St Lucia v Cape Town: how they compare

For the second time this year, a Test captain has been suspended by the International Cricket Council for his role in a ball-tampering scandal.

But while Australian Steve Smith is currently serving a 12-month ban, his Sri Lankan counterpart Dinesh Chandimal has been suspended for just one match, although that ban could be extended significantly following a fresh charge that was laid overnight.

We've taken a closer look at the ICC's Code of Conduct and broken down the differences between the two incidents, and explained what's likely to come.

What were Steve Smith, Cameron Bancroft and David Warner charged with by the ICC?

Let's rewind to March 25 this year and take a closer look at the sanctions the ICC handed down following the Australian ball-tampering controversy in Cape Town.

Smith and Bancroft were both charged, but their respective charges were for separate breaches of the ICC's Code of Conduct and their punishments were different.

Smith was charged with a Level Two breach of the Code, specifically Article 2.2.1, which prohibits "all types of conduct of a serious nature that is contrary to the spirit of the game".

While Smith himself did not tamper with the ball (and was not charged by the ICC with ball tampering), the game's governing body ruled that "as captain, (he) must take full responsibility for the actions of his players".

He accepted a sanction of two suspension points, which is equal to a one-match ban, meaning he would miss the fourth Test in Johannesburg. He was also fined 100 per cent of his match fee, and four demerit points were added to his record.

Bancroft was also charged with a Level Two breach of the code, but of Article 2.2.9, which relates to "changing the condition of the ball".

He also accepted his sanction, which was a fine of 75 per cent of his match fee and three demerit points to his record, but the ICC did not ban him for the Johannesburg Test.

Warner was not charged at all by the ICC and was given no punishment by them. While CA later banned Warner for being involved in the plan to tamper with the ball, there is no provision in the ICC’s Code to charge a player who has been complicit in a plan to breach the code without breaching it themselves.

So why did the three Australians get such lengthy bans?

Completely separate to the ICC's rulings above were the punishments imposed by other governing bodies.

Cricket Australia made the decision to hand down their own punishments to Smith, Warner and Bancroft; Smith and Warner were banned from international and Australian domestic cricket for a year, while Bancroft was outed for nine months.

In addition to the CA punishments, Smith and Warner had their Indian Premier League contracts torn up by the Board of Control for Cricket in India, while English county side Somerset did the same to Bancroft's deal with them for the 2018 season.

What has Dinesh Chandimal been charged with?

The Sri Lankan captain has been charged with two separate breaches of the ICC’s code.

Like Bancroft, Chandimal has been charged with a Level 2 breach of the Code for "changing the condition of the ball".

But his punishment for this offence is greater than what was handed to Bancroft; Chandimal has copped two suspension points – which equals a one-match ban – plus a fine of 100 per cent of his match fee, compared to a 75 per cent fine and the lesser charge of three demerit points handed to the Australian.

Chandimal and Bancroft were charged with the same breach of the code - why were their punishments different?

In the wake of the Cape Town saga, the ICC flagged their plan to beef up punishments for ball tampering and other offences to encourage better player behaviour.

The current code only allows for a maximum of a Level Two breach for altering the condition of the ball, while other offences can be rated as high as a Level Four.

And, on Tuesday, ICC boss Dave Richardson again flagged their plan to upgrade such an offence from Level Two to Level Three.

"The strong message from last month’s ICC Cricket Committee was that there needs to be stiffer sanctions for offences such as changing the condition of the ball," Richardson said.

While these harsher penalties are yet to officially introduced, the ICC have signalled their intent by giving Chandimal "the maximum punishment available under the (current) code", that being a one-match ban.

Another difference between the two cases is that Bancroft admitted to the offence, while Chandimal pleaded not guilty.

In punishing Bancroft in March, ICC match referee Andy Pycroft said: "I acknowledge that Cameron has accepted responsibility for his actions by pleading guilty to the charge and apologising publicly”.

In contrast, match referee Javagal Srinath said on Tuesday that Chandimal’s defence – that he didn’t remember what he put in his mouth before applying saliva to the ball – was “unconvincing”.

What else has Chandimal been charged with?

In addition to his charge and ban for ball-tampering, Chandimal has been charged with a Level Three breach (Article 2.3.1) regarding "conduct of a serious nature that is contrary to the spirit of the game". This is a similar charge to the one handed to Smith, but Chandimal was hit with a Level Three breach compared to a Level Two that was handed to Smith.

But this breach is not for what Chandimal was ruled to have done to the ball; it's for his team's refusal to take the field of play after they learned of the ball-tampering allegations against them.

Chandimal, coach Chandika Hathurusinghe and manager Asanka Gurusinha have all been charged with a Level Three breach and will face further suspensions if found guilty.

This is similar to the Pakistan ball-tampering incident against England in 2006; Pakistan skipper Inzamam-ul-Haq was cleared of ball-tampering, but copped a ban for four ODIs for leading his team off the field in protest at the umpire's claims of ball tampering.

What happens now?

The Sri Lankan trio are yet to respond to their Level Three charges for contrary conduct.

If any of the trio plead not guilty or opt to challenge the sanctions, the matter will be heard by an independent Judicial Commissioner from the ICC's Code of Conduct Commission, similar to when South African Kagiso Rabada appealed his two-match ban earlier this year.