CricAnsys after a gap of 2 months is about to write on the same topic once again. The much criticized, the much publicized, the much moral policed ball tampering saga- which threw Australian cricket out of the track a couple of months back. I wrote a blog on that incident at that time, where I had quite reasonably supported the decision of Cricket Australia, to punish the trio of Bancroft, Smith & Warner, with a year long ban. You can read the detailed blog here.
However, I did not expect, that only a couple of months after the mighty controversy regarding the ball tampering saga, there will be one more international captain, who will dare to try the same thing and hope to get away with it. But, as it was found, that Dinesh Chandimal, the Sri Lankan captain repeated the same offence in the 2nd Test Match vs West Indies, at Gross Islet, St Lucia. On the second day of the Test Match, in the last session, he was found applying some mint along with his saliva on the ball, to retain its shine. That outright breaches ICC code of conduct regarding ball tempering. Hence, rightly so, Chandimal was accused by the on field umpires and match referee Mr Javagal Srinath, at the conclusion of third day's play.
Was Smith's Crime more serious than Chandimal's?
Contrary to public perception, I would say yes. Smith's crime was indeed more serious than Chandimal's. Its one thing to tamper the cricket ball using minted saliva (mind it only shining cricket balls with only saliva is absolutely permitted) and its completely another thing to make a team meeting in the dressing room and strategically deciding to tamper the ball by using a sandpaper- consider the fact that the junior most member of the squad was allocated to tamper the ball, as he was least likely to be followed on camera. That is organized crime. That is unpardonable offence! So, experts who are sympathizing with Smith & Warner, post the Dinesh Chandimal debacle, I vehemently disagree with them.
Where did Chandimal's Crime become Serious?
But speaking along the lines of the above point, do we choose to ignore Chandimal's ball tampering incident as something that may happen in the hit of the moment? No. Of course, Chandimal did not take the lines of Smith, Warner & Co. to strategically tamper the condition of the ball, but what the Sri Lankan Team management did as an aftermath of ball tampering accusation, equally hampered the spirit of the game. On the 4th day of the Test match, the Sri Lankan team refused to take field in the morning session, because their captain was accused of ball tampering by the umpires and the match referee. That was, what, in my opinion, was a greater offense to the game of cricket, than the ball tampering carried out by Chandimal, on the second day, last session of the match. If strategising ball tampering as a part of team management's plan by the Aussies, is a disgrace to the game of cricket, not taking the field and wasting playtime because of inability to accept match referee's decision, is something that's outright embarrassing and reprimands the spirit of the game, big time. Sri Lanka needed a level headed personality at that moment, in the dressing room, ideally the coach, who would have steadied his nerves and convinced the players to take the field, and go about their objection to match referee's decision in a much more organized and constitutional way, after the completion of the match.
Hence, to me, the rising controversy over Dinesh Chandimal over this ball tampering issue, is not so much about ball tampering, but more about the immature way, in which he and the rest of the Lankan team, responded to the situation, stalling the game in the process.
Did Dinesh Chandimal deserve a one year ban?
Yes. he did. If you are immature enough to keep your players in the dressing room and hold up the game, just because match referee called your action, then you have been selfish and have hampered the spirit of the game, in the truest sense of the term. to me, this gesture was no less shameful than the act of Smith & Warner. However, in case of Smith & Warner, it was Cricket Australia (not ICC), who banned them from cricket for the upcoming 1 year. Should SLC have taken a similar step? Yes. They should have definitely taken a step in the direction of Cricket Australia.But then why did SLC refrain from doing so?
My perception is that, with the present condition of the Sri Lankan cricket team, they could not afford to lose Chandimal for one whole year. The Lankan cricket is already in shambles and the only consistent Test batsman, who is showing some intent against international sides, is Chandimal himself. The island nation simply cannot lose Dinesh, with the batting line up of the team still in transition phase, after the retirement of the stalwarts. To me, that is the only possible reason, why SLC is not imposing some additional suspension on Dinesh, except what the ICC is imposing on him.
What does the future hold for ball tampering offenders?
ICC is looking to be stricter in their approach to ball tampering and its rumored that ICC will enhance the maximum punishment for ball tampering (which is one match suspension now) by upgrading the offence of ,changing the condition of the ball, as a Level 3 offence (Level 2 offence, as per present laws). However, I may be just getting controversial out here, but with every rule of the game heavily poised in favor of the batsmen, ICC should permit this application of mint mixed with saliva, and not count it as ball tampering. Altering the physical shape of the ball with sandpaper and stuff should of course be punishable, but , since saliva is permitted to be used to shine the ball, saliva along with certain chew-able substances, should be something, ICC should be okay with. Otherwise, the even contest between bat & ball, that makes the game of cricket so riveting, dies out and that is simply not what ICC is in favor of doing for sure.
Comments
Post a Comment