Ball tampering, does every team do it?

[Matt79]

He wasn't preventing natural wear and tear, he was attempting to ensure that natural wear and tear was not reversed, and dust is not an artificial substance.

If you believe that, you must believe that cleaning, shining or otherwise maintaining the ball, is illegal, as that reverses the 'natural state of wear and tear'.

 

[Richard]

As I've said, the ball-"tampering" law is one which makes no real sense. People get far, far too high-and-mighty about it IMO.

The absurdity is sometimes seen by Umpires telling fielders not to throw the ball in on the bounce, something which they have no right whatsoever to tell them and cannot penalise them if they do not.

 

[Matt79]

That's because you're a cheaty medium pace bowler who hates batsmen.

 

[Richard]

Medium-fast by our standards, I thank you very much.

And yeah, I've never really denied that I might well look upon things differently were I a batsman, but I'd probably just think the untidy law would do well to be tidied-up in a different way to that which I think it should be as a bowler.

 

[honestbharani]

"Lump of dirt"? You clearly didn't watch the instance then. It was a little bit of dust, not a massive lump of soil.

Yes - hands get sweaty on hot days, thus the wear-and-tear and drying of one side of the ball will be reversed if sweaty palms are applied to said side. Atherton was attempting to stop that from happening - he was not altering the condition of the ball.

hands getting sweaty etc etc are all normal events that happen during a cricket match. IF the ball's condition gets affected by such stuff, that is normal too... IF Athers was trying to prevent that from happening, he was basically trying to prevent the ball from acquiring a condition that it would, in the normal course of events and hence, he WAS tampering with the ball...

 

[Matt79]

Medium-fast by our standards, I thank you very much.

And yeah, I've never really denied that I might well look upon things differently were I a batsman, but I'd probably just think the untidy law would do well to be tidied-up in a different way to that which I think it should be as a bowler.

Come clean Rich - have you ever tampered with a ball, in the sense that would be commonly denounced if caught in international cricket?

 

[Richard]

hands getting sweaty etc etc are all normal events that happen during a cricket match. IF the ball's condition gets affected by such stuff, that is normal too... IF Athers was trying to prevent that from happening, he was basically trying to prevent the ball from acquiring a condition that it would, in the normal course of events and hence, he WAS tampering with the ball...

That's possible to argue, and Match-Referee Peter Burge said he would've suspended Atherton for two matches if he'd found-out about the dirt at the time of the inquiry.

The Atherton-Lord's-1994 instance was not, however, a cut-and-dried one like Peter Lever using vaseline in 1976/77 and Imran Khan's bottle-top palava.

 

[Richard]

Come clean Rich - have you ever tampered with a ball, in the sense that would be commonly denounced if caught in international cricket?

I've never used sandpaper, stanley-knives etc. and don't intend ever to do so. I've not even - yet - used vaseline though I confess I'd not be averse to it if I saw the chance and I'd see it as fitting counter to the pathetic quality of balls we're lumbered with in some of our leagues and\or in the non-competetive games.

As things currently stand I'd have no use for using tampering which would help a ball reverse-swing as I've still not ever knowingly reverse-swung a ball in my life, and I don't know how to bowl reverse-swing as I know how to bowl conventional. But if I think something will improve the conventional-swing on the ball, I'll think about it.

However as I've said many times I'm only too happy to use methods, which some frown upon, to improve the quality of my saliva by sucking sweets, and sweat by applying liberal amounts of suncream regardless of whether it's blazing sunshine or thick Altostratus. I don't find anything wrong with this and no-one has any chance of penalising me\us for it. I just wish my team-mates were as good at keeping the ball in condition to swing as I am.

 

[Matt79]

Pick the seam?

 

[Richard]

Never done that and don't think it'd help me to do it. I struggle to get the ball to move off the seam very much due to my lack of height and the non-too-prevalent seam on the balls we use - I rely almost exclusively on swing.

 

[Sir Alex]

Afridi according to Richard shouldn't be castigated then because he was using naturally ocurring canine incisors and was trying to "reverse" ageing process of the balls by licking and biting the ball back into shape?

 

[Richard]

If one goes far enough they can argue almost anything is "natural", thus the rule is pretty poor.

It'd be far better to stipulate what can be used rather than what cannot, really.

 

[honestbharani]

If one goes far enough they can argue almost anything is "natural", thus the rule is pretty poor.

It'd be far better to stipulate what can be used rather than what cannot, really.

bingo..and hence my first post on this thread..

 

[zaremba]

if one goes far enough they can argue almost anything is "natural", thus the rule is pretty poor.

It'd be far better to stipulate what can be used rather than what cannot, really.

awta 100%

 

[Furball]

I wouldn't though; I'd say that those who appreciate ball dominating bat or at worst rough parity between bat and ball are the "real" cricket fans, the core which the game was designed to appeal to.

Some might take a different view but that's mine.

Pitches like in New Zealand 2002/03 are every bit as bad for cricket as roads which allow batsmen to pile on runs and render bowlers irrelevant.

 

[Furball]

As I've said, the ball-"tampering" law is one which makes no real sense. People get far, far too high-and-mighty about it IMO.

The absurdity is sometimes seen by Umpires telling fielders not to throw the ball in on the bounce, something which they have no right whatsoever to tell them and cannot penalise them if they do not.

What I find absurd is where reverse swing is concerned.

According to Wasim Akram, the way to achieve reverse swing is to shine one side of the ball and load it with moisture, and scuff up the other side.

So shining one side of the ball and loading it with saliva is perfectly ok. Scuffing the leather with your fingernails/teeth? You're a cheat and can expect a ban.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

As I've said, the ball-"tampering" law is one which makes no real sense. People get far, far too high-and-mighty about it IMO.

The absurdity is sometimes seen by Umpires telling fielders not to throw the ball in on the bounce, something which they have no right whatsoever to tell them and cannot penalise them if they do not.

In fairness, the Code of Conduct states:

The following actions shall not be permitted (This list of actions is not exhaustive but included for illustrative purposes):
• Deliberately throwing the ball into the ground for the purpose of roughening it up;

So such an action is just the umpire trying to enforce the law. Of course it's pretty much impossible to know what "purpose" is, without the fielders explicitly stating it.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

What I find absurd is where reverse swing is concerned.

According to Wasim Akram, the way to achieve reverse swing is to shine one side of the ball and load it with moisture, and scuff up the other side.

So shining one side of the ball and loading it with saliva is perfectly ok. Scuffing the leather with your fingernails/teeth? You're a cheat and can expect a ban.

You think the Law should cater for and encourage reverse swing?

 

[zaremba]

it's pretty much impossible to know what "purpose" is, without the fielders explicitly stating it.

I think the umpires are in a pretty good position to draw inferences as to the players' purpose from their conduct.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I think the umpires are in a pretty good position to draw inferences as to the players' purpose from their conduct.

Well yes, but if we are to be pedantic about it, they can't prove it. Not that I agree with the pedantry. I don't have any problem with this particular aspect of law-enforcement.