The ball tampering saga

[Mugwump]

[K]

I'm not normalizing it at all. It's "normal" only by the outrageous moral standards of cricket, aided by a feeble ICC and boards that do not care about the game's health.

Previous cases actually had a far worse effect, but there are more troubling aspects than that. What is more troubling is that they were not punished at all, certainly not by their boards and sponsors and in many cases not by the ICC either. I wish all of them had been severely punished. In many cases, the truth came to light only later, but still something could have been done. It's still not too late for some things to be done about some past actions. The suggestion that I'm "normalizing" everything makes it sound like I want our guys to go unpunished. In fact, I want every offender from every country to be punished. No good can come of only one board acting, driven by hysteria contributed to in large part by people who have broken the spirit or laws of cricket throughout their careers, such as Michael Vaughan. We can debate whether punishments are proportionate to the extent of the crime if there actually are punishments. With zero punishment, technically it can be said that Smith et al. have been punished infinitely more than the others.

It's highly relevant to discuss other cases of ball tampering, especially when many people seem completely oblivious to them. I myself somehow did not recall the NZ incident until someone else (from NZ) somewhat gleefully mentioned it. In that case, it wasn't three people "agreeing to it over lunch", but the team working out their method throughout training before the Test. In their defence, it was just one Test and they allegedly were provoked. In England's case, it was like a huge research project, and it went on for numerous Tests and series, how numerous exactly I'm not sure is publicly known (unless Trescothick has spelled that out in his book too).

If you re-read this thread from the start, I think some of the above is already clear in the early comments. I don't think anyone commenting so far wanted no or light punishment. I also have a lot to say about the sandpaper aspect, etc., which I'll do later.

[MatthewBoydFanClub]

What England does, or what Pakistan does to its players is not relevant to the penalties we give to our cricketers for breaching the rules. Our three can go through the appeal process to get their sentences reduced, but until then it sends a message that we deal harshly with our players who break the rules. Smith's press conference was a train wreck, but he needed our respect and consideration from the press there to interview him, not some of the bullying that went on from a few there.

Smith will learn from the experience and come out of it a better human being and hopefully captain the side again. The reality is he was promoted to the captaincy a little too soon, without the maturity and worldly experience to manage the players around him. When Warner hatched his stupid plan in the rooms with Bancroft to doctor the ball, Smith could have have nipped it in the bud and ordered Warner to stop his plan and get on with the game. That he didn't meant that Warner was controlling the fortunes of the side, rather than the captain. There were signs before this incident with the sledging going on in the previous test, where Warner was almost involved in a punch up and Smith was backing away when he should have been directly intervening to stop Warner. This showed that Smith has lost control over Warner. Warner was doing what he wanted and it affected the performance of the batsmen out on the field. In hindsight Smith will realise that he should have been more forceful in controlling Warner before the ball tampering incident. It's an expensive lesson for Smith to learn and one which will cost him millions, but the upside is that Smith will come out of this a better person for it, so what price do you place on the growing maturity of a human being.

[K]

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/used-and-abused-david-warner-was-attack-dog-for-a-team-out-of-control-20180330-p4z717.html

[MatthewBoydFanClub]

All that just sidetracks the main issue. Tough as it is in SA you have an obligation as a test cricketer to get on with the game and represent you country in the spirit of the game. Warner failed to do that and he is responsible for the mess he got himself into and brought down two individuals with him (Smith and Brancroft). He recognises he did the wrong thing and has apologised. Other countries need to recognise their own messes and deal with them. Cricket Australia is dealing with ours including how to deal with the loss of a $20 million advertising deal and all the fallout of accusations of cheating.

[K]

If the Warners decide to go down the legal path, rightly or wrongly, CA may also be in trouble for not ensuring a safe working environment. Apart from what's apparently happened to his family, CA really should have provided legal and psychological counsel for all three before their press conference in SA. (Healy mentioned this and I agree.) As for what D. Warner recognizes, many people have already noted his "mistakes were made" is pointedly different from "I made mistakes".

[Doc63]

[K]

At what level have you played and umpired, Doc63?
What did you mean by "sanctioned"?!

And, ideally, what do you think should be legal and illegal (ignoring practical issues of law enforcement), if the current written rules are to be clarified or changed?


P.S. The 1977 Vaseline Affair:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/594464.html
Lever blamed his father's heart attack on Bedi's allegedly baseless accusations.

[Doc63]

[K]

[MatthewBoydFanClub]

The above is fair comment. I've played football and cricket at junior level as well and agree that the game is favouring the batsmen and there should be strict rules on what you can and cannot do with the ball. Most times the umpires pick it up when the ball gets thrown back to the bowler along the ground rather than in one throw back to the bowler. When fieldsmen spend too long fiddling with the ball before they return it, that might alert the umpire as well.

The bottom line though it that when you scuff the ball illegally (and at high level the fieldsmen know what you can and cannot do), you are conceding that the opposition is better than you and the only way you can beat them is by cheating. That goes against everything that we stand for as a sporting nation. If the opposition has to cheat to beat you, then at least you have the satisfaction of occupying the high moral ground of knowing that the opposition thinks that you are too good for them. There's two aspects to winning. Beating your opponent and acknowledging the efforts of your opponent. That's why we shake our opponent's hand after the game, win or lose. If you have to cheat in order to win, you have no respect for your opponent, which I think was what was going through Warner's head after the sledging incident in the previous test. We had sympathy for Warner when the sledging was directed at Warner's wife. We don't have any sympathy for him now.

[K]

Warner's press conference...
Highly emotional. Tearful when speaking about family. With wife sobbing in background.
But sounded lawyered up. "Why won't you answer the question?" the journalist said. If that was a legal strategy, would it have been better not to take questions at all?

[Doc63]

The questions he wouldn't answer were about who else was involved. He refused to throw anyone else under the bus. Smith and Bancroft did the same thing.

[K]

Yes, that was the same line they gave, something to the effect of, "I'm here to speak about myself and take responsibility for my actions only." Good.

However, he also avoided the question whether he'd ever tampered with the ball before (or something similar). The most benign explanation is that his lawyer wanted him to answer every single question with the same stock response, regardless of the unspoken answer. Another rather benign explanation is that his lawyer did not want him to answer that question, in case it turns out he'd once, say, scratched the ball with his fingernail in grade cricket. The UK press will no doubt assume a different explanation.

[K]

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/plot-thickens-with-smith-unaware-of-key-elements-of-tempering-plan-20180331-p4z78m.html