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?
JayG
Guest
I agree with DaveJ that CA has its process on backwards and it is hard to see how it would have withstood any serious legal scrutiny. The code itself is so broad that it can be interpreted to cover everything from doping and match fixing to sledging and ball tampering. They have no clear behavioral standards defined and are attempting to impose them anyway. It is like writing a criminal code that says you should lead a good and moral life failing which you can be sent to jail for 6 months to life based on the discretion of the judge. The other major flaw I can see is "precedent". Courts routinely deny "justice" in individual cases because the cost of setting a bad future precedent far outweighs the dispensation of justice in an individual case. Not only is there no precedent for the penalties handed down, they also set a bad precedent - it says that the determination of the quantum of penalties you suffer are not based on an objective reading of the extant rules but on the degree of public outrage. What happens the next time the public gets outraged at something a player does - shaming the wife of an opposition player for example? And what happens when much bigger offences are ignored by the media? Any reasonable system of punishment must have clear, pre-defined do's and don'ts and they must be applied uniformly. There is no indication that this has been done in this case. The wide range of opinions seen here on Roar on whether the penalties are excessive, fair or too little is itself testament to the fact that there appears to be little to no basis for having decided on them. Now, CA is setting up a review post facto to define the behavioral standards. It is difficult to imagine that a reasonable independent review which consults with all stakeholders will come up with a behavioral standard that recommends 1 year bans for lying to umpires or misleading the public. What happens then? What if the review recommends shorter punishments for such offences? Does this mean that the Cape Town trio will be the first and the last to suffer these bans?
Aransan
Guest
I doubt if Smith knew in advance that Bancroft was going to use sandpaper with Warner's encouragement, but I believe he should have guessed that something was up and put a stop to it. Smith's mistake was one of omission rather than commission and some care should have been taken with advice to take responsibility as captain. If you have followed all the news that has come out you should have a good understanding as to what actually happened. Smith is young to be captain and is immature for his age. He needed to grow into the position of captain and Warner was not a good choice to be his vice-captain. I have sympathy for Warner too given the extreme personal abuse he received at close quarters regarding Candice.
Kane
Guest
I understand what you are saying but it's pretty obvious that taking sandpaper out onto a cricket oval to tamper with a ball deliberately then no amount of PR support is going to help you. Remember this happened just after lunch so they had plenty of thinking time to concoct a story (or in fact tell the truth) before being interviewed after the day's play. Either way I believe they got their right whack or maybe on the lenient side.
Dave
Guest
Also, quite notable that Warner and Smith were dumped from his IPL contract while du Plessis has continued to be contracted year after year with no question arising about his participation. Double standards. If you are going to cheat, best not be too blatant about it.
Dr Jesse
Guest
If he didn't do that press conference crying, you'd still hate him!!
DaveJ
Guest
No CA didn’t find they had brought the game into disrepute “through a variety of methods, including ball tampering”. It was for for the reasons set out by Matt above - ball tampering, misleading the umps and misleading the public. If what Matt says is true about Smith not knowing about the sandpaper, he is effectively getting a large portion of a one-year sentence for a bungled press conference where he was trying to come clean! So what portion of the rest of the 12 months is for misleading the umps? Do we need to bring a polygraph machine onto the ground now as well as hotspot and Snicko? Let’s get the umps to ask a batsman- did you snick that? and if he fibs give him 6 months or 5 matches. But wait, Warner neither fibbed to the umps nor mislead the public as he wasn’t in any press conferences. So instead of maybe double or triple the previous heaviest penalty of 1 Test or 2 ODIs for ball tampering, he is getting by my count 9 Tests, 20-plus ODIs, several T20Is and a full domestic season of 12-15 Shield and one day games for ball-tampering alone. I’d equate that to increasing the penalty 25-35 fold. Why - for sandpaper, not dirt on tape, or lollies? You jest, surely! For premeditation or conspiracy? Well, the accountants at CA might not be aware, but in our courts conspiring to do something wrong doesn’t bring a heavier sentence than actually doing something wrong. And certainly not 30 times heavier. There might be some arguments for stiff sentences but CA hasn’t articulated them in the tiniest bit transparent way. It is setting new standards without saying what they are. So one is drawn to the conclusion that they were just bowing to mob pressure or fears about the TV rights negotiations, or even trying to cover up something worse as Matt suggests. By the way if you argue that they brought the game into disrepute merely by incurring ICC demerits for bad behaviour then every Ausssie who does so must cop an extra CA penalty- Nathan Lyon for dropping the ball on de Villiers, players showing dissent, throwing kit, excessive sledging. Why is a ‘misleading an umpire” worth 6 months if showing dissent only incurs a portion of a match fee? I would have thought it even worse. I’m honestly waiting for someone to explain the logic of what CA claims to have done.
Aransan
Guest
Kane, I think the problem was that they didn't understand the seriousness of what had been done and they were too quick to talk to the media before they were given sufficient support. Smith had trouble explaining how he should take responsibility for an action that he was not directly involved in but should have stopped.
Kane
Guest
And they blatantly lied to Australian fans which to me is the biggest thing out of all of this
Aransan
Guest
The punishments weren't just for the ball tampering, but also for continually pushing the line for acceptable behaviour in terms of sledging and other offences. Cricket Australia deserves a significant amount of blame on this matter as well for allowing things to get out of hand. South African cricket shouldn't be proud of the personal baiting of Warner which they appeared to encourage. I don't have a problem with the bans on playing test cricket but they should be able to play domestic cricket, as it stands now the players will not even be allowed to play county cricket which is an unintended consequence of the bans.
Paul
Roar Guru
Well done Matt. You've taken a series of facts and managed to decide, through some pretty interesting logic, that somehow these guys should come out of this in a positive light. Please look at the facts again as they stand at present. 1) Smith, Warner and Bancroft conspired to try and ball tamper. It was Smith who said they used tape and sand because he obviously didn't know Bancroft had sandpaper when caught on TV. 2) The ICC handed down 1 match bans and then effectively washed their hands of the situation. 3) the CA investigation decided the 3 players had brought the game into disrepute through a variety of methods including attempted ball tampering, then both trying to conceal this as well as appearing to lie about it later. CA decided on punishments which they felt fitted the "crimes". The court of public opinion had zero input into this because you had views ranging from "a one match ban is long enough" through to "ban them for life" - and that was evidenced on the Roar. You have also incorrectly blamed the public for tarnishing their reputations. How did I do that? The public did not dream up this ridiculous scheme. The public not go on world TV and either down play or lie about it and any labels that have been imposed stem from the actions of Smith Warner and Bancroft.... they tried to cheat and got caught. There's nothing sanctimonious about this whole episode, only a great deal of sadness and disappointment. On a personal level, as a member of the public, I'm sad Warner and Smith thought they needed a scheme like this to win a Test match and disappointed they brought Bancroft into it, really giving him little choice but to join in. I'm also sad they've damaged their reputations, but hope they will find a way to get through the next 12 months and come out playing good Australian cricket in the right manner.
Ray Hammond
Roar Rookie
As a former cricketer who has seen many attempts to alter conditions, to the ball, to the batting surface, to the footmarks on the crease line - all with the aim of gaining some competitive advantage, the penalty must fit the crime. In this case it seems that Warner is the architect, Bancroft the willing, yet naive victim and Smith the village idiot. In this case, Warner losing his VC responsibilities, plus 1 year out of Test Cricket is reasonable, but not from all forms of cricket. Bancroft probably was on his last chance as a test cricketer anyway and was desperate to please his superior and show he could be a useful part of the team. That's now lost, and a 6 month Test ban would have been appropriate. For Smith, losing his Captain's role, the aura of greatness, now compunded by being called a "cheat" is for him a far greater punishment than missing out on Tests. A 6 month Test-ban would have been far more reasonable as he is now tainted for life. The current punishments are way over the top and do not fit the crime. They have not brought cricket into disrepute, but they have brought themselves into eternal disrepute which can never be undone. Let them play domestic cricket and then in 6 months let them be eligible for Test-cricket for the 2 and after 12 months again for Warner.
Ramprage
Guest
I think they blew up their careers with the irresponsible act... Like this video... https://youtu.be/Lymj8ILDHjo