Ten indisputably true things about the ball-tampering scandal

By Ben Pobjie / Expert

Like everyone else, I’m incredibly relieved to be talking about something other than sledging. Thank God for the news cycle!

On the new big topic of the week, meanwhile, everyone else is having their say, so you’re crazy if you think I’m going to keep my oar out of it.

So stick this in your pipe:

Ten things about the ball-tampering scandal that are indisputably true because I said them.

1. It’s not that big a deal
And by that I mean, it’s not as big a deal as your average sportswriter seems to want us to believe it is. It is not, for example, a “#MeToo moment”, as Malcolm Knox wrote. Nor are we all “tarnished in the eyes of the world” as Tracey Holmes wrote.

The Australian cricket team is tarnished: tarnished as hell. But the rest of us? Not so much.

For all the sobbing that’s been done in the last two days about the soul of our nation, it’s still just cricket. If you want to frame it as ‘The guardians of the very essence of Australianness have betrayed the sacred trust bestowed on them and so left an indelible stain on our people forevermore’, it sounds pretty bad. If you frame it as ‘Some men who are paid to win games really really wanted to win games, so they tried to rub some dirt on a ball’, it sounds less bad.

In the end, it’s a bit worse than the latter, but nowhere near as bad as the former.

It’s worth remembering that the ICC’s prescribed penalty for changing the condition of the ball on the field is five runs and a changed ball, and off the field is a maximum of four demerit points, or one game’s suspension.

That might seem a bit light-on, but it does reflect the fact that generally, ball tampering is not seen as the dreadful scourge some might believe it is.

2. It’s still kind of a big deal
When I say it’s not a big deal, it’s because I would like to soothe the hysteria that would have us believe that this isn’t just a sporting story, but a violation of the laws of God and Nature that will see us cursed unto the seventh generation. But as sporting stories go, it’s still a pretty bad one.

The Australian ‘leadership group’ – I’ve hated that phrase since AFL clubs started and now I’ve got all the more reason to – were extremely unsportsmanlike, not to mention unbelievably, mind-bogglingly stupid, and they should be punished.

A nice, long rest to think about what they did is appropriate for Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft. A nice, long retirement is appropriate for Darren Lehmann, who is as likely to be uninvolved in the ball tampering plan as Shane Warne is to be a virgin.

AFP, Glyn Kirk

3. Equating it to match-fixing is completely mental
The idea that somehow what the Australians did is akin to match-fixing has been doing the rounds, and is an example of the hysteria mentioned above. This is not even in the same moral universe as match-fixing, and it’s hard to believe anyone genuinely believes that it is.

Put simply, the seeking of advantage for your own team in violation of the game’s rules is very, very different to accepting bribes for distorting a game to the disadvantage of your own team.

Ball tampering is to match-fixing as corking your bat is to throwing the World Series. Steve Smith is not Hansie Cronje. He’s not even Mohammad Amir.

4. Yes, everyone does it
Including us. For years. We know ball tampering has been going on for decades. We know that those pioneers of reverse swing Sarfraz Nawaz and Imran Khan did not achieve their wizardry through entirely legal means. We know that Imran, specifically, was not averse to slashing the ball with a bottle top, and that when he taught his secrets to the NSW team in the 1980s, those secrets extended a little beyond keeping one side shiny and making sure your wrist was in the right position.

We know that Michael Atherton did it in 1994, that Shahid Afridi did it in 2010 and Faf du Plessis in 2016. We know that in 2006, Inzamam-ul-Haq forfeited a Test in indignation after the umpires determined his team had been tampering with the ball. We know that in 2005 England found a strategic use for Murray Mints.

We know that ball tampering has been going on right under our noses since the 1970s, and unless we’re complete idiots, we know that it is often every bit as pre-meditated as what went down in Cape Town.

And let’s be honest: we know Australia does it too. Maybe not in the same way, maybe not as blatantly, and certainly not as incompetently as they have in this case, but if you think Australia has somehow been the only international team not trying it on all these years, then… I mean, come on.

5. The fact that everyone does it doesn’t mean we should go easy on Smith and Co. 
Yeah, everyone does it, and hopefully that fact can restrain us from naming Smith and his henchmen as the unique embodiments of evil. But it shouldn’t restrain Cricket Australia for coming down hard.

At the very least, the team’s punishment should include a stupidity premium, because the fact that this plot was hatched by several adult men in the dressing room and not a single one said, “Hang on, guys, there’s about a million cameras out there watching our every move and there is no way we are going to get away with this” beggars belief.

Many cricketers have escaped their rightful whack for similar sins in the past – no reason to say these guys should escape theirs.

[latest_videos_strip category=”cricket” name=”Cricket”]

6. ‘Not going easy’ does not mean life bans
Some people think the ball tamperers should be banned for life. Hopefully these people get the help they need.

7. Politicians should stay right out of it
If Smith has disappointed all of us who thought he was a man of integrity, he still retains one virtue: at least he is not as conniving, dishonest and amoral as almost every member of parliament.

With that in mind, elected officials – and former elected officials – talking loftily about how the cricket team has let us all down is absolutely nauseating.

Malcolm Turnbull, Bill Shorten, Alexander Freaking Downer, and – breathtakingly – Graham ‘Whatever It Takes’ Richardson are among those to have gratuitously proffered their hypocrisy, and let us be unequivocal in telling them all to shut their necks. Politicians lecturing cricketers on morality is like Ted Bundy scolding a toddler for stealing lollies.

8. This is not actually that hard to explain to your children
“They wanted to win, so they broke the rules. Sometimes people do that. It’s bad.”

There, that was easy, right?

9. There’s definitely a possible silver lining
That is, that maybe now Australia’s cricketers will pull their bloody heads in. Not just in the matter of their notorious sledging – which will hopefully recede now that every opponent has been gifted such a perfect comeback – but in that irritating habit they have of passing judgment on every other real or alleged infraction by other teams.

If this affair has a positive aspect, it’s in the possibility that a chastened Australia will from now on devote a greater percentage of their energies to playing cricket and a smaller percentage to either taunting or judging their opponents.

10. There’s definitely another possible silver lining
Glenn Maxwell might get back in the team.

The Crowd Says:

2018-03-30T20:11:22+00:00

Superba

Guest


What is a brainfade ???

2018-03-30T05:43:31+00:00

John Erichsen

Roar Guru


Bob Willis played a part in that win. Botham's "throw caution to the wind" impact was massive, but he didn't take "10 for" in the 2nd innings. Botham dismissed Graeme Wood and Chris Old got AB out, but Willis' 8 for 43 was pretty significant. Just saying.

2018-03-28T10:38:31+00:00

AshleyH

Guest


Good piece Ben and well done for putting this overblown nonsense into perspective.

2018-03-27T17:22:04+00:00

Kurt S

Roar Pro


Train stated "They are all pre-meditated plans." Afirdi's cast's doubt on that...

2018-03-27T16:20:11+00:00

Kieran

Guest


I've read Ben's writing on the ABC News site and on Medium before, and it's worth checking out - it ranges further than sport, and it's usually pretty damn funny.

2018-03-27T15:03:05+00:00

Kurt S

Roar Pro


I think ball tampering and match fixing are worlds apart as well. What has been done was pathetic and terribly executed. I would have thought our leading cricketers could have at least used better strategy to cheat. However if you believe the act of colluding for whatever reason by the senior players and possibly others of a national team to cheat and deceive is not similar in the planning of match fixing, then sir we have a totally different set of morals.

2018-03-27T14:50:25+00:00

Who

Roar Rookie


Or Rabada can walk into Smith. Funny how 10 days ago, that was the headline. Rabada was screaming at batsmen, walking into batsmen. 7 days ago, apparently the bloke who was to blame wasn't the one who changed his line (Rabada), it was Smith. Then Rabada was suddenly innocent of everything, free to play in the game (as opposed to a two Test ban?). Smith was clearly upset... So, instead of maintaining whatever small piece of moral high ground they might've had (i.e. we haven't been screaming send offs or initiating physical contact, or attacking player's families publicly - small high ground, not a great amount, given Lyon's stupidity and Warner's theatrics) and working to highlight that, they've gone and had a mental break. Given the pressure the team had been under and Smith's response to the Rabada decision reversal, I wonder what psychological support was being given. Clearly not enough. Great article Ben, you're spot on. It was stupid, it was clearly pre-planned but obviously not something we've done much before (because you'd hope that, if it wasn't close to the first time, you'd be much, much better at it! When Faf was caught tampering with the ball with his zipper - an offence he didn't reference, he pointed out, "using a mint to shine the ball isn't near as bad as this," but that was his second offence, not his first - they changed the ball and penalized SA 5 runs. That didn't happen to Smith/Bancroft. SO, clearly, they weren't sneaky enough OR effective in their efforts to damage the ball), it MUST be punished, but it's hardly the end of the world, and shouldn't even be the end of careers. Captaincy, maybe, but not careers. Time for some perspective... Thanks for providing it.

2018-03-27T13:06:24+00:00

John

Guest


On item #7 and politicians. I liken this to the steroids scandal in baseball in the United States. Major League Baseball was basically a monopoly and left alone to run itself so long as they got it right. Then it came out that steroid use was rife and owners knew and encouraged it so as to draw crowds and make more money. Problem is that children were now encouraged to "cheat" through steroid use as it was almost a given you had to in order to compete. Jose Canseco released a book and it all blew up. It was America's pastime and Congress realized MLB could NOT be trusted to run it. Hearings, investigations and stupid player statements later and its been cleaned up. If Cricket Australia cannot effectively run the sport - and with Boof the boof as coach and Smith and his leadership group behaving this way with the national pastime - then yes, I would argue there is a role for politicians to step in and police it. Thoughts?

AUTHOR

2018-03-27T13:06:11+00:00

Ben Pobjie

Expert


Why would we need a gavel, when Lillee can simply call for order by kicking a batsman in the shins.

AUTHOR

2018-03-27T13:05:27+00:00

Ben Pobjie

Expert


Point taken, but to me they are nowhere near each other at all. Cheating to gain an advantage is an inevitable consequence of competitive games existing. We expect sportspeople to strive as hard as they can to win, and though it's unacceptable for them to break the rules to do so, it's also understandable and something that speaks of trying too hard: it's very relatable. Match-fixing is not an inevitable consequence of competitive games, except inasmuch it is an inevitable consequence of gambling, which one might say was an inevitable consequence of competitive games. It is taking money to handicap your own chances of winning: the exact opposite of trying too hard to win. It does not simply betray our trust in sportspeople to follow the rules: it betrays our trust in sportspeople to even be trying to succeed. Also it's illegal, so there's that.

AUTHOR

2018-03-27T13:00:53+00:00

Ben Pobjie

Expert


Afridi, I am guessing, didn't conspire the way Smith and co did. Wouldn't be surprised if there was some forethought in it though, give it was Afridi and he was no rookie to the ball tampering game.

AUTHOR

2018-03-27T12:58:59+00:00

Ben Pobjie

Expert


It's not always trying to lose, but it's never trying to win. Nobody bribes players to try their hardest and make decisions in the best interests of the team. Nobody ever pays $10,000 to a bowler with the words, "So on the 3rd ball of the eighth over, try to take a wicket".

2018-03-27T12:16:01+00:00

rock

Guest


Atherton had dirt in his pocket! Not sure how that isn't premeditated...

2018-03-27T11:50:14+00:00

Pope Paul VII

Guest


Excellent work Tomp.

2018-03-27T11:46:28+00:00

Pope Paul VII

Guest


Ha Ha sounds like Lawrence Mooney doing Malcolm.

2018-03-27T11:44:46+00:00

James P

Guest


I'll give you Afridi. It was an awe inspiring moment of great stupidity. But you are picking the one case where it may have been on the spur of the moment. Trescothick, Dravid, du Plessis (twice btw and he is still the $&#*ing captain) were clearly premeditated. Atherton and Philander may have been spur of the moment.

2018-03-27T11:42:08+00:00

OJP

Guest


#metoo Moaman

2018-03-27T11:39:29+00:00

rock

Guest


But is the thing that stands out in the definition only because it suits your argument? The reason I say this is that the phrase preceding your standout in the definition is "done after being thought about or", so to say Afridi didn't think about the act he performed in the ball is drawing a long bow, even if he is on record saying otherwise. He has thought about a way to condition the ball and that was biting, he's even covering up his mouth with his hands while doing it, if a player has put his hands over a ball while biting it because he knows it's against the law, then I find it very hard to believe he hadn't thought about it before he performed the action - but if you want to take his word as gospel that is your prerogative.

2018-03-27T11:14:57+00:00

Bee bee

Guest


Umm. Yes. Let’s work harder on that honesty thing. Less Putin’s and Trump’s would be good. It’s not like Smith rubbed a toxic radioactive substance on the ball in an effort to erase the South Africans. Although that would surely make the ball swing faster than underpaid Russian double agent.

2018-03-27T09:50:48+00:00

Kurt S

Roar Pro


Rock, thanks for your thoughts. So I guess from what you have said, every single thing in life is premeditated where we are aware of it or not. If something happens outside the time it takes for a synapse to fire in the brain it must be premeditated. An interesting point of view, but not a view I hold to be. Cambridge dictionary states the definition of premeditated as "(especially of a crime or something unpleasant) done after being thought about or carefully planned: premeditated murder a premeditated attack The assault was premeditated and particularly brutal." The thing that stands out to me in that definition is the carefully planned. Afridi is on record as saying that his ridiculous biting of the ball was not planned that it just happened. And frankly, I'm at a loss as to anyone could give any real thought to doing something like that. it is spur of the moment. And to me "spur of the moment" does not fit Cambridge Dictionary's definition of premeditated. So I will happily stand by my previous points. You say potato and I say tomato - that sort of thing. I do appreciate your thoughts, though Rock. As an aside, I just learned there is a word unpremeditated... Sounds like something the Dale Kerrigan character of the movie "The Castle" would have said.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar