who is the english player most likely to scratch the ball

[greg]

The question which doesn't seem to have been raised is why they were only 'tampering' with one of the two balls. Or is the point that the umpires had a suspicion, but nothing that could remotely constitute "proof", and therefore just changed one of the balls as a warning (they obviously couldn't have changed two of the balls for being 'out-of-shape' and covered it up).

The flip side of this of course is their suspicion could have been totally groundless, which explains England's complaint at the ball being changed.

A further suggestion somewhere between the two extremes might be this: there have been suggestions of umpires trying to clamp down on some practices designed to generate reverse swing - especially throwing the ball on the bounce (as pointed out in the cricinfo article above, this is difficult to enforce since one of the reasons for returning the ball on the bounce is that it arrives quicker. And frankly, why on earth should the practice be outlawed???)). Maybe the ball change was because they felt that its condition had been altered excessively - but not by 'scratching' (which frankly would be pretty obvious, as well as hard to cover up from the TV cameras), but simply by the range of other 'legitimate' practices that were going on. And if so, its no wonder that England were peed off by the decision, and many i think would conclude justifiably!

 

[Hurricane]

I am firmly against legalizing ball tampering through nails etc. I have batted against a team that picked the seam and it was extremely difficult to bat even though we were on an artificial.

It is extremely easy to pick a seam with your thumb nail and most club sides do not do it (at least not in my grades)

 

[fredfertang]

Hard to argue with this. There's no underhanded technique the Poms won't stoop to.

We're quick learners

 

[Biryani Pillow]

I am 99% sure England has tampered with the ball because

1. Bob Wills, an English man is accusing them of tampering

Because Willis is a 'shock jock' type of analyst who, I suppose in order to claim he's valuable, often makes unfounded speculations and suggestions which, unfortunately, some guillible types fall for.

Simple facts:

If the ball is out of shape the umpires will change it.

If the umpires think the ball has been tampered with they will cg=hange the ball and award penalty run.

Nothing to see here folks.

And you can't stop fielders throwing the ball on the bounce - which is often a way of getting it back in than a looping throw.

 

[uvelocity]

fielders bounce throwing from the ring or thereabouts when there is no chance of a runout on = scuffing up the ball

in fact with their gun arms, bounce throwing from anywhere when there is no runout on = scuffing up the ball. and 90% of them can throw flat on the full from anywhere, which is preferable to a bounce throw when going for a run out anyway anyway

 

[Adders]

fielders bounce throwing from the ring or thereabouts when there is no chance of a runout on = scuffing up the ball

in fact with their gun arms, bounce throwing from anywhere when there is no runout on = scuffing up the ball. and 90% of them can throw flat on the full from anywhere, which is preferable to a bounce throw when going for a run out anyway anyway

I reckon that's true enough, but how is throwing the ball on the bounce to scuff up one side any different to rubbing the crap out of the other side on your trousers to shine it up?? It amounts to the same thing doesn't it??

 

[uvelocity]

absolutely (imo)

 

[uvelocity]

what the rules say (iirc) is that shining is 'preserving the condition' whereas scuffing is 'altering the condition' or something to that effect. bollocks in other words.

 

[Cabinet96]

Perhaps some of you more knowledgeable folk can explain this to me, cos this is something I've never understood...........

So the theory behind reverse swing is that you want one side of the ball scuffed up while maintaining the shine on the other. Throwing the ball back in on the bounce is done to assist scuffing up the rough side, but when they throw the ball in on the bounce how on earth do they know what side will hit the dirt?? Surely there is just as much chance of damaging the side they are looking after??

Clearly the theory works but it just doesn't make sense to me.

It hits both sides just as regularly, however, it doesn't really matter if it hits the shinny side, because you can usually repair it pretty easily by shining it. Obviously if you just leave the rough side alone it will get scuffed up pretty quickly. The whole thing rely's on you working really hard to maintain the shine on one side.

 

[Cabinet96]

Firstly, the last thing that you want to do when trying to hit the stumps is throw on the bounce as it slows up the throw and has the potential to divert the ball's direction

I'm not so sure about this. It means you can throw it a lot flatter, and if it hits a practice wicket, it won't slow down that much.

 

[Furball]

Firstly, the last thing that you want to do when trying to hit the stumps is throw on the bounce as it slows up the throw and has the potential to divert the ball's direction

Secondly, it's illegal if sides are doing it to change the condition of the ball

Rubbish, a low, flat throw that's bounced in gets there quicker than a throw that's floated in over the stumps.

It's why the 'don't bounce the ball' in rule is unenforcable. Because there's no doubt that England do it to scuff the ball up but they've got a perfectly reasonable answer for why they do it when they're pressed.

 

[Furball]

Someone on Sky Sports News put it perfectly.

All teams will admit that they alter the condition of the ball. No-one will admit to ball tampering.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Someone on Sky Sports News put it perfectly.

All teams will admit that they alter the condition of the ball. No-one will admit to ball tampering.

Vic Marks on the cricket writers programme this morning.

I have no real problem if they come out and say doing it in the long run is fine but as it stands at present anyone guilty of doing it needs punishing regardless of who he plays for.

 

[vic_orthdox]

The "bouncing the ball in" rule only gets applied when it's not very subtle; i.e. throwing the ball back from mid-off into the keeper on the bounce, when there's not a run out on or anything. Never get pulled up if you are trying to go for a run-out or throwing it in from the boundary.

And while some guys are good at throwing a "flying saucer" in to get the ball to hit the rough side, most of the time you don't really care, just rough the ball up and try and shine/smoothen out the smooth side. White balls don't really "shine up" anyway.

Even if you couldn't get reverse swing using such tactics, you would probably use the same tactics to try and soften the ball as quickly as possible, especially on slower wickets.

 

[Biryani Pillow]

The "bouncing the ball in" rule only gets applied when it's not very subtle; i.e. throwing the ball back from mid-off into the keeper on the bounce, when there's not a run out on or anything. Never get pulled up if you are trying to go for a run-out or throwing it in from the boundary.

True.

Even in Club cricket umpires will tell bowlers off if, when bowling 'warm up' deliveries to a fielder, they bowl into the ground and not full toss.

 

[Dan]

True.

Even in Club cricket umpires will tell bowlers off if, when bowling 'warm up' deliveries to a fielder, they bowl into the ground and not full toss.

Strictly speaking, that's against the laws now. Must be on the full toss IIRC.

 

[hendrix]

well that's one area that umpires can legitimately crack down upon then.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Just read through this thread. Yeah look anyone seriously advocating legalising ball tampering needs to think things through a bit more carefully. Balls would be getting replaced every two overs ffs, you could literally just pull it apart if you didn't like it. Not to mention the massive variable bounce that could be gained by splitting the seam which would just be **** viewing, not skill based at all.

 

[Migara]

"He knows that one individual is scratching the ball for England -- who I am not going to name -- and that's why the ball was changed," insisted Willis, one of England's greatest fast bowlers.

ICC Champions Trophy: Bob Willis accuses England of ball-tampering in match against Sri Lanka | ICC Champions Trophy 2013 - News | NDTVSports.com

One who keeps his hands most in the pocket.

 

[Migara]

Surely with all the cameras around the ground we could actually see some evidence before making a judgement on this?

The precedence is to disregard such evidence and go by umpire's decision ONLY. If you don't believe me ask Darrel Hair.