Ask the Laws Department XVIII: (Ball Tampering)
MCC, the Guardian of the Laws of cricket, discuss key issues in 'Ask the Laws Department' in conjunction with The Wisden Cricketer. This edition considers ball tampering.
Biting the ball
Pakistan's Shahid Afridi hit the headlines for all the wrong reasons again recently when he bit the ball during the ODI against Australia at Perth in January.
Although it was carried out when neither umpire was looking it was one of the most blatant displays of ball tampering caught on camera.
Shahid Afridi was caught biting the ball in Australia Afridi pleaded guilty in the ICC disciplinary hearing that followed and was honest enough to admit he was doing it to try to gain his side an advantage. He received a ban for two Twenty20 matches.
Ball tampering is a contentious and emotive subject, with several big names either being found guilty or facing allegations over the years.
In January the South African team made accusations that both Stuart Broad and James Anderson were unfairly altering the condition of the ball.
Broad trapped the ball under his spiked boot in his follow-through - an act he claimed was absent-minded and lazy rather than malicious.
Stuart Broad was accused of ball tampering in South Africa Television cameras appeared to show Anderson lightly scratchingthe ball and removing a loose piece of leather. The umpires and the ICC took no action over either incident.
Law 42.3 covers changing the condition of the ball: (a) Any fielder may (i) polish the ball provided that no artificial substance is used and that such polishing wastes no time. (ii) remove mud from the ball under the supervision of the umpire. (iii) dry a wet ball on a towel. (b)
It is unfair for anyone to rub the ball on the ground for any reason, interfere with any of the seams or the surface of the ball, use any implement, or take any other action whatsoever which is likely to alter the condition of the ball, except as permitted in (a) above. (c)
The umpires shall make frequent and irregular inspections of the ball. The Law then goes on to lay down the procedure to be followed if the Law is breached.
These should be read in full but include an immediate ball-change and five penalty runs awarded to the batting side.
If there is a further incident the bowler who bowled the last delivery will be suspended from bowling for the rest of the innings, even if it was another fielder who had caused the damage.
After these recent incidents some journalists and commentators have said that Law 42.3 should be abolished and that the fielding side should be allowed (within reason) to work on the ball to try to make it swing more.
They feel this would help to balance the game, which they believe is loaded too much in the batsman’s favour.
MCC has no plans to change or remove this Law and feels it is important that ball , tampering remains an illegal practice.
Ask the umpire - with MCC Laws sub-committee
"I captain a village side in Cambridgeshire. I asked one of my fielders to move into a straight-hit position, almost directly behind the non-striker’s stumps.
"The batsman objected because the fielder was in his eye-line. I claimed that the fielder could stand anywhere if he was still and not intentionally distracting the batsman."
- Martin Sneesby, Cambridge
MCC says
Several Laws are relevant here and 42.1, 42.2, 42.4 and 42.18 should be read.
It is for the umpires to try to judge whether the fielder is a distraction to the batsman and the intent of the captain or fielder involved.
If the fielder is walking in behind the bowler, he is almost certainly interfering with the striker’s view of the bowler’s action. How far back he was would affect the judgment.
On the boundary (at a very straight long-off) he would be most unlikely to be in the striker’s field of vision. Player management is important here.
The umpire should be able to make a compromise arrangement between the fielding captain’s need to have his fielder where the ball is likely to be hit and the striker’s need for an unobstructed view of the bowler’s action.
The fielder standing only a foot or two to one side should not prevent him being able to move to the appropriate position as soon as the ball is hit but would solve the problem for the striker.
If the umpire thinks the fielder is placed there to distract the striker Law 42.4 provides a remedy.
