Ball tampering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the sport of cricket, ball tampering is an action in which a fielder illegally alters the condition of the ball. Under Law 42, subsection 3 of the Laws of Cricket, the ball may be polished without the use of an artificial substance, may be dried with a towel if it is wet, and have mud removed from it under supervision; all other actions which alter the condition of the ball are illegal. These are usually taken to include rubbing the ball on the ground, scuffing with a fingernail or other sharp object, or tampering with the seam of the ball.^[1]

Contents 1 Sanction 2 Examples 2.1 Ball tampering controversy in August 2006 3 Baseball analogy 4 References

[edit] Sanction

The umpires are responsible for monitoring the condition of the ball, and must inspect it regularly. Where an umpire has deemed a fielder to be guilty of ball-tampering, five penalty runs are awarded to the batting side, and the ball must be immediately replaced. The replaced ball is normally chosen by the umpires, in which case the ball chosen should match the condition of the previous ball (before tampering) as closely as possible. Depending on additional agreements laid out before the beginning of a series of matches, the batsmen may be instead permitted to choose the ball from a selection of balls in various stages of use.

A bowler guilty of ball-tampering can be prohibited from continuing to bowl in that innings if he is found to be repeatedly ball-tampering. Following the conclusion of play, additional sanctions are usually brought against a ball-tamperer, as it is considered a serious offense. The captain may be equally penalized, as he is responsible for the conduct of his players on the field.

[edit] Examples

The use of foreign substances to polish the ball, while illegal, is in some corners considered to be relatively common, and passes without incident or sanction. Substances which are suggested for this purpose include hair gel, sugar and lip balm.^[2]

In addition, picking at the threads of the main seam or 'lifting' the quarter seam to aid conventional and reverse swing respectively are considered illegal. Modifying the quarter seam can be particularly difficult to detect or prove.^[3]

However, there have been a number of high-profile instances of ball tampering, particularly in international cricket due to the increase in television coverage. The Pakistani cricket team were arguably the first to come under scrutiny, when they were together in 1992 accused of ball-tampering to achieve large amounts of reverse swing. However, no evidence of wrongdoing was ever found in that series. Because of these allegations, in 1996, Imran Khan sued Ian Botham for slander and libel in a British court, and was awarded £400,000.

Then England captain Michael Atherton was accused of ball tampering during the a Test match with South Africa at Lord's in 1994 after television cameras caught Atherton reaching into his pocket and then rubbing a substance on the ball. Atherton denied ball tampering, claiming that he had dirt in his pocket which he used to dry his hands. Atherton was summoned to the match referee and was fined £2,000 for failing to disclose the dirt to the match referee.^[4]

Waqar Younis became the first player to receive a suspension for ball-tampering after a match in 2000.^[5]

[edit] Ball tampering controversy in August 2006

In 2006, an alleged ball-tampering issue overshadowed a Test match between Pakistan and England, whereby Pakistan refused to take to the field for the evening session after being penalised for ball-tampering in the afternoon. Television cameras caught the umpires discussing the condition of the quarter seam.^[6] Pakistan are believed to have intended a protest against the decision by delaying their return after tea, however while they were refusing to play, the umpires awarded the game to England in accordance with the laws of cricket.^[7]

The controversy was jokingly referred to as "Ovalgate" by, amongst others, the BBC's cricket correspondent Jonathan Agnew and Five Live radio presenter Simon Mayo.^[8]

The controversy arose when the umpires, Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove, ruled that the Pakistani team had been involved in ball tampering. They awarded five penalty runs to England and a replacement ball was selected by England batsman Paul Collingwood. Play continued until the tea break, without any Pakistani protest. After the tea break, the Pakistani team, after having mutually confirmed that no ball tampering had taken place and given consideration to the severity of the implication, refused to take the field. The umpires then left the field, gave a warning to the Pakistani players, and returned once more 15 minutes later. After waiting two more minutes the umpires removed the bails and declared England winners by forfeiture. A deal was brokered between the English and Pakistani cricket boards to allow the match to continue, and the Pakistani team did take to the field 25 minutes later. Umpires Hair and Doctrove, however, declined to continue the game maintaining their decision that Pakistan had forfeited the match by refusing to play.

The impasse continued late into the evening.^[9] Pakistan captain Inzamam ul-Haq claimed that Darrell Hair did not inform him or the rest of his side of the reasons why the ball was replaced, and that Hair had implied that Pakistan were cheating.^[10] The events led Cricinfo journalists to describe it as "a farcical afternoon and evening" up to the point at 19:50 UTC when it was finally announced in a press conference that the Test was called off. The ECB's statement said that England were awarded the match by the umpires as Pakistan refused to take the field after being warned that under law 21.3, failure to do so would result in them forfeiting the game. This is the first time a Test match has been decided this way.^[11]

The England and Wales Cricket Board refunded fourth-day spectators 40% of their ticket price (after deduction of an administration fee), and gave an automatic 100% refund to those with tickets for the fifth day. It later asked the Pakistan Cricket Board to pick up the GBP800,000 costs of doing this, which the PCB refused to do. In March 2007, the PCB and ECB reached a settlement where Pakistan would play a Twenty20 International in England and waive their fees.

As a result of Pakistan's forfeiting of the game captain Inzaman was charged and found guilty of "bringing the game into disrepute", though he was cleared of the charges relating to "changing the condition of the ball".^[12] In January 2008, Pakistan's cricket board asked the International Cricket Council to change the official result to "match abandoned" or "match drawn" on the basis of having been subsequently cleared of ball-tampering by an ICC tribunal.^[13]

[edit] Baseball analogy

Main article: Spitball

The rules of Major League Baseball, specifically rule 8.02 regarding pitching, prevent the pitcher from applying a foreign object (including expectorate) to the baseball, or a glove or hand which holds the ball; neither may the pitcher rub the ball against his uniform. An illegal pitch delivered using a ball doctored in this fashion is known as a spitball (sometimes shineball or emeryball), and the penalty for such is immediate ejection from the game and a ten-game suspension.

There are special dispensations for the pitcher in inclement weather conditions. With agreement from both managers and officials, a pitcher may be permitted to blow on his hands in low temperatures, or use rosin to dry his hands in moist conditions.^[14]

A row over ball-tampering erupted during Game 2 of the 2006 World Series when television pictures showed Detroit Tigers pitcher Kenny Rogers to have a foreign substance on his pitching hand. Rogers maintained the substance was merely dirt from the mound, and complied with a request from the umpires to wash his hands at the end of his second inning.^[15] No further action was taken, but the issue was raised extensively in the media, who referred to the controversy by a number of nicknames including "dirtgate"^[16] and "smudgegate"^[17].

[edit] References