It’s just not cricket #3
Well, I’m having fun. Here is the third issue I would like to highlight. (Don’t worry. I’ll get to lbw next). Darrell Hair. International incidents. The issue is ball tampering - and wondering why the rules currently allow it.
Shining the ball. It is common practice for players to deliberately shine one side of the ball by rubbing it against their ‘inside leg’ during the course of an innings. The express purpose of this practice is to make the ball behave in an erratic manner in the air i.e. to swing. The result of shining is that the ball is aero dynamically lop-sided.
While a clever lawyer might argue that shining the ball actually reduces the damage inflicted on the ball in play, the cleverer lawyer would point out that the intention and effect is to gain unfair advantage.
It is explicitly against the rules to “tamper with the ball”. Tendulkar was suspended a few years ago for fiddling with the seam, which makes it easier for the bowler to hold the seam and bowl certain balls. Pakistan were ready to go to war when accused of ball tampering by scapegoat Darrell Hair. Thank god it wasn’t an Indian umpire who called them on it!
Yet the Poms have specifically delegated the shining job to Marcus Trescothick who is more skilled at shining the ball than others on his team and inducing the ball to reverse swing! He partly in the team as a specialist first slip and designated ball shiner!
The solution. Legislate the spirit of the no tampering rule consistently, before the ambiguity starts world war 3. Ball shining is ball tampering even though it is currently explicitly allowed by the rules. It should be banned.
OK. I don’t much like that solution either because I like watching swing bowling. But allowing some types of ball tampering while not allowing others seems like a recipe for conflict and confusion to me. There is an issue of fairness to the batsman is there not? Why can the batsman not pick the ball up and shine it on the dull side to stop it swinging?!
Click HERE for a selection of robustly expressed views on ball tampering.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
December 14th, 2006 at 8:04 am
What you say makes me wonder: were non-players able to appreciate the bowling arts as much as we do, before television? It occurs to me that when I watch a game in person, I see much less of what goes on.
On topic, presumably altering the shape of the ball is considered tampering, but altering the texture is not.
December 14th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
I think Cronje was also either found guilty or at least accused of ball tampering with respect to an incident that sits somewhere around altering the texture of the ball. TV footage caught him raking his boot spikes over a ball in the field during a break in play. If he wasn’t found guilty then it was certainly frowned upon. If it was to alter the texture by roughing the ball up a little then it is more less similar to shining the ball. Shing of the ball, however, has become acceptable.
December 14th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
LAW 42.3c (FAIR AND UNFAIR PLAY): “It is unfair for anyone to rub the ball on the ground for any reason, interfere with any of the seams or the surface of the ball, use any implement, or take any other action whatsoever which is likely to alter the condition of the ball”
On the other hand, the laws of the game clearly state fielders can polish, clean or dry the ball. Shining is interpreted as polishing. Clear this interpretation is a perversion of the spirit of laws 42.3c, but it is a very long standing interpretation.
December 18th, 2006 at 5:37 am
In New Zealand the game is often played with a damp outfield - previous rain, dew. It makes it necessary to dry the ball during play - that seems consistant with the FPCR. Now they can either use a towel or their trousers. The former seems daft because it’s too easy too hide what is going on - their could be nail scrapping going on. So drying on the leg is the better of the two.
A better idea would be to allow shining/drying but allow the unpire to be able to change the ball at random intervals with a ball of similar, even wear. That way there is less incentive to tamper with the ball - you may never get it shiny/worn enough before it’s replaced.