Let us be honest here – ball tampering in endemic in cricket and every team has their own unique “intellectual property” towards how it is to be done.
England, India and South Africa have zeroed in on saliva saturated with mints, lozenges and other assorted candy to achieve their ends.
Pakistan has apparently decided that they can simply bite the ball as if it were an apple or jump on it with their spikes.
One can safely assume that Australia probably had their own copyrighted method for this since it is otherwise statistically improbable for the ball to reverse swing as soon as it was doing in the series against South Africa (not just in the third Test but in earlier matches as well).
But ball tampering is not why the Australian public is upset. There are three reasons why the Australians are upset about ball tampering.
1. The arranging of tools and tackles (sandpaper) to scuff up the ball demonstrated a premeditation on the part of the trio of Steve Smith, Cameron Bancroft and David Warner which amounted to cheating;
2. Trying to hide evidence of the cheating in (1) after they were caught by the cameras compounded the trickery;
3. Misleading the public and match officials about their actions demonstrated bad faith.
Let us analyse all three reasons individually:
1. Misleading the public and match officials regarding the nature and extent of the infractions. This seems to be the main allegation against Steve Smith – the cover-up. The same charge is levelled both in case of Smith and Bancroft and presumably refers to the press conference at the end of day three of the Cape Town Test match. The pair’s comments at that press conference can be summarised into the following two main claims:
a. A ‘leadership group’ within the team knew of the plan to change the condition of the ball;
b. A sticky tape with dirt particles stuck to it was used to modify the condition of the ball.
If we reconcile these claims with CA’s findings, (a) is definitely not the ‘misleading comment’ since it has been verified as true by CA – both Smith and Warner belonged to a ‘leadership group’.
The second statement is then at the crux of the entire matter – while the pair claimed sticky tape with dirt was used, it was actually sandpaper.
Cricket Australia’s report of the inquiry into the incident and subsequent charges and sanctions narrowly describes the misdemeanours as trying to alter the ball’s condition using sandpaper.
CA seems to be suggesting that while sticky tape with dirt is OK, sandpaper is the line in the sand – why?
Are we expected to believe that rubbing a ball on one side with sticky tape with dirt stuck to it does not constitute an ‘artificial process’ as described in the rules in the same way that sandpaper does?
Surely the premeditation required for both is the same – find the tape/sandpaper in the kit, conceal it in your pocket, rub the ball with it on the field (hopefully without the cameras picking it up).
As I see it, sticky tape with dirt stuck to it amounts to a home-made sandpaper. So why does CA attempt this distinction without a difference?
Is it because sticky tape with dirt is a commonly adopted process by the Australian team to accelerate the wear on the ball on one side to expedite reverse swing with tacit knowledge of the entire team and management?
Conveniently, isolating the incident to sandpaper and not sticky tape helps CA conclude that this is an isolated incident with only three players involved.
(AAP Image/Dave Hunt)
2. Sandpaper: A close reading of the charges laid out by CA also seems to clarify that Smith had no prior knowledge of sandpaper being used – none of the findings against Smith mention sandpaper but those against Warner and Bancroft both do.
It is highly unlikely that he ‘signed off on it’ as several commentators have concluded. If Smith had signed off on it, the CA report would have said so – they were looking for the maximum charges they could bring against these guys.
It might, therefore, be fair to surmise that Smith was unaware of what exactly Bancroft was shoving down his pants when he was picked up by the cameras. If cheating is to be defined as scuffing up a cricket ball on one side with sandpaper then it does not appear as if Smith cheated.
His offence seems to be trying to maintain deniability after becoming aware that Warner and Bancroft were hatching a plan to alter the ball’s condition – “I don’t want to know!”
While this is undoubtedly a leadership failure, in the context of the widespread knowledge in the cricketing world about changing the condition of the ball both legally and illegally is it any surprise that this particular discussion did not appear to raise any hackles?
Hindsight is 20/20 – it is easy for CA as well as every armchair commentator to look back and conclude that Steve should have stopped the development of a plan.
3. Trying to hide the evidence of the cheating: The CA charges clearly indicate that this was Smith’s brainchild. This was obviously wrong. In his panicky efforts at damage control, he appears to have caused more damage.
I bet he wonders what the consequences might have been if the trio had copped their penalties at this stage instead of trying to protect their mates.
By CA’s own admission, Steve Smith was not involved in the planning or execution of the plan to alter the condition of the ball using sandpaper. He had knowledge that a plan was in progress but not what it was.
The accusation against him is that he failed to stop its execution. This is a leadership failure. A fair penalty for leadership failure would be removing him as leader – why add on the suspension as a player?
If he is being suspended for ‘misleading comments’ to the match officials and the public, maybe the public deserves an explanation as to how they were misled – why is the sandpaper so much worse than the sticky tape with dirt that they claimed?
If he is being suspended for instructing Bancroft to hide the evidence of the cheating, this is a fair ground but how is the quantum of the punishment justified? Or is he being suspended because the team had pervasive practices of altering the condition of the ball that not always fell on the right side of the rules and he is taking the hit as captain of the team?
Meanwhile, all three players have copped their sanctions and are trying to move on with their lives. Their motives are probably not all too altruistic and they had little other options. This ‘crime’ was tried in the court of public opinion and the punishment handed down to calm the baying crowds.
(AAP Image/Brendan Esposito)
It follows, therefore, that the acquittal too must come from the court of public opinion. Hence the teary press conferences to gain the sympathy of the public.
Any appeal of the sanctions or the charges will lead to a nasty public washing of dirty linen out of which nobody would have come out unscathed – the players for not taking their punishment with grace and CA and team management for turning a blind eye to ball alteration practices carried out within the team.
Any appeal would have also greatly diminished the chances that they would ever play for Australia again.
The whole debacle begs the question if the purpose of the CA investigation team was to actually uncover the full truth or to provide a convenient cover story for CA to hide behind.
The investigation has successfully ring fenced the rest of the Australian cricket from the trio of Steve Smith, Cameron Bancroft and David Warner.
The public has heaped abuse and ridicule on them and their families, tarnished their reputations and labeled them cheaters. Have three fine careers and reputations been sacrificed at the altar of sanctimony?
Build your own fantasy cricket team and put it to the test with Draftstars daily fantasy competitions. Pick your match, pick your team and watch the points roll in to take out cash prizes on each match. What are you really gambling with? Set a deposit limit.
Johnny Bairstow has hit his way back into form with a 45-ball century as he steered his side to a record-breaking win, easily chasing…
It seems franchise cricket has forgotten about the great battle between bat and ball. In fact, this season in the IPL there is no battle at all.
The mammoth rise of Jake Fraser-McGurk - his enormous potential and the destructive shot-making that he possesses makes him a very tempting option.
Marcus Stoinis produced his first IPL century and it was a beauty. He went 6, 4, 4, 4 to finish off the Lucknow Super…
Xavier Bartlett has been permission to extend his cricketing education with a spell of T20s in England, playing in the Blast competition for Kent…
Three-Test spinner Matthew Kuhnemann has signed with Tasmania in a bid for red-ball game time ahead of Australia's tour of Sri Lanka next summer.…
