First West Indies, then Australia....who next?

[Flem274*]

They were. I challenge you to bring in a non-ridiculous law that stops mints from being sucked on the cricket field. Or anything else being consumed through the course of the day that might help. Something you eat is completely different to an implement which you use to deform a ball, such as a knife or bottle-top.

In any case, I've always (as most people on CW know) been wholly dubious about how ball-tampering is defined - there's no way IMO to differentiate between "shining" and "tampering". Personally I'm more than happy for pretty much anything to be used on the ball, if it helps the bowlers swing it - I myself find suncream mixed with sweat gets a far better shine than sweat alone, so I use that. And I challenge any sane lawmaker to be able to find a way to stop me. The same applies to mints - there's no way on Earth you can define mint-influenced saliva as being different to saliva without said influence. Saliva - and sweat too - are not substances that can be "un-tampered". What if someone finds eating lettuce before taking the field causes better saliva for shining - are you going to ban that too?

The whole "ball-tampering" thing is ridiculous. And if I bend or break a few silly rules, and it helps the ball swing more, frankly I don't give a &%$£. More swing = higher calibre cricket.

You are so going to cop it.

As a bowler I agree.

 

[Richard]

Love it when old timers come out and say they ball tampered. One time when the NZ team were in Pakistan they nicked off with the old ball when it was being replaced before the ball boys got it. They found it was all scratched and swung alot more so they tried it on their practice balls. It was Pringle IIRC that got the most swing and I think they scratched up the ball in the next test too then openly admitted it.

That's one of the most famous ball-tampering tours, New Zealand's of Pakistan in 1990/91. I've mentioned it several times recently - in the nets, they say, Martin Crowe and Mark Greatbatch were both getting reverse-swing, which is quite something.

One of the ultimate "try it and see" cases.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

They were. I challenge you to bring in a non-ridiculous law that stops mints from being sucked on the cricket field. Or anything else being consumed through the course of the day that might help. Something you eat is completely different to an implement which you use to deform a ball, such as a knife or bottle-top.

In any case, I've always (as most people on CW know) been wholly dubious about how ball-tampering is defined - there's no way IMO to differentiate between "shining" and "tampering". Personally I'm more than happy for pretty much anything to be used on the ball, if it helps the bowlers swing it - I myself find suncream mixed with sweat gets a far better shine than sweat alone, so I use that. And I challenge any sane lawmaker to be able to find a way to stop me. The same applies to mints - there's no way on Earth you can define mint-influenced saliva as being different to saliva without said influence. Saliva - and sweat too - are not substances that can be "un-tampered". What if someone finds eating lettuce before taking the field causes better saliva for shining - are you going to ban that too?

The whole "ball-tampering" thing is ridiculous. And if I bend or break a few silly rules, and it helps the ball swing more, frankly I don't give a &%$£. More swing = higher calibre cricket.

Doesn't wash with me. Rahul Dravid was caught in the 2003/04 VB Series visibly sucking a lolly and spitting on the ball. He had the book thrown at him and rightly so. Anyone caught sucking a mint on camera should expect the same treatment under the Whelan I$C$C.

Moreover, Nathan Bracken alluded to mints being in play in the aftermath of Ashes 2005. Result? He was howled down to the degree of being forced to apologise to the ECB. Implies a degree of shame and skullduggery in the practice, regardless of what your opinion is.

 

[Richard]

As I recall Bracken backed down of his own accord. Nonetheless, the fact that people (Australians, mostly ITBT) tried to imply skullduggery doesn't to my mind make it an illicit practice. There is no way you can legitimately draw any line on what is legit shining of a ball and what is "tampering". I'm happy enough to do it at something that can obviously be policed - which the use of things like sucking of mints and use of suncream cannot be.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Then how do you explain Dravid's offence? Policed quite emphatically IYAM.

 

[Richard]

Dravid didn't exactly hide it, did he? But it'd be very easy to do so.

 

[Burgey]

As I recall Bracken backed down of his own accord. Nonetheless, the fact that people (Australians, mostly ITBT) tried to imply skullduggery doesn't to my mind make it an illicit practice. There is no way you can legitimately draw any line on what is legit shining of a ball and what is "tampering". I'm happy enough to do it at something that can obviously be policed - which the use of things like sucking of mints and use of suncream cannot be.

Bracken's back down came after Simon Jones' less-than-emphatic denial - "Well, they'd do it too, wouldn't they?"

The prosecution rests.

 

[Richard]

The fact that "they'd do it too" (which is true) is about as emphatic a case for nothing being wrong as you can get, really.

 

[andruid]

Doesn't wash with me. Rahul Dravid was caught in the 2003/04 VB Series visibly sucking a lolly and spitting on the ball. He had the book thrown at him and rightly so. Anyone caught sucking a mint on camera should expect the same treatment under the Whelan I$C$C.

Moreover, Nathan Bracken alluded to mints being in play in the aftermath of Ashes 2005. Result? He was howled down to the degree of being forced to apologise to the ECB. Implies a degree of shame and skullduggery in the practice, regardless of what your opinion is.

You say that like a typical offender will stage a press conference to go about ball tampering.

That would give leeway and imagined moral duty to the sort of witch hunts we saw on Sky news when Shoaid Akhtar was being hounded for apparently being cauught on camera scratching the ball in a tour game.