Eight Day Statute of Limitations on Ball Tampering?

[Junaids]

I don't see how the ICC can be serious about eliminating ball tampering.

FAF du Plessis was put on trial at a hearing yesterday for an offence committed seven days earlier, after the ICC laid charges.

In Du Plessis' defence, his legal team showed evidence of India skipper Virat Kohli tampering with the ball in identical fashion last week at Nagpur. The ICC declined to lay charges on the basis that the offence took place nine days earlier.

There are only two options here.

EITHER

1. There is an unpublished 8 day statute of limitations on ball tampering charges,

OR

2. There is preferential treatment for India (which I am sure is not the case).

The problem is, captains get banned for trivial offences like a slow over rate, yet two of the highest profile skippers in world cricket have clearly been caught tampering with the ball yet no significant punishment is applied.

Ball tampering may be universal, and widely ignored, but people used to say that about drug use in cycling and athletics.

The problem is that if there is no deterrent, clean players are always outperformed by cheats, and only cheats prosper.

Has the ICC got any intention at all of applying its own rules? And, if so, is India exempt?

 

[Buffet]

Has the ICC got any intention at all of applying its own rules? And, if so, is India exempt?

It's not about India or Faf. I would like ICC to review every single ball in the last one year and start handing out suspension for using saliva when chewing gum, candy or using hair gel. Then continue reviewing every ball for suspension in future.

Using it selectively for Faf or anyone due to media is non-sense. Do it for everyone and do it consistently as a process if ICC is serious about it.

 

[Junaids]

It's not about India or Faf. I would like ICC to review every single ball in the last one year and start handing out suspension for using saliva when chewing gum, candy or using hair gel. Then continue reviewing every ball for suspension in future.

Using it selectively for Faf or anyone due to media is non-sense. Do it for everyone and do it consistently as a process if ICC is serious about it.

Footballers assault each other in off-the-ball incidents all the time.

And they only get punished if the referee or the TV cameras catch them.

Why would cricket be any different? If the umpires or TV cameras catch an offence, how can it then just be ignored?

 

[Chief Destroyer]

You can keep whining about ball tampering. It's not going anywhere. There are unwritten rules for ball 'preparation' that are well accepted within the cricketing circle. That's why you never see the players or teams complaining because they are guilty themselves. It's always the media. This time around Channel Nine had to create a controversy to divert attention from the thrashing Australia just received.

Paraphrasing Ganguly speaking on Faf's case: it's not the first time and won't be the last time, as long as you don't make it blatantly obvious, no one will care.

Gillespie: Too much being made of Du Plessis episode.

No one from team Australia complained, not even the coach.

During the zipper episode, no one from team Pakistan complained despite it being so blatantly obvious. They probably laughed at how stupid SA's tactics were.

 

[Buffet]

Footballers assault each other in off-the-ball incidents all the time.

And they only get punished if the referee or the TV cameras catch them.

Why would cricket be any different? If the umpires or TV cameras catch an offence, how can it then just be ignored?

TV cameras does catch many and I just suggesting that don't start this only when media complains. Just review every single ball using TV cameras and start suspending players. Eng was so blatant with jelly beans and all we saw was laugh. Why not be consistent in suspending players? TV cameras will catch lots of players and that's what I was asking.

Aus team didn't complain here because using saliva is done by several Aus players.

 

[Junaids]

You can keep whining about ball tampering. It's not going anywhere. There are unwritten rules for ball 'preparation' that are well accepted within the cricketing circle. That's why you never see the players or teams complaining because they are guilty themselves. It's always the media. This time around Channel Nine had to create a controversy to divert attention from the thrashing Australia just received.

Paraphrasing Ganguly speaking on Faf's case: it's not the first time and won't be the last time, as long as you don't make it blatantly obvious, no one will care.

Gillespie: Too much being made of Du Plessis episode.

No one from team Australia complained, not even the coach.

During the zipper episode, no one from team Pakistan complained despite it being so blatantly obvious. They probably laughed at how stupid SA's tactics were.

Gillespie of course is one of the former beneficiaries of it.

Rules should be rules.

If cricket needs a more prominent seam on the ball, then design balls with more prominent seams.

If cricket would benefit from reverse swing, then put more coatings of varnish on one side of the ball than the other so it is available to everyone and the best reverse swingers will do best with nobody being disadvantaged.

There are ways to have bowlers in the game which don't involve ignoring cheating.

 

[Major]

You can keep whining about ball tampering. It's not going anywhere. There are unwritten rules for ball 'preparation' that are well accepted within the cricketing circle. That's why you never see the players or teams complaining because they are guilty themselves. It's always the media. This time around Channel Nine had to create a controversy to divert attention from the thrashing Australia just received.

Paraphrasing Ganguly speaking on Faf's case: it's not the first time and won't be the last time, as long as you don't make it blatantly obvious, no one will care.

Gillespie: Too much being made of Du Plessis episode.

No one from team Australia complained, not even the coach.

During the zipper episode, no one from team Pakistan complained despite it being so blatantly obvious. They probably laughed at how stupid SA's tactics were.

good post. i absolutely agree with this

 

[Convict]

Odd defence giving respected 100 test veteran Hashim Amla's spiel a few days earlier

 

[ShoonyaSifar]

Enjoying this whinging from these Poms after getting thrashed fair and square.

Also a bit rich coming from OP who keeps defending one match fixer after another clutching at straws and invoking unrelated news stories!

 

[OS_89]

I don't see how the ICC can be serious about eliminating ball tampering.

FAF du Plessis was put on trial at a hearing yesterday for an offence committed seven days earlier, after the ICC laid charges.

In Du Plessis' defence, his legal team showed evidence of India skipper Virat Kohli tampering with the ball in identical fashion last week at Nagpur. The ICC declined to lay charges on the basis that the offence took place nine days earlier.

There are only two options here.

EITHER

1. There is an unpublished 8 day statute of limitations on ball tampering charges,

OR

2. There is preferential treatment for India (which I am sure is not the case).

It's not unpublished. It's in the icc code of conduct :

Clause 3.2.2 of the ICC Code of Conduct says:

"Where the Report is lodged by the individual described in Article 3.1.3 [the ICC CEO] in relation to:
3.2.2.1 a Level 1 Offence or a Level 2 Offence that is alleged to have been committed at any time or place (whether on the field of play or otherwise), then the Report must be lodged with the Match Referee (or, where, for logistical reasons, it is impractical to lodge with the Match Referee, the ICC's Cricket Operations Department) within five (5) days of the commission of the alleged offence"

 

[Junaids]

Enjoying this whinging from these Poms after getting thrashed fair and square.

Also a bit rich coming from OP who keeps defending one match fixer after another clutching at straws and invoking unrelated news stories!

No I don't: I supported the five year bans.

I just didn't support the De facto extension of those bans afterwards.

 

[Sidilicious]

It's a ridiculous rule, making a mockery of the whole thing.

Firstly, as long as people are not blatantly tampering with sandpaper or other external substances, it's fine.
Secondly, a bit of tolerance for using saliva and substances in the saliva shouldn't be a big deal. If you can't implement it properly, why have it as a rule.y