Right: Outraged headlines hit the front pages of tabloid and "quality" newspapers alike as sports commentators and even the game's Australian administration condemned the team's actions. But were the players really the first to indulge in ball-tampering?
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments suggesting the response to Australia's ball-tampering has been an over-reaction
1. The International Cricket Council (ICC) treats ball-tampering as a relatively minor offence
A number of cricket commentators have observe that ball tampering is treated by the International Cricket Council (ICC) as a relatively minor infringement of cricket regulations.
In an article published in The New Zealand Herald on March 25, 20198, it was stated, 'Ball tampering is actually quite a minor offence in the playing regulations. It only carriers a maximum one Test ban...'
In this particular incidence of ball tampering, the on-field umpires judged that the ball had not been significantly affected and no immediate penalty was applied.
Sports commentator for The Australian, 'Jack the Insider', Peter Hoysted, stated in an opinion piece published on March 23, 2018, 'On field, an offending fielding side faces the prospect of a five-run penalty, after which the umpires will swap the ball. The two umpires at Cape Town, Nigel Long and Richard Illingworth...examined the ball and determined the beleaguered cherry remained fit for purpose and no penalty was proscribed.'
Former Australian test cricket fast bowler, Shane Warne, has stated, 'The jump to hysteria is something that has elevated the offence beyond what they actually did...'
In an opinion piece published in The Australian on March 27, 2018, Wayne Smith gave an overview of the manner in which the International Cricket Council (ICC) has historically treated ball-tampering.
' Ball tampering was never an offence to be treated seriously, either by the players or by the ICC. As the late former England batsman and Pakistan coach Bob Woolmer remarked, "Every single bowler I know ... was guilty, at least under the current law, of some sort of ball-changing"... Why would Smith resign from the captaincy for a crime that the ICC deems worthy of only a one-match ban?'
Critics' of the treatment of the Australian players by Cricket Australia argue that the players had cause not to recognise the seriousness of the offence. Though ranked as a level two offence under the International Cricket Council's code of conduct, the penalties that accompany it are not commensurate with this supposed seriousness.
2. Players from other nations have been much less severely punished for ball-tampering
Those who consider that the Australian cricketers' ball-tampering has been excessively condemned and overly punished have referred to the more minor penalties imposed upon other cricketers who have committed a similar offence.
Andy Bull writing for The Guardian on March 28, 2018, stated, 'The punishment was swift and vicious...Outside of the treatment given to match fixers, there is no precedent in cricket for such heavy sentences. They are certainly not in line with those given to the other players who have been caught ball-tampering in recent years.'
A similar comment was made by British journalist, Piers Morgan, who tweeted on March 29, 2018, 'No defence for what the offending Australian cricketers did, but their punishment seems disproportionate given how widespread ball-tampering is in the game.' Morgan went on to add, 'While the Aussies have crossed the line, all teams tamper with the ball and there's a big difference between taking performance-enhancing drugs or match-fixing, and ball-tampering.'
The far less severe penalties given players from other countries who have admitted to ball-tampering was outlined by sports commentator for The Australian, 'Jack the Insider', Peter Hoysted. Hoysted's comment, published on March 28, 2018, noted, 'When a South African player, Faf du Plessis, gets nicked for ball tampering (twice) he is made captain. When Sachin Tendulkar does it he remains a demigod. England's Mike Atherton became a few thousand quid poorer. In Australia we assemble an ugly mob who bay for the blood of our cricketers and get to work with the four-by-two and a packet of roofing nails.'
On March 26, 2018, cricket.com.au published a comment by Andrew Ramsey in which he claimed ball-tampering was a long-standing and widespread practice. He Gave instances of cases where players had received minimal penalties r avoided them altogether. Ramsey states, for example, 'When India's most beloved cricketer Sachin Tendulkar was found guilty of the crime based on evidence that English match referee Mike Denness gleaned via television footage during a Test in South Africa in 2001, an outraged India appealed and his one-match ban was overturned.
It was deemed that Tendulkar was extracting grass that had lodged within the ball's seam rather than damaging it, and India then mounted a vehement campaign to have Denness removed from his role for the subsequent Test.'
3. Many overseas commentators are prejudiced against Australian cricketers
Among those who claim that the acrimony directed at the Australian cricketers has been excessive are those who maintain that the criticism the Australian cricketers are facing is in part a consequence of the prejudice Australian cricket receives from many other cricketing nations.
Former Australian test cricket fast bowler, Shane Warne, has claimed that bias against the Australian team has led to an over-reaction to the ball-tampering incident. Warne has stated, 'The hysteria has gone worldwide, and everyone that dislikes the way the Australian cricket team has played, and over the past five or so years there have been rumblings about the way this team has gone about things, have been given the opportunity to lay the boots in.'
Warne further stated, 'He didn't kill anyone. He's a guy that's made a mistake. To see him being man-handled at airports, to see him attacked, it is like the dogs are all over him...
I think it is a disgraceful behaviour from them.'
A similar point was made by Karan Sethi in an opinion piece published on Sportskeeda on March 31, 2018. Sethi stated, 'One might believe this entire scenario is apparently a huge opportunity for everyone to get back at the Australians, who over the years have been perceived as being arrogant and bullish in the way they play the sport... There has been a ubiquitous dislike towards this very Australian cricketing culture in recent times.'
Paul Newman, in an article published in the British newspaper, The Daily Mail, on March 26, 2018, stated, ' They will have to ban Smith, his nasty little sidekick David Warner and the rest of the infamous leadership group for a year and they will have to sack coach Darren Lehmann. But, much more than that, they will have to disband a culture that has made Australia the most hated cricket team in the world and start again.'
Defenders of the Australian team argue that comments such as Newman's reveal the extent of the prejudice the Australian team faces. They claim the current scandal is being used to denigrate a group of players many in the international cricket community already disliked.
Emma Reynolds, writing for news.com.au on March 29, 2018, summed up the attitude of the international sports media, stating, ' The world has turned on Australia following the ball-tampering saga, and commentators are not holding back as they tear into what they call the nation's "poisoned", "crass" and "rotten" culture.'
4. Australian cricket fans attach an excessive importance to the game
It has been claimed by some commentators that the anger and disappointment of the Australian public at the actions of Smith, Warner and Bancroft are a result of the exaggerated significance that Australians attach to cricket and the misplaced importance of sport to Australia's national identity.
It has been argued that many Australians form a naively personal connection with their sporting heroes, identifying with them intensely and so feel an acute sense of injury when these icons do not live up to the standards imposed upon them. In an opinion piece published in The Roar on March 29, 2018, Geoff Parkes stated, 'Rightly or wrongly, for many Australians this matter is personal, by extension it is their reputation that has been sullied and their contract with the Australian captain that has been so savagely torn apart.'
Parkes further argues that many Australians find their national identity and their sense of their country's international standing in the prowess and the conduct of Australian sporting teams. Parkes writes, 'Smith's crime is not that he has slandered the reputation of Australia's manhood, but that he has implicitly destroyed Australia's reputation as a people who compete hard but fairly.
The Australian psyche is that it is okay to be a little rough around the edges, in a Paul Hogan, shrimp on the barbie type of way, or to take a sickie from work for the hang of it. But while individuals may differently interpret what constitutes a "fair go", it is important for Australians to believe that the rest of the world respects them for knowing right from wrong.'
In an opinion piece published in The Sydney Morning Herald on March 29, 2018, Waleed Aly attempted to explain the unique place occupied by sport in the Australian national identity. Aly writes, 'It's the role of sport in our mythology that's unique. No nation packages its culture in sport quite like we do. Other countries might anchor their identities in some political idea, a foundational revolution or military conquest, a rigid ethnic grouping, or a clearly signposted age-old culture.
We're too young as a nation, too derivative of Britain initially, and more recently too uncomfortable with how we were founded, to do that. So, we've reached for something we could access more authentically.
We had a national cricket team, Olympic athletes and an indigenous football code before we even existed as a country...We've been using sport as our way of presenting ourselves and proving our worth to the world ever since.'
Aly concludes that the exaggerated sense of outrage many Australians feel at the misconduct of some members of the Australian Cricket team derives from their belief that these men have damaged the country's international standing in a fundamental and significant way. They have not merely broken the rules in a game of sport, they have besmirched their country's reputation.
Aly writes, 'Australian cricket team's gravest sin is to have cheated on the international stage as the team that most fully represents the nation... We're raging because our indignation is the only way we can put back together the mythology of who we are.'
5. Cricket Australia's extreme response is an attempt to preserve sponsors and popular support
Some critics of the punishments received by Smith, Warner and Bancroft from Cricket Australia argue that the governing body in Australia reacted excessively in an attempt to appease the Australian public and preserve sponsorships and valuable broadcasting rights.
In an opinion piece published in The Guardian on March 28, 2018, Andy Bull criticised the severity of the punishments and suggested 'Those charges suggest CA was more worried about addressing the outcry than the offence. And even then, it is not clear whether it wanted to appease its public, who are split about whether or not the bans are appropriate, or its sponsors and broadcast partners. It was only last week that CA knocked back a joint bid from the Nine and Ten networks for its TV rights because it was too low. Seven days later, CA's negotiating position does not look quite so strong.'
The Australian Cricketers Association (ACA) has challenged the severity of the sanctions on former Australia captain Steve Smith and vice-captain David Warner for their involvement in the ball-tampering incident. Condemning the extended ban periods for the cricketers, the ACA stated that there are a number of glaring and clear anomalies in the process that has caused the Association to look into the severity and proportionality of the proposed sanctions.
The ACA suggests that Cricket Australia is more concerned about image and public relations than it is treating the players appropriately. The Association was particularly critical of Cricket Australia using the players as media scapegoats without giving them any support, criticising 'The rush to place players before the world's media...without the benefit of considered and coherent advice.'