Replacement ball swings out Windies

Cricketers can be a canny lot, prone to using any means possible to eek out an advantage, however small. A well aimed sledge or a gnarly comment at a press conference are examples of cricketers flirting with the spirit of the game but staying faithful to its laws in the hope of inducing rash responses from the opposition. By and large these are tolerated if not exactly condoned tactics.

When a player oversteps the line though, such as Michael Atherton’s PocketGate affair in 1994, they tend to receive a public flogging. Ball tampering is a no fly zone with the cricket authorities.

What then do we make of a rather odd situation at Eden Park yesterday during the fourth days play of the opening Test between New Zealand and the West Indies. The ball was clearly and severely tampered with.

The moment in question happened before the inevitable Carribean capitulation when the West Indies were still odds-on to win the match. Openers Gayle and Ganga were cruising towards an opening stand of 148 with Gayle in particular playing some impressive shots. One of these shots in the 35th over was a launched six off Daniel Vettori that despatched the cricket ball beyond recovery.

A replacement ball was called for. A replacement ball was found. The replacement ball was 35 overs old, the exact state of the match at the time. Stephen Fleming waited anxiously for Daryl Harper to throw him the ball so that the New Zealanders could ‘get to work’ on the new ball and shine up one side.

Umpire Harper though, had clearly formed an opinion that the ball was too ‘new’ for his liking, and set about a game of bounce and catch with the ball and a piece of concrete floor. The purpose of this exercise was clearly to attempt to recreate the condition of the original match ball by intentionally damaging the replacement.

When bouncing the ball appeared not to be making much of a dent in proceedings, umpire Harper, after a brief chat with one of the observing West Indians, started to scuff up the ball by rubbing and grating it against the concrete surface. Eventually umpire Harper finished his “damage-imitation” exercise and handed the ball over to a bemused and somewhat anxious looking Fleming.

The question I have is; where in the laws of the game was umpire Harper permitted to alter the condition of the ball?

Law 5.5 of the Laws of Cricket, permits the umpire to replace a ball with one of comparable wear, however Law 42.3 specifically prohibits tampering with the ball’s condition. Nowhere in the rules of cricket could I find where an umpire is even implicitly permitted to scuff up the replacement ball to approximate his opinion of the condition of the original one.

Even if the practise is permitted, it is questionable that rubbing a ball against concrete is an accurate method of approximating the natural wear of a ball during the course of play. If such experiments have been carried out, and training provided to umpires on how to ball-scuff correctly then I am unaware of either.

The replacement of the ball was a significant moment of the match, not least because the second ball appeared to reverse swing significantly more than the original one and it was the use of reverse swing by Shane Bond in particular that contributed to New Zealand securing the match. Reverse swing is generally considered a phenomenon of an aging ball.

Umpire Harper I am sure, was acting with good intentions in a genuine effort to ensure that a replacement ball provided consistent conditions for both teams. Was he though, acting within the laws of the game and did his efforts unintentionally provide an advantage to the New Zealanders?

Were a bowler, looking to get the ball to reverse, to perform the kind of destructive actions on the ball that Harper did yesterday, he would likely be facing serious, indeed career threatening consequences.