Steve Smith’s one-match ban due to his involvement in the ball-tampering episode, currently plaguing Australian Cricket, has led to a lot of hue and cry. Most of us believe that a single match ban is way too lenient and just shows how spineless and weak ICC is. But, if we go through earlier incidents of ball-tampering, ICC, like always, followed the rule book.
In 1994, when English skipper Michael Atherton was allegedly caught rubbing dirt on the ball he was fined 1,000 pounds by the then England chairman of selectors Ray Illingworth for not admitting to match referee Peter Burge that he had dirt in his pocket when questioned, and a further 1,000 pounds for having dirt in his pocket. No question was raised for changing the condition of the ball.
At the start of the new millennium, Pakistan’s Waqar Younis became the first player to be suspended for tampering with the ball. Younis was seen gouging the side of the ball with his thumbnails and scratching the seam during an ODI against South Africa in 2000. The former Pakistan captain was fined 50 per cent of his match fee and suspended for a game.
The Indian team touring South Africa in 2001 was in for a rude shock when in the second Test Sachin Tendulkar was accused of fidgeting with the seam by running his fingers on it by match referee Mike Denness. Sachin pleaded innocence, saying that he was trying to remove dirt from the ball in wet conditions but was handed a one-match ban. The suspension later got absolved after ICC announced that Sachin wasn’t involved in ball-tampering but was guilty of cleaning the ball without consulting the umpire.
Like his former captain, Shoaib Akhtar in 2003 too was banned for two one-day internationals and fined 75% of his match fee for scratching the quarter-seam during a one-day international against New Zealand.
In 2004, Rahul Dravid was docked 50 per cent of his match fee after being found guilty of ball- tampering during India's 24- run victory over Zimbabwe in Brisbane. Dravid was caught by the TV cameras rubbing a cough lozenge on the shiny side of the white ball.
Shahid Afridi was caught on camera biting the ball during an ODI against Australia in Perth in 2010, which led to him being banned for two T20Is
South African captain Faf du Plessis is the only person who has been caught tampering with the ball twice, yet he hasn’t been banned for a single match. During the first instance in 2013, du Plessis scuffed the ball on the zippers of his trousers while fielding, for which he was fined 50 per cent of his match fee after he pleaded guilty. Later in 2016, again the South African was caught applying saliva from a mint onto the ball. He was fined his entire match fee. His South African teammate Vernon Philander was also fined 75 percent of his match fee for ball-tampering after he pleaded guilty against Sri Lanka in 2014.
Apart from the three Pakistanis on the list, all perpetrators were only fined, which was one of the provisions available in the law book. Mind it, the list included a repeat offender, Faf du Plessis.
Bancroft, who has been accused of tampering with the ball, was also punished accordingly, docked 75 percent of his match fee. ICC could have gone with a one-match ban but since he accepted responsibility for his actions by pleading guilty to the charge and apologising publicly, they went soft on him.
Similarly, in case of Steve Smith, who hasn’t been accused of the act but somebody who has been privy to it, a one-match ban makes sense. The only way and the only person who could have justified the ban was Smith himself, when he said, “The leadership knew about it. We spoke about it at lunch and I’m not proud of what’s happened. It’s not within the spirit of the game, my integrity, the team’s integrity.” According to Law 42, the captains are responsible always for ensuring that play is conducted within the spirit of the game as well as within the Laws. It is here where Smith lost his ground.
Cricket fans calling for Smith’s immediate life-ban will also find it difficult to justify their demand. ICC can’t go and ban a player for life for ball-tampering, when the maximum punishment belted out for spot-fixing was 10 years of suspension.
In any case, ball tampering is a level 2 offence which carries a mere five- run penalty, a one- game player ban and a fine of 75 percent to 100 percent of match fee. According to cricket’s own code of conduct, the offence is not that serious. And Smith’s offence also a level 2 offence, carried two suspension points, which meant he would have had to serve one-match ban.
But if you see the larger picture, the charges against Smith can be more heinous than ball-tampering. For Smith, such a big ambassador of the game, the betrayal of morality, upholding the spirit of the game outweighs the nature of the crime.
The premeditated and sheepish nature of the episode has made it filthier. Smith’s admission regarding the “leadership group” made matter worse. It showed that there were no dissenting voices. So, ‘a momentary loss of judgement’ excuse goes out of the window.
But at the end of day you mete out punishment according to the rule book and as far as the cricket field is concerned it has seen far more heinous crimes.
Involving Bancroft, who is only eight Test old, was not a wise decision either. It takes us back to the whole debate that if captain Salman Butt comes and asks an 18-year-old Mohd Aamir to ball no-balls then what should the youngster do. In this case too, may be the captain and senior professionals discussed the means, but it was the junior player who was encouraged or took it upon himself and could attempt to carry out the plan. So, if Faf du Plessis gets a third chance, why not young Bancroft be given a second chance.
Now, if CA goes and bans Smith for life it won’t be surprise, harsh it may be. With this whole #SandpaperGate, CA has no way out but set a precedent. The whole image and reputation of ‘The Baggy Green’ is on a ‘sticky ground’. The usual friendly fans have turned their face the other way. The image and the brand value of the teams has also taken a hit. So, if the CA now does the unthinkable, it won’t be out of the blue. With the Australian Sports Commission also demanding a strict action it looks like Smith might end up being “a collateral damage,” while the CA tries to set a strict precedent.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)