Ball Tampering

[marc71178]

Just for a change i'm going to disagree with you Neil

I think the crux of this matter is that saliva is permitted as it doesn't really make a great deal of difference in all honesty.

Using a finger nail however does change the ball.

 

[Rich2001]

Just for a change i'm going to disagree with you Neil

I think the crux of this matter is that saliva is permitted as it doesn't really make a great deal of difference in all honesty.

Using a finger nail however does change the ball.

Also what you have to rememeber is that shining the ball ie adding saliva to weight the ball on one side, doesn't always work not every bowler can swing the ball etc

However by picking the seam you are making it stand out more, which means that for example for a spinner it's will grip the surface alot better...resulting in greater turn, which would be aiding the bowling team

 

[Top_Cat]

Rich and Marc: I don't disagree that an advantage towards the bowling side will result from scuffing of the ball or picking the seam. IN fact, that's the idea. I just disagree with the rationale that it's an 'unfair' advantage.

If people want to argue that those things are 'unfair' and that you shouldn't be able to alter the condition of the ball except through using saliva etc., then why have batsmen been able to to alter bats over the years? A few examples:

Gray-Nicholls Scoop; results in more wood around the sweet spot but the weight doesn't change.

That new bat which lessens edges.

Heavier bats

Any development which results in more batting power is, under the rationale used by people to prevent picking the seam etc. an 'unfair advantage' toward the batsmen.

If people want to talk about the 'purity' of the game, well I propose we go back to using 2lb 2oz bats which don't have ANY of the batting power advantages developed over the years.

Obviously that's not about to happen. So I say, if batsmen are allowed certain advantages which aren't considered 'unfair' (if I were a spinner, I'd say the trend towards heavier bats is pretty unfair!) should extend to the bowlers in the field and as long as nothing artificial is used to rough-up the ball or enhance shine, then it's all fair game I reckon.

 

[Rich2001]

Top Cat, you should add ground conditions to that as well as nobody complains that home teams can modify the pitch conditions to help them

Your right though about unfair advantages basically it evens itself out anyway, because both teams have to bowl and bat so if one team does something to aid them then the other team does it when it's their turn

 

[Eyes_Only]

I agree with all of that guys but it's up to the Umpire's to decide if they think it is an unfair advantage to one team and then act on it.

 

[royGilchrist]

then why have batsmen been able to to alter bats over the years?

I am not sure if this can be equated with tampering the ball with a finger nail. This is more similar to balls of different varieties (color, weight, texture) being used, i.e. the white ball.

TC, I have a question about this discussion, do you want the law to be revised, or you think the law is not ok but not being interpreted correctly?

Another question is that if its totally legal to use finger nails to make one side of the ball rougher, is it possile for someone with really sharp nails to do as much damage to the ball as can be done using a bottle cap. I would think it is possible. In which case the ball could do some pretty wild things, and the game would change dramatically in favor of the bowlers. Two examples: Chris Pringle using a bottle cap in Pak some yrs back and then admitting it later, on Pak pitches this ordinary looking bowler ended up getting 8 for 50 or something; Also, Imran admitted he once used it in a county match, and the ball was swinging wildly all over the place.

So the question is that would it be wise to have the game of cricket change so dramatically and even ordinary bowlers (Chris Pringle) would become unplayable.

Personally the more I think about this the more I feel that this 'status quo' should be maintained.

 

[Eyes_Only]

Just for a change i'm going to disagree with you Neil

I think the crux of this matter is that saliva is permitted as it doesn't really make a great deal of difference in all honesty.

Using a finger nail however does change the ball.

Exactly Marc!! But it's all up to how the umpire's interpret it!!

 

[Top_Cat]

I am not sure if this can be equated with tampering the ball with a finger nail.

And why not? Surely you don't believe that average players haven't been turned into great ones by bat advances? How about wearing of helmets and other protective gear? So many batsmen in the past who wouldn't have survived can seemingly be great players at this level because of the confidence protection such as that can give them. Viv Richards said so in his autobiography in fact.

The example you use, well I could think of plenty of players who would be nowhere near where they are if it weren't for advances in protection and bats. Justin Langer comes to mind as does Saurav Ganguly, Marvin Attatapatu, most of the Zim team and most of the SL team.

So yes I believe the advances in the quality and power of bats and protection has made a FAR greater impact than allowing bowlers to scratch one side of the ball with their nails. But that's just my opinion.

In my opinion, the law should be changed. Players should be searched before the enter the arena (and before anyone poo-poo's that, it happens in every other pro sport in the US) to make sure they're not carrying any implements to help scratch or shine the ball and then let them do as they will. As I've said numerous times, the risk can be that they'll stuff-up the ball if they do it wrong and won't get ANY movement so they'll have to live with that. And also, I think the Derek Pringle example is rare; you still need skill to get batsman out, regardless of how favourable the conditions are.

 

[Kiwi]

I think ball tampering should be stopped. It is hard enough to hit a ball travelling at u at 100 mile an hour, even without it swinging unusually because the seam has been picked etc.

 

[royGilchrist]

There are three different factors, you cite TC:

-helmets - That was a necessity in cricket for batsmen's protection, and should have been implemented as soon as the helmets were invented.

-no bouncer (one bouncer) rule - Yeah I totally agree, this has made things much easier for guys bad at playing the short pitched delivery, ganguly, bevan, twose etc. I am not sure if there is a relation between this and ball tampering, but as you say, these rules have helped the batsmen and allowing ball tampering would help the bowlers so it would even things out a bit. Makes sense.

-bat technology - I guess this has helped as well, but I still think this cannot be compared with ball tampering. Advances in ball technology can be compared with advances/changes in ball technology (introduction of white ball etc) only, I think.

And also, I think the Derek Pringle example is rare

Derek Pringle had loads more ability compared with Chris Pringle, whom I was talking about. Chris Pringle did nothing of note in the series and his career, only in that match he was absolutely unplayable. But he did use a bottle cap, which you say should be disallowed.

Which brings me to the question that I earlier asked, if its totally legal to do seampicking/nail scartching, would guys be able to grow nails sharp enough to do enough damage to the ball as would be possible with a bottle cap?

Every fielder working on that ball with his nails, diggin hard into the ball, throughout the innings, would do considerable damage I think.

If the answer is yes, then I think we would have a big problem on our hands. In any case, its a suggestion worth trying, maybe in the county championships or some junior league type matches to gauge its impact in real life.