Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Thanks, Mike.

I don't see why fielders shouldn't seek to allow the ball to deteriorate naturally, by enhancing the normal means by which a cricket ball deteriorates anyway. So throwing in on the bounce should be fine. This should be a legitimate tactic of getting the ball quickly to the keeper anyway. If the umpire can stop you from doing that, should he be able to stop you from bowling cross seam? Of course not.

Same with sweets. It is perfectly legitimate for someone to stop their mouth from getting dry, so can we stop players from chewing sweets?

It's difficult to find a constant logic in this issue. Some is traditionally allowed, some isn't. For instance, if we can seek to help the ball age, why can't we create rough patches in our follow through and get to a day five pitch quicker? Or why not bounce the ball on a length in returning to the keeper. Some of it will be accepted practice.

I suspect some of these grey areas have been left in the assumption, or hope that players will not blatantly cheat. Maybe we need clearer rules about what can and can't be done. But for me, if a player is prepping the ball by means that happen naturally within the game, like throwing on the bounce, this absolutely should be allowed.

I think someone said above that the weight of the ball doesn't change, but with reverse swing, the weight does change. One side is kept very dry, and the other side is made heavier with spit (and here is where the sugary spit comes in). So one side, the dull side is heavy and the other side, the shiny side is a normal weight. Whereas conventionally the ball swings away from the shiny side, towards the rough side, with reverse, it swings towards the shiny side. But this isn't because either side is shiny, but because one side is heavier. So it swings away from the heavier side to the lighter side. The fact that one side is shiny is incidental, the important aspect of the shiny side is that it is lighter.

I can't justify this scientifically, and I'm happy to be told this is rubbish. It's just what i understood happened with reverse swing.

don't know if this is just completely stupid and i'm too tired to think straight but when they bowl cross seam or bounce it in to the keeper isn't there as much chance they gonna rough up the side they want to keep shiny anyway ?

Yes, but one side they will restore, and the other side they will let go and load up with sugary spit. You hear about Cook's hands being dry. They don't want any moisture to get onto the dry side. An article on cricinfo suggests he has a long shirt sleeve, with a hole for his thumb in it, and he holds the ball in this long sleeve, so he doesn't touch the ball with his hand. Never heard that before.

rich1uk wrote:don't know if this is just completely stupid and i'm too tired to think straight but when they bowl cross seam or bounce it in to the keeper isn't there as much chance they gonna rough up the side they want to keep shiny anyway ?

Arthur Crabtree wrote:I think someone said above that the weight of the ball doesn't change, but with reverse swing, the weight does change. One side is kept very dry, and the other side is made heavier with spit (and here is where the sugary spit comes in). So one side, the dull side is heavy and the other side, the shiny side is a normal weight. Whereas conventionally the ball swings away from the shiny side, towards the rough side, with reverse, it swings towards the shiny side. But this isn't because either side is shiny, but because one side is heavier. So it swings away from the heavier side to the lighter side. The fact that one side is shiny is incidental, the important aspect of the shiny side is that it is lighter.

I can't justify this scientifically, and I'm happy to be told this is rubbish. It's just what i understood happened with reverse swing.

Have a look at this thread, AC:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2311

"Imran damaged Pakistan cricket by encouraging our bowlers to tamper with the ball. This has led to a culture where we can't produce good new ball bowlers or quality openers," the 46-year-old former opener told a news channel.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/spor ... 618585.cms

Just came across this Simon Hughes article in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricke ... legal.html

DuPlessis has been fined for ball tampering. 5 runs penalty and the fine is very less.

absolute joke!!

'A cloud of suspicion hung over the England team after umpire Marais Erasmus changed the ball due to "unnatural deterioration" during the West Indies innings in the third ODI. Erasmus, clearly suspecting that the wear to the ball was due to factors beyond those expected when it is used on an abrasive pitch or hit to the boundary, exchanged strong words with the England captain, Stuart Broad, in the 35th over but did not identify any specific culprit. The match referee, Andy Pycroft, confirmed to ESPNcricinfo that the ball had been changed on the basis of playing regulation 42.1.2 - which comes under 'Fair and unfair play' - and that, as captain, Broad had been issued with a first and final warning that any further occurrence in the series would result in a five-run penalty and the reporting of Broad, as captain, to the ICC. As the series has now ended, that threat of penalty has disappeared.'

http://www.espncricinfo.com/west-indies ... 25783.html

Has there been an increase in attempts to change the state of the ball lately, or has there merely been an increase in umpire awareness and actions?

I think we should know if the ball is being changed because of what we think of as ball tampering, or if the umpires don't like the ball thrown in on the bounce, or banged into the pitch cross seam. These feel like very different things.