The Condition of the Ball - what should be acceptable?

[frankrizzo]

I guess a lot of this obsession with reverse had come from our awful pitches lately and having hazlewood below his best with the new ball and starc just bowling flat out trash with the new ball.

Reverse used to be the back up plan now it's almost like it's our only plan.

Morals of it all aside, our batsmen providing mediocre totals and our bowlers wasting the new ball has put us in awful spots leading to desperation and these awful choices by senior players.

 

[The Passenger]

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.

So true. Condition of the ball is just crucial to the bowling team. Teams have put so much thought into the ball's condition over the last 20 to 30 years and in hindsight it was pretty clear a big ball tampering was storm was going to hit at some point.

- A few decades now of Chinese whispers to do with various techniques used to rough up the ball.
- Reverse swing become an increasingly important weapon in the bowlers arsenal - especially in these batsmen friendly days.
- Teams applying such exacting science into the condition of the ball such as knowledge of which players on your team sweat the most.
- Teams pestering umpires to the change the ball if they can't get it to swing. A legal tactic but one in which the umpires should be telling the team to STFU and get on with it.
- Laughably limp-wristed penalties to those found guilty of ball tampering.

The vision of Bancroft putting sugar into his pocket in an earlier test is not a good look, even if it's not conclusive proof of anything untoward. But you'd have rocks in your head to think the is the first time we've tried this and just happened to get caught out. That being said I doubt it's been a regular pattern. I don't think you could do this more than a few test matches without something suspicious coming up on the cameras, even if you managed to weasel your way out of it.

Our guys have been caught out and will get their rightful whack. I do hope CA come over the top of the ICC punishments. I think 12-month bans are a bit over the top, and life bans are just totally silly. I think 6 months should suffice for everyone involved in this so called leadership group meeting - although there are now denials from some senior players they were involved, which speaks volumes of what this could do to morale within the team but that is another issue in itself.

Realistically the ICC inaction on ball tampering has led to this moment, and it sucks that our guys where the ones caught out. You can guarantee there was a lot of players on the international cricket scene who had a stiff whiskey after this news broke just thankful it wasn't them in the s**t storm.

With a bit of luck CA coming over the top of the ICC will be a bit of seminal moment for the ICC to crack down on this cause we all know it's been going on. Funnily enough due to the amount of cameras involved, it probably happens less at international level then lower levels.

The alternative is the ICC just opens it up and says its basically fair game to ball tamper. If you can take something out on the field go for it. At least every team is on a level playing field. Just don't come crying when someone impales themselves on a piece of jagged wood they've been carrying around in their pocket.

 

[PhatBoy]

What I don’t really like is that it seems to have taken away the emphasis on ball maintenance, something which I was always taught was almost a skill in itself, not soaking the ball too much, using your team’s most profuse sweater, guys with big hands almost kneading the ball.
If you shine the ball well, the natural deterioration of the ball will always offer some movement.

I find it fairly ironic that this game itself saw Australia get destroyed by a bowler who relies exclusively on bounce and natural wrist-position based traditional inswing to right handed batsmen

 

[Outshined]

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.

A pretty good question, considering as you say, the fact that tampering to varying degrees has become an entrenched part of cricket. Whether we chose to believe it or not.

Even today, Du Plessis has argued the way he tampered with the ball should be considered less of a crime than Smith and co. While I agree that the premeditated nature of the Australian's actions sets them aside from other instances, is it really that much worse? You're drawing an incredibly long bow to say that what Smith sanctioned is worth the hysteria we're seeing. Despite that, only of of them will be captain of their national side this time next week.

The margins that players seem to have to tread between ingenuity and capital punishment are seemingly razor thin.

 

[Richard Pryor]

A pretty good question, considering as you say, the fact that tampering to varying degrees has become an entrenched part of cricket. Whether we chose to believe it or not.

Even today, Du Plessis has argued the way he tampered with the ball should be considered less of a crime than Smith and co. While I agree that the premeditated nature of the Australian's actions sets them aside from other instances, is it really that much worse? You're drawing an incredibly long bow to say that what Smith sanctioned is worth the hysteria we're seeing. Despite that, only of of them will be captain of their national side this time next week.

The margins that players seem to have to tread between ingenuity and capital punishment are seemingly razor thin.

Similar to him calling the Australians a pack of dogs for being unsociable when he tried to pick up the ball, but arguing that criticism of Rabada was the same as stamping passion out of the sport.

The guy would make a great politician.

 

[frankrizzo]

faf is full of s**t and a proven cheat but he is also just playing the hand he has been dealt, he knows this isn't as big an issue at home as it is in australia, he like rabada got little if any condemnation at home for their actions so he knows he can say this stuff and not be called out.

If it was the other way around our lot would likely play it the same way and be rubbing faf's nose in it, i also think if faf was an aussie he would read how different the climate is and never be thick enough to admit to planning this out.

 

[Marcus DuQuesne]

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 think that is a pretty good call. Mostly I remember the bowlers shining the ball with a red mark down there strides. As the ball was thrown back to bowler maybe a bit of spit and polish on the way. But the ball is the bowlers domain.

 

[Demosthenes]

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.

Inconsistency in the application of a law is different to the law itself being unclear.

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.

The laws governing what constitutes ball tampering have never been about right and wrong. They are simply an arbitrary line that attempts to ensure that the deterioration of the ball is maintained at a level that is conducive to good cricket.

If that line needs to be changed, change it. But until that happens, sportspeople have a responsibility to play within the rules that are set.

 

[skipjack]

If it is a natural action I'm happy with it.

Eg. Using sweat and saliva to shine one side. Has been done since the game began. Yes some sunscreen / sugar is going to end up on the ball but I don't mind that. Batsmen get such an advantage these days that if the bowler "inadvertently" gets some assistance in keeping the ball shiny then that's fine. It is MAINTAINING the ball - trying to keep in in new condition for as long as possible.

ALTERING OR DEFACING the ball by scratching / lifting etc has always been looked down upon and is a bigger crime. Bouncing the ball in from the boundary I can accept. I think it's crazy to police how far a player must throw the ball. Use of other substances - fingernails, rocks, sandpaper etc is straight out cheating. There is no grey. You can't use any of those items to an acceptable level.

I used to play with a guy who would get his fingernails into the ball right from the start of the innings. It caused a massive division within the side. I was dead-set against it for a number of reasons.

1) It was cheating and I didn't want to be a part of that.

2) By shining the ball well you can keep it swinging well past 50 overs. By that time if you want to revert to reverse just load one side up. It'll hoop from about 65-80 when you get a new one. Hence no need to scratch.

3) I disagreed completely with his "science". The new ball swings because of seam position, not a difference between the state of the two sides of the ball. If you need to scratch one side to get a new ball to swing you are a s**t bowler.

 

[JackFlash]

Only the bowler should be allowed to shine the ball. These days with shorter roped off boundaries out fielders can't seem to throw it back on the full to the keeper? WTF?
Obviously this is an instruction. I'm old enough to remember blokes throwing it back to the keeper over the stumps on the full from 70 - 80 metres on the MCG, the keeper and crowd would applaud. They pretty much get told off for doing it these days!
Make a new ball available at 60 overs, the spinners will be fine, remember any change over can be optional. Take pockets off the front of the pants, one back pocket only!

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

One ball per end. The umpire hangs on to it and the bowler is the only one allowed to work on it.

I would have loved this idea. I could hit the seam 19 times out of 20 while the useless mongs up the other end seemed to hit it once out of 20. They'd destroy the ball in the first 10 overs.

Luckily I was blessed with really thick and strong thumbnails which were put to good use picking back out that seam that I'd flattened. Saliva was obviously used to shine and once the ball was stuffed, as a prodigious sweater, I would absolutely soak one side of the ball in sweat.

As I posted in one of the other threads, I've seen this done live in first grade cricket in Geelong by Adam Hollioake when he played with North Shore back in the early 90s. He had been shown how to do it, he told us, by Waqar Younis at his county club Surrey.

He would show the boys at training how to 'manage' the ball to swing Irish. He did it against Cementies. They were cruising on about 2/180 or so chasing about 220 or 240, a boundary was hit, Smoky went and retrieved it, smashed up one side of it out of view, came back on to bowl and took about 8 for 20 or so. Batsmen were leaving balls a foot outside off stump and losing their leg stumps. It was funny / amazing to watch but in the end I wasn't a fan, it was cheating.

I have no qualms in seeing Warner in particular and to a slightly lesser extent Smith given the arse over this due to the premeditation of it but the carry on now is bordering on the ridiculous.

 

[skipjack]

I would have loved this idea. I could hit the seam 19 times out of 20 while the useless mongs up the other end seemed to hit it once out of 20. They'd destroy the ball in the first 10 overs.

hahahahahah,yep so much