Mervyn Naidoo

There are many ways to tamper with a ball, but is this one of them? asks

CRICKET lovers, the media and others around the world have been chewing deliriously on the latest pungent ball tampering episode that played out recently in Australia.

It involved Faf du Plessis, captain of the Proteas cricket team, who was nabbed by TV cameras feeding a cricket ball dollops of mint-infused saliva, during a Test match against the Aussies in Hobart.

The Proteas won that match and clinched a remarkable third consecutive series win “Down Under”.

But before the whiff of the celebratory bubbly or du Plessis’s mint-flavoured breath had worn off, the International Cricket Council (ICC), the sport’s governing body, threw ball tampering charges at the player.

The media was quick to dub his pending trial “Lollygate” and in some instances, “Mintgate”.

Du Plessis was said to have contravened the ICC rules regarding the handling of the ball and his entire match fee was docked.

The crux of the ICC’s allegation was that the ball’s natural trajectory was somehow altered by the mint in du Plessis’ saliva, and that distortion would have been to his team’s advantage.

The player had difficulty digesting the ICC’s ruling and supported his continued claim of innocence by appealing their decision.

Whether du Plessis was rightfully or wrongfully accused will be argued until the ICC can back this particu- Faf du Plessis has been accused of ball tampering by the ICC. They said his saliva, sweetened by the mint he was sucking, affected the flight of the ball. The graph shows the difference in the flight of a new and worn ball. lar allegation with scientific proof, showing that his sweetened saliva affected the flight and bounce of the ball.

Therefore, many pundits have labelled the saga a “storm in a teacup”.

Applying dirt, lip-ice or glue to the ball’s surface, scraping it with a tin cap or manipulating its seam with a fingernail, are the known sleight of hand skills employed by some players to alter its flow pattern.

Once Pakistani Shahid Afridi was banned for two games because he bit a ball.

Indian legend Sachin Tendulkar was also disciplined when TV cameras caught him tampering with the ball.

England captain Mike Atherton was caught rubbing dirt on a ball, but he received no censure.

In 2013, du Plessis was fined for rubbing the ball near the zipper on his trouser pocket.

Whatever the method, ball tampering has become a subtle part of the game, but its manifestations can have telling effects on the outcome of matches.

Eric Simons, a former Proteas player, coach and TV analyst, said players had used different ways over the years to interfere with balls.

“Players have become more inventive and years ago authorities turned a blind eye to using finger nails to affect the ball, but this is now strictly controlled particularly since reverse swing became effective.

“There are grey areas such as eating certain sweets which are believed to assist in the process,” Simons claimed.

He explained reverse swing to be the phenomenon where one side of the ball becomes particularly damaged during the course of play.

The damage to the ball, deliberate or not, causes it to swinging opposite to the conventional swing after a bowler releases a delivery.

The irregular ball movement places doubt in the mind of the batsman, who has to deal with the projectile that could be hurtling towards him around 160km/h at times.

With the batsman having only milliseconds to determine how he wants to deal with the flying object, chances of the player surrendering his wicket is increased.

Simons said getting a ball to reverse swing was an art in itself, but no external assistance may be used.

“The idea is to allow one side to become badly scuffed while looking after the other. Bowlers will bowl across seam deliveries to scuff the ball, which is obviously legal, or teams will try and bounce the ball on the pitch as often as possible when they throw it to the wicket keeper to scuff up one side.

“But this is watched closely by the umpires and if it becomes excessive or not necessary in the normal play umpires will instruct the fielders to stop.”

In his autobiography Chris Pringle of New Zealand became the first cricketer to confess that he was a ball tamperer. Pringle used bottle tops to score one side of the ball to get reverse swing.

Simons said lifting the ball’s seam was another form of ball tampering.

This method involved using a fingernail to raise the seam of the ball to get it to move prodigiously through the air and off the wicket.

“This is not a popular practice because umpires watch the bowlers closely these days.”

He said shining one side of the ball to get it to swing away from the shined side, which is called conventional swing, has been the tried and trusted method of bowlers to get the ball to swing.

“It is the same principle as lifting the wing of a paper aeroplane and throwing it. The paper plane will turn towards the side with the raised flap.

“If you look after the ball, it will swing for more overs than if it is just left to deteriorate with normal playing conditions.

“Keeping a ball in good condition is very much part of a fielding teams objective and legal, as long as no outside assistance is used. Saliva and perspiration are seen as acceptable ‘additives’.

“Fingernails and foreign substance or objects cannot be used to assist,” he said.

Simons believed that players are not tampering with balls at the top levels as often nowadays because of the number of TV cameras focused on games.

He was not prepared to comment on the du Plessis issue.

However, former Proteas batsmen and chairman of the South African selectors, Andrew Hudson, said players chewed mints on the field all the time, and he was not sure there was anything sinister with that practice according to science.

“Guys sweat when using sunscreen, their oiliness can rub off on to the ball, but that is a part of the game.”

He said there was no proven method to get swing from a ball because not all balls reacted the same way to shining.

He believed that the Aussies “latched” on to the issue so their shortcomings on the field would not come under the spotlight.