The late Bob Woolmer summed up MCC's
law 41.3.2 best when he famously said: "It's like prohibition: the more you
ban alcohol, the more it goes underground. The more laws you make to try to
stop it being done, the more the players go the other way."
As the ICC Cricket Committee
acknowledged, this sport needs enhanced hygiene measures on the ground, now
more than ever. With saliva out of the way, who is to say those not blessed
with generous sweat glands on the forehead wouldn't go the Fanie de Villiers
way of using the armpits. Imagine being a slip fielder in this COVID world
watching this and the next ball kisses the outside edge and flies towards
you.
The best way, therefore, is to
standardise the "artificial substance" to be used - a sandpaper or a special
wax - and have its application performed in full view of the umpires (as
with cleaning the seam). MCC's blessing here would create a level playing
field in this highly professional setup, reduce avenues for cheating and if
anything, create a safer atmosphere around the game.
Counterview: Definitely not. Too
ambiguous.
Imagine David Warner's shock. He logs
off TikTok and stumbles upon an ICC announcement that says his 'crime' - the
one he served a year's ban for - is actually legal now. Allowing players to
tamper the ball will come as a big slap in the face of Cricket Australia,
and their much-publicised reaction to the Newlands Test saga from 2018, when
they handed out lengthy bans to three players, underwent a culture review
and vigorously attempted an image change.
Even if you argue that those events
occured in a pre-COVID-19 world when times weren't unprecedented like they
are now, there's likely to be a hurdle at the first step in the attempt to
redefine the laws. How exactly do you define 'controlled' ball tampering
without making it ambiguous? Provide an airport-like list of banned and
permissible items? Involve the umpires each time a bowling side plans to
give the ball a shine via an external object?
Even if these concerns are somehow
assuaged, and we dive into the world of cricket where tampering is the norm,
what will it do to the legacy of some of the fast bowlers who still have
much to offer? What will be spoken of say, the incumbent No.1 Pat Cummins,
years later when he's compared with the other modern-day stalwarts who
didn't enjoy the luxury of bowling in a similarly favourable environment?
Should he end up adding considerably to his current tally of 143 Test
wickets, and go past milestones of a Dale Steyn or a James Anderson, will he
be held on a higher pedestal, or with an asterisk to his achievements to
denote the advantage afforded to him? Or worse still, dismissed from debates
on account of it? Will the inference drawn from any comparative analysis be
a true reflection, thanks to the tweak to a law that's been in place for so
long?
Posted on May 20, 2020
More Stories on Sports
Ugly exchange of emails between ICC & BCCI over 'tax
solutions'
Not Mortaza, Bangladesh banks on house of young fast
bowlers
Taufeeq Umar tests positive for Coronavirus
