Cricketing conflicts

Smith and Warner have been banned for a year each and Bancroft for nine months, but it is not clear why the Australians chose to indulge in the heinous act when the series was so well posed at 1-1, having won the first Test so comfortably. In the end, the record book only shows that they lost the four-Test series 1-3. They were outplayed physically and outwitted mentally after the Cape Town incident.

The trio received in equal measure opprobrium, mostly from former cricketers, and sympathy from the current lot of international cricketers. Some rightly argued that the crime perpetrated by the Australians was nothing new, it is just that they were caught on the camera by an alert lensman. As Bancroft admitted, he panicked and lied.

For bowlers, fiddling with a cricket ball is, perhaps, the oldest business. Most of them got away when it was not easy to track them down red-handed and some top pacers boasted of the art in scuffing the ball after their playing days were over, only to sell their authorised biographies by making it sound sensational. Many cricketers felt that since Smith had admitted his wrongdoing the crime should be viewed sympathetically, while some others looked at it as purely on moral grounds and sought more severe punishment.

When Australia play, they tend to get aggressive, verbal spats matching their on-field showing, more so when they take on England and South Africa. Even before Bancroft was caught with the sandpaper in his pocket and then trying to shove it in his underwear, the Australians were put on the defensive by the South Africans using some choicest epithets, leading to their match-winning fast bowler Kagiso Rabada getting a two-match suspension for shoving into Smith only to be overturned on appeal. Soon, things got out of hand and Smith slowly started losing control of his team and compounded his mistakes by some thoughtless moves. The series was over at Cape Town as the Australians were just going through the motions in the fourth and the last Test to be beaten by a massive 492 runs to present the South Africans their first series victory at home since 1970.

Ironically, South Africa captain Faf du Plessis was caught twice for ball-tampering, once using the mint saliva in Australia two years ago and three years before that shining the ball on the zip in the series against Pakistan. Another captain who was found taking dirt from his pocket to shine the ball, Michael Atherton, strangely sees what the Australians did is premeditated and deliberate whereas, by inference, his act was done at the spur of the moment. Atherton, who was just fined for his 1994 code violation, refused to quit as captain just as Smith said he would not resign; however, he made a valid point by asking whether ball-tampering is such a major cricketing sin.

"It has gone on since the year dot...The level of moral indignation is always slightly out of kilter with the offence. If the condition of the ball is changed, you get a five-run penalty and change the ball. That hardly sends the message that this is a heinous crime. The (International Cricket Council) code of conduct has four levels and this is level two. If the game thinks ball-tampering is a very serious offence, give it a level four," he said.

ICC chairman Shashank Manohar has predictably constituted yet another committee, this time of former players with an impeccable reputation, to recommend punitive measures which should deter players from indulging in such malpractices. This is typical of the authority to buy time by constituting a panel of so-called experts. Can Shashank tell us what the ICC's cricket committee is there for or what do the captains of Test playing nations discuss at their annual meetings? They are supposed to discuss the image of the game, the volume of international cricket played, illegal bowling actions, playing conditions and the implementation of anti-corruption measures. What is left to be discussed for the new committee? Who in Manohar's view are the former players who are above reproach? He names Allan Border, Anil Kumble, Shaun Pollock, Mahela Jayawardene and Richie Richardson provided they are interested in taking up the job.

It is the Cricket Committee which has put the Code of Conduct for players, the level of offences and the punishment. Won't the new Super Committee make the existing cricket panel redundant?