gets banned for two games whilst some of these South African players are getting slapped on the wrist. If the ICC want to crack down on ball tampering, then they ought to enforce it a little harder than they currently are.
AlanKC
Guest
How do you define "tampering"? White zinc cream kept many a ball swinging long after it shouldn't have when I was playing - but both sides did it and neither side had a problem.
Alex L
Roar Rookie
Just start declaring games draws when the winning team is guilty of tampering.
Brains of a bimbo (Atgm)
Guest
Hmm i think they shud be banned for life and not allowed to play even street cricket
ChrisT
Guest
The Saffers have some current form here with Faf du Plessis also being pinged a few months back for ball tampering. Given Philander was captured on film and shortly after Steyn suddenly produced reverse swing to take 3 wickets in 5 overs, and he offered no defence (i.e. he had none), why didn't he get the full sanction of 100 per cent of fees and a test suspension? Btw, the Lords pitch didn't decide the outcome by rewarding the virtuous - a brain explosion in the England batting so typical in previous recent tests did that. The mad hour after lunch that saw Prior then Stokes followed by Root then finally Broad hole out against accurate but regulation short stuff, to a trap so obvious it had flashing neon signs, did that.
ak
Roar Guru
In my opinion ball tampering should be allowed subject to certain conditions. Ball tampering should be allowed as long as it is done doing say applying saliva, rubbing on pant, using nail or even mouth. There should not be any involvement of a foreign object though. Like jellies, bottlenecks, etc. This is because the batsman should have the art to negotiate the ball. When the ball is thrown to the bowling side it should be a signal that look we have given you the cherry. Now you use it in your way and get wickets as long as you do not use any foreign object. So many rule changes have favoured batsmen recently. So why not one for the bowlers? And even the word 'tampering' is not correct. Because it is an art. All cannot do it. There is a method to do it. If you do not believe then buy a few balls and remove the stitches in different ways. Then bowl and check whether the ball swings on its own. It doesn't. I have done that. You need to be able to 'tamper' it properly and first and foremost you need to know the art of swinging. That is actually the most crucial part of it. 'Ball tampering' has to be done in a right way and then all it does is help you to get more than the normal amount of swing. However there is a big risk involved. If you cannot 'tamper' properly then not only does it not give you the extra swing but you also cannot get the normal help which an 'untampered' ball gives. So it is a double edged sword. So in my personal view it should be allowed. Nothing wrong with that. Only because for years it was considered wrong it has stuck in our minds that it is wrong. But it need not necessarily be wrong. This is my opinion.
willy
Guest
Totally agree. The sanction was no more than a slap on the wrist