The ball tampering saga

[swoop42]

Funnily enough Bancroft is the only one I have sympathy for as he was most likely targeted and then thrown under the bus because of his junior status and felt the pressure to comply.

[Donny]

Australia captain banned for Joburg Test and Cameron Bancroft given three demerit points for role in ball tampering scandal.

More to follow ....

[Donny]

Steve Smith has been suspended for the fourth Test in Johannesburg by the ICC after he was charged by the head of the governing body for "conduct contrary to the spirit of the game".

Smith was charged by ICC chief executive David Richardson, fined 100 per cent of his match fee and given a one-Test ban. He will have four demerit points on his record.

No points against Warner from the ICC.

Cricket Australia may also impose sanctions. If Warner escapes any penalty, we'll see the very interesting 'Who will captain in the 4th. Test' question arise.

[K]

[K]

[Culprit]

When you stand the high moral ground you are going to get burnt. We have been pointing the finger for years and now it's our turn. We still get reminded about the underarm incident and that was in the 70's. This has put Cricket back 20 years and many will ignore the flow on effect. Test Cricket is struggling all round and this will not help. No one wants to put the $$ up for the rights to Test Cricket, Big Bash yes but not the lot. Australia has to banish Smith and not allow him to play cricket ever. Anyone else involved gets a 10 year ban. It might be harsh and extreme but as far as I am concerned it should be extreme. It's a national disgrace.

[K]

^ All countries have been pointing fingers for decades and pretending to stand on high moral ground. They deny wrongdoing even when they're caught, even when it's on video, even after they've been found guilty and penalized. They do all that because it works, for them and their delusional supporters. Ultimately, it's cricket itself that loses.

[Culprit]

Yes, Cricket is the big loser.
http://www.theshovel.com.au/2018/03/25/dutton-offers-asylum-to-white-cricketers-under-attack-in-south-africa/

[K]

I see that Atherton is quoted as saying that Smith's ball tampering was different from his ball tampering all those years ago. Indeed, there are differences, but perhaps Atherton should not be the one leading a discussion on different degrees of sin. (I realize it's hard for him to avoid, given he's in the media and no doubt was asked.) Premeditation is certainly a serious factor, but I'm not sure how there can be any doubt that Atherton's act was also premeditated, unless I'm ignorant about some quaint English custom (perhaps taught at Oxbridge) of keeping handfuls of dirt in your pockets.

Apparently, Atherton's punishment at the time was a 2000 pound fine. I'm curious to check what punishment, if any, Dravid received for his ball tampering. As I said before, denial, even when all the evidence is in plain sight, works.

Update:

Dravid's punishment was apparently 50% of his match fee. But look at the following from Fairfax yesterday, which coincidentally invokes Dravid as a contrast to all the ball-tampering ignobility!

[Mugwump]

Maybe it goes the other way around. Maybe Dravid’s offence was an accident, as it was described in his plausible defence, because the man’s clearly outstanding character tells you that he would not have acted outside the spirit of the game? And for what it’s worth, because a man of Dravid’s stature and respect would not ruin his reputation for a piddling advantage in an ODI against Zimbabwe ?

That’s the point about character : it shapes how events are interpreted, as well as being interpreted in the light of events. It is why Smith’s actions were so abhorrent.

That piece on Dravid by Ed Smith was indeed a magnificent piece of prose on many levels, which described well why cricket really matters.

[K]

I think it could have been just an astonishing lapse in judgement. The absurdity of it being in a not-so-meaningful match that, from memory, they were well in control of simply adds to the sadness of the whole situation.

We don't know these people personally. It's always their actions that should give us a clue to their character, not a preconceived idea about their character that should lure us into explaining away their actions.

There was very clear and damning video of the incident. It no doubt is now available for viewing again online. His defence, like the other defences mounted over the years by the Indian board, was terrible and display the same m.o.: They don't even make up their own implausible stories, but simply borrow these excuses from others. It's that obvious pattern that has shredded their credibility, but it does not matter to them, because they are playing to their own people. The whole point of denying no matter what is to introduce doubt even where it does not exist. In this particular case, the commentator at the time was the late Tony Greig. He said something about it looking very bad, and then added something like: "Unless he's trying to remove the lolly from the ball." And, just like that, that was the excuse the board produced in the subsequent days to reject Clive Lloyd's findings.

To believe this excuse, one would first have to accept that somehow, for no reason, a lozenge became attached to the ball. How so? Was there a stray lozenge lying in the outfield? If there was, what is the chance that the ball would have struck it? And if so struck, what is the chance that the lozenge would have become attached? At the very least, you'd think any hope of attachment would rely on the lozenge still retaining some moisture, which presumably would rely on it being fairly fresh. Okay, retreat and find another explanation. Maybe Rahul was actually sucking that lozenge. (I am unconvinced about the benefits of sucking lozenges while fielding, but never mind.) In that case, how did it get from mouth to ball, again not merely touching ball but attaching itself? Okay, so the story presumably has to be that Rahul was trying to shine the ball, wanted some saliva on his fingers, and somehow became forgetful of the fact there was actually a lozenge on his tongue. The lozenge somehow had to transfer itself from tongue to fingers and then to ball, at no stage of its acrobatic routine doing anything boring such as simply falling to ground.

Okay, but we're not done. There's the small problem of the tv footage. One heck of an inept way to try to remove the lozenge. The footage showed the lozenge between fingerpad and ball surface, with the fingerpad parallel to the surface (the lozenge being like stuff in a sandwich). Surely if you're trying to remove something, your fingerpad is oriented at least partway towards the perpendicular, not sandwiching the thing you're supposedly trying to remove.

No. Clive Lloyd was correct. Rahul was guilty.

[Mugwump]

I remembered it at the time and I just watched it again, Dravid’s explanation is probably consistent with the video, which is very blurry. He said that the lozenge which he was sucking, much reduced, stuck to his finger as he drew saliva from his mouth and he tried to wipe it off the ball. The video I just saw could support that version of events. Perhaps the original footage was clearer but the YouTube clip is not at all so.

While it may not be legal procedure, it is consistent with ordinary notions of justice to take a person’s long record of conduct and character into account in deciding whether s/he acted unethically given evidence that allows interpretation. It’s one of the rewards of good character.

It’s also possible he was guilty and it was a momentary lapse. It certainly bears scant comparison with premeditated tampering agreed among team leadership.

[K]

I have not watched it again, so my comments are from memory. But my opinion of the footage was the same as Lloyd's. I certainly did not see that as a "wiping off" action. And to have the lozenge attached like that through innocent means seems an incredible amount of bad luck. It was also not the first such incident for the team, apparently. Prior to that incident, Tendulkar was fined 75% of his fee for essentially the same thing. And their morally bankrupt board again exploded, making demands about who could or could not officiate in their matches. I'm also taking into account what I referred to above, the board's subsequent pattern of just stealing weak excuses from the public sphere. Their lack of morality is seemingly matched by their lack of imagination.

[Mugwump]

^ im not invested at all in defending the honour of Indian cricket in general. I’d rather be counsel for defending Stormy Daniel’s virginity.

[Dave The Man]

Who ever is involved should be Kicked out the side and have very long Suspension or Never be Allowed to play for Australia Again.

Also there Australia Cricket Contracts should be Ripped Up