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

Arthur Crabtree wrote: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.

I agree.

But wouldn't an immediate 5 run penalty and ball-change be an indication of actual tampering, and a warning be for what (I assume) we view as the lesser "evil"?

It's a very grey area, just where and when an ump says too many players are returning on the bounce. What if there is a team of Phil Tufnells (heaven forbid)?

As I've said earlier up this page, I don't see any good argument against being allowed to return the ball any way you fancy. As long as it isn't bouncing on the pitch.

I'm pretty sure that after that Pakistan game, the five run penalty got removed from the game. Now the umpire changes the ball and mentions the incident in the match report.

quoting myself from the Sheffield Shield page:

GarlicJam wrote:

cricketfan90 wrote:Botha suspended for one game.

I was curious what it was for - he pleaded guilty to "repeated inappropriate conduct relating to the condition of the match ball". He was also reprimanded for using obscene, offensiveor insulting language.

While he pled (that should be a word) guilty, he disputed the penalty - seems lenient to me - and has 48 hours to appeal. (SA plays Tas in Bellerive last round).

The article maes no mention of if it was Botha doing the altering, or if he is copping the captain's punishment for a team action. I will need to explore further.

This sort of stuff seems to be increasingly kept in house. In the UK, the press really doesn't question anything, in case they get frozen out by the ECB in respect to stories and leaks, so no one investigates stuff.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:This sort of stuff seems to be increasingly kept in house. In the UK, the press really doesn't question anything, in case they get frozen out by the ECB in respect to stories and leaks, so no one investigates stuff.

I had just come onto this thread to whinge about how secretive cricket is about anything untoward.

It is like "if we ignore it/don't tell anyone about it, we can pretend our great game is still unsullied".

A few articles I have looked at say little more than what I posted above, except to say it stemmed from an incident during NSW's first innings.

However, the SBS website tells us:

The charge is believed to relate to Botha's actions after taking a second new ball in NSW's second innings.

He is believed to have used spikes on his shoes to tamper with the old ball, which he then threw away.

Botha declined to speak to media after SA came within one NSW wicket of winning and securing their spot in the Shield final, but coach Darren Berry said the captain was "emotional" in the changing rooms.

The Blues' last three tailenders survived almost 20 overs and NSW were nine wickets down at stumps.

Still a little confusing - did he tamper with the old ball after the new ball had been taken?here
Assuming that this is true - and I feel confident about the general quality of SBS's reporting/journalism - the context of the incident is very interesting.

South Australia have had a very lean run in Sheffield Shield for a couple of decades (Botha was brought in to try to correct this), and have a real chance of appearing in, even hosting, the final for the first time in (possibly) 18 years. During the closing stages of the match (when SBS say the incident occured), they were pushing heavily for a win that would have almost guarranteed them a spot in the final.

This makes Botha's actions that much more serious, imo. The man has admitted to the crime, merely disputes the penalty. So do I! I think one match is incredibly lenient

Then again, I AM biased against Botha - I don't think that he should be allowed to be playing cricket at all. I think he has the dodgiest of bowling actions going around. I hear MM has said that Botha chucks.....

lol to the last sentence!

Someone in the Guardian btl, likened cricket reporting in England to political writing in the middle east, in that the opinion can only be implied, and the journo atl posted that he agreed!

I think it comes from football over here where critical journos can be barred from briefings, and even from attending games.

didn't get you second last post, AC - the btl and atl confused me.

Maybe that's just a Guardian thing then. ATL, above the line- the article. BTL, below the line- the comments.

the line being implied, or the one between article and reader comments. Or something else?

I suppose it's an actual line separating the article from the readers' comments.