License to fudge

I agree with Sambit, that the time has come to legalise ball tampering when one uses lozenge spit etc. Look, Marcus made the point just to sell his story ; further let us be practical, how on earth can the officials find out if the players resort to such tactics,during play,everytime it is apost mortem after the damage has been done ; for long now cricket has been a batsman's game so let us even it up a little by giving a small adyantage to the bowler. at least now both sides can resort to this measure so it is fair and square for a start.

Ball tampering is cheating. As for bats, how about Ricky Ponting's magic carbon sticker weighing less than one gramm that was outlawed by the MCC as bat improvement? Stupid laws not applied evenly is a disaster. Did someone say Darrel Hair forced Pakistan to forfeit a test match??? What planet are they from. Apparently he said "in the umpires opinion the ball has been tampered with", debited Pakistan a 5-run penalty (woop de doo!), changed the ball and said "let's get on with it." That Pakistan did not retake the field in the alloted time caused the umpires to again apply the rules and call it a forfeit. Now changed to a draw. This is a stupid article. Why did everyone decide underarm bowling, allowed by the law at the time it was used, should be made illegal?

Sambit, if one was to follow your lead, there might come a day where one might legalise arson, rape & murder as well, just cause so many do it. Some sense of perspective please!! Trescothick employs a cheap tactic to launch his book, hence ball tampering is no big deal. The Aussies do not provide too many sound-bytes for the media, so it is passable. S.Africans penetrate the ball with their spikes, because "they were waiting for the crowd to settle down". However Sarfraz Nawaz, Imran, Aquib Javed, Wasim & Waqar resort to illegal tactics. Sachin & Dravid are scoundrels hiding behind a garb of righteousness. And of course the entire world will cry foul about the sub-continent evolving into the power-house of cricket. I would love to see cricket being part of the Olympics, but i highly doubt if such double-standards can actually live up to the Olympic spirit. Hail Marcus Trescothick!!

Firstly, Rahul Dravid was not caught by camera. He himself reported to the umpire that he had applied spit by mistake, and he was not spared though. What are you thinking? Secondly, if you suggest legalising this, what illegal activity will you recommend for legalising next? Instead of suggesting checks and balances for playing cricket in a fair and true spirit of the game, you are setting a very bad example by suggesting that illegal activities should be condoned and made the rule rather than exception. What's wrong with you?

Sambit - i strongly disagree! Just becuase, we can not punish the cheats and just beucase they claim everyone is doing it...does not mean, we should legalize it. Imagine someone being selected becuase they have extra storng nails and is the best seam picker in the country? Its not about cricket being a batsman oriented game, its not about bat tampering, its not about using saliva in a losing cause, its not about australians not complaing about ashes2001 and its not about about the ICC either.I think its about a pathetic excuse that "everyone does it". How on earth can you say that? I can sure imagine several extremely well poised historical test matches or world cup matches, where one side is ball tampering and the other is not. Would it have made a difference if everyone knew everyone is 'supposed' to ball tamper? Would it have saved the career of a struggling bowler, let a batsman complete a rescue act for his team, make records or change the course of matches...Cheating must stop

Excuse me, but all this talk of changing the balance between bat and ball by allowing the breaking of rules is missing the obvious. There are more results in Test cricket these days. More runs are scored and more wickets are taken per day now compared to 20 years ago. Good bowlers are not missing out because of the batsmen's dominance. McGrath, Pollock, Warne & Murali have strike rates and averages equal or better to the other great bowlers of the past. We don't need to change the balance by legalising chucking or ball tampering.

The late Bob Woolmer's comments, which seem to have been adopted and accepted in this article, appear apt and sensible. But however you frame a law, you will always get unusual situations that are not covered and which seem inconsistent, anomalous or peculiar: you cannot legislate for every eventuality. So you would probably still find scenarios such as sucking a sweet and then rubbing that sweet directly onto the ball would be illegal, but sucking a sweet and applying the sweet-enhanced saliva onto the ball would probably be legal. Also, are we really saying that players should be allowed to grind the ball vigorously into the ground or dirt just because it naturally apears on the cricket field? Sounds a little unedifying. And what about if there is a stone lying around on the field? Could you use that on the ball? Could you rub the ball against the tree at the Kent county ground? But you couldn't, say, use an implement you brought onto the field? The law's probably best left alone.

Why does anyone with a brain keep publishing articles from this bloke. How can anyone seriously condon cheating. Unless it's an attempt to justify what his national team has been doing for a long time.

I don't think ball tampering should be allowed Sambit! Simple as that! If you want to play, play fair! I do agree about the double standards bit though!

You noted Australian's reaction to this revelation said two things. It said three - the third being that the Australian cricketers don't dwell on the past and whinge when they lose. Whilst the Australins might have thought it was no big deal and water under the bridge, not too many other sides would have been quite so generous. History shows they gave the Poms their biggest hiding in 100 years only 18 months later. They moved on and improved. That aside, your article was excellent as usual. The only problem I see is how you frame a law to allow a degree of tampering with the ball. If mints are OK, what about a can of lacquer and petroleum jelly? If scratching is OK, what about a bottle top? If a bottle top is OK, why not a drill!