Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft, the Australian cricket players who have been found guilty of ball tampering, have now been handed hefty bans. Yet some might wonder why other instances of ball tampering have not been punished so severely.
Some commentators are comparing apples and oranges when contrasting the punishment meted out to the Australian players, with that given to other cricketers in the past for ball tampering.
Those other players were charged by the ICC, but not their own cricket boards. The Australians have also been charged by their own cricket board for bringing the game into disrepute. This is partly because of the strong reaction of the Australian public.
The latest ball tampering incident occurred during day three of the third test match between Australia and South Africa. Cameron Bancroft attempted to change the condition of the ball by scuffing it with sandpaper.
In the wake of this scandal, there has been much interest in what "ball tampering" actually is, and debate about how widespread it is. Simply put, ball tampering is a pejorative term which refers to a player changing the condition of the cricket ball in a manner not permitted by the Marylebone Cricket Club's (MCC) Laws of Cricket.
Historical incidents of ball tampering have been mentioned in the media over the last few days. Current South African test captain Faf Du Plessis was charged in 2016 with ball tampering, having used a mint to help shine the cricket ball with his saliva. Du Plessis was found guilty of ball tampering, but was not banned
Previously in 2013, Du Plessis was found guilty of ball tampering when rubbing the ball against the zip of his trousers in a Test match against Pakistan.
From England's Michael Atherton in 1984 who applied dirt in his pocket to the cricket ball, to Pakistani Shahid Afridi who was captured by television cameras biting the ball, to South African Vernon Philander scratching the ball with his fingers, ball tampering has taken on many guises across different continents.
But why are some forms of alteration, like polishing the ball, not considered changing its condition, while other forms, like scuffing, are? And why are some forms of ball tampering considered more serious than others?
Why players try to alter the ball: what's permissible and what isn't?
The starting point for answering both questions is the MCC Laws of Cricket. These state that "it is an offence for any player to take any action which changes the condition of the ball" (Law 41.3.2). However, they permit a fielder to polish the ball on his clothing provided that no artificial substance is used (Law 188.8.131.52).
So, shining the ball per se is not considered ball tampering – provided it is done in a particular way.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
2 posts so far.
About the Authors
Andrew McGee obtained his PhD in philosophy from the University of Essex in 2001 and is an associate professor in the Law Faculty at QUT. He has published on a number of philosophy and legal issues in leading international philosophy and law journals.
James Duffy is a lecturer in the QUT Faculty of Law and holds degrees in law, commerce and psychology. He researches in the field of psychology and the law, and dispute resolution.
Andrew Garwood-Gowers is a lecturer at the Faculty of Law at Queensland University of Technology. He was educated at Cambridge University and the University of Queensland. Andrew’s research lies at the intersection of international law and international relations, with a focus on international security.