Rahul Dravid is guilty of two things. Getting some portion of a sticky sweet he had in his mouth onto the ball is the first, and less problematical - at least, unless and until some expert in aerodynamics comes along to show how the practice aids reverse swing.
The second - and to my mind, worse - crime is that when he found the sticky stuff on the ball, he worked laboriously to get it off. They say those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it; in this case, the Indian vice captain had apparently learnt nothing from the notorious incident in course of India's last tour of South Africa, wherein Sachin Tendulkar was found guilty of ball tampering.
On that occasion, he said grass had clogged the seam, and that he was using his fingernails to clear it.
| |||||||||||
But that is pretty much all that Dravid did, and was found guilty of. But was it ball tampering?
By definition, yes. Ball tampering in context means altering the natural state of the ball. Getting some foreign substance onto the ball alters it; so does trying to get said substance off.
The spirit of the law, though, refers to attempts to so alter the condition of the ball that the altered ball provides a facility for the bowler - swing, reverse, whatever - that the ball in its natural state would not have done.
Anyone want to argue a case for spit stained with the last sliver of a boiled sweat as a fast bowler's weapon?
A quick scan of the ICC rules governing one day matches gives you this:
5.1 Law 5.2 - Approval and control of balls
Law 5.2 shall be replaced by the following:
The Home Board shall provide cricket balls of an approved standard for ODI cricket and spare used balls for changing during a match, which shall also be of the same brand. The fielding captain or his nominee may select the ball with which he wishes to bowl from the supply provided by the Home Board. The fourth umpire shall take a box containing at least 6 new balls to the dressing room and supervise the selection of the ball.
STANDARD ODI PLAYING CONDITIONS
The umpires shall retain possession of the match ball(s) throughout the duration of the match when play is not actually taking place. During play umpires shall periodically and irregularly inspect the condition of the ball and shall retain possession of it at the fall of a wicket, a drinks interval, or any other disruption in play.Where day/night matches are scheduled in a series white balls will be used in all matches (including day matches). Each fielding team shall have one new ball for its innings.
42 Law 42 - Fair and Unfair Play
42.1 Law 42.3 - The Match Ball - changing its condition
Law 42.3 shall apply,subject to the following:
42.1.1 Law 42.3 (e) (ii) shall be replaced with the following: a) Inform the captain of the fielding side of the reason for the action taken.
42.1.2 And in addition to Law 42.3:
a) The umpires shall report the incident to the ICC Match Referee under the ICC Code of Conduct.
b) In the event that a ball has been interfered with and requires replacement the batsman at the wicket shall choose the replacement ball from a selection of six other balls of various degrees of usage (including a new ball) and of the same brand as the ball in use prior to the contravention.
Note the salient points of those two laws. (1) The umpires on the field shall retain possession of the match ball whenever it is not in actual play (and that includes in between overs). (2) The umpires shall periodically, even irregularly, inspect the condition of the ball. (3) In the event the ball is found to be tampered with, the umpires shall report it to the match referee, and also replace the ball with one of the batsman's choice.
In the game in question, as in all ODI games, the umpires had possession of the match ball between overs, during drinks, and such. The umpires inspected the ball at intervals - unless it is anyone's contention that they were negligent in that duty, in which case the match referee needs to say so. Assuming the ball was inspected regularly, the umpires obviously saw no sign of any alteration of the state of the ball, sufficient to merit a change of ball and a report to the match referee.
Bottom line, then, is that Dravid contravened the rules as they are written, but his contravention was clearly without any ulterior motive, or any significant impact. Sort of like accidental death versus murder in the first degree, for all you fans of Court TV.
The act, however innocent, merited punishment, and that punishment has been handed out. So could we all let it rest, please?
Australia versus India is building into a nice little rivalry, at a time when there isn't any real excitement in the world of cricket. It is filling stadia from Mumbai to Melbourne, it is producing electrifying cricket from both sides - and, most significantly, it is creating in each country fans for the opposition team.
Indians, thus, farewelled Steve Waugh with the same fervor as the Australians did during the Test series just ended; Australians have been increasingly vocal about their admiration for India's star batsmen.
It's a healthy trend, and doesn't deserve to be ruined on the altar of sensationalism. While browsing the web this morning, I came across this article - and in it, these lines:
"For several weeks Australian players have been wondering why some of the Indian bowlers have been able to get the old ball to swing so much.
Perhaps we now have the answer. Even if we don't you cannot be blamed for asking the question."
Can we please not go there?
If Dravid tampered with the ball with clearly ulterior motives, then let's have the match referee say so, straight out; let's have the on field umpires tell us what they thought, explain at what stage the ball was tampered with (and why, despite clear rules, they did not think it necessary to change the ball). Let's then visit exemplary punishment on the Indian vice captain.
But if his crime was not that serious, then let's cut the BS, avoid the innuendos, and move on. Sticky sweat on the ball no more explains how Indian bowlers have been getting the old ball to swing, than a running repair to the Melbourne Cricket Ground pitch in mid-game explains how the Australians, then trailing by one Test, came back to square the series.
The two teams appear to have a good thing going; in course of the ongoing series, much of the earlier heartburn has been erased, and replaced with mutual respect - a feeling that seems to be percolating to the fans as well.
Who needs a return to the old, needless, antagonism and mutual suspicion?
