Chandimal vs Aussies: Why Selective Outrage Over Ball Tampering?

Chandimal gets a one-match ban for tampering but the Aussies are serving lengthy time-outs? Why the difference?

Why is Dinesh Chandimal’s ball tampering being treated so differently from the Aussies’ when they were caught – and admitted to – the very same thing?

(Photo: The Quint)

In March, Australian Cameron Bancroft admitted to ball tampering and was banned for one Test, at least by the ICC.

This week, Sri Lankan captain Dinesh Chandimal was also found guilty of ball tampering and was banned for one Test, by the ICC.

Same violation. Same result. Same law (article 2.2.9) used to punish both players.

Only, it isn't the same, is it?

Because when Cameron Bancroft, along with his skipper Steve Smith and team-mate David Warner were involved in ‘the act of changing the shape of the ball to affect the outcome of a game’, the very same one-match ICC ban was ‘simply not enough’ for many fans and followers of the game. Harsher punishments were demanded, some going even so far as to call for life bans.

The Australian Cricket Board – encouraged by a Prime Minister who interestingly chose to take the high road on this one – obliged by banning both Smith and Warner for an entire year, and Bancroft for nine months.

Three months later, the ICC found itself in a similar position. A player, no, the Sri Lankan captain, was caught on live television tampering with the ball. Following a short hearing, cricket’s governing body did now what they did in March and banned Chandimal for one Test match.

Three days have passed. But where’s the indignation? Where are the calls for a life, or even a month’s ban? Where is the ‘this threatens the sanctity of the sport’ anger?

Why is that so? Did Dinesh Chandimal tamper with the ball any ‘less’ than the Aussies? Or did he not do it with the same conviction?

Why is Dinesh Chandimal’s ball tampering not shaking the foundations of the sport?

(Edited by Kunal Mehra. Camera by Shiv Kumar Maurya)