South Africa and Australia have always relished the rivalry between the two nations. Whether it be on the cricket or rugby field, there seems to be nothing quite like a win over the Aussies, and vice-a-versa. However, in the recent series in which South Africa were victorious 2-1, world-class cricket was overshadowed by a hostile on-field atmosphere, in particular the ball-tampering scandal that took place in the third test at PPC Newlands in Cape Town. Looking back at the incident, I ask whether the penalties given to Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft were too harsh or if the Aussie cricketing starlets got what they fully deserved.
Now, I could assess the incident in detail, however, to retain the structure and message of this article, here is a short article explaining what actually happened in that infamous third test: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2018/03/28/steve-smith-david-warner-handed-12-month-bans-australia-ball/ .
In short, Bancroft received a 9-month ban, while Smith and Warner each received a year-long suspension.
Before I continue, it is worth explaining what makes ball-tampering illegal: roughening up or smoothing one side of an older cricket ball helps it to be caught by air currents that move it in the opposite direction in which it is supposed to [reverse swing], making the batsman’s job more difficult.
Cricket is a sport like no other. It is unique in that the laws of the game share equal importance with ‘playing within the spirit of the game’ – a concept which gives cricket its nickname, ‘The gentleman’s game’. Now, there is no doubt that using sandpaper to alter the surface of the cricket ball goes directly against both concepts, but a deeper analysis of the Australians’ actions in comparison with a previous incident helps me to believe that the players received too harsh a penalty.
In December 2016, while playing Australia in Australia, South African captain, Faf du Plessis, was charged with ball-tampering, subsequently receiving a 1-match ban and 100% match-fee fine by the International Cricket Council (ICC). The ICC awarded the same punishment to Bancroft, Warner and Smith, however it was their national cricket board, Cricket Australia, who, after a further investigation, handed each player their lengthy suspensions. In contrast, no further penalty was given to du Plessis by Cricket South Africa (CSA). But why? What was the difference?
In truth, the differences are minor. du Plessis used chewing gum whereas Bancroft used sand-paper to change the ball’s texture. The other difference being that more players in the Australian side were aware of Bancroft’s actions at the time of incident. Although both cases are different in terms of the method of alteration, surely the motives were the same? All players involved acted far outside the spirit of the game with the exact same motive – to alter the texture of the ball. There is no ‘line’ to be crossed in cricket when it comes to ball-tampering. A player either tampers with the ball or not – there is no in-between. In a recent interview with ESPN’s Cricinfo, former South African fast bowler Kyle Abbott revealed that he believed the punishments given to the Australians too harsh.
“To be quite honest, I thought it was blown out of proportion.”
“It was quite blatant, yes, and you can’t get away with that. [But] I’ve heard some cricketers say in recent months that at some point in your career, at club level or international level, you’ve tried to get that ball to reverse.”
With regard to Abbott’s words, if ball-tampering is commonly practiced, what made the Australian incident so much worse?
Blatancy. Bancroft was caught red-handed on the big screen shoving the sandpaper in his pants to conceal it, in front of a Cape Town crowd, who of course made a lot of noise when they realized the nature of the footage. The Australians were fully exposed and humiliated in front of the whole cricketing world. Bancroft and Smith both sat vulnerably in front of the media later that day, condemning their indiscretions followed by an apology to the cricketing world. I believe that factors such as the big screen, the previous incidents in the series, the embarrassment of the senior leadership group and the general humiliation it caused to one of the great cricketing nations, allowed the incident to be seen as something bigger and more urgent that it actually was.
Cheating angers me terribly and I hate to see it play out in any situation, however, I believe that incidents such as these must be assessed at face-value, not within its own context. The actions of Smith, Warner and Bancroft must be criticized heavily, however such actions are not uncommon in the game of cricket, hence why the ICC handed out their standard punishments. However, the punishment given by CA meant that Smith, Warner and Bancroft weren’t treated like cricket players, but criminals.
whitebreadnews.wordpress.com 