Ball Tampering General Discussion

[Victor Ian]

Why not let someone do whatever they want to the ball - so long as it still fits through the umpires holes thingy? I'd imagine that you could not get any more reverse swing than we've seen. I never played any decent (or even half decent) level cricket so I don't know what is possible in the hands of the skilled. What would be the unsavoury consequences of declaring open season on the ball?

I can only see you policing the game in extremes. Either let the fielding team do whatever they want, or let them do nothing. If you can't take diuretics because of problems policing drugs then simply ban lollies, sweats, chewies, beauty products on the field of play because of problems policing shining stuff.

 

[Second Spitter]

Why not let someone do whatever they want to the ball - so long as it still fits through the umpires holes thingy?

Because people don't want to see cordless disc sanders on the cricket field.

 

[Victor Ian]

also is nailing the ball out of shape then having a wahh to the umpires every over until you get it changed as unethical as tampering? because one team with a pair of swing bowlers seems very adept at getting the ball changed every ten seconds compared to all others.

this could just be me tending to see more cricket in nz and oz and oz don't really moan about the ball though.

What benefit would New Zealand get out of this?. It seems like a tactic that would make reverse swing non existent.

Why can they not just produce balls to a specification where there is marginal variance? **** this hand made ****!

 

[Starfighter]

I thought getting the ball changed every four overs was an England/Jimmy Anderson thing.

 

[Victor Ian]

Because people don't want to see cordless disc sanders on the cricket field.

But even if they did? What degree of extra swing could you impart on a ball by having perfect roughness on one side? Could it ever swing around corners? I'm curious what the maximum swing you could get if you were allowed to do it. Surely professional cricketers would already have studied this and even practised batting with balls tailor made to swing prodigiously. If the maximum swing is only a small amount, I am in the school that says 'go for it'.

 

[TheJediBrah]

But even if they did? What degree of extra swing could you impart on a ball by having perfect roughness on one side? Could it ever swing around corners? I'm curious what the maximum swing you could get if you were allowed to do it. Surely professional cricketers would already have studied this and even practised batting with balls tailor made to swing prodigiously. If the maximum swing is only a small amount, I am in the school that says 'go for it'.

Yeah I don't think you're going to get it to go much more than they do already tbh. Though if you're going to allow anything then you could power-sand one side down so much that there's not much of it left and the "shiny side" literally weighs quadruple as much. A big part of reverse is the differential weight of each side of the ball, not just "shiny v rough".

 

[Flem274*]

What benefit would New Zealand get out of this?. It seems like a tactic that would make reverse swing non existent.

Why can they not just produce balls to a specification where there is marginal variance? **** this hand made ****!

even artificially aged balls often swing. it's basically the nz tactic for getting the benefit of a new or newish ball for 80 overs. first discovered in their 2012 Sri Lankan tour where the balls were genuinely falling to bits and they've been doing it for years. every summer it's 'a bad batch of kookaburras'.

it's a bit like McCullum claiming nz don't sledge, spirit of cricket etc then turning a blind eye to wagner, mcclenaghan and mills carrying on.

I don't mind it of course. It's smarter than australias current tactic.

 

[Victor Ian]

Yeah I don't think you're going to get it to go much more than they do already tbh. Though if you're going to allow anything then you could power-sand one side down so much that there's not much of it left and the "shiny side" literally weighs quadruple as much. A big part of reverse is the differential weight of each side of the ball, not just "shiny v rough".

The swing thing article I just read said the weight of the sides doesn't matter. That is a misconception. But even if it was a factor, doing what you suggest would make the ball fail the umpire holes thingy test.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The swing thing article I just read said the weight of the sides doesn't matter. That is a misconception. But even if it was a factor, doing what you suggest would make the ball fail the umpire holes thingy test.

I didn't even think of that

 

[cnerd123]

I didn't even think of that

Victor Ian is obsessed with umpire's holes.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Victor Ian is obsessed with umpire's holes.

When he said "the umpire holes thingy test" he was referring to the thing they take you aside before each game to do and promise they won't give you out as a result right?

 

[andruid]

I think so, but tampering the ball is still illegal under the laws, so you still have to hide it from the umpires (and apparently the Camera Crews too now). If you get caught even using something like vaseline, or picking the seam with your fingernail, there has to be a penalty.

Legalise tampering with non-foreign objects on the field so that sides don't need to hide it, and save the penalties only for when they try to bring an object onto the ground to tamper with. No penalty if the umpire swaps the ball out, losing a ball you've worked so hard on and having to start over from scratch is penalty enough.

Are you saying we should strip search everybody who is gonna be on the field of play every time They want to come on to the field?

 

[Pratters]

Would be nice if some one can explain who all have been charged and proven to be ball tamperers historically.

For charged, Tendulkar, Dravid and Atherton come to my from the earlier era.

 

[cnerd123]

Are you saying we should strip search everybody who is gonna be on the field of play every time They want to come on to the field?

Nah. It's just a law there to stop players from openly bringing blades and stuff to the field to tamper the ball with. If they still sneak in a bottle cap we wouldn't really know unless the umpire asks them to empty their pockets or a cameraman catches them stuffing it inside their jock strap.

The idea is to give players a way to openly mess with the ball. Right now all forms of tampering are illegal, and must be punished if caught. It some forms were made legal, I guess that would make the illegal forms of tampering far less tempting to players. Plus we could then be a lot stricter on that. If you can use dirt, sugar saliva, sunscreen, nails, and your pointy watch to tamper the ball and you still bring a bottlecap onto the field, and get caught, well now you're banned for a year. On account of being a moron.

I just think that would be a better way to police all this.

 

[Starfighter]

Would be nice if some one can explain who all have been charged and proven to be ball tamperers historically.

For charged, Tendulkar, Dravid and Atherton come to my from the earlier era.

Waqar, Faf (twice), Afridi, Dravid, Philander and the most recent lot.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

If some forms were made legal, I guess that would make the illegal forms of tampering far less tempting to players.

Maybe so, but on the other hand, somebody might want to try get that extra a edge by pushing it just that little bit further.

 

[cnerd123]

Maybe so, but on the other hand, somebody might want to try get that extra a edge by pushing it just that little bit further.

That happens with all rules in all sports ever. If we have 'legalised' means of tampering in the rules, we can punish those who go outside the limits more harshly

 

[NotMcKenzie]

That happens with all rules in all sports ever. If we have 'legalised' means of tampering in the rules, we can punish those who go outside the limits more harshly

Problem is that I can see the opposite approach being courted by those who get caught: 'Well this is not too far from this permitted activity...'
Broadening the rule may simply broaden regions for abuse.

 

[Pratters]

There is not need to broaden the rule.

 

[Tom Flint]

The only acceptable form of work you can do on the ball is licking your finger applying on the ball and then rubbing on your trousers. Its one of crickets weird things that we do and shouldn't be taken away. Throwing the ball in on the bounce is a skilled art by being able to land it on the right side so that can stay.
Any use of tools or fingers to damage the ball by picking the seam or scratching is wrong and and should be dealt with