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

[jimmy101]

To be quite honest I don't think ball-tampering should even be outlawed. If we let players rub the ball with either dirt, or sugar-loaded saliva then we can avoid situations like sandpaper-gate.

And yes, Faf copped it on his massive chin and handled the situation rather well. From what I've read, SL Cricket isn't really in the position to go about axing their captain. They need to get their own administrational house in order first.

 

[Borges]

If we let players rub the ball with either dirt, or sugar-loaded saliva then we can avoid situations like sandpaper-gate.

As it stands now these are not allowed, and surreptitious attempts to do them is cheating; trying to gain an unfair advantage over another team which plays by the rules.

 

[TheJediBrah]

To be quite honest I don't think ball-tampering should even be outlawed. If we let players rub the ball with either dirt, or sugar-loaded saliva then we can avoid situations like sandpaper-gate.

And yes, Faf copped it on his massive chin and handled the situation rather well. From what I've read, SL Cricket isn't really in the position to go about axing their captain. They need to get their own administrational house in order first.

Not a bad suggestion tbh. Maybe the limit should be put on the end result of the ball, rather than the process that got it that way. If the umpires think the ball reaches an unacceptable state, change it, and penalise the fielding team maybe.

I could see something like that working. It would avoid a lot of the controversy and disparity of punishment.

They aren't going to admit to ball tampering!

I will certainly take the word of the umpires personally.

Yep, we've seen how that works out. You'd be crazy to admit to it now.

 

[cnerd123]

Not a bad suggestion tbh. Maybe the limit should be put on the end result of the ball, rather than the process that got it that way. If the umpires think the ball reaches an unacceptable state, change it, and penalise the fielding team maybe.

That exists already, except for the penalty. The penalty applies only if they can identify who tampered the ball. But the umpires can change the ball if they feel its in unacceptable condition.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

It only occurred to me today that when a batsmen hits the ball into the crowds, and the lucky fella who caught the ball decided to tamper with it with a foreign object. What is ICC's stance on this?

 

[Borges]

Holy Cow! Guys with sandpaper in the crowd! Don't give any new ideas to the Australians; let them at least think it up on their own.

 

[TheJediBrah]

That exists already, except for the penalty. The penalty applies only if they can identify who tampered the ball. But the umpires can change the ball if they feel its in unacceptable condition.

That's not the point. The point is to have it instead of limiting "tampering".

 

[jimmy101]

Not a bad suggestion tbh. Maybe the limit should be put on the end result of the ball, rather than the process that got it that way. If the umpires think the ball reaches an unacceptable state, change it, and penalise the fielding team maybe.

I could see something like that working. It would avoid a lot of the controversy and disparity of punishment.

That's certainly a good idea. Obviously you would need concrete guidelines though. You know, like lollies = ok, sandpaper = big no.

 

[jimmy101]

Holy Cow! Guys with sandpaper in the crowd! Don't give any new ideas to the Australians; let them at least think it up on their own.

The people in the crowd would probably sand the wrong side of the ball & undo all of the players' hard work.

 

[cnerd123]

That's not the point. The point is to have it instead of limiting "tampering".

I mean it's hard to penalise a whole team for tampering if you cannot identify the individual. The MCC Laws allow for it, but the ICC Conditions don't. My guess is they want to reduce potential drama and protests rather than actually curb ball tampering. It's a sensible stance IMO.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I mean it's hard to penalise a whole team for tampering if you cannot identify the individual. The MCC Laws allow for it, but the ICC Conditions don't. My guess is they want to reduce potential drama and protests rather than actually curb ball tampering. It's a sensible stance IMO.

It would make more sense for the penalty to be runs, not bans or fines, if they went the "legalise tampering" route.

 

[cnerd123]

It only occurred to me today that when a batsmen hits the ball into the crowds, and the lucky fella who caught the ball decided to tamper with it with a foreign object. What is ICC's stance on this?

What kind of work can you do on a ball in that short amount of time that won't be blatantly obvious?

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

The people in the crowd would probably sand the wrong side of the ball & undo all of the players' hard work.

Depends where two cricket is being played.

Like the Aussies would do that since their scorecards are always messed up: wickets first then the score.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

What kind of work can you do on a ball in that short amount of time that won't be blatantly obvious?

You would be surprised to know what's in the crowd. Motors. Lawnmowers.

 

[cnerd123]

It would make more sense for the penalty to be runs, not bans or fines, if they went the "legalise tampering" route.

Well yea that's what I mean too. The MCC Laws say you can penalise a team 5 runs if you feel the ball is tampered with. The ICC Conditions say you can penalise 5 runs only if you can identify the individual(s) responsible for the tampering. So what you're suggesting - penalising the whole team if you suspect something is up, even if you don't know how or who - is already in the Laws of the game. The ICC chooses not to do that, and I guess that is because they rather have secret ball tampering than drama and accusations of bias or racism or whatever we've seen people do before the video of Chandimal tampering came out. Imagine all that drama but without a name or evidence eventually surfacing? It would be such a mess.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You would be surprised to know what's in the crowd. Motors. Lawnmowers.

In the West Indies it wouldn't surprise me

 

[TheJediBrah]

Well yea that's what I mean too. The MCC Laws say you can penalise a team 5 runs if you feel the ball is tampered with. The ICC Conditions say you can penalise 5 runs only if you can identify the individual(s) responsible for the tampering. So what you're suggesting - penalising the whole team if you suspect something is up, even if you don't know how or who - is already in the Laws of the game. The ICC chooses not to do that, and I guess that is because they rather have secret ball tampering that drama and accusations of bias or racism or whatever we've seen people do before the video of Chandimal tampering came out. Imagine all that drama but without a name or evidence eventually surfacing? It would be such a mess.

I'm not saying there's a whole plan sorted out in my head ffs, it would take a lot of work and tinkering. It's a suggestion of a potential pathway to look down. Of course there's a plethora of problems anyone can think of regarding it.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

In the West Indies it wouldn't surprise me

We even have tractors and ploughs.

 

[Daemon]

Chandimal has the right of appeal - an appeal that must be lodged within 48 hours. But it is likely that SLC's focus will now move to the more serious "spirit of cricket" charge. If found guilty there, Chandimal, the coach and the manager could all stand to miss both Tests against South Africa in July, in addition to further ODIs. The charge is a Level 3 offence and breaching that carries an imposition of four to eight suspension points.

So it's not over yet.

The smart thing to do would be to deny it and blame Hathurusinghe/Chandika during the spirit of cricket hearing for deciding not to go onto the field. Give no press conferences and just let it go away. SL are lucky that the video evidence isn't publicly available else this thing would be much bigger than it is.

 

[cnerd123]

Okay, I just wanted you to know it's already in the Laws lol. You're suggesting something that exist, that was then reviewed and modified by the ICC for their purposes.

If you're not playing ICC Sanctioned Test matches, what you're suggesting is what already takes place.

Maybe the ICC can revert to it, but after all the outcry from people who believe that paid professional athletes never cheat, and who genuinely believed that trained experienced umpires are reckless in handing out penalties, I can see why they won't.

@TJB