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
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.
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.”
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.
Why Faf du Plessis should be suspended
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?
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.
Gary
Guest
I think "pain" on intrusive and arrogant reporters is becoming the norm in many countries. Our lot seem a bit slow on the uptake. That Channel 9 mob in Lebanon have paid their way out of trouble so far and another crowd were recently in trouble in Malaysia for pestering their PM. My point???? Their actions reflect on Australia - and that also includes their opinions and attitude. Grrr
Hoy
Roar Guru
Well, I think this is silly really, and people are looking for arguments and ways out... look, we all know that the lollies give your spit a bit of slide, a bit of substance. Whether it ACTUALLY does anything to the ball or not is irrelevant, besides, these players think it does do something for swing, as they keep doing it. But to make all these arguments and excuses... I mean really... "Sugar certainly isn't considered to be artificial."? This is the issue with the legalization of sport... lawyers come and haggle over terminology that starts out as very much common sense and easy to follow and then ends up being defined and used as avenues to excuse terrible behavior.
Rob
Guest
Spruce. We are 2-0 down fair and square. I might question some ordinary umpiring decisions lack of form from some players and poor scheduling as not helping. Even bad luck at times. But the SA team have out bowled and out fielded Australia. Dekock has been sensational. Read the rule and try to understand why it's written. It's there to stop players unfairly tampering with the condition of the ball. Faf would be aware of it after getting caught before. It's near on imposable to find cricket whites with zippers. I get pissed off about people saying everyone does it. First excuse guilty offenders use to justify everything.IMO
ADP
Guest
"a defence of this law inconsistently applied is not valid" - actually it is valid. It is a well established rule of law - rules which are not applied consistently should be repealed. Think about it, by not consistently penalising players for applying sunscreen, lolly juice, snot, whatever, the reasonable expectation is that its become permissible. To draw the line at "too much juice" or "being obvious" is not workable, and very vague. Your speeding driver analogy doesn't work at all mate - if the other drivers "haven't been caught" then they haven't been caught. To be consistent with this case it would have to be a case of other speeding drivers being caught but not charged. Then a similar argument can be made as above. My point is there is plenty of "evidence" that everyone chews lolly's, applies sunscreen sweat to the ball etc. But now, out of the blue, they charge Faf. Arbitrary in my view. "Also rocking around with same mints in your mouth around everywhere shows he doesn’t care or have any respect for the ICC" - oh boy. My mistake, I read your post from top to bottom. If I had read this first I wouldn't have taken you seriously at all.
Rob
Guest
Okay. SA won the toss, with over cast skies a green deck and a very good seem attack they bowled. Most of the Australians struggled and nicked almost everything. Well bowled. I'm not sure how many balls beat Elgar and Smith's bat because i lost count. They were lucky enough to survive. Losing 4-33 wasn't much better and Bavuma survived an LBW shout first ball. I'd say it was a good toss to win and Australia never got into the game after the Bavuma and Dekock partnership which started when the ball was 40 overs old. Go back to the First Test in Perth and the ball started swinging about the 40 over mark when Australia were 1-160. The ball was then swinging around enough that Khawaja missed it by almost a foot. From there the SA bowlers went through the batsmen with very few hitting the bat? 8-76. Whilst SA have been getting their runs against the old ball through Dekock and the tail. Australia have been getting demolished by the moving ball at the 40 over mark onwards? Usually bowlers hoped for a bit of reverse around the 60 to 70 over mark with sweat weighting one side and scuffing dry the other (Pakistan technique). The Poms got it going earlier but they had the lollies on board. Good luck to them. But don't then cry if you get caught using lollies to help shine the ball. It's actually against the rules.
BrainsTrust
Guest
I just remembered from the Perth test seeing Du Plessis with his hands over his mouth, and I was thinking he must be worried about lip readers while he talked to the wicketkeeper, but it must have been because he needed to finger his mint.
Don Lampard
Guest
Yes it was just saliva he was rubbing into the ball. BS! Got busted cheating, pushed the envelope, so wear it Faf. But everyone does it ! - the ICC know that. It's random, so the ICC is acting randomly just like the cops out on the highways and byways. You got busted Faf - stiff.
Antoni
Guest
Different. That was legal.
ADP
Guest
I hear you - but your statement is moot. There is plenty of "evidence" all over. Again, any player wiping his face and shining the ball. Anyway - I would say much to do about nothing, but I see that Faf now got fined 100% of his match fee. Ok , fines for everyone then... Ridiculous.
Chui
Guest
Oh really. I thought he was Australian like David Bowie
spruce moose
Guest
That comment - if it helps - was directed at gauss. Please don't question my patriotism btw.
spruce moose
Guest
Not quite the Simpsons fan i thought you were... Gutting
Jacko
Guest
Thats the main problem Spruce. There are way to many ways that can alter a ball or pitch and this charge has just made a mockery of what is genuine ball tampering and what isnt. Time things were clarified and its wrong that they suddenly charge someone with an offence that has been done for many many years without citing or punishment...Thats the joke in this
Jacko
Guest
I see the Aussie spinner rubbibg his hands vigoresly in the dirt prior to his bowling. Could that alter the state of the ball? Is it real dirt or is a drop in pitch considered to be artificial?
Andy
Guest
Obviously the mint started working on the ball after the 4th delivery, Warner was just so good that he survived the 5th ball.
Jacko
Guest
Not clever at all Rob. I watched the 1st test between NZ and Pakistan and I reckon that Kane williams picked the ball up about 30 times in his second innings. I think you confuse when handling the ball is ok and when its not.
doogs
Guest
The Australian Cricket Team did not make the complaint nor Cricket Australia. How could they have sour grapes. There have been worse Australian Cricket Teams but it depends how long you have been watching it for
Jacko
Guest
Who videod it and then released it to the media?
Thanks charl
Jacko
Guest
If a reporter did that in SA he may find he is in some pain with lead poisoning