[VIDEO/PICTURES] ICC rejects ball-tampering investigation against India captain Virat Kohli

[SL_Fan]

UDPATE: Meanwhile, ICC has rejected any ball-tampering investigation against the Indian skipper. The ICC reportedly denied investigation as Kohli’s video was nine-day old, hence no action could be taken.

Source: http://www.financialexpress.com/spo...mpering-icc-rejects-probe-watch-video/452590/

Link

Adelaide - As South Africa’s captain, Faf du Plessis, is set to undergo an official hearing relating to a ball-tampering charge in Adelaide this morning, footage has emerged of Indian captain Virat Kohli shining the ball in a similar manner during the first Test against England in Rajkot this week.

Du Plessis has been charged for breaching Article 2.2.9 of the ICC Code of Conduct after television footage appeared to show him applying an artificial substance - the sugar of a mint sweet - to the ball during the fourth day’s play in the second Test against Australia in Hobart.

The case against Du Plessis is consequential considering that, if found guilty of a Level 2 offence, the South African skipper may miss the third Test at the Adelaide Oval on Thursday.

However, the charge against Du Plessis has placed the global regulations of the ICC under the spotlight due to video footage of India captain Virat Kohli shining the ball in exactly the same manner during the first Test against England.

The television footage shows Kohli taking his right hand towards his mouth, inside which a sweet is seen, and rubbing his fingers in his mouth, before going back to shining one side of the ball.

Like Du Plessis at Hobart, neither the umpires nor the match referee cited the Indian skipper despite the footage being available. But unlike Du Plessis, Kohli has not been charged by the ICC.

<blockquote class="twitter-video" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Video: Ball tempering by Indian Captain Virat Kohli during match against England <a href="https://t.co/tWgmzu0c5W">pic.twitter.com/tWgmzu0c5W</a></p>— JAAG TV (@JaagAlerts) <a href="https://twitter.com/JaagAlerts/status/801011370040954884">November 22, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[kingusama92]

100% match fine coming up?

 

[Ozymandiasza]

)

Nothing will come of this. He's cricket and India's favourite son.

 

[AamchiMumbaikar]

should be banned. His chewing gum tampering has inflicted a loss for England in that Rajkot test

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Ashwin got a 5fer because of this.

 

[Hawkeye]

Faf's fine and accusation is a FARCE.

So is Kohli's.

Cricketers on field do this ALL THE TIME to the ball, it's NOTHING new. It has made it look like Aus needed a reason to "justify" their horrendous show against SA.

A total farce and an embarrassment for the game.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

Faf's fine and accusation is a FARCE.

So is Kohli's.

Cricketers on field do this ALL THE TIME to the ball, it's NOTHING new. It has made it look like Aus needed a reason to "justify" their horrendous show against SA.

A total farce and an embarrassment for the game.

If only Channel 9 was on the job, I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of this /s

 

[JattMaula]

Ban this cheater!

 

[Suleiman]

Knew there was something fishy behind this guy scoring 167 against Anderson and co who owned him in England.

How deep does the rabbit hole go...?

 

[Amjid Javed]

Shocking if Kohli is resorting to same poor tactics with ball like Faf!

 

[JattMaula]

How deep does the rabbit hole go...?

BCCI is pretty shady, I wouldn't be surprised if the rabbit hole gone to the centre of earth.

 

[jeetu]

Things would take interesting turn if more media sources picks it up.

 

[JaDed]

Sad,think ICC should actually ban all sweet substance from the field no other go.

 

[Varun]

As if our 'fast' bowlers are any better with a sweetened ball anyway.

 

[Pantani]

The South African overreaction to this continues to confound me. Going as far as pointing fingers at others to excuse Faf's breaking the laws?

The incredible level of defensiveness makes me more and more convinced that there's some dirt lurking deep in the culture of the South African team.

100% match fine coming up?

It's a first offence so it'll only be 50% max

 

[Indiafan]

Knew there was something fishy behind this guy scoring 167 against Anderson and co who owned him in England.

How deep does the rabbit hole go...?

Don't forget the 81 on a difficult 3rd inning pitch. You thought it was sheer talent but it was sweets all the time!

 

[Indiafan]

As if our 'fast' bowlers are any better with a sweetened ball anyway.

Shami was reversing with a 10 over ball BTW. And yes, both Shami and Yadav bowled best when ball was reversing

 

[Indiafan]

Knew there was something fishy behind this guy scoring 167 against Anderson and co who owned him in England.

How deep does the rabbit hole go...?

Don't forget the 81 on a difficult 3rd inning pitch. You thought it was sheer talent but it was sweets all the time!

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

Knew there was something fishy behind this guy scoring 167 against Anderson and co who owned him in England.

How deep does the rabbit hole go...?

Spoke like a true Indian

Diverting attention away from topic

 

[Convict]

The South African overreaction to this continues to confound me. Going as far as pointing fingers at others to excuse Faf's breaking the laws?

The incredible level of defensiveness makes me more and more convinced that there's some dirt lurking deep in the culture of the South African team.



It's a first offence so it'll only be 50% max

Remember what Clarke sledged them about that was so personal and insulting?

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Meanwhile, ICC has rejected any ball-tampering investigation against the Indian skipper. The ICC reportedly denied investigation as Kohli’s video was nine-day old, hence no action could be taken.

http://www.financialexpress.com/spo...mpering-icc-rejects-probe-watch-video/452590/

 

[street cricketer]

He he, good decision by the ICC.

 

[Adijazz1706]

BCCI is pretty shady, I wouldn't be surprised if the rabbit hole gone to the centre of earth.

And comes out of the other side

 

[Saurav]

You dont mess with Indian captain

 

[Executioner]

Ban Kohli.

Bangladesh will hire him as a ball boy from now onwards

 

[srh]

Meanwhile, ICC has rejected any ball-tampering investigation against the Indian skipper. The ICC reportedly denied investigation as Kohli’s video was nine-day old, hence no action could be taken.

http://www.financialexpress.com/spo...mpering-icc-rejects-probe-watch-video/452590/

if a sin took place n number of days ago then its not a sin anymore

 

[Syed1]

Good ol' BCCICC

 

[Syed1]

Next time I commit a crime, I would hope that nine days pass before I get caught since by that time the crime would become inadmissible in court.

 

[jnaveen1980]

He cannot acid wash his hand every time before shining the ball can he? Even Fauf charges are dodgy at its best.

 

[srh]

Shocking if Kohli is resorting to same poor tactics with ball like Faf!

today most of the cricket fans would be extremely disappointed in Kohli; I for one never expected Kohli to resort to such tactics of win fair or foul

 

[Saurav]

Next time I commit a crime, I would hope that nine days pass before I get caught since by that time the crime would become inadmissible in court.

Doesnt work for anyone

 

[Sherlock]

That just looks like gum rather than a sweet, no?

 

[Donal Cozzie]

#ShiningIndia, literally

 

[Buffet]

That just looks like gum rather than a sweet, no?

It's gum, but it's a foreign substance if we go by strict definition. So many players use gum and shine balls.

 

[Pantani]

Doesnt work for anyone

Actually it does, it's called a Statute of Limitations. For example Lance Armstrong did not face criminal proceedings for defrauding the United States taxpayer (via his cheating while being contracted to the United States Postal Service team) because the Statute of Limitations on his crimes had expired by the time evidence came to light proving that he was a criminal.

 

[GLORY OF '92]

This is funny. It's a dictatorship where India get all the advantages but still are unable to win away from home

 

[badlapur]

That's a gum not a 'mint' or a 'sweet'. You can't possibly use gum to shine a ball.
Please don't equate a honourable man like Kohli with a proven cheat and a repeat offender like Fuf Du Plessis.

 

[MenInG]

That's a gum not a 'mint' or a 'sweet'. You can't possibly use gum to shine a ball.
Please don't equate a honourable man like Kohli with a proven cheat and a repeat offender like Fuf Du Plessis.

Agreed - ICC is the sole arbiter and they say Faf is guilty.

 

[Slog]

The bigger question is why are Indian pacers so useless even after these tactics

 

[Sherlock]

It's gum, but it's a foreign substance if we go by strict definition. So many players use gum and shine balls.

Exactly the point. Not much they can do about it tbh.

 

[Sherlock]

The bigger question is why are Indian pacers so useless even after these tactics

Shami and Yadav have been very good actually. They've got the ball to swing pretty decently.

 

[street cricketer]

On a more serious note, how do you curb these things. I suspect there should be a set rules defined by the ICC regarding this. At the moment, there seems to be a grey line and so you see teams doing strategic things like bouncing the ball on the practice pitches, using sweets or mints, etc., that get blurred in the grey line without a set rules by the ICC.

As an aside, I have a genuine doubt. Does using the saliva to polish the ball amount to ball tampering?

It's because I've seen many cricketers do it and pretty much every cricketer has a chewing gum in his mouth. What exactly is the original rule regarding ball tampering?

 

[soso_killer]

interesting, i just alluded to this in the other thread.
Will be interesting to see the ICC response to this matter.
But hey the Indians are the good guys, the South Africans are the real bad guys. "Serial ball and [/b]pitch[/b] tamperers"

 

[Rayyman]

Shami was reversing with a 10 over ball BTW. And yes, both Shami and Yadav bowled best when ball was reversing

Rahat was reversing the new ball too, but Misbah wasn't using any sweets.

 

[the Great Khan]

today most of the cricket fans would be extremely disappointed in Kohli; I for one never expected Kohli to resort to such tactics of win fair or foul

why not? he's a foul mouthed Delhi ka lurka why wouldnt he? I'm surprised he's been relatively well behaved recently!

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

interesting, i just alluded to this in the other thread.
Will be interesting to see the ICC response to this matter.
But hey the Indians are the good guys, the South Africans are the real bad guys. "Serial ball and [/b]pitch[/b] tamperers"

Not sure why are you bringing south africa into this discussion here? I know this is a pakistani forum and you love creating fights between indians and pakistanis here. Try something new next time.

 

[waleed88]

100% match fine coming up?

Kiaa baat kar rahay ho? He's Virat Kohli dude

 

[soso_killer]

It's gum, but it's a foreign substance if we go by strict definition. So many players use gum and shine balls.

What about hair gels? Specifically Anderson, I've seen him (a lot) rubbing his hand in his hair and proceed to shine the ball with the very same hand.
Wouldn't that count as ball tampering? Or is that only preserved for South Africans?

 

[Indiafan]

The bigger question is why are Indian pacers so useless even after these tactics

You mean clean bowling people on flat surfaces? Hey at least they are better than current Amir

 

[Mamoon]

It's a chewing gum, and almost every player who shines the ball has a gum in his mouth.

Different to having a mint/candy in your mouth.

 

[soso_killer]

Not sure why are you bringing south africa into this discussion here? I know this is a pakistani forum and you love creating fights between indians and pakistanis here. Try something new next time.

Really? So there's no relevance between this and Faf's current predicament?
Just me stoking the fire?

 

[srh]

The bigger question is why are Indian pacers so useless even after these tactics

were you sleeping and just woke up? Indian pacers have been pretty good lately. But this incident now has thrown their accomplishments into question.

 

[The intelligent Supporter]

It's a chewing gum, and almost every player who shines the ball has a gum in his mouth.

Different to having a mint/candy in your mouth.

Candy and gum both have sugar, isnt that the issue?

Having gum in mouth and shining ball is different than applying sugary saliva on ball.
I know you love to be devil's adovocate but come on,

how different is gum and candy?

 

[Mamoon]

Candy and gum both have sugar, isnt that the issue?

Having gum in mouth and shining ball is different than applying sugary saliva on ball.
I know you love to be devil's adovocate but come on,

how different is gum and candy?

I'm not advocating anything, I am simply explaining ICC's decision. People like to cry foul and call it double-standards, but that is not the case.

Firstly, the video is 9 days old and the ICC have explained that they cannot take any action now. Also read Pantani's post.

In addition, as I explained, almost all players who shine the ball have gums in their mouth, which means that if the ICC starts banning players based on that, it will have to pretty much ban every player who is shining the ball.

However, using mint/candy is not usual.

 

[Syed1]

Firstly, the video is 9 days old and the ICC have explained that they cannot take any action now.

Wait a minute why can't they take action now that the video is nine days old? If the video is authentic and untampered then it shouldn't matter if it is nine days or ninety days old.


What is the criteria to declare a video old? So if the video was eight days and twenty-three hours old it would have been admissible, but as soon as it hit the ninth day it became null and void? What sort of logic is this.


Sometimes it better to use actual rationality rather than playing the devil's advocate just for the sake of it.

 

[Abdullah719]

I'm not advocating anything, I am simply explaining ICC's decision. People like to cry foul and call it double-standards, but that is not the case.

Firstly, the video is 9 days old and the ICC have explained that they cannot take any action now. Also read Pantani's post.

In addition, as I explained, almost all players who shine the ball have gums in their mouth, which means that if the ICC starts banning players based on that, it will have to pretty much ban every player who is shining the ball.

However, using mint/candy is not usual.

ICC's decision says nothing about candy/gum/mint. It only says that there will be no investigation as the matter was not brought to the match referee's notice within five days.

Also - what exactly is going to be done to ensure that players don't have mint/candy? It's not exactly very noticeable. The only reason Faf was caught was because he was stuffing his finger in his mouth in a very obvious manner. How do we know others aren't using mint/candy? Some (former) cricketers have already claimed as much.

For example, Matt Prior earlier tweeted this in response to a query about the matter:

Amongst the players the lines are pretty clear & use of mints/sweets to shine the ball is accepted.

 

[The intelligent Supporter]

I'm not advocating anything, I am simply explaining ICC's decision. People like to cry foul and call it double-standards, but that is not the case.

Firstly, the video is 9 days old and the ICC have explained that they cannot take any action now. Also read Pantani's post.

In addition, as I explained, almost all players who shine the ball have gums in their mouth, which means that if the ICC starts banning players based on that, it will have to pretty much ban every player who is shining the ball.

However, using mint/candy is not usual.

Firstly, isn't it incpmpetance from ICC's part on not going through footage earlier? Faf was in trouble the day after. Also 9 days passing does not make it ok, what he did was suspect and prob illegal..

Also Having gum is ok, but is it usual for players to put fingers in mouth and paste saliva all over the ball?

 

[The intelligent Supporter]

Wait a minute why can't they take action now that the video is nine days old? If the video is authentic and untampered then it shouldn't matter if it is nine days or ninety days old.


What is the criteria to declare a video old? So if the video was eight days and twenty-three hours old it would have been admissible, but as soon as it hit the ninth day it became null and void? What sort of logic is this.


Sometimes it better to use actual rationality rather than playing the devil's advocate just for the sake of it.

also to add to this, wasn;t this icc's responsibilty and match referees's duty to got through footage earlier? First they failed to do thier Job and then when someone did it for them, they are like its too late

Faf's thing was all over the news next day

BCCICC all its best

 

[Abdullah719]

Wait a minute why can't they take action now that the video is nine days old? If the video is authentic and untampered then it shouldn't matter if it is nine days or ninety days old.


What is the criteria to declare a video old? So if the video was eight days and twenty-three hours old it would have been admissible, but as soon as it hit the ninth day it became null and void? What sort of logic is this.


Sometimes it better to use actual rationality rather than playing the devil's advocate just for the sake of it.

https://goo.gl/Z9qXYH From the ICC Code of Conduct:

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

 

[Sadevdesai]

If they are doing this, in the plain sights of all the cameras, I don't think they think they are breaking any rules !!!

 

[Mamoon]

ICC's decision says nothing about candy/gum/mint. It only says that there will be no investigation as the matter was not brought to the match referee's notice within five days.

Also - what exactly is going to be done to ensure that players don't have mint/candy? It's not exactly very noticeable. The only reason Faf was caught was because he was stuffing his finger in his mouth in a very obvious manner. How do we know others aren't using mint/candy? Some (former) cricketers have already claimed as much.

For example, Matt Prior earlier tweeted this in response to a query about the matter:

I should have made it clear that the mint/candy explanation is my own take on this part, something I believe plays a role in influencing ICC's decision. However, let's see if they pass an official ruling on this matter.

Unfortunately, nothing really can be done to ensure that the players don't have mint or candy. Perhaps check the pockets and mouths of all the players before they take the field and also monitor the sub who enters with drinks and towels? Possible, but impractical in my opinion.

The ICC has and will continue to struggle in tackling ball-tampering. Every team does it at every level, but very few get caught.

The fact that du Plessis is the only player to get caught twice in three years suggests that he is quite rubbish at it and perhaps SA should appoint a resident tamperer who is more stealth about it.

 

[Mamoon]

Wait a minute why can't they take action now that the video is nine days old? If the video is authentic and untampered then it shouldn't matter if it is nine days or ninety days old.


What is the criteria to declare a video old? So if the video was eight days and twenty-three hours old it would have been admissible, but as soon as it hit the ninth day it became null and void? What sort of logic is this.


Sometimes it better to use actual rationality rather than playing the devil's advocate just for the sake of it.

That's the law and I am not qualified to argue the law. I am simply explaining the rationale behind the ICC's decision and why it is not a conspiracy.

 

[Mamoon]

Firstly, isn't it incpmpetance from ICC's part on not going through footage earlier? Faf was in trouble the day after. Also 9 days passing does not make it ok, what he did was suspect and prob illegal..

Also Having gum is ok, but is it usual for players to put fingers in mouth and paste saliva all over the ball?

Please refer to my last post. We are arguing the law now and we are not qualified to do so, at least I'm not.

Also, players regularly apply saliva on the ball. It is a common tactic to shine the ball and is generally not considered ball-tampering.

 

[waleed88]

Please refer to my last post. We are arguing the law now and we are not qualified to do so, at least I'm not.

Also, players regularly apply saliva on the ball. It is a common tactic to shine the ball and is generally not considered ball-tampering.

You're not qualified to pass on chucking certificates either

 

[waleed88]

UDPATE: Meanwhile, ICC has rejected any ball-tampering investigation against the Indian skipper. The ICC reportedly denied investigation as Kohli’s video was nine-day old, hence no action could be taken.

Source: http://www.financialexpress.com/spo...mpering-icc-rejects-probe-watch-video/452590/

Link




<blockquote class="twitter-video" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Video: Ball tempering by Indian Captain Virat Kohli during match against England <a href="https://t.co/tWgmzu0c5W">pic.twitter.com/tWgmzu0c5W</a></p>— JAAG TV (@JaagAlerts) <a href="https://twitter.com/JaagAlerts/status/801011370040954884">November 22, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

View attachment 70681

View attachment 70682

That's not ball tampering, that's Kohli having some naswaar

 

[Mamoon]

You're not qualified to pass on chucking certificates either

The rules regarding chucking are transparent and well-defined, so you can call a chucker when you spot one.

The rules regarding ball-tampering are ambiguous and as a result, tamperers are much more difficult to catch than chuckers.

 

[street cricketer]

interesting, i just alluded to this in the other thread.
Will be interesting to see the ICC response to this matter.
But hey the Indians are the good guys, the South Africans are the real bad guys. "Serial ball and [/b]pitch[/b] tamperers"

My view on the whole mintgate. It is my view that pretty much every team out there "works" on the ball to get it reverse swinging within the limits of the rules. Matt Prior tweeted in response to the Faf mintgate incident that it was a ridiculous accusation and that every team out there does it. Heck it dates decades back when bowlers used to use vaseline over the ball to get it reverse swinging. Trescothick admitted as much that England regularly used sweets to shine the ball during his time. Some teams intentionally bounce the ball on rough patches on the field to scuff up the ball. So almost every team does it like Junaids often says here. It all depends on how much they get away within the system and how concealed their actions are.

Now coming to the mintgate, it's not so much about attacking the South africans only. Let's face it, every team does it. But South Africa often seem to get caught in more blatant manners which is why they find themselves in trouble more often than not. For example, Faf getting caught using the zippers on the ball three years back. Here too getting caught using the mint, sure enough many players use saliva mixed with chewing gums/mint/sweets, etc. But Faf got photographed using the mint directly from the tongue on the ball. There is a subtle difference. When you have something inside your mouth and open it, you by instinct push the sweet to the side of your mouth to prevent it from falling outside and then open your mouth or stick your tongue out. But Faf was directly sticking his finger on the mint and rubbing it on the ball. I'm not sure if he would've been caught up in so much trouble if he had just used the saliva mixed with sweet even when keeping the mint inside his mouth. Again this is not to take the moral high ground, let's face it, there is very little difference between the two. But it's more about doing it in a less obvious/blatant manner so that you don't get caught up in controversies.

Anyway, I'm not even sure if using a gum or a lollie makes the ball swing more. People say that the ball swings more under the clouds. Yet there is no meteorological evidence for it. Geoff Lemon has written a pretty funny article on the Guardian rubbishing the whole mint gate. Also how much can you scrutinize? Say there is a ban on chewing gums or sweets for the players on the field, what if a player uses the lip balm or the sunscreen cream on the cheeks or the hair gel to shine the ball? It's all pretty overblown stuff, yet there are rules to abide by. I think the ICC needs to be more clear on the rules, what are permitted and what are banned.

South Africa have performed fantastically well to take a 2 nil lead against Australia. One thing clear is that they beat Australia fair and square, and a piece of mint wasn't the reason behind the scoreline. Australia didn't bat as long for the mint coating on the ball to take effect anyway! The paparazzi behaviour of the channel nine reporter was probably a defensive move to deflect the blame from the cricketing failures of the Australian team. That said, cricket Australia didn't lodge the complaint. It was actually the Australian media who covered the whole incident. Hopefully the Adelaide day and night test is less about the mint gate and more about the cricket, which I suspect will not be the case unfortunately.

 

[soso_killer]

Some users basically have no clue whatsoever what they are talking about.
1.)For starters the ICC has failed to disclose how Faf changed/altered the conditions of the cricket ball.
2.) There is no scientific evidence that sweets, chewing gum have any impact on the cricket ball and how they each individually affect the said cricket ball.
3.) ICC law 42.3 clearly states- "players are allowed to polish the ball provided that no artificial substance is
used".
So what is an artificial substance? If a sweet/mint in ones mouth is an "artificial substance" by virtue so would a chewing gum.
4) Players aren't allowed to chew/eat anything on the field of play. This is in itself ironic, players chew mints and chewing gum and other substances all the time. Secondly by virtue of having a drinks break on the field of play the ICC is contradicting and breaking its own laws. So when does a player apply saliva on a cricket ball after having received an energy drink? Which has it's own sugary substances.
Should there be a waiting period before applying saliva in such instances? If so, how long? Can this be backed scientifically?

And then there's an issue of different matters such as sunscreen, hair gels, lip balms etc.
But most interesting for me is body lotion and other moisturizers. If sweat is natural, what then of it if/when mixed with such chemicals/substances?
Is it still natural? If not, aren't we back at square one as in regards to mint and saliva mixing together?
The ICC has opened a can of worms, and from here on i expect consistency.

 

[Abdullah719]

Ex-cricketers, ex-PCB Chairman demand ban on Kohli

ISLAMABAD: Former Pakistani cricketers and former Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) Chairman on Tuesday demanded the International Cricket Council (ICC) to ban Indian skipper Virat Kohli for ball-tampering.

In a video published by a South African newspaper group IOL, Kohli is seen shining the ball during India's first Test against England at Rajkot in a similar manner to which that had prompted the world cricket governing body to take action against South African skipper Faf du Plessis.

Former leg-spinner Abdul Qadir said Kohli should be banned for ball-tampering. "He should also be finned," he said while talking to a private news channel.

Qadir said if the ICC doesn't take any action against him (Kohli), then all the member boards should urge it to take action against him. The ICC should ensure that rules are same for everybody.

He asked the members boards to send letters or email to the ICC to look into the matter. "When it comes to ban a Pakistani player on bowling action or else then the ICC steps in promptly and puts a ban. But in case of an Indian player it backs out."

Former cricketer and chief selector Haroon Rasheed noted with concern that South African skipper Faf du Plessis was reported by the umpires, but in Kohli's case they kept mum.

"According to the ICC rules action against a player is only taken if he is reported by the referee or field umpire," he said.

Former PCB Chairman Khalid Mahmood stated that whenever any Indian player is found involved in some misdoings, the ICC behaves differently.

"We don't see application of same rule for India. The ICC always treats India differently. Such an attitude is harmful for the game of cricket," he said.

He said only the Indian skipper but the match referee and field umpire should also be banned as why such an incident went unnoticed.

http://www.brecorder.com/sports/cri...ters-ex-pcb-chairman-demand-ban-on-kohli.html

 

[soso_killer]

My view on the whole mintgate. It is my view that pretty much every team out there "works" on the ball to get it reverse swinging within the limits of the rules. Matt Prior tweeted in response to the Faf mintgate incident that it was a ridiculous accusation and that every team out there does it. Heck it dates decades back when bowlers used to use vaseline over the ball to get it reverse swinging. Trescothick admitted as much that England regularly used sweets to shine the ball during his time. Some teams intentionally bounce the ball on rough patches on the field to scuff up the ball. So almost every team does it like Junaids often says here. It all depends on how much they get away within the system and how concealed their actions are.

Now coming to the mintgate, it's not so much about attacking the South africans only. Let's face it, every team does it. But South Africa often seem to get caught in more blatant manners which is why they find themselves in trouble more often than not. For example, Faf getting caught using the zippers on the ball three years back. Here too getting caught using the mint, sure enough many players use saliva mixed with chewing gums/mint/sweets, etc. But Faf got photographed using the mint directly from the tongue on the ball. There is a subtle difference. When you have something inside your mouth and open it, you by instinct push the sweet to the side of your mouth to prevent it from falling outside and then open your mouth or stick your tongue out. But Faf was directly sticking his finger on the mint and rubbing it on the ball. I'm not sure if he would've been caught up in so much trouble if he had just used the saliva mixed with sweet even when keeping the mint inside his mouth. Again this is not to take the moral high ground, let's face it, there is very little difference between the two. But it's more about doing it in a less obvious/blatant manner so that you don't get caught up in controversies.

Anyway, I'm not even sure if using a gum or a lollie makes the ball swing more. People say that the ball swings more under the clouds. Yet there is no meteorological evidence for it. Geoff Lemon has written a pretty funny article on the Guardian rubbishing the whole mint gate. Also how much can you scrutinize? Say there is a ban on chewing gums or sweets for the players on the field, what if a player uses the lip balm or the sunscreen cream on the cheeks or the hair gel to shine the ball? It's all pretty overblown stuff, yet there are rules to abide by. I think the ICC needs to be more clear on the rules, what are permitted and what are banned.

South Africa have performed fantastically well to take a 2 nil lead against Australia. One thing clear is that they beat Australia fair and square, and a piece of mint wasn't the reason behind the scoreline. Australia didn't bat as long for the mint coating on the ball to take effect anyway! The paparazzi behaviour of the channel nine reporter was probably a defensive move to deflect the blame from the cricketing failures of the Australian team. That said, cricket Australia didn't lodge the complaint. It was actually the Australian media who covered the whole incident. Hopefully the Adelaide day and night test is less about the mint gate and more about the cricket, which I suspect will not be the case unfortunately.

Actually Faf didn't get caught, it was the Australian media who bought the issue forward.
It was poor on the ICC to 1.) Miss the incident 2.) Be dictated to by the media which was never neutral.
Having received and missed such a footage then the entire match should have been reviewed. In doing so guys like Warner would be punished to.

I can not advocate for double standards and inconsistencies. Want to ban Faf? Be my guest, but the law should be the same for everyone. I've lived through oppression, I know exactly what and how each and every of those guys are feeling right now.

 

[Hasan123]

ICC need to make it clear what is ball tampering and what isn't.

 

[chacha kashmiri]

Not sure why theres no big deal here

Kohli is a much bigger name than du pleisis and is a much better talent but he should still be reported for this
I'm sure it will cause emnity between the two teams if there is any feeling of unjustly reprimands and these things take more than years to heal but virat should have at least one game taken away from him during this series

 

[Bilal7]

Either Faf and Kohli are both cheats or neither of them is. Laughable double standards being employed here.

Also, did no one find it weird that the Indian pacers were getting reverse-swing in the fourth over of taking the new ball?

 

[Buffet]

Actually Faf didn't get caught, it was the Australian media who bought the issue forward.
It was poor on the ICC to 1.) Miss the incident 2.) Be dictated to by the media which was never neutral.
Having received and missed such a footage then the entire match should have been reviewed. In doing so guys like Warner would be punished to.

I can not advocate for double standards and inconsistencies. Want to ban Faf? Be my guest, but the law should be the same for everyone. I've lived through oppression, I know exactly what and how each and every of those guys are feeling right now.

Pretty much this. Review every single match entire footage and start suspending players for using saliva when they are chewing gums, candy or using hair gel. Eng players have even used gelly beans on ball. Pretty much 30-40 players will be suspended within a year if ICC is consistent here.

 

[PakLFC]

ICC can't do anything as the BCCI is their major cash cow. Might it right at least for now

 

[MenInG]

http://www.skysports.com/cricket/ne...ntroversy?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

India coach Anil Kumble says his side has a clear conscience over the ball-tampering controversy which resulted in a fine for South Africa's Faf du Plessis and at one stage threatened to embroil their own captain Virat Kohli.

Kumble has described the action taken by the ICC against Du Plessis as "very silly" and defended his team after video footage from the first Test against England in Rajkot convinced some observers that Kohli was using residue from a sweet to shine the ball. The same accusation was proven against Du Plessis.

No inquiry could take place in Kohli's case, because the broadcast evidence was not spotted until after the five-day window in which any ICC action must begin.

"Neither the umpires nor the match referee came to us to talk about it," said Kumble.

"As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing to worry about - people can write what they want in the media... (but) there is absolutely nothing that any of our players were a part of.


"Even for someone like Faf du Plessis - South Africa have played exceptional cricket to beat Australia 2-0 - to be told there's ball-tampering is very silly. It's making a mountain out of a molehill."

England seamer Chris Woakes, who is poised to return for the third Test in Mohali, has called for clarification of a "grey area" - but he also believes, as the rules currently stand, there is no need for Alastair Cook's team to change their methods.

"We haven't been told off for it, or banned or fined - so we'll continue to do exactly what we've done in the past," he said.

"Occasionally at drinks breaks, the guys will come and have sweets or mints - just to freshen up and keep the energy going.

"But nothing from the sweet is allowed to go on the ball, or is supposed to. So therefore we don't do that."