Old ball tampering is no new thing

The practice of Test cricketers employing methods to alter the exterior condition of the ball to benefit the fielding team stretches back almost as far as the international game itself, which turned 141 this month.

In the days prior to television coverage, photographs reveal the deep crimson residue worn like an honour badge on the creams of foot-weary bowlers who had vigorously buffed the ball to preserve the sheen lost by the constant scraping of its leather on flinty pitches and rivals' willow.

Polishing remains the only action that can be legally performed on the ball without attracting scrutiny from match officials, though there was a time when that privilege was restricted solely to bowlers as they walked back to the top of their marks.

In 1977, England's left-arm seamer John Lever found himself amid a furore during a Test against India at Chennai (then Madras) when he took to wearing gauze tape smeared with petroleum jelly across his forehead, purportedly a means of stopping sweat from running into his eyes.

Suggestions that Lever, who swung the ball violently to claim 10 wickets in the series opener at Calcutta, was smearing the greasy substance on to the ball's surface also saw him become the first subject of a media pile-on over (ultimately unproved) suspicions of 'ball tampering'.

Image Id: B03661563AD84AB186513D526259AAAD Image Caption: John Lever's sweatband // Getty

Through the 1980s, the art of reverse-swing bowling – whereby a worn ball starts to veer counter-intuitively in the direction of the polished side rather than away from it – was the domain of Pakistan pace men such as Imran Khan and Sarfraz Nawaz who then passed it on to younger teammates.

From there, it percolated into England's county game through the regular presence of international players and even (fleetingly) to Australia when Imran spent a famous summer playing with New South Wales.

As Australia's longest-serving Test captain Allan Border, currently in South Africa as a television commentator, noted last weekend the act of altering the integrity of the ball has been a constant since he first played in the 1970s.

"Australia isn't the first country to be drawn into ball-tampering over the years. and you definitely cannot say every era has been squeaky clean," Border wrote in a column published by Fox Sports.

"Look back over the years and players will recall putting (Bryl) cream, lip balm, mints and lollies on the ball to shine up one side and get it to swing more.

"We (Australia) used to try and fiddle with the quarter seam to try and lift it and get the ball to just behave a little bit differently if there was nothing much happening.

"You're always searching for something to go your way.

"It's not as if all of us were squeaky clean as far as this type of thing goes."

But the enduring mystery of getting a cricket ball to 'reverse' – achieved through a fortuitous confluence of manufacturing vagaries, ambient playing conditions and level of deterioration on the ball's surface – has tempted many to try and manufacture the one variable ingredient of that recipe.

That being the speed and extent to which the 'rough' side of the ball is degraded, thereby creating the aeronautics outcomes that see air travelling over the damaged half become disturbed, which in turn pushes the ball in the opposite direction.

And it is the artificial altering of the ball's state that is strictly forbidden under Article 2.2.1 of the ICC's Code of Conduct for Players that explicitly prohibits "applying any artificial substance to the ball; and applying any non-artificial substance for any purpose other than to polish the ball" as well as "scratching the surface of the ball with finger or thumb nails or any implement".

Image Id: 7AF3C7874FB145DC979F30A7DBCFB09E Image Caption: Cameron Bancrot at Newlands // SuperSport

Any breach of that statute is deemed a Level 2 offence – on a par with deliberate time wasting and showing serious dissent at an umpire's decision, but not as grave as threats of assault against fellow players or spectators (Level 3) or any on-field act of physical violence (Level 4).

Which explains why Smith – along with the numerous other Test captains (including current South Africa skipper Faf du Plessis) who have been found guilty of involvement in ball tampering – copped a minimal suspension along with a financial penalty that seemed out of kilter with the accompanying roar of global opprobrium.

The fact that teams continue to seek advantage by surreptitiously changing the nature of the ball despite international matches being scrutinised by unprecedented numbers of television cameras fitted with super zoom and slo-mo technology is that it remains tough to prosecute without definitive evidence.

Or, as was the case with Steve Smith and Cameron Bancroft last weekend, honest confessions.

When India's most beloved cricketer Sachin Tendulkar was found guilty of the crime based on evidence that English match referee Mike Denness gleaned via television footage during a Test in South Africa in 2001, an outraged India appealed and his one-match ban was overturned.

It was deemed that Tendulkar was extracting grass that had lodged within the ball's seam rather than damaging it, and India then mounted a vehement campaign to have Denness removed from his role for the subsequent Test.

Image Id: 90A6FBF24F384C319AC08987FE8A3093 Image Caption: Tendulkar was cleared of tampering // Getty

Pakistan skipper Inzamam ul-Haq bore the heftiest penalty when he was banned for four matches after umpires Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove ruled that his team had altered the ball's condition and demanded it be replaced, with five penalty runs awarded to their opponents, England.

But even then, the severity of that sanction was not a result of the ball-tampering allegation – of which Inzamam was ultimately cleared – but for bringing the game into disrepute after he refused to lead his team back on to the field after the incident, handing England a win by forfeit.

Image Id: E7FFEC52935C4126884071529F0A23BE Image Caption: Darrell Hair chats with Inzamam // Getty

The most brazen act perpetrated on a ball during an international match was by Shahid Afridi in a T20 International against Australia at Perth in 2010, when he jammed it in his mouth and ran his teeth over its surface as if eating an apple, and was resultantly banned for two matches.

The Pakistan all-rounder, then T20 captain, initially claimed he had simply been "trying to smell (the ball) and how it was feeling" although he later recanted and expressed remorse and admitted he had gone the gouge "in the heat of the moment".

That was not the defence(s) employed by Mike Atherton when, in the early blushes of his England captaincy and South Africa's return from international cricket isolation, he was shown taking something from his trousers pocket (dirt, it was later revealed) and rubbing it on the ball.

"I put some dust in my pocket from a used pitch on the Tavern side (at Lord's)," Atherton would note in his later skipper's diary.

"I use the dust to keep my hands and the ball dry three or four times."

Match referee Peter Burge bought the "keep my hands dry" line in a hearing at day's end, but when Atherton later confirmed to team management he had been wiping dirt on the ball – albeit to maintain its dry condition rather than alter it – he was fined £2000 by England management.

And was pursued relentlessly for the remainder of that series by the Fleet Street press.

Image Id: F4B43EE8C94644C1B421D0730554F751 Image Caption: Atherton had dirt in his pocket // Getty

Atherton's semantic defence has also been successfully employed by du Plessis, who has twice been found guilty of altering the ball – firstly in 2013 when he dragged it across the metallic zipper on his trousers pocket, which cost him half his match fee.

And again three years later when he took sugary saliva from his mouth while sucking on a mint to smear on the ball, an act that saw him hand over his entire Test match payment.

"Ball shining versus ball tampering, they're two very different situations," the Proteas captain said yesterday when asked if similarities existed between his misdemeanours and the issue engulfing the Australia team.

"One is definitely much more serious than the other."

The most significant difference with the present controversy seems to be the context in which the infringement has occurred, as revealed by the admissions that came in its wake.

While each of the above charges were (initially, at least) denied and challenged, Smith and Bancroft not only confessed that the ploy was pre-meditated and sanctioned by Australia's 'leadership group' but they detailed the process that involved dirt adhered to sticky tape that was then used to abrade the ball.

Smith went so far as to confirm the intent, which was to hopefully gain his team an advantage by enabling his bowlers to find reverse swing at a time of the game when it had so far eluded them and South Africa's untroubled batters had taken control.

As former England county player turned media cricket analyst Simon Hughes wrote in the UK's The Times today, the effect that applying sandpaper to a pristine cricket ball can produce was tested in a wind tunnel at the University of Bath last year.

"We rubbed sandpaper on one side of a brand new ball for about 30 seconds and mounted it in the tunnel," Hughes wrote.

"At high speed (around 137km/h) it reverse swung prodigiously immediately."

The sight of Australia's fast bowlers gaining extravagant reverse swing with a newish ball earlier in the current series had attracted the interest of ex-South Africa fast bowler Fanie de Villiers.

The Australia captain has emphatically denied his players employed any illegal tactics to alter the ball prior to last Saturday at Newlands, but de Villiers – working as a media commentator at the Test – revealed today that he had alerted camera operators at the ground to be watchful for any suspicious practices.

"I said earlier on, if they can get reverse swing in the 26th, 27th, 28th over then they are doing something different from what everybody else (is),"de Villiers told Melbourne radio station RSN 927 today.

"We actually said to our cameramen, 'Go out, have a look boys, they are using something', if it's possible for the ball to get altered like that on a cricket wicket where we knew there was a grass covering – not a Pakistani wicket where there's cracks every centimetre.

"We're talking about grass-covered wickets where you have to do something else to alter the roughness of the ball on one side.

"They (camera operators) searched for an hour and a half until they saw something, and then they started following Bancroft and they actually caught him out in the end."

Despite being shown on video removing an item from his pocket, rubbing it against the ball, placing it back in his pocket and then – when alerted that he had been sprung – hiding the evidence down his pants, Bancroft received a lighter penalty than Smith after their confessions.

Image Id: DD57AED7BB2449FAAD75C27BB13FCEE2 Image Caption: Bancroft with the tape in hand // SuperSport

In part, that was due to 25-year-old Bancroft's relative inexperience and his preparedness to publicly apologise before the match referee Andy Pycroft's verdict was delivered.

Pycroft also decreed that – upon examination of the ball after Bancroft's subterfuge – no change in its condition could be detected, and therefore it was decided five penalties runs would not be awarded against Australia and the ball would not be replaced.

As a consequence, Bancroft's sanction was based on his intent and actions that "were likely to alter the condition of the ball" but had demonstrably failed to do so.

The reason that Smith attracted a more severe penalty – in addition to being captain overseeing the malfeasance – was that he was charged under a different element of the ICC's Code of Conduct, section 2.2.1 which prohibits "all types of conduct of a serious nature that is contrary to the spirit of the game".

Unlike altering the condition of the ball, actions "contrary to the spirit of the game" are specifically included across all levels of the ICC's code, including level four which carries penalties anywhere from a five-Test suspension to a life ban.

Which, in black and white, confirms there are far more serious offences on cricket's statute books than tampering with the ball.

Qantas tour of South Africa

South Africa squad: Faf du Plessis (c), Hashim Amla, Temba Bavuma, Theunis de Bruyn, Dean Elgar, Heinrich Klaasen, Quinton de Kock, Keshav Maharaj, Aiden Markram, Morne Morkel, Chris Morris, Wiaan Mulder, Lungi Ngidi, Duanne Olivier, Vernon Philander, Kagiso Rabada, AB de Villiers.

Australia squad: Steve Smith (c), David Warner (vc), Cameron Bancroft, Pat Cummins, Peter Handscomb, Josh Hazlewood, Jon Holland, Usman Khawaja, Nathan Lyon, Mitchell Marsh, Shaun Marsh, Tim Paine, Jhye Richardson, Chadd Sayers, Mitchell Starc.

Warm-up match: Australia beat South Africa A by five wickets. Report, highlights

First Test Australia won by 118 runs. Scorecard

Second Test South Africa won by six wickets. Scorecard

Third Test South Africa won by 322 runs. Scorecard

Fourth Test Wanderers, Johannesburg, March 30-April 3. Live coverage