Ball tampering

[Notts Exile]

This seems to be the issue of the week. The question is "What to do with it?".

Surrey and Gloucestershire are the counties under the spotlight at the moment. I can't believe they're the only ones. Personally I would suggest some very serious fines, and we're not talking financial or a ban. I believe the way forward is points deduction and make it 22, at least. That's the same number of points a team can take from any match and losing that number could (and hopefully would) have serious implications on the teams' season.

I was at the Oval on Friday. Darren Bicknell, having got to 91, was bowled by a ball from Rikki Clarke that appeared to do more in the air than any of the others had done that day. He had also batted brilliantly against his former county without any alarms at all. Anurag Singh came in and the first ball he faced (from Jimmy Ormond) moved even more to york him off stump. At that point the Notts innings could have changed direction and Surrey could have gone on to gain momentum. Thankfully the cheats didn't prosper and Notts hammered the ManU of county cricket. The same cannot be said for the match between Glamorgan and Gloucestershire where the match winners are those accused of tampering with the ball.

The individuals responsible should be made to pay with suspensions. They should also be made to realise that should they be caught again their bans will be made permanent. Their counties should suffer with those point deductions. If punishments along those lines do not stop this problem then I'm not too sure what will.

[Rachael]

For once Derek Pringle is actually talking sense: see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mai...equestid=32852

Originally Posted by Pringle

The ball-tampering incidents that threaten Surrey and Gloucestershire with pariah status are being painted as a simple case of right versus wrong, of law-breaker against law-abider. What they are actually about is another spat in cricket's oldest rivalry - that between bowler and batsman.



The dynamic between the two principal elements of the game requires a fine balance. Favour one too much and you get farce rather than spectacle. Ball tampering, which sounds nefarious, has gone on in various guises since the game was invented. Mis-labelled as cheating by many, it does not seek to unbalance that equilibrium, rather to maintain it.

His conclusion is one I can endorse whole-heartedly:

Originally Posted by Pringle

Law 42.2, which deals with the match ball and changing its condition, should be more laissez faire, though only fingers rather than tools should be allowed to roughen and pick at the ball.

If that sounds too liberal, remember that batsmen have long been the recipients of every advantage going. Covered pitches, lightweight helmets and body armour, big bats that pick up like feathers, shrinking boundaries, have all been brought in to keep bowlers from planting their flag at the top of the hill.

Changes to cricket's laws, especially the one switching no-balls from back to front foot, have also kept bowlers in check, but that is not surprising when you consider that most administrators in England are batsmen. Ball tampering can be an art form but comes with no guarantee of success. To paint it in such villainous garb is absurd and the work of batsmen.

[Occasional Fan]

I'd be inclined to come down heavily on this as well. I think I saw that Surrey were penalised five runs overnight for ball tampering, with the umpires unable to find out who had done it. The comment from Surrey's skipper was that "the umpires had got it about right". I was not surprised to hear him say that, but I don't agree at all. Lifting the seam, which is what had happened (twice!), is about as blatant as you can get, and five penalty runs really is nothing - let's remember that it is as severe a penalty as a fielding team gets for accidentally allowing the ball to strike the helmet. The umpires, if they can't see who has done the tampering, should ask the skipper, and if he doesn't come clean they should require him to take off both the bowlers who are presently at work for the remainder of the innings. They have weapons at their disposal, and they ought to use them. Five penalty runs is a joke.

[Occasional Fan]

I don't agree that Pringle is talking sense at all. For one thing, he seems to be saying that, because tampering happens, the law should be changed to legalise it. That's the same as allowing bowlers to chuck. For another thing, it is not mis-labelled as cheating. It is correctly labelled as cheating. The Laws say so. Maybe he is talking sense in some other parts of his article, Rachael, but he isn't in the bits you quote, and you haven't really persuaded me with these quotations to read the rest. Sorry, but on this one I couldn't disagree with you more.

[Milo]

For once I actually agree with you here Rachael (and Degsy). When I grew up watching the game, picking the seam was allowed. The need to see the bat dominate the ball in order to entertain those not really interested in cricket has seen everything done to neutralise the threat of the bowler.

As long as no artificial agent is applied to the ball, I see no reason why the fingers cannot be used. Hitting the ball to the boundary can alter the state of the seam....but nothing is done to prohibit this.

Soon they will ban shining the ball and we can all sit down and enjoy players htting sixes into the crowd from the bowling machine.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Pringle is talking utter bollocks. Picture the scene, malcom marshell at his prime, back foot rather than front foot rule, crap helmet, uncovered pitches, pringle batting. Would pringle be writing such ****e now or would he drooling into mush while he soils himself ?? Its for safety and if we didnt go down that road, we would have a load of ex players in commentary boxes they'd be littering nursing homes across the globe. Als owhy is that most of the highest wicket takers are from the modern era ? pringle probablyy tampered with balls himself as hw wasnt good enough to take wickets.

I agree its not the worst crime ever, but these comments would carry more weight coming from someone else rather than one of the worse players to put on an england shirt.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Milo

When I grew up watching the game, picking the seam was allowed.

Under which Law?

[Milo]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

Under which Law?

Let's just say any prohibitive law wasn't enforced. Michael Holding was regularly seen on TV ambling back to his mark picking and lifting the seam at will.

What is the difference (on a purely non-legal level) in shining a ball through vigorous rubbing and scratching it?

[Occasional Fan]

Shining the ball: attempting to return it to its original condition.

Scratching the ball: attempting to accelerate deterioration in its quality.

[Milo]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

Shining the ball: attempting to return it to its original condition.

Scratching the ball: attempting to accelerate deterioration in its quality.

Why not shine both sides then OF?