The Condition of the Ball - what should be acceptable?

[Kyptastic]

I think it's pretty clear that the actions of the Australians in the last test are unacceptable. But what should be acceptable regarding the maintenance or modification of the condition of the ball?

Based on the stories of the great reverse swing bowlers, it's almost impossible to gain reverse swing without applying some sort of external factor in order to gain that effect. I think we can all agree that seeing top quality reverse swing bowling livens up test matches that would otherwise descend into batting snorefests on the dry or flat pitches that often get served up these days. How then can we maintain this skill level in the game whilst also maintaining the sport's integrity?

For example, throwing the ball in on the bounce onto a nearby pitch is frowned upon and generally leads to warnigns from the umpire. However, a fast bowler could bang the ball in cross seam for a couple of overs to scuff up the side of the ball to then generate reverse swing with nothing being said at all. It's the same outcome, yet one method is considered cheating. Similarly, you can shine the ball with sweat that also can contain sunscreen or zinc which is one sort of outside substance, yet you can't with saliva that's being used in conjunction with a sugar lolly.

It seems cricket needs an open conversation about ball maintenance to make it clear what is allowed and what isn't, because there are a fair few grey areas at the moment which make things confusing.

 

[Underdog]

I would have thought it's pretty clear. inconsistencies with what is legal is not the same as a lack of clarity.

 

[Gough]

There's a difference between using a bit of sticky saliva, or some zincy sweat and bringing a bit of sandpaper onto the field to rough the ball up. Agreed there needs to be clarification though.

 

[Richard Pryor]

When considering what is acceptable, it is interesting (albeit not from a legality standpoint) that Imran Khan admitting to lifting the seam systematically (at Allan Lamb's expense) hasn't really influenced his legacy at all.

 

[Demosthenes]

there are a fair few grey areas at the moment which make things confusing.

No there isn't. The rules are very clear about what is and isn't illegal tampering.

There are plenty of good arguments for expanding the scope of what is legal, but 'there's too much grey area' isn't one of them.

 

[Kyptastic]

No there isn't. The rules are very clear about what is and isn't illegal tampering.

There are plenty of good arguments for expanding the scope of what is legal, but 'there's too much grey area' isn't one of them.

Ok then. What would you change then. Would you allow more to be done or would you restrict further?

 

[Demosthenes]

I don't really have a strong opinion on what the rules should be. Where you draw the line is always going to be pretty arbitrary. Happy for more leeway to be permitted if the boffins conclude it will provide a better contest.

At the end of the day, all I want is for players to play within whichever rules are set. It shouldn't be this hard.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

When I played, only the bowler was allowed to work on the ball. Kept it simple and easy to police. Now, anyone can do things to the ball.

To shine the ball, I would wipe sweat from my forehead, wipe it on the ball, allow the sweat to settle on the ball (the theory was the sweat would then penetrate the ball making one side heavier), and then buff like mad just before turning to run in and bowl. I would make sure the bowler at the other end was shining the same side, and it wouldn't take long at all before I could swing the ball both ways. I used to demand fielders get the ball to me ASAP to give me time to shine it.

To be blunt, there is no reason whatsoever to be scuffing up the ball or picking the seam. If you maintain the ball properly, there is no reason to do anything more than buff or shine.

I have been amazed over the years when a camera picks up a shot of the ball resting on the rope after a 4 has been hit, and seeing the condition of the ball. Sometimes, the ball is only about 20 overs old and it looks like a rag doll. That's not natural wear and tear, so it's obvious a certain amount of tampering has taken place.

Change the rule. Go back to making the bowler the only person who can work on the ball, and in international cricket it would be so easy watching what bowlers do as they return to their mark.

 

[PhatBoy]

No there isn't. The rules are very clear about what is and isn't illegal tampering.

There are plenty of good arguments for expanding the scope of what is legal, but 'there's too much grey area' isn't one of them.

One form of lolly is fine and another isn’t.

I’d say that’s oretty f***ing grey

 

[PhatBoy]

I have no qualms about players throwing the ball on the bounce.

 

[archibald]

Bowlers need more assistance. I'll let the powers at be decide how that's actually achieved/put into practice. That they don't allow bounce throws is a bit of joke.

 

[Wolfs]

Simon Doull posed this. Bowlers can change the conditions with substances on field and aren't artificial but in 60 overs they have to change the ball regardless.

 

[Kyptastic]

Simon Doull posed this. Bowlers can change the conditions with substances on field and aren't artificial but in 60 overs they have to change the ball regardless.

The problem with changing at 60 overs is that it takes spinners out of the game somewhat. One of the justifications from changing from 8 ball overs to 6 ball overs was that the ball would be changed after 80 overs rather than 55, meaning that spinners were not used as much.

 

[AndyLucimitis]

Similar to one-day cricket, how about the ball being returned briefly to the Test umpire after each over for a quick visual inspection.

This might cut out blatant ball-tampering whereby if a ball is in good condition and then two overs later appears to have irregular scuffs or scratches the umpire can call out the captain.

 

[van peebles]

Not sure what constitutes fair and reasonable 'ball" condition for test cricket.
But meeting in private for the chance to discuss "how" to cheat is regarded as instant sackable offence.

 

[Demosthenes]

One form of lolly is fine and another isn’t.

I’d say that’s oretty f***ing grey

I'd say that's pretty f***ing incorrect

 

[PhatBoy]

I'd say that's pretty f***ing incorrect

Well it ain’t. Yet to see any players sanctioned for putting gum infused saliva on the ball. But I am fully aware of one who was given a sanction for putting mint lozenge saliva on the ball. Oh yeah it’s really black and white.

 

[The Speaker]

I'd ask another question first: what is wrong with ball tampering other than it being illegal? There has to be a defined reason for its agreed illegality given that most teams at every level still engage in it.

 

[PhatBoy]

I'd ask another question first: what is wrong with ball tampering other than it being illegal? There has to be a defined reason for its agreed illegality given that most teams at every level still engage in it.

Because primarily, it isn’t a cricket skill. That’s my beef with it. I guess in theory neither is shining the ball though.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I'd ask another question first: what is wrong with ball tampering other than it being illegal? There has to be a defined reason for its agreed illegality given that most teams at every level still engage in it.

Yes, it makes for an interesting debate. Unless I'm having a mental block, I cannot think of another sport where the condition of the ball is of so paramount importance to the game. In other sports such football, baseball, golf, etc, the ball is changed regularly. But a cricket ball? Here's your ball, you have 80 overs to keep it in good condition. Unless it goes out of shape, gets water logged or gets lost, it won't be changed.

Maybe it should be just left up to the fielding team to determine it's condition. If they want to rough it up, then why can't they? As I said, it would make for an interesting debate because I'm on the fence with this one. I'd love to hear what learned cricket minds around the world would think.

 

[The Speaker]

Yes, it makes for an interesting debate. Unless I'm having a mental block, I cannot think of another sport where the condition of the ball is of so paramount importance to the game. In other sports such football, baseball, golf, etc, the ball is changed regularly. But a cricket ball? Here's your ball, you have 80 overs to keep it in good condition. Unless it goes out of shape, gets water logged or gets lost, it won't be changed.

Maybe it should be just left up to the fielding team to determine it's condition. If they want to rough it up, then why can't they? As I said, it would make for an interesting debate because I'm on the fence with this one. I'd love to hear what learned cricket minds around the world would think.

Baseball is another one, but the method is quite different. It's almost always about applying a substance to the ball to make it grip better, and is therefore much less complex in nature and purpose.

 

[IKnowtheDog]

It should never be orange

 

[greatwhiteshark]

When I played, only the bowler was allowed to work on the ball. Kept it simple and easy to police. Now, anyone can do things to the ball.

To shine the ball, I would wipe sweat from my forehead, wipe it on the ball, allow the sweat to settle on the ball (the theory was the sweat would then penetrate the ball making one side heavier), and then buff like mad just before turning to run in and bowl. I would make sure the bowler at the other end was shining the same side, and it wouldn't take long at all before I could swing the ball both ways. I used to demand fielders get the ball to me ASAP to give me time to shine it.

To be blunt, there is no reason whatsoever to be scuffing up the ball or picking the seam. If you maintain the ball properly, there is no reason to do anything more than buff or shine.

I have been amazed over the years when a camera picks up a shot of the ball resting on the rope after a 4 has been hit, and seeing the condition of the ball. Sometimes, the ball is only about 20 overs old and it looks like a rag doll. That's not natural wear and tear, so it's obvious a certain amount of tampering has taken place.

Change the rule. Go back to making the bowler the only person who can work on the ball, and in international cricket it would be so easy watching what bowlers do as they return to their mark.

I don’t think it was a matter of the bowler being allowed to work on the ball but more of that the bowler wanted to be the only one looking after it.
I myself also demanded it was given to me to keep the ball as I wanted it.
Like you we used sweat and saliva to make one side heavier and never did we want one side scuffed up deliberately, natural scuffness to one side we were happy with. Making one side heavier does take longer however. But you must work in partnership with the guy bowling the other end for it to work as you said.
I would be all for the ball must be returned to the bowler immediately and no other player can touch it other than catching it and throwing it back to the bowler.
I don’t think it is a coincidence that there has been more of this since the era of batting roads. Bloody hard work for a bowler having to ply their trade on a batting paradise. It has not been a fair game between bat and ball for many years now.
The pitches in this SA series have been great however and this is the last place I would of thought this would happen. Can’t believe it has not happened in Australia especially.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Yes, it makes for an interesting debate. Unless I'm having a mental block, I cannot think of another sport where the condition of the ball is of so paramount importance to the game. In other sports such football, baseball, golf, etc, the ball is changed regularly. But a cricket ball? Here's your ball, you have 80 overs to keep it in good condition. Unless it goes out of shape, gets water logged or gets lost, it won't be changed.

Maybe it should be just left up to the fielding team to determine it's condition. If they want to rough it up, then why can't they? As I said, it would make for an interesting debate because I'm on the fence with this one. I'd love to hear what learned cricket minds around the world would think.

The law says it is illegal so based on that this incident is out of order, and the fact they sat down and planned it is the worst part for me.
As for your question should it be legal to do what you like with the ball then my answer would be yes but only under The proviso that under no circumstances can you change the ball.
In recent years the ball is being changed quite often because it has gone out of shape, much more often than ever before. Yet no one has thought whether or not it’s these monster bats that might be causing this and not poor manufacturing.
Again is it a coincidence that since the bats have become bigger that the ball is going out of shape?

 

[frankrizzo]

I have no qualms about players throwing the ball on the bounce.

Yeah always found that one being an issue rather odd, obviously what we did is ridiculous and as it turned out ineffective as well but throwing the ball back in and letting it bounce should just be part of the game it is not ball tampering to let a ball bounce in front of you.