Allan Donald - 'Legalise ball tampering'

[DIRK-NANNES]

ICC should let bowlers 'prepare' the ball - Donald | South Africa Cricket News | Cricinfo.com
Hand out bags of assorted mints and razorblades at drinks time?

 

[Dissector]

It's not a crazy argument but I think a more sensible approach would be to prepare more sporting pitches.

 

[Manee]

Donald isn't the first fast bowler to make this case; in the mid-1990s, Sir Richard Hadlee had also asked for ball-tampering to be legalised. "As long as the bowlers or fielders use whatever means they have on their persons, I don't see anything wrong with it. I'm talking about the use of a finger nail to scratch the ball, not bottle tops or those sorts of things," Hadlee wrote in a newspaper column at the time.

This sort of 'tampering' seems reasonable to me and could help prevent the shift of the game towards the batsman. To see the ball hooping around corners would be perfect for spectators and would really give highly skilled swing bowlers such as Jimmy Anderson the wickets that, perhaps, they deserve.

 

[pup11]

It's not a crazy argument but I think a more sensible approach would be to prepare more sporting pitches.

This...

Allan Donald has no idea about what he is talking about here, if you allow bowlers to tamper the ball, then what's stopping them from completely loading things in their favour, by tampering with the ball to such an extent, that the batting almost becomes impossible.

I think reverse swing is an important asset for any fast bowler today, but the only reason for that is that the pitches don't offer them anything, and if that can change, then that alone would produce a good contest between bat and ball, which is eventually what everyone wants to see.

 

[jondavluc]

Why not just get rid of helmets and pads and make batsmen use tennis rackets.

 

[Manee]

This...

Obviously pitches would be ideal but it would seem that moe sporting pitches are just not happening.

Allan Donald has no idea about what he is talking about here, if you allow bowlers to tamper the ball, then what's stopping them from completely loading things in their favour, by tampering with the ball to such an extent, that the batting almost becomes impossible.

That won't happen, especially if you can only use what equipment you have on your person such as nails, saliva, sweat and your clothing. During a match, a ball cannot be tampered, even with the additional use of nails, to such a point that 'batting almost becomes impossible'. I have tampered balls with vaseline and bottle caps before in the nets and although the ball swings prodigiously, a half volley is still hittable and a short ball still won't swing.

I think reverse swing is an important asset for any fast bowler today, but the only reason for that is that the pitches don't offer them anything, and if that can change, then that alone would produce a good contest between bat and ball, which is eventually what everyone wants to see.

Good pitches are the ideal solution but you must surely feel the air of futility in arguing for better pitches. There has been approximately five years of much slower pitches than the 1990s and generally more batsman friendly pitches, without a hint of change.

 

[pup11]

Obviously pitches would be ideal but it would seem that moe sporting pitches are just not happening.



That won't happen, especially if you can only use what equipment you have on your person such as nails, saliva, sweat and your clothing. During a match, a ball cannot be tampered, even with the additional use of nails, to such a point that 'batting almost becomes impossible'. I have tampered balls with vaseline and bottle caps before in the nets and although the ball swings prodigiously, a half volley is still hittable and a short ball still won't swing.



Good pitches are the ideal solution but you must surely feel the air of futility in arguing for better pitches. There has been approximately five years of much slower pitches than the 1990s and generally more batsman friendly pitches, without a hint of change.

I think they need to stop playing OD cricket and Test cricket on the same pitch, they need to start reserving pitches for test and FC cricket, and not play any OD cricket on them, the number OD games played on these pitches tends to flatten them out, taking all the sting and life out of them.

 

[Manee]

I think they need to stop playing OD cricket and Test cricket on the same pitch, they need to start reserving pitches for test and FC cricket, and not play any OD cricket on them, the number OD games played on these pitches tends to flatten them out, taking all the sting and life out of them.

Reserved strips for Test cricket is a very good idea since the pitches are not as important in limited overs fixtures. However, among the futility of calling for better pitches, I see no problem with Donald's idea although I do expect stringent opposition from batsmen and purists alike.

 

[Richard]

What I think people need to do more is get ridiculous ideas about what's tampering and what's not out of the way. Yes, fair enough, no-one really wants to see anyone using a stanley-knife on the ball. But it's ridiculous that rubbing a bit of dust on it isn't even legal, and even more ridiculous that some Aussies (yes, though you might struggle to notice, Cameron Burge isn't absolutely the only one) think using sugary sweets to enhance the quality of saliva to get a better shine is a crime against humanity.

Personally I want cricket balls to swing to the maximum extent possible - don't care whether it's conventional or reverse (ideally it'd be about 50\50, I like seeing both come into the game, if possible in the same innings, though that isn't always). Anything, within reason (as I say - forget knives or cut-up bottle-top bits to gouge pieces out of the leather), should be legal on that, and especially if it's "natural". Dust is no more or less natural than saliva\sweat.

And no, I don't care what's used to enhance those natural substances. Be it a few sweets to improve your saliva, some suncream to improve your sweat, or one brush with the car-park tarmac to go with lots of dust.

More sporting decks, well, that might just be asking a bit too much. But I see no reason why batsmen have the right to have all this improved bat technology while bowlers do not have the right to improved ball technology.

 

[Richard]

Oh, and obviously bowlers should be able to bowl with a ball, see whether it swings, and thus only use balls that do in-match. You wouldn't just hand a batsman any old selection of brand-new bats, tell him to pick the one he most liked the feel of, then make him use that for the rest of his innings, would you?

In fact what'd be fairest would be for each bowler to pick his own ball, which he alone used in the innings, and could change at any point, having tested it out beforehand. You wouldn't make every batsman use the same bat, and only change it after 80 overs, would you?

That way Andrew Flintoff and Stuart Broad banging four out of six balls per over into the pitch doesn't damage James Anderson's chances of getting swing. Same way Chris Gayle can use his massive heavy piece of wood to do what he does best while Ramnaresh Sarwan can use his light little thing to do what he does best. Because it really wouldn't be fair to deprive them of their own strengths by making them use the same bat.

 

[GIMH]

 

[aussie]

ICC is much better off investing big cash, in trying to find a way to make more quality pitches for tests, instead of doing this.

 

[honestbharani]

I don't mind Hadlee's idea at all... It is not like people are bringing in foreign substances to do something.. If they are using their nails and stuff, then what is the harm?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It shouldn't be forgotten that most Australian men don't wash for a month at a time so they could stick the ball down the front of their trousers and use their pubic hair much like a scouring pad to scuff the ball.

 

[Goughy]

In theory I dont mind it. Though in practice Id like to see how it would work. You could literaly carve chunks out of the ball with nail and teeth. Would change the bounce and swing.

The use of spikes on cricket boots would make big changes, as would rubbing the ball on something.

Im not against it, but it could become extreme in what is done. Difficult to police and we dont know how it would change the product of cricket. Im probably favor of only being allowed to improve the condition of the ball.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The trouble with Donald's suggestion is that it won't solve the problem of tampering. He's only really advocating limited "tampering", so with human nature being what it is they'll always be someone prepared to do more than is permitted.

 

[Richard]

In theory I dont mind it. Though in practice Id like to see how it would work. You could literaly carve chunks out of the ball with nail and teeth. Would change the bounce and swing.

The use of spikes on cricket boots would make big changes, as would rubbing the ball on something.

Im not against it, but it could become extreme in what is done. Difficult to police and we dont know how it would change the product of cricket. Im probably favor of only being allowed to improve the condition of the ball.

Even there there's stringent restrictions on what you're allowed to do to improve the condition of the ball.

And there's even restrictions on what you're allowed to do to maintain the ball's condition, never mind improve or diminish it. See Atherton, Michael, Lord's, South Africa, 1994.

 

[Manee]

What I think people need to do more is get ridiculous ideas about what's tampering and what's not out of the way. Yes, fair enough, no-one really wants to see anyone using a stanley-knife on the ball. But it's ridiculous that rubbing a bit of dust on it isn't even legal, and even more ridiculous that some Aussies (yes, though you might struggle to notice, Cameron Burge isn't absolutely the only one) think using sugary sweets to enhance the quality of saliva to get a better shine is a crime against humanity.

I think dirt may cross a line somewhere, but sugary sweets, if it isn't already, should definitely be legal.

Personally I want cricket balls to swing to the maximum extent possible - don't care whether it's conventional or reverse (ideally it'd be about 50\50, I like seeing both come into the game, if possible in the same innings, though that isn't always). Anything, within reason (as I say - forget knives or cut-up bottle-top bits to gouge pieces out of the leather), should be legal on that, and especially if it's "natural". Dust is no more or less natural than saliva\sweat.

Rubbing the ball on the floor seems a bit 'dodgy' to me and may harm the entrance of a perfectly harmless expansion of tolerance to altering the condition of the ball. I can't be more specific but the image of a bowler rubbing the ball on the floor is the sort of thing that will tip the purist sceptic over the edge.

Oh, and obviously bowlers should be able to bowl with a ball, see whether it swings, and thus only use balls that do in-match. You wouldn't just hand a batsman any old selection of brand-new bats, tell him to pick the one he most liked the feel of, then make him use that for the rest of his innings, would you?

In fact what'd be fairest would be for each bowler to pick his own ball, which he alone used in the innings, and could change at any point, having tested it out beforehand. You wouldn't make every batsman use the same bat, and only change it after 80 overs, would you?

Having each bowler choose his ball is ludicrous, imo. The idea of an umpire with a box of balls for each bowler just doesn't work. The idea of a single ball per team, per period of time is a staple of the game and I think it is inexplicably, but still, ludicrous to do so.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Having each bowler choose his ball is ludicrous, imo. The idea of an umpire with a box of balls for each bowler just doesn't work. The idea of a single ball per team, per period of time is a staple of the game and I think it is inexplicably, but still, ludicrous to do so.

I know it's often hard to tell the difference but I suspect he was joking.

 

[Manee]

I know it's often hard to tell the difference but I suspect he was joking.

I don't think so, I seem to remember him suggesting this a little while back. I'm willing to accept it as an idea. I think it ludicrous but cannot pinpoint a specific point of contention and so cannot dismiss it altogether.