Why were Waqar Younis & Azhar Mahmood punished?

[Jono]

Have you got any footage of the Sachin incident for us to compare?

My internet just got capped from streaming too much cricket and tennis (lol) so I can't search Youtube properly. I'm searching Google for it, but basically it involved him picking at the seam in an attempt to clean it (which is what he claims).

He claims no intention to alter the condition of the ball, but was banned for a test match.

 

[zaremba]

Only with the length/seriousness of the punishment.

And also as to whether the matter passes a threshold of seriousness, short of which you wouldn't normally take any action.

In any case how the hell do you determine intention?

By analysing the evidence and drawing appropriate inferences. Look at the 1992 footage I've just posted. I'm prepared to draw the inference that that was intentional. Compare that with Broad: yes he might have changed the condition of the ball, but for the reasons I've already given I don't think it is plausible that he did so intentionally.

 

[Goughy]

So,you have evidence that Wasim & Waqar used illegal ways to get the ball reverse swing in Pakistan's tour of England in 1992?

Yeah, enough to satisy my usually very sceptical mind. I cant believe that anyone would have their head in the sand on this topic. Only the most biased,generous, ignorant or naive could hold the opinion that the ball was not tampered. Oh well, I guess the world has bigger problems than this.

 

[Jono]

Fair enough zaremba, but my point is that that line of thinking was not given to Tendulkar in 2001, and hence he was banned for a test - why? Simply because he picked at the same.

EXCERPT OF CRICKET CODE OF CONDUCT: 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 an implement, or take any action whatsoever, which is likely to alter the condition of the ball.

PM - Waugh criticises penalties for ball tampering

As a matter of precedent and consistency, Anderson should have been banned for one match for interfering with the surface of the ball

 

[zaremba]

As a matter of precedent and consistency, Anderson should have been banned for one match for interfering with the surface of the ball

I take a different view. It's not a good idea for a decision-maker in this sort of context to consider himself rigidly constrained by another decision, taken on its own extremely specific facts, by a different decision-maker a decade previously.

Precedent and consistency have their place, but that place is pretty limited when what you're doing is making highly fact-sensitive and/or discretionary decisions (eg is this matter really of sufficient seriousness to bother with? Is he guilty? What level of punishment should be imposed?). With such questions, different decision-makers might quite properly arrive at very different conclusions.

 

[Jono]

Then change the rules first. Otherwise questions are going to be asked when similar incidents (they are really not different - a player was cleaning the ball) result in different disciplinary action.

I don't think people should get up in arms when someone complains about inconsistency in match referee rulings. It's a fair enough complaint.

That is irrelevant to SA raising the issue, it's irrelevant to whether people believe England cheated etc. The point I'm going on about is consistency in rulings.

The minute I saw it i thought Anderson ahd to go, and I wasn't alone.

Didn't Pietersen inform him that he'd been 'caught'

 

[zaremba]

I dont think the Anderson footage looks bad at all. He cleans the seam and removes some dirt and removes a flap of leather that I think was due to Broads boot. He cant be bowling with a flappy ball. He did everything a normal, experienced cricketer would do or would think they were allowed to do exept one thing, he didnt do it under the supervision of the umpire. I didnt realise it had to be do like that until now. Ive cleaned the seam on hundreds of balls over the years. Was always considered legit.

Id send a memo to all players noting that players can "remove mud from the ball under the supervision of the umpire."

I dont think it looked like Anderson was tampering with the ball but if he did he should be punished. However, you cant say he did that based on that flimsy evidence.

Yeah, AWTA pretty much verbatim.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

So,you have evidence that Wasim & Waqar used illegal ways to get the ball reverse swing in Pakistan's tour of England in 1992?

The tv evidence of Aaqib Javed gouging the ball with his thumbnail was pretty conclusive.

 

[zaremba]

Then change the rules first.

Rules (and Laws) don't implement themselves: it takes human beings to do that. There are questions of judgment, of discretion and of the analysis of evidence.

If you commit a very minor infringement of a criminal law you might not expect to be punished, or even arrested, for it. And that's the way it should be.

 

[Jono]

But when one person commits a minor infringement of the criminal law and is punished, whilst another does the same and isn't... then I'd hardly say that's the way it should be.

 

[zaremba]

I don't think people should get up in arms when someone complains about inconsistency in match referee rulings. It's a fair enough complaint.

Yes but the consistency that's required is consistency at a pretty high level: ie are the decision-makers in each case applying the same broad principles?

It's not a question of saying (as you did) that because Tendulkar was banned for one match for lifting the seam of the ball 10 years ago, therefore Anderson should have received the same penalty for removing a flap of loose leather from the ball at Cape Town.

Personally, I don't think the cases are the same at all. Tendulkar was found guilty of raising the seam on the ball. Now, I agree that Jimmy Anderson should have passed the ball to the umpire in order to get the umpire to remove the flap of leather with his little scissors. But no matter how nicely Tendulkar asked, no umpire would ever have agreed to lift the seam on the ball for him.

 

[silentstriker]

No, double standards don't exist at all in cricket. It's hilarious people think that even after a ICC Match Referee came out and said he uses different standards to judge on field behavior since Australia and South Africa are allowed to play their cricket more 'aggressively'. Hilarious.

Don't care enough to read the thread, but it's hilarious to me that different players would have been, without any doubt whatsoever, been treated differently.

 

[zaremba]

But when one person commits a minor infringement of the criminal law and is punished, whilst another does the same and isn't... then I'd hardly say that's the way it should be.

It is unavoidable, and it happens all the time, when policemen, prosecutors and judges make their discretionary decisions.

Besides, each case is different. The similarities between Tendulkar's and Anderson's case are really quite limited, and are certainly not so striking that one should be seen as a particularly persuasive precedent for the other.

 

[Sanz]

Don't play the poster guys, play the topic. He raises a good point, why wasn't Anderson punished?

Vaughan also accused the world governing body of double-standards, saying there would have been a furore if, for example, Pakistan had been involved.

"If Shoaib Akhtar or Mohammad Asif had been pictured using their fingers on the ball, there would have been uproar."

Can't help but agree with Vaughan here, and commend him on saying it.

Kinda sums up the issue for me.

 

[zaremba]

No, double standards don't exist at all in cricket.

Well clearly they do, because Tendulkar was banned in 2000 for lifting the seam whereas the Pakistani bowlers went unpunished in 1992. Pro-Pakistan bias, if you ask me.

 

[Goughy]

Well clearly they do, because Tendulkar was banned in 2000 for lifting the seam whereas the Pakistani bowlers went unpunished in 1992. Pro-Pakistan bias, if you ask me.

I know you say that tongue in cheek but it is based in truth. If the (then) TCCB and ICC had not been so frightened of a Pakistani backlash, a controversy and drama then the situation could have been dealt with nearly 20 years ago.

Instead they got scared, wanted to sweep it under the carpet and avoid a confrontation. It was seen as not worth the hassle or the drama. Oh and by God, there would have been drama

Very soft decision but I cant say I wouldnt do the same myself. It was still the wrong choice.

Very Pro-Pakistan proccess.

 

[zaremba]

Kinda sums up the issue for me.

Vaughan is entitled to his opinion, and he has already shown himself to be quite keen to make inflammatory comments out of left field about various matters (eg Jonathan Trott saying hello to Paul Harris after a Test match in 2008). On this, he's just got it wrong. When I first heard Vaughan talking about this on the radio, I thought the Anderson footage would be very ugly indeed. Then you actually watch it, and it's absolutely nothing.

Anyhow that's probably enough from me on this today. Sorry for being the CW Bore again.

 

[Sanz]

The tv evidence of Aaqib Javed gouging the ball with his thumbnail was pretty conclusive.

Exactly. Anderson's wasn't conclusive, Neither was Broad's.

 

[zaremba]

I know you say that tongue in cheek but it is based in truth. If the (then) TCCB and ICC had not been so frightened of a Pakistani backlash, a controversy and drama then the situation could have been dealt with nearly 20 years ago.

Instead they got scared, wanted to sweep it under the carpet and avoid a confrontation. It was seen as not worth the hassle or the drama. Oh and by God, there would have been drama

Very soft decision but I cant say I wouldnt do the same myself. It was still the wrong choice.

Very Pro-Pakistan proccess.

And umpire Don Oslear got sacked for blowing the whistle on the matter. This was in the days before it was illegal to sack someone for that reason.

 

[Shri]

YouTube - Anderson - Ball Tampering?

If you look at 0:11th second in the video, you can see that Anderson scratches the ball near the seam before proceeding to remove the little piece of leather that is extruding in the ball. That doesn't convince me that he was totally innocent. I don't mind it btw. Everyone should be allowed to do it.