***Official*** Sri Lanka Tour of West Indies 2018

[Black_Warrior]

Windies resurgence = lame series.

Can't catch a break with you guys

You're replying to a Big 3 Fan there. Any series not involving their precious teams is lame or underwhelming.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The law book is clear. The implementation and interpretation is not.

Let's compare the two matches and you tell me as an umpire how the laws were implemented.

Australia vs South Africa

We see images of Bancroft doing something fishy with the ball. Camera keep zooming on it and commentators start talking about it.
Umpires inspect the ball (was it random? did someone alert them based on what was on camera?), Bancroft shows them his sunglass cleaner, they are satisfied with the explanation even though we see on TV Bancroft adjusting his pants, and ball is returned. 5 runs are NOT added to South Africa's total. Ball tampering charge is not placed against Australia.

Was the ball changed? Did it go through the same testing process? If so, why did the umpires return the ball all satisfied and not grant South Africa the penalty 5 runs?
How is it that the ball which we later know was tampered with satisfied umpires?

I think the difference is that in the Aus v SA incident, while clearly involving ball-tampering, the ball actually didn't really change. ie. the tampering didn't actually do anything and the ball was still fit to keep using. In this game the ball was ****ed up.

Why they would have awarded penalty runs without proof of tampering though is beyond me. Definitely doesn't seem fair. You can't penalise the fielding team if the ball goes out of shape via natural causes, surely.

 

[Black_Warrior]

So then that raises the question - if actual tampering doesn't change the condition or shape of the ball, can we really determine in an objective way if tampering has taken place?

We know now how the South African broadcasters were specifically looking for evidence of tampering. If that's the case, then doesn't that place this matter heavily in the hands of the broadcaster and not the actual ICC officials and Umpires?

 

[TheJediBrah]

So then that raises the question - if actual tampering doesn't change the condition or shape of the ball, can we really determine in an objective way if tampering has taken place?

We know now how the South African broadcasters were specifically looking for evidence of tampering. If that's the case, then doesn't that place this matter heavily in the hands of the broadcaster and not the actual ICC officials and Umpires?

Not from looking at the ball. Unless you do something really, really, moronically obvious. It's entirely down to whether you get caught on camera (and whether you're stupid enough to admit that you've done it)

 

[Black_Warrior]

So basically it depends on broadcasters and ICC doesn't actually have a full proof objective process to determine it. That was my entire point. Now wait for an essay from ***** defending how good umpires are.

 

[TheJediBrah]

How do you expect umpires to know everything that's going on though? Players tampering would look exactly the same as players shining the ball from a distance.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Looks like you didn't read the essay ***** wrote.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Looks like you didn't read the essay ***** wrote.

People actually read those?

 

[Burgey]

Looks like you didn't read the essay ***** wrote.

Evidence?

 

[Gnske]

I understand that's your view but not a single cricket team will look at it like that because human perception works very differently to that. Awarding of 5 penalty runs suggests ball tampering and ball tampering suggests cheating. Athletes across different sports take this very very seriously. Virat Kohli accused Australia of cheating in the 2017 and look at the reaction. Clarke accused Steyn of cheating in 2014 and Steyn still hasn't accepted Clarke's apology. This is just something very sensitive for sportsmen as difficult as it is for us to understand.

Almost as sensitive as a ball is to a fella taking a big bite out of it.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

The test should have been awarded already to WI. You cant simply sit out protesting match officials' decision.

 

[cnerd123]

I don't understand what the problem here is

In the SA Vs Aus game, the umpires were informed by the third umpire to check if the Aussies were tampering. On the field, they found no evidence, they were satisfied that the ball didn't look tampered with, and so no penalty was applied.

Once the news broke out, you could make a case that they could possibly retroactively award 5 penalty runs and change the ball, but the law doesn't apply for an attempt to change the condition of the ball. It applies when the balls condition has actually been changed. So not doing anything on account of feeling no damage done on the ball is fine

In this situation, the umpires inspected the ball and felt it has been tampered with. They do not need evidence of this in order to change the ball and levy the penalty runs.

There is a difference between application of the laws to a game of cricket, and the ICC sanctions on players for cheating. This incident will be reported to the ICC, and if they feel there is insufficient evidence to punish any player(s), they will let it slide. You need to differentiate between what the Laws are, and what the ICC's sanctions and penalties are. Just because you break the Laws doesn't mean you break the ICCs rules and vice versa. This is all very very clear.

The 'essay' I posted was quoting the MCC Laws verbatim. If you aren't going to bother actually reading the laws then maybe you shouldn't comment on how they are applied

 

[cnerd123]

Why they would have awarded penalty runs without proof of tampering though is beyond me. Definitely doesn't seem fair. You can't penalise the fielding team if the ball goes out of shape via natural causes, surely.

So we raised this exact question up during the ICC umpiring course - how do we say the ball has been tampered if we don't see it?

The answer is that you use your judgement. After umpiring a certain level of cricket for enough time, you begin to understand what natural wear and tear on a particular ball looks like. You are also inspecting the ball frequently over the course of a game, so you can tell if it suddenly dramatically changes from one inspection to the next. You also are actually watching the game as it happens - you see all the impacts the ball takes, you see if it spends a lot of time being shielded from your eyes by the players, you see if they are attempting to bounce or roll it a lot, or one player who is chewing on something happens to also be in charge of shining it.

You see a lot of things, and if you are Ian Gould and Aleem Far you have decades of experience with observing how the balls natural wear and tear occurs in Test matches all around the world.

If these two men felt the ball had unnatural levels of wear and damage on it, to the extent where they believe it's been tampered with, only then would they invoke this law. They don't need evidence. They don't need to see it happen. They don't need a camera crew to inform them.

For a ****ing armchair commentator following the game on Cricinfo to be up in arms about this thinking they're incompetent, or that the rules are unclear even tho he's never read them...jfc

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

LAW 16

16.3 Umpires awarding a match

Regardless of any agreement under Law 13.1.2 (Number of innings),

16.3.1 a match shall be lost by a side which

16.3.1.1 concedes defeat

16.3.1.2 in the opinion of the umpires refuses to play. If so, the umpires shall award the match to the other side.

16.3.2 if an umpire considers that an action by any player or players might constitute a refusal by either side to play then the umpires together shall ascertain the cause of the action. If they then decide together that this action does constitute a refusal to play by one side, they shall so inform the captain of that side. If the captain persists in the action the umpires shall award the match in accordance with 16.3.1. See also Law 42.6.1 (Captain refusing to remove a player from the field).

16.3.3 if action as in 16.3.2 takes place after play has started and does not constitute a refusal to play,

- Playing time lost shall be counted from the start of the action until play recommences, subject to Law 11.4 (Changing agreed times for intervals).

- the time for close of play on that day shall be extended by this length of time, subject to Law 2.8 (Suspension of play in dangerous or unreasonable conditions).

- if applicable, no overs shall be deducted during the last hour of the match solely on account of this time.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

16.3.3 does not apply because SL refused to play

I would like to know under what rules the test is still being played?

 

[Daemon]

I was wondering that as well. Maybe the match referee can override it.

 

[cnerd123]

The test should have been awarded already to WI. You cant simply sit out protesting match officials' decision.

Yup. This is the key issue. If the SL team feel the umpires call is unfair, they cannot hold the Test hostage. A formal complaint could be lodged after the game. You don't refuse to play if you get a bad LBW call, and this is no different.

The umpires were generous in not awarding them the forfeit loss and allowing them to play on. As AZH points out, they were well within their rights to do so.

 

[cnerd123]

I was wondering that as well. Maybe the match referee can override it.

All laws are to be applied with discretion. Umpires have complete and final say on how they choose to interpret and apply the laws of the game.

Obviously if you want to keep your job you follow the ICCs interpretation and guidelines, and you defer to the Match Referee, but the umpires have lots of leeway. The unwritten Law is 'Apply Common Sense'

So like it says there - 'in the opinion of the umpires'. So in their opinion the Sri Lanka were probably still willing to play, but just needed some coaxing

 

[Daemon]

All laws are to be applied with discretion.

This explains umpiring in Pakistan back in the day

 

[Borges]

As per the ICC rules, it is only the match referee who can declare a forfeit and award a match.

16.2 ICC Match Referee awarding a match

16.2.1 A match shall be lost by a side which either

16.2.1.1 concedes defeat or

16.2.1.2 in the opinion of the ICC Match Referee refuses to play and the ICC Match Referee shall award the matchto the other side.

16.2.2 If an umpire considers that an action by any player or players might constitute a refusal by either side to playthen the umpires together shall inform the ICC Match Referee of this fact. The ICC Match Referee shalltogether with the umpires ascertain the cause of the action. If the ICC Match Referee, after due consultationwith the umpires, then decides that this action does constitute a refusal to play by one side, he/she shall soinform the captain of that side. If the captain persists in the action the ICC Match Referee shall award thematch in accordance with clause 16.2.1.2 above.

https://pulse-static-files.s3.amazo...Playing-Conditions-2017-Code-FINAL-051017.pdf

 

[cnerd123]

^ there we go. Good example of the ICC Playing Conditions overriding the Laws of Cricket.

Should probably look up the ICC Playing Conditions regarding Condition of The Ball, if any.