ICC Needs To Come To Grips With Laws (24 Jan 1996)

Electronic Telegraph Wednesday 24 January 1996

Ball-tampering: ICC need to come to grips with laws

Imran Khan says there should be a distinction between illegal and legitimate actions

IT HAS been almost four years since the ball-tampering controversy exploded in the cricketing world. Yet the issue is still alive and potentially explosive.

Before I present what I believe to be the solutions to this ongoing debate, it is important to look at the sequence of events which have taken place since the summer of 1992.

After I had retired in April of that year, the Pakistan fast bowlers Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis, during the summer of 1992, were accused of using illegal means to obtain "reverse swing", according to a section of the English media. No one seemed to understand how they managed to swing the old ball far more than the new one. The moment photographs appeared on the front pages of some tabloids of one Pakistan bowler appearing to scratch the ball, the media went wild. The Pakistanis were openly accused of cheating by some journalists and ex-England players.

In the following winter, there was an extremely unsavoury but inconclusive court case against Allan Lamb by Sarfraz Nawaz.

Despite this controversy, there was no clarification on the issue by either the Pakistan or English cricket boards, or the ICC.

I felt the Pakistanis were getting a raw deal from the English press and players. Even if the bowlers were scratching the ball to obtain reverse swing, as long as the umpires were convinced that the condition of the ball had not changed, then according to the laws they were completely innocent.

I also felt that to label the Pakistan cricketers as cheats because of allegations of ball-tampering by some of the English cricketers was hypocritical, as ball-tampering has always been an accepted part of cricket. I wrote about it in The Daily Telegraph and in my biography I admitted that I, too, had occasionally done so - but did not consider it illegal.

Atherton was fined, but, amazingly, not for ball-tampering, but instead for keeping dirt in his pocket

However, in order to explain the difference between acceptable limits and unacceptable limits of ball-tampering, I revealed to my biographer that once in my career during a county match I had used a bottle-top to roughen the surface of the ball. I divulged this to make a very important point - to try to clarify what is acceptable and what is not.

The uproar that followed in the media as a result of my admission bemused me. So great was the controversy that I resigned from the ICC cricket committee. It did, however, make me realise that the media had no idea at all about the ball-tampering issue. Their ignorance was partly a result of the ambiguity and impracticality of the rules.

So in May 1993 I wrote a letter to the ICC recommending that they make fresh laws on ball-tampering. Unfortunately, the ICC brushed the entire issue under the carpet.

In July 1993, Mike Atherton was filmed by the television cameras apparently using dirt to roughen the surface of the ball. While the majority of the media accused him of cheating, the umpires pronounced him not guilty because, according to them, the condition of the ball had not changed. Amid great confusion and tremendous pressure from the media, Atherton was fined, but, amazingly, not for ball-tampering, but instead for keeping dirt in his pocket.

Barely had the dust settled when a photograph in a tabloid showed a South African pace bowler apparently picking the seam. Rather than deny the allegation, Mike Procter, the manager of the South African team, retorted that 100 similar photographs could be taken during any match. By now a lot of ex-cricketers had come out in the open and were saying that, within limits, ball-tampering, and especially seam-lifting, had been going on forever and almost everyone did it to varying degrees.

During the recent series between England and South Africa, one of the South African pace bowlers was filmed lifting the seam. The case was referred to the match referee. According to the South Africans, the bowler was merely cleaning the seam. One law, however, says that a bowler can only clean the seam in front of the umpire and with his permission. Technically, the South African was guilty of ball-tampering. Fortunately, however, the match referee was the wise and experienced Clive Lloyd, who made light of the matter, knowing that if every time a bowler has to clean the seam in front of the umpire the game would come to a virtual halt.

The only way the controversy can be cleared is if the ICC make amendments to the ball-tampering laws

It is because the laws of ball-tampering are impossible to implement as well as being highly impractical that ball-tampering has become an acceptable part of the game among the players. When Michael Holding, an all-time great fast bowler and one of the game`s true gentlemen, told an Indian newspaper that any pace bowler who says he has never tampered with the ball is a liar, he was not accusing all pace bowlers of cheating. He meant that "within limits" every bowler occasionally tampers with the ball.

However, a couple of months ago the incident of ball-tampering in Australia was the most embarrassing of all for the ICC. This time the Sri Lankan team were accused of ball-tampering by two umpires and the match referee. Rather than accepting the verdict, the Sri Lankans were furious and demanded an apology from the two umpires and the match referee. There was even talk of libel action. The ICC, for the first time, stepped in and completely exonerated the Sri Lankans on the grounds that as the umpires had not changed the ball that had been tampered with, there was no evidence to back the umpires` allegations. The situation could have got even more comical had the umpires changed the ball as they ought to have done according to the rules. In that case, the umpires would have had to prove that the ball was roughened up purposely and illegally rather than accidently, as the Sri Lankans claimed, as a result of hitting the concrete outside the boundary fence.

IF I was in the Pakistan Cricket Board I would insist that the ICC clarify the laws of ball-tampering, so that the Pakistan fast bowlers do not have to spend their time justifying their ability to swing the old ball and proving it to be within the laws of the game.

The only way the controversy can be cleared is if the ICC make amendments to the ball-tampering laws. Only those laws should be made that can be properly and practically implemented. So I pro- pose that bowlers should be allowed to lift the seam or scratch the ball as long as they do not clearly alter its condition according to the standards set by the ICC, and the umpires should change the ball if they feel either it has been altered by the bowlers or, as the Sri Lankans claimed, by hitting the concrete outside the boundary fence. Crucially, however, it should not be changed due to unfair play, so that a player or a team are not, by mistake, accused of cheating.

Unfair play should only apply if an outside substance is used, such as a bottle-top, or Vaseline. It is also necessary for the ICC to make it clear what facial creams will be permitted. An ex-English Test umpire claimed during the television programme on Channel 4 called Devil`s Advocate that creams were regularly applied to the surface of the ball to enhance its shine, but he was incapable of taking any action against it. By random laboratory tests (like drug tests) this practice can be stopped.

Thus court cases can be avoided where players will feel slandered. Newspapers will not be printing sensational headlines calling bowlers cheats, just because they get a photograph with a player`s fingernails on the ball surface. Neither will teams try to cover up their own failures by accusing the opposition of ball-tampering. Above all, the game of cricket will not have to suffer from a damaging controversy which has the potential to destroy cricketing relations between countries.

Source :: Electronic Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk)