Raju Korti
A favourite refrain of the Aussie cricketers -- apart from compulsive sledging and getting into on-field fracas -- is to let other cricketing nations never ever forget that they play their cricket "the hard way." At Cape Town, playing against the Proteas, they showed they are a more talented side than we all know them to be and added a new dimension to that sporting spirit.
On-camera Bancroft was caught red handed tampering with the ball, using some sticky substance. At 25, Bancroft is the junior-most member and had the blessings of the bigger deities in the side including captain Steve Smith. Like most errant people, the "hard playing" Aussie cricketers admitted that what they had done was wrong, apparently with no remorse. That is not even belated wisdom because more than the regret, it was the nonchalant demeanor of the skipper that came through more clearly.
The International Cricket Council (ICC) will now go through the motions of imposing a one-match ban and docking 100 per cent of Bancroft's match fee. That, of course, is little commentary on the damage to Cricket Australia's reputation. While former players across the globe and fans have gone frenetic in branding the team as bunch of cheats, what comes to the mind immediately is what would have the cricket's apex body done if it were to be a player from the sub-continent.
Merely admitting the guilt is not enough. Bancroft has obviously been used by the team and will be the likely scapegoat. Smith is too precious to be left out unless the Australian cricket board acts tough like the West Indies Board did with the team's big shots. The contention by Cricket Australia's CEO James Sutherland that a committee will be appointed to probe the incident is ridiculous and bureaucrat-ish when it is an open and shut case -- with Bancroft and Smith confessing to their guilt before the Match Referee Andy Pycroft. Even more funny was Sutherland's refusal to admit ball tampering as cheating. So Smith continues unless his dormant conscience wakes up.
When competent players resort to dirty tricks, it reeks of low confidence. Recall how Greg Chappel, in 1981 instructed his younger brother Trevor to bowl underarm with the last bowl to deprive minnows New Zealand a well deserving victory. Chappel is still considered by many as among world's top batsmen.
The Aussie batting and bowling is not weak by any stretch of imagination. What made them resort to such unsporting tactic? To win at any cost or not to lose at any cost? Either way it is reprehensible. The reference to ball tampering invariably brings to memory Englishman John Lever's mischief during the 1976 series against India where he used Vaseline to get more shine on the ball. With that he got the ball to swing prodigiously and made the life of Indian batsmen miserable. I recall the animated debate we college-going friends had in which the focal point was why did Lever have to do that when he was troubling the batsman anyway with his normal swing.
Interestingly, all those accused of ball tampering in the past have been big names -- Imran Khan, Waqar Younis, Inzamam ul Haq, Michael Atherton, Stuart Broad, James Anderson, Chris Broad, Peter Siddle, Faf du Plessis (ironically, now skippering the current South African team), Shahid Afridi and our own Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid.
In my conversation with many cricketers, I have found out they have scrappy understanding of what is the law on ball tampering or what constitutes ball tampering. Under Law 41, the ball may be polished without the use of an artificial substance, may be dried with 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 fingernails or other sharp object or tinkering with the seam of the bowl.
The umpires are responsible for monitoring the condition of the ball and must inspect it regularly. When an umpire has deemed a player to be guilty of ball tampering, five penalty runs are awarded to the batting side, and the ball has to be immediately replaced with another matching the untampered previous ball. If agreements laid out before the series, a batsman can be permitted to choose from the selection of balls in various stages of use. A bowler guilty of ball-tampering can be prohibited to bowl in that innings. Additional sanctions can be brought in as ball-tampering is considered a serious offence. The captain may be equally penalized as he is responsible for the conduct of his players on the field. Smith has compounded his guilt by being a partner in the crime.
Well, we all know by heart now that the Aussies pride themselves on bring fair and square. But I suspect Bancroft didn't scratch his thick hairline enough to come out with an unverifiable explanation. If only he had told the umpires that he was putting his hands in the pocket to scratch his own balls!
A favourite refrain of the Aussie cricketers -- apart from compulsive sledging and getting into on-field fracas -- is to let other cricketing nations never ever forget that they play their cricket "the hard way." At Cape Town, playing against the Proteas, they showed they are a more talented side than we all know them to be and added a new dimension to that sporting spirit.
 |
| Cameron Bancroft (File grab) |
The International Cricket Council (ICC) will now go through the motions of imposing a one-match ban and docking 100 per cent of Bancroft's match fee. That, of course, is little commentary on the damage to Cricket Australia's reputation. While former players across the globe and fans have gone frenetic in branding the team as bunch of cheats, what comes to the mind immediately is what would have the cricket's apex body done if it were to be a player from the sub-continent.
Merely admitting the guilt is not enough. Bancroft has obviously been used by the team and will be the likely scapegoat. Smith is too precious to be left out unless the Australian cricket board acts tough like the West Indies Board did with the team's big shots. The contention by Cricket Australia's CEO James Sutherland that a committee will be appointed to probe the incident is ridiculous and bureaucrat-ish when it is an open and shut case -- with Bancroft and Smith confessing to their guilt before the Match Referee Andy Pycroft. Even more funny was Sutherland's refusal to admit ball tampering as cheating. So Smith continues unless his dormant conscience wakes up.
When competent players resort to dirty tricks, it reeks of low confidence. Recall how Greg Chappel, in 1981 instructed his younger brother Trevor to bowl underarm with the last bowl to deprive minnows New Zealand a well deserving victory. Chappel is still considered by many as among world's top batsmen.
The Aussie batting and bowling is not weak by any stretch of imagination. What made them resort to such unsporting tactic? To win at any cost or not to lose at any cost? Either way it is reprehensible. The reference to ball tampering invariably brings to memory Englishman John Lever's mischief during the 1976 series against India where he used Vaseline to get more shine on the ball. With that he got the ball to swing prodigiously and made the life of Indian batsmen miserable. I recall the animated debate we college-going friends had in which the focal point was why did Lever have to do that when he was troubling the batsman anyway with his normal swing.
Interestingly, all those accused of ball tampering in the past have been big names -- Imran Khan, Waqar Younis, Inzamam ul Haq, Michael Atherton, Stuart Broad, James Anderson, Chris Broad, Peter Siddle, Faf du Plessis (ironically, now skippering the current South African team), Shahid Afridi and our own Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid.
In my conversation with many cricketers, I have found out they have scrappy understanding of what is the law on ball tampering or what constitutes ball tampering. Under Law 41, the ball may be polished without the use of an artificial substance, may be dried with 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 fingernails or other sharp object or tinkering with the seam of the bowl.
The umpires are responsible for monitoring the condition of the ball and must inspect it regularly. When an umpire has deemed a player to be guilty of ball tampering, five penalty runs are awarded to the batting side, and the ball has to be immediately replaced with another matching the untampered previous ball. If agreements laid out before the series, a batsman can be permitted to choose from the selection of balls in various stages of use. A bowler guilty of ball-tampering can be prohibited to bowl in that innings. Additional sanctions can be brought in as ball-tampering is considered a serious offence. The captain may be equally penalized as he is responsible for the conduct of his players on the field. Smith has compounded his guilt by being a partner in the crime.
Well, we all know by heart now that the Aussies pride themselves on bring fair and square. But I suspect Bancroft didn't scratch his thick hairline enough to come out with an unverifiable explanation. If only he had told the umpires that he was putting his hands in the pocket to scratch his own balls!
Spot-on as always...
ReplyDeletea comprehensive and complete write on the shameful incident. Agree in toto with your views and also i have a feeling having listened to the Australian Prime Minister's reaction - A Life Ban is in the offing. :) :) :)
ReplyDeleteStay Blessed Raju Garu.