Former Australian cricket captain Steve Smith breaks down as he speaks to the media in Sydney after being sent home from South Africa following a ball tampering scandal.

Distraught former Australian cricket captain Steve Smith accepted full responsibility on Thursday for the ball-tampering scandal that has shaken the sport, breaking down in tears while denying it had ever happened before.
Cricket Australia have banned Smith and David Warner from all international and domestic cricket for a year, while opening batsman Cameron Bancroft was exiled for nine months over attempted cheating during the third Test in South Africa.
Smith, a golden boy compared to Donald Bradman for his batting exploits, was a broken man at an emotional press conference on his arrival back in Sydney from Johannesburg.
“I take full responsibility, I made a serious error of judgment and I understand the consequences. It was a failure of leadership,” he said, choking back tears.
“It was a failure of leadership, of my leadership, I’ll do anything I can to make up for my mistake and the damage it has caused,” he added, breaking down for the first time. If any good can come of this, as an example to others, I can be a force for change. I know I’ll regret this for the rest of my life, I’m absolutely gutted,” he said
“I hope in time I can earn back respect and forgiveness. I’ve been so privileged and honoured to represent my country, and captain the Australian cricket team. Cricket is the greatest game in the world. It’s been my life and I hope it can be again. I’m sorry and I’m absolutely devastated.”
Smith said, to his knowledge, it was the first time it had happened and he was not about to offload the blame onto Warner.
“I don’t blame anyone,” he said. “I’m the captain of the Australian cricket team, it happened on my watch and I take responsibility for what happened in Cape Town last Saturday.”
Impact on parents
The final question he was able to field before he broke down for the last time and was ushered out of the room with his father Peter was about what he would tell cricket-loving children.
“Anytime you are thinking of making a questionable decision, think about who you are affecting, you’re affecting your parents,” he said.
“To see the way my old man’s been,” he sobbed.
“(To see) My mum it hurts. I can’t remember what I was saying. I just want to say sorry for the pain I have caused to the Australian public. I am truly sorry,” he concluded fighting back sobs.
Smith was jeered as he made his way through Johannesburg airport on Wednesday surrounded by police and media with concerns over his mental state in the current rabid climate and coach Darren Lehmann calling for all three men to be “given a second chance”.
Former great Shane Warne offered the trio an olive branch despite days of a harsh and judgmental Australian public baying for blood.“What the public wants to see is change. They want to see you be a better person,” he wrote in a column for the Sydney Daily Telegraph. “They’ll support you if they see that, and they’ll forgive you.

Article Courtesy – The Hindu of 30.03.18

Cameron Bancroft and SPD Smith at the Press Conference

Only Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft were involved in ball-tampering during Australia’s third test match against South Africa, according to James Sutherland, CA Chief Executive.
The embattled trio of Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft will be sent home in disgrace on Wednesday as Cricket Australia came down heavily on their errant captain, his deputy and young opener for orchestrating a ball-tampering conspiracy against South Africa, sullying the image of a cricket-loving nation.
However, chief coach Darren Lehmann has been given a clean chit for the time being, as Cricket Australia concluded its preliminary investigations on Tuesday.
Tim Paine will captain Australia in the final Test match with reinforcements in middle-order batsman Glenn Maxwell along with openers Joe Burns and Matt Renshaw scheduled to arrive on Wednesday.
“All three players (Smith, Warner, Bancroft) that have been reported will leave tomorrow [Wednesday]. Renshaw, Maxwell and Burns will arrive in South Africa in the next 24 hours,” CA chief executive James Sutherland told a packed media conference here this evening.
“Time Paine has been officially appointed the captain of the Test team,” he added.
Sutherland informed that apart from the trio, no other player in the group had any prior knowledge about the wrongdoing. “Contrary to inaccurate reports, Darren has not resigned. He had no prior knowledge,” confirmed Sutherland.
Questioned whether Lehmann offered to resign, Sutherland replied: “As far as I am aware no he has not, at least not to me.”
“No other players or support staff had prior knowledge and this includes coach Darren Lehmann who had no prior knowledge. He will continue to coach the national team under his current contract,” said the former first-class player.
He made it clear that tough sanctions awaited the trio after the full inquiry is complete.
“We are contemplating significant sanctions in each case of the three players. These sanctions will reflect the gravity of what occurred and the damage it has done Australian cricket. Urgency must be balanced with due process. We have conducted an investigation, we have made reports and sanctions will be issued tomorrow. They will be significant. They will reflect the gravity of the situation,” he added.
Sutherland said that he was angry but maintained that it was “an isolated incident of significant concern.”
“I share the disappointment of the fans. We have had a board meeting today, Cricket Australia share these same feelings. I want to apologise to all Australians that this happened, particularly to all the kids that love cricket and idolise the players.”
He said that he is aware of the impact of the damage done by the trio and corrective measures will be taken. “I would not underestimate the damage this does to the game. What we are about as an organisation is cricket. If this has damaged the ability of cricket then it’s a sorry state. We must do everything we can to repair it.”

ICC has handed out punishment as provided by the rules, Cricket Australia may punish them severely but calls for a life ban are beyond the pale
The Australian cricket team’s leadership group found itself in trouble in South Africa after team captain Steve Smith admitted that the group had conspired to tamper with the ball to gain an unfair advantage in the match. This was after Cameron Bancroft had been caught tampering with the ball on camera. ICC has punished Smith and Bancroft as per rules and Cricket Australia has also come under pressure with Australian PM Turnbull calling the incident a shocking disappointment. Opinions have been divided on the suitable punishment for Steve Smith and others. Some have even called for a life ban. In this Business Standard Special, the author takes a look at the controversy and measures up these calls for punishment against logic and fairness.
Steven Smith, Australia’s Cricket captain who presided over the most demonstrably pre-meditated act of cheating on a Cricket field will not play in his team’s next Test match. He will likely be stood down from his leadership position longer than that. He would be ill-advised to try and see out a contract at the Rajasthan Royals and he should go stand in a corner, facing the wall, for the foreseeable short-term future.
Suitable punishments for Smith have been discussed with life ban having been suggested too. The outrage, especially in social media circles, has reached such a fever pitch that those baying for blood will continue to bleed till they have been heard.
The most absurd suggestion has compared the actions of Cameron Bancroft, Smith and David Warner, and anyone else in the leadership group, to match-fixing. If anything, this is the opposite of that, the worst thing a cricketer can possibly do. Match-fixers undermine the credibility of a game, underperform for a fee, while this Australian team, was doing the opposite.
Make no mistake, Bancroft and friends were trying to gain an unfair advantage over South Africa, to try and win. You can only fix a match, or a performance, to underperform.
Here is a team trying to take an unfair advantage over the opposition. This is more akin to a sportsperson doping than one trying to make a big buck by selling his game out. There is no excusing Bancroft and friends, but comparisons to match-fixing, and suggestions of lifetime bans are ridiculous.
Acting as swiftly as it possibly can, the International Cricket Council brought charges, heard the case and delivered their verdict: Smith was gone for a game, Bancroft fined heavily and put on notice.
The ICC acted precisely as their Code of Conduct allowed and handed out punishments in proportion to the breaches committed.
But, this was never about ball tampering alone. As has been made clear, there is almost no team that does not try to gain the greatest advantage over the condition of a ball, but the manner in which this Australian team blatantly flouted the laws, challenged the umpires when caught and then tried to jettison the evidence, left the rest of the Cricket world with little choice.
As for the charges brought, the ICC has done its bit and doled out justice as per its parameters. Cricket Australia is yet to move, but there is every indication that they will go above and beyond what the ICC have sanctioned.
Chances are that Smith’s demotion will not be a temporary thing, and David Warner will finally get what was always coming to him, but the game must go on and Australia cannot allow themselves to be defined by a group of people who made bad choices in tough times. Suggestion to ban Smith for life, however, may be beyond the pale.
Smith is the most watchable batsman in the world today, potentially Australia’s best since Don Bradman, and he does not deserve to be remembered as the man who sunk Australian cricket. Warner, on the other hand, is not in the same mould and some may not consider him worthy of a position in any “leadership-group” but there is no denying that he can still enrich the game with his contribution as a foot-soldier.
If Australia lost Smith and Warner, and a few more to boot, would the team still be Australia when it played cricket again?
Is this the Australian team that the rest of the cricket world wants to beat, scarred as they are by Aussie dominance over decades? The truth is that every team in the world is waiting for a chance to peg Australia back. Every batsman is sick of the constant sledging they face when Australia is on the field. Every bowler is bored of the suggestion that he got lucky picking up three wickets. Every umpire is staggered by the suggestion that Australia’s cricketers only recognise them when they give decisions against the opponents. And every journalist who has covered Australian cricket can sense that this is a new and perhaps desperate low.
The Australian Prime Minister has weighed in, former captains have fired salvoes and future coaching prospects have kept the fight clean, but there is a fight nevertheless.
At the end of the day, however, there are two separate issues that have to be dealt with. The first is the ICC sanction — Smith suspended, Bancroft fined — and the second is what Cricket Australia will do to regain the faith of their public. The ICC is good at going by the book, even if these specific chapters are deeply flawed.
For the moment, with all evidence in hand, there is no reason to believe that Smith should be banned for an extended period, or that Warner should be disallowed from captaining Sunrisers Hyderabad or playing for them.
Each has paid the price in the place that hurts them most. They deserve this, and the harshest punishment the laws on hand can provide. But, asking for anything more, is vengeance, something that should have no place in cricket.

Anand Vasu is a freelance journalist who has followed Indian cricket for two decades. He tweets as @anandvasu

Test cricket was front page news across the world over the past two days, for all the wrong reasons “It’s tampering, it happens. Move on. Calls for Smith to be sacked – how many captains would’ve been sacked over the years if everyone did that?”
A cricket-writing colleague, not from Australia, asked me that question on Sunday. It was a valid query. Ball-tampering does happen in cricket, probably a lot more than anyone outside the game realises. Players have been sanctioned for it before. In the ICC’s Code of Conduct it is ranked at the same level as making a seriously obscene gesture and is less grave than intimidating an umpire. The maximum penalty is a fine and suspension for one Test, which Steven Smith received and Cameron Bancroft did not.
So, why is that not the end of the story? Why was there such widespread national outrage over an incident that cricket’s governing body views as only of moderate severity?
To answer a question with another question, what do they know of Australia who only Australian cricket know?
To understand the public response, and why the incident touched such a nerve, you need to understand the role sport has always played in Australia’s national identity. Indeed, since before we even had a nation with which to identify.
This is a young country – Australia’s states did not join together in federation until 1901. But Dave Gregory had taken office as Australia’s first Test captain in 1877, 24 years before Edmund Barton became our first prime minister.
Edwin Flack won Australia two Olympic gold medals before Australia existed as a nation, and Australia has prided itself on punching far above its weight in Olympic competition ever since.
“What sort of leaders not only hatch a plan like this, but have the team’s most junior member take all the risk? That is not leadership, it is cowardice.”
The first Australian to win a world championship in any sport, rower Ned Trickett, was welcomed home by a crowd of 25,000 people when he returned to Sydney after winning the World Sculling Championship in England in 1876.
More sportspeople have been named Australian of the Year than individuals from any other broad field of endeavour.
It is written into national legislation that no company can name itself after Don Bradman without government permission. The only other person with such name protection is Australia’s first Catholic saint, Mary MacKillop.
When Cadel Evans became Australia’s first Tour de France winner in 2011, he was a national hero, not least because he was clean in a sport rife with cheating.
This is the context in which the country’s response to the ball-tampering incident must be viewed. Rightly or wrongly, our sportspeople have historically stood on pedestals far greater than any other members of our society. And the primary obligation the public asks in return is simple: don’t cheat. Don’t abuse our trust.
Sometimes our sporting stars behave detestably and are rightly castigated. Our cricketers are no exception. They say they do not cross “the line”, while the rest of us wonder where the hell it is. Of course, like any line in the sand, it washes away with the tide, to be redrawn wherever it suits at the time.
The Australian public has a line, too. And with their culture of sledging, whingeing, hypocrisy and arrogance, our cricketers have been head-butting it for so long that they have become an insufferable national migraine.
So when Bancroft was seen cheating, by rubbing the ball with a shred of yellow tape and then hiding the offending item in his jocks like a naughty schoolboy, there was no sympathy. An already frustrated nation was now also losing its trust in the team, and that trust irretrievably shattered when Smith admitted that this was a premeditated act, cooked up by the team leadership group at the lunch break.
The public response in Australia was swift and overwhelming and came from the Prime Minister down. Opportunistic politicians joined the pile-on, but there was already an enormous bandwagon on which to leap. The Australian public feels ownership of the cricket team that represents their country, and Sunday was like a nationwide fire-sale. Condemnation is to be expected of a national side caught cheating, but the widespread nature of the reactions, and the lack of dissenting voices, tells a story about how this team is viewed.
A sprinkling of ex-players have said that ball-tampering is rife at all levels of the game, and that nobody can plead ignorance. That might be true of professional cricketers, and even of many club players. But this is not about them. It is about representing 25 million people and thus being held to higher standards. It is about the fans who trusted the wrong people.
There is no sight in cricket quite like reverse swing, that late tail in, the stumps cartwheeling. But like a steak-lover who turns vegetarian after a visit to the abattoir, the average Australian cricket fan would be happy never to see reverse swing again, now that they have witnessed for themselves what goes into it. The challenge for Australian cricket is to stop fans abstaining from the team entirely.
To hear the doyen of Australian cricket commentators, the ABC’s Jim Maxwell, becoming emotional on the radio while saying that he could not remember ever feeling as disappointed in an Australian team as now, told of the gravity of the situation. The players involved should be forced to listen to that audio as part of their punishment.
And nobody in the Australian squad who knew about the plan beforehand can play in the next Test in Johannesburg. It would be utterly unconscionable. What sort of leaders not only hatch a plan like this but have the team’s most junior member take all the risk? That is not leadership, it is cowardice. Even if Bancroft was not asked to tamper, but simply overheard the discussion and took it upon himself, responsibility is still on the captain. It was cricket’s equivalent of loudly asking: “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”
And that is why Smith’s position as captain is now untenable. Captaining Australia is not a right, it is a privilege, and a responsibility, and one that cannot be given to anyone who was part of this. As for the coach Darren Lehmann, even if he didn’t know about the plan – and that is hard to believe – he has fostered whatever sorry culture brought the dressing room to this point. He cannot realistically stay on either.
History tells us that the outcry will eventually die down, but it will take time. Smith will lose the captaincy and serve a ban, probably a short one, but he will return to the side, and will, hopefully, over time earn the nation’s forgiveness. So too the other players involved. The stain will never fully disappear, but it will fade.
Shane Warne was suspended for a year for taking a banned diuretic. Warne and Mark Waugh were the subjects of public shame for providing pitch and weather information to a bookmaker. These incidents were dubiously explained away by naivete. Greg Chappell ordered his brother Trevor to bowl underarm, which was within the laws of the game, and in later years admitted that at the back end of a stressful and demanding season, he had not been mentally fit to be captain. The incidents are remembered with distaste, but the men involved are not outcasts.
Outcasts certainly emerged from the biggest recent controversy in Australian sport, an AFL scandal involving the Essendon club and their practice of injecting their players with banned peptides. Players served bans and the coach, James Hird, previously considered of unimpeachable character, eventually lost his job and was effectively shunned by the sport. In 2017, four years after the scandal emerged, he was hospitalised for a suspected drug overdose.
That is in part a reflection of how premeditated cheating is viewed in Australia, but also the way social media and the 24-hour news cycle magnifies events. Jon Ronson’s excellent 2015 book, So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed, examines how social media has led to a return of the days of public shaming. Twitter pile-on bring out the worst kind of mob mentality and can lead to a loss of all sense of proportion. Suggestions of life bans fall firmly in that category. There will be official sanctions, but the unofficial punishments – shame and humiliation – will hurt the most.
It is worth noting that in the lead-up to the Cape Town Test, Smith actually admitted that his mind was not in a good place. His comments were in specific relation to his batting struggles, but with hindsight, it is hard not to wonder if the words had a wider meaning: “I didn’t feel I was hitting the ball that well [during the summer] but my mind was in a good place. Maybe now my mind is not in as good a space as it was.”
It will hardly be in a better space after the past two days. While Cricket Australia has a responsibility to punish the players involved, it also has some responsibility for their welfare while doing so. These are young men who made a stupid mistake and must pay the price, but in the process, they cannot be left without support.
Still, in the here and now, this scandal is bigger than just cricket. It goes to the heart of Australian national identity. Australia’s cricket team is older than the country itself and historically, cricket has been the team sport with the greatest nationwide support in Australia. The public response reflects this affection. Short bans and a loss of leadership positions are the appropriate response. The written Laws of Cricket might tolerate Smith and Lehmann staying on as captain and coach, but the unwritten rules of Australia will not.

Article courtesy – espncrinfo.com

New Zealand won the just concluded test against England at Auckland by an innings and 49 runs to provide the 24^th occasion of New Zealand winning a test by an innings margin. All such occasions are tabulated below in the descending order of margin of victory.

No	Team	Result	Margin	Opposition	Ground	Start Date
1	New Zealand	won	inns & 301 runs	v Zimbabwe	Napier	26 Jan 2012
2	New Zealand	won	inns & 294 runs	v Zimbabwe	Harare	07 Aug 2005
3	New Zealand	won	inns & 185 runs	v Pakistan	Hamilton	27 Mar 2001
4	New Zealand	won	inns & 137 runs	v Bangladesh	Wellington	12 Jan 2008
5	New Zealand	won	inns & 132 runs	v England	Christchurch	03 Feb 1984
6	New Zealand	won	inns & 117 runs	v Zimbabwe	Bulawayo	28 Jul 2016
7	New Zealand	won	inns & 105 runs	v West Indies	Wellington	26 Dec 1999
8	New Zealand	won	inns & 101 runs	v Bangladesh	Chittagong	26 Oct 2004
9	New Zealand	won	inns & 099 runs	v Pakistan	Auckland	25 Jan 1985
10	New Zealand	won	inns & 099 runs	v Bangladesh	Dhaka	19 Oct 2004
11	New Zealand	won	inns & 080 runs	v Pakistan	Sharjah	26 Nov 2014
12	New Zealand	won	inns & 074 runs	v Bangladesh	Wellington	26 Dec 2001
13	New Zealand	won	inns & 073 runs	v West Indies	Wellington	11 Dec 2013
14	New Zealand	won	inns & 067 runs	v West Indies	Wellington	01 Dec 2017
15	New Zealand	won	inns & 061 runs	v Sri Lanka	Colombo (CCC)	24 Mar 1984
16	New Zealand	won	inns & 052 runs	v Bangladesh	Hamilton	18 Dec 2001
17	New Zealand	won	inns & 049 runs	v England	Auckland	22 Mar 2018
18	New Zealand	won	inns & 046 runs	v Zimbabwe	Bulawayo	15 Aug 2005
19	New Zealand	won	inns & 041 runs	v Australia	Brisbane	08 Nov 1985
20	New Zealand	won	inns & 038 runs	v Sri Lanka	Wellington	11 Apr 2005
21	New Zealand	won	inns & 036 runs	v Sri Lanka	Dunedin	07 Mar 1997
22	New Zealand	won	inns & 033 runs	v India	Wellington	13 Feb 1976
23	New Zealand	won	inns & 025 runs	v Sri Lanka	Christchurch	04 Mar 1983
24	New Zealand	won	inns & 013 runs	v Zimbabwe	Auckland	26 Feb 1998

It also provides the second occasion of New Zealand winning the test by an innings margin against England. The first such win was at Christchurch in Feb 1984 when it had trounced England by an innings and 132 runs. Both the occasions are tabulated below

No	Team	Result	Margin	Opposition	Ground	Start Date
1	New Zealand	won	inns & 132 runs	v England	Christchurch	03 Feb 1984
2	New Zealand	won	inns & 049 runs	v England	Auckland	22 Mar 2018

England lost the just concluded test against New Zealand at Auckland by an innings and 49 runs to provide the 61st occasion of England losing a test by an innings margin. All such occasions are tabulated below in the descending order of margin of victory.

No	Team	Result	Margin	Opposition	Ground	Start Date
1	England	lost	inns & 332 runs	v Australia	Brisbane	29 Nov 1946
2	England	lost	inns & 226 runs	v West Indies	Lord’s	23 Aug 1973
3	England	lost	inns & 215 runs	v Sri Lanka	Colombo (SSC)	18 Dec 2003
4	England	lost	inns & 200 runs	v Australia	Melbourne	26 Feb 1937
5	England	lost	inns & 180 runs	v West Indies	Birmingham	14 Jun 1984
6	England	lost	inns & 180 runs	v Australia	Nottingham	10 Aug 1989
7	England	lost	inns & 161 runs	v West Indies	Kingston	14 Mar 1935
8	England	lost	inns & 156 runs	v West Indies	Manchester	30 Jun 1988
9	England	lost	inns & 154 runs	v Australia	Brisbane	26 Nov 1954
10	England	lost	inns & 149 runs	v Australia	The Oval	14 Aug 1948
11	England	lost	inns & 148 runs	v Australia	Leeds	22 Jul 1993
12	England	lost	inns & 147 runs	v Australia	Sydney	01 Feb 1895
13	England	lost	inns & 132 runs	v New Zealand	Christchurch	03 Feb 1984
14	England	lost	inns & 123 runs	v Australia	Sydney	04 Jan 2018
15	England	lost	inns & 118 runs	v Australia	Birmingham	05 Jul 2001
16	England	lost	inns & 100 runs	v Pakistan	Lahore	29 Nov 2005
17	England	lost	inns & 099 runs	v Australia	Melbourne	26 Dec 2006
18	England	lost	inns & 093 runs	v West Indies	Birmingham	15 Jun 2000
19	England	lost	inns & 092 runs	v South Africa	Lord’s	31 Jul 2003
20	England	lost	inns & 091 runs	v Australia	Melbourne	31 Dec 1920
21	England	lost	inns & 087 runs	v Pakistan	Lahore	25 Nov 1987
22	England	lost	inns & 085 runs	v Australia	Birmingham	10 Jul 1975
23	England	lost	inns & 080 runs	v Australia	Leeds	07 Aug 2009
24	England	lost	inns & 079 runs	v West Indies	Port of Spain	13 Feb 1981
25	England	lost	inns & 075 runs	v India	Chennai	16 Dec 2016
26	England	lost	inns & 074 runs	v South Africa	Johannesburg	14 Jan 2010
27	England	lost	inns & 064 runs	v West Indies	Manchester	26 Jul 1984
28	England	lost	inns & 064 runs	v West Indies	Birmingham	06 Jul 1995
29	England	lost	inns & 062 runs	v Australia	Lord’s	17 Jun 1993
30	England	lost	inns & 061 runs	v Australia	Leeds	24 Jul 1997
31	England	lost	inns & 056 runs	v West Indies	The Oval	12 Aug 1950
32	England	lost	inns & 055 runs	v Australia	Melbourne	01 Jan 1898
33	England	lost	inns & 055 runs	v West Indies	Leeds	04 Aug 1966
34	England	lost	inns & 052 runs	v West Indies	St John’s	20 Mar 1998
35	England	lost	inns & 051 runs	v Australia	Adelaide	21 Nov 2002
36	England	lost	inns & 049 runs	v New Zealand	Auckland	22 Mar 2018
37	England	lost	inns & 048 runs	v Australia	Perth	29 Nov 2002
38	England	lost	inns & 046 runs	v India	Leeds	22 Aug 2002
39	England	lost	inns & 046 runs	v Australia	The Oval	20 Aug 2015
40	England	lost	inns & 044 runs	v West Indies	Georgetown	17 Mar 1994
41	England	lost	inns & 041 runs	v Australia	Perth	14 Dec 2017
42	England	lost	inns & 040 runs	v West Indies	Manchester	02 Jun 1966
43	England	lost	inns & 039 runs	v Australia	The Oval	16 Aug 1930
44	England	lost	inns & 037 runs	v South Africa	Cape Town	02 Jan 2000
45	England	lost	inns & 036 runs	v India	Mumbai	08 Dec 2016
46	England	lost	inns & 033 runs	v Australia	Sydney	13 Dec 1946
47	England	lost	inns & 032 runs	v West Indies	St John’s	12 Apr 1990
48	England	lost	inns & 030 runs	v West Indies	Bridgetown	21 Mar 1986
49	England	lost	inns & 028 runs	v Sri Lanka	Galle	22 Feb 2001
50	England	lost	inns & 025 runs	v Australia	The Oval	23 Aug 2001
51	England	lost	inns & 023 runs	v West Indies	Kingston	04 Feb 2009
52	England	lost	inns & 022 runs	v India	Chennai	11 Feb 1993
53	England	lost	inns & 021 runs	v South Africa	Johannesburg	25 Nov 1999
54	England	lost	inns & 018 runs	v Pakistan	Leeds	02 Jul 1987
55	England	lost	inns & 016 runs	v South Africa	Cape Town	30 Mar 1906
56	England	lost	inns & 015 runs	v India	Mumbai	19 Feb 1993
57	England	lost	inns & 013 runs	v Australia	Adelaide	14 Jan 1898
58	England	lost	inns & 013 runs	v Australia	Sydney	05 Jan 1951
59	England	lost	inns & 012 runs	v South Africa	The Oval	19 Jul 2012
60	England	lost	inns & 009 runs	v Australia	Adelaide	28 Jan 1966
61	England	lost	inns & 008 runs	v India	Chennai	06 Feb 1952

 

South Africa won the Cape Town Test against Australia by a margin of 322 runs to provide the twelfth occasion of South Africa winning a test by 300 plus runs margin. All such occasions are tabulated below with the descending order of runs margin.

No	Team	Result	Margin	Opposition	Ground	Start Date
1	South Africa	won	358 runs	v New Zealand	Johannesburg	08 Nov 2007
2	South Africa	won	356 runs	v England	Lord’s	21 Jul 1994
3	South Africa	won	351 runs	v West Indies	Centurion	15 Jan 1999
4	South Africa	won	340 runs	v England	Nottingham	14 Jul 2017
5	South Africa	won	333 runs	v Bangladesh	Potchefstroom	28 Sep 2017
6	South Africa	won	329 runs	v India	Kolkata	27 Nov 1996
7	South Africa	won	328 runs	v India	Durban	26 Dec 1996
8	South Africa	won	324 runs	v Pakistan	Johannesburg	19 Jan 1995
9	South Africa	won	323 runs	v Australia	Port Elizabeth	05 Mar 1970
10	South Africa	won	322 runs	v Australia	Cape Town	22 Mar 2018
11	South Africa	won	309 runs	v Australia	Perth	30 Nov 2012
12	South Africa	won	307 runs	v Australia	Johannesburg	19 Feb 1970

It also provides the fourth occasion of South Africa winning a test by 300 plus runs margin against Australia. All such occasions are listed below

No	Team	Result	Margin	Opposition	Ground	Start Date
1	South Africa	won	323 runs	v Australia	Port Elizabeth	05 Mar 1970
2	South Africa	won	322 runs	v Australia	Cape Town	22 Mar 2018
3	South Africa	won	309 runs	v Australia	Perth	30 Nov 2012
4	South Africa	won	307 runs	v Australia	Johannesburg	19 Feb 1970

Australia lost the Cape Town Test against South Africa by a margin of 322 runs to provide the twelfth occasion of Australia losing the test by 300 plus runs margin. All such occasions are tabulated below with the descending order of runs margin.

No	Team	Result	Margin	Opposition	Ground	Start Date
1	Australia	lost	675 runs	v England	Brisbane	30 Nov 1928
2	Australia	lost	408 runs	v West Indies	Adelaide	26 Jan 1980
3	Australia	lost	356 runs	v Pakistan	Abu Dhabi	30 Oct 2014
4	Australia	lost	347 runs	v England	Lord’s	18 Jul 2013
5	Australia	lost	343 runs	v West Indies	Bridgetown	19 Apr 1991
6	Australia	lost	338 runs	v England	Adelaide	13 Jan 1933
7	Australia	lost	323 runs	v South Africa	Port Elizabeth	05 Mar 1970
8	Australia	lost	322 runs	v South Africa	Cape Town	22 Mar 2018
9	Australia	lost	322 runs	v England	Brisbane	04 Dec 1936
10	Australia	lost	320 runs	v India	Mohali	17 Oct 2008
11	Australia	lost	309 runs	v South Africa	Perth	30 Nov 2012
12	Australia	lost	307 runs	v South Africa	Johannesburg	19 Feb 1970

 

A pristine cricket ball

In the sport of cricket, ball tampering is an action in which a fielder illegally alters the condition of the ball. The primary motivation of ball tampering is to interfere with the aerodynamics of the ball.

Definition

Under Law 41, subsection 3 of the Laws of Cricket, the ball may be polished without the use of an artificial substance, may be dried with a towel if it is wet, and have mud removed from it under supervision; all other actions which alter the condition of the ball are illegal. These are usually taken to include rubbing the ball on the ground, scuffing with a fingernail or other sharp object, or tampering with the seam of the ball.

Purpose

Generally, the purpose of altering the state of the ball is to achieve more favourable bowling conditions. Examples of ball tampering would include a fielder applying a substance, such as lip balm or sweetened saliva, to shine one side of the ball or pick the seam of the ball to encourage more swing. Conversely, roughening one side of the ball by use of an abrasive or cutting surface (such as boot spikes or bottle caps) is also ball tampering.

Altering a ball legally

Using spit and/or sweat is common and, for practitioners of swing bowling, integral. The moisture gained from spit or sweat when combined with polishing, smooths out one half of the ball which in turn allows air to pass over one side of the ball more quickly than over the other. When bowled correctly, a bowler can get the ball to move from one side to the other through the air. Also, it is common for bowlers to rub the ball against their clothing to dry or polish it, as seen in most cricket matches.

Sanction

The umpires are responsible for monitoring the condition of the ball, and must inspect it regularly. Where an umpire has deemed a fielder to be guilty of ball-tampering, five penalty runs are awarded to the batting side, and the ball must be immediately replaced. The replaced ball is normally chosen by the umpires, in which case the ball chosen should match the condition of the previous ball (before tampering) as closely as possible. Depending on additional agreements laid out before the beginning of a series of matches, the batsmen may be instead permitted to choose the ball from a selection of balls in various stages of use.

If a bowler is found to be guilty of repeatedly ball-tampering he can be prohibited from continuing to bowl in that innings. Following the conclusion of play, additional sanctions are usually brought against a ball-tamperer, as it is considered a serious offence. The captain may be equally penalized, as he is responsible for the conduct of his players on the field.

Examples and allegations

The use of foreign substances to polish the ball, while illegal, is in some corners considered to be relatively common, and passes without incident or sanction. Substances which have been used for this purpose include hair gel, sugar and lip balm.

In addition, picking at the threads of the main seam or ‘lifting’ the quarter seam to aid conventional and reverse swing respectively are considered illegal. Modifying the quarter seam can be particularly difficult to detect or prove.

However, there have been a number of high-profile instances of alleged ball tampering, particularly in international cricket due to the increase in television coverage. Waqar Younis became the first player to receive a suspension for ball-tampering after a match in 2000.

Michael Atherton in 1994

In the “dirt in pocket” affair, then England captain Michael Atherton was accused of ball tampering during a Test match with South Africa at Lord’s in 1994 after television cameras caught Atherton reaching into his pocket and then rubbing a substance on the ball. Atherton denied ball tampering, claiming that he had dirt in his pocket which he used to dry his hands. He was also accused of lying to the match referee. Atherton was summoned to the match referee and was fined £2,000 for failing to disclose the dirt to the match referee.

Sachin Tendulkar from Indian Cricket team in 2001

In the second Test match of India’s 2001 tour of South Africa, at St George’s Park, Port Elizabeth, match referee Mike Denness suspended Sachin Tendulkar for one game in light of alleged ball tampering. Television cameras picked up images that suggested Tendulkar was involved in scuffing the seam of the cricket ball. While he claimed he was actually just removing the piece of grass stuck in the seam of ball, it seemed he may have tampered with the ball. The incident escalated to include allegations of racism, and led to Mike Denness being barred from entering the venue of the third test match. The ICC revoked the status of the match as a Test as the teams rejected the appointed referee. The charges against Tendulkar and Sehwag’s ban for excessive appealing triggered a massive backlash from the Indian public. ICC later cleared Tendulkar of ball tampering charges.

Rahul Dravid from Indian Cricket Team in 2004

Rahul Dravid coughed a lozenge on more shiny side of the ball at Brisbane during a Triangular Series match against Zimbabwe and India won this match at first but later cameras caught Rahul Dravid tampering with the ball and he was charged with half of match fee.

England cricket team in 2005

Marcus Trescothick admitted in his autobiography, Coming Back to Me, that he used mints to shine the ball to endure more swing on the ball: “It was my job to keep the shine on the new ball for as long as possible with a bit of spit and a lot of polish. And through trial and error I finally settled on the type of spit for the task at hand. It had been common knowledge in county cricket for some time that certain sweets produced saliva which, when applied to the ball for cleaning purposes, enabled it to keep its shine for longer and therefore its swing.” He found Murray Mints worked the best.  This admission was 3 years after the series.

Controversy against Pakistan cricket team in August 2006

In 2006, an alleged ball-tampering issue overshadowed a Test match between Pakistan and England, whereby Pakistan refused to take to the field for the evening session after being penalised for ball-tampering in the afternoon. Television cameras caught the umpires discussing the condition of the quarter seam. Pakistan are believed to have intended a protest against the decision by delaying their return after tea; however, while they were refusing to play, the umpires awarded the game to England in accordance with the laws of cricket.

The controversy arose when the umpires, Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove, ruled that the Pakistani team had been involved in ball tampering. They awarded five penalty runs to England and a replacement ball was selected by England batsman Paul Collingwood. Play continued until the tea break, without any Pakistani protest. After the tea break, the Pakistani team, after having agreed amongst themselves that no ball tampering had taken place and given consideration to the severity of the implication, refused to take the field. The umpires then left the field, gave a warning to the Pakistani players, and returned once more 15 minutes later. After waiting two more minutes the umpires removed the bails and declared England winners by forfeiture. A deal was brokered between the English and Pakistani cricket boards to allow the match to continue, and the Pakistani team did take to the field 55 minutes after the umpires first took to the field for the resumption of play. Umpires Hair and Doctrove, however, declined to continue the game maintaining their decision that Pakistan had forfeited the match by refusing to play.

The impasse continued late into the evening. Pakistan captain Inzamam ul-Haq claimed that Darrell Hair did not inform him or the rest of his side of the reasons why the ball was replaced, and that Hair had implied that Pakistan were cheating. At 19:50 UTC it was finally announced at a press conference that the Test was called off. The ECB’s statement said that England were awarded the match by the umpires as Pakistan refused to take the field after being warned that under law 21.3, failure to do so would result in them forfeiting the game. This is the first time a Test match has been decided this way.

The England and Wales Cricket Board refunded fourth-day spectators 40% of their ticket price (after deduction of an administration fee), and gave an automatic 100% refund to those with tickets for the fifth day. It later asked the Pakistan Cricket Board to pick up the £800,000 costs of doing this, which the PCB refused to do. In March 2007, the PCB and ECB reached a settlement where Pakistan would play a Twenty20 International in England and waive their fees.

As a result of Pakistan’s forfeiting of the game captain Inzamam was charged and found guilty of “bringing the game into disrepute”, though he was cleared of the charges relating to “changing the condition of the ball”. In January 2008, Pakistan’s cricket board asked the International Cricket Council to change the official result to “match abandoned” or “match drawn” on the basis of having been subsequently cleared of ball-tampering by an ICC tribunal. In July 2008, the International Cricket Council (ICC) changed the result of the match to a draw, though in October 2008 the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) released the statement “The ICC has no power under the laws of cricket to decide that results should be altered, whether it feels it’s ‘inappropriate’ or otherwise,”  The decision also angered former players including Michael Holding who at the time was a member of the ICC cricket committee. Holding felt that Pakistan’s refusal to play should not go unpunished even though they were not guilty of ball-tampering,

“I have just written my letter of resignation to the ICC cricket committee because I cannot agree with what they’ve done,” Holding said while commentating for Sky Sports during a domestic match in England. “That game should never, ever be a draw. When you take certain actions, you must be quite happy to suffer the consequences.”

On 1 February 2009, the ICC reversed their earlier decision, and changed the match result back to a win for England.

Anderson and Broad 2010 incident

In January 2010, England bowlers Stuart Broad and James Anderson were accused of ball tampering by rubbing the ball on the ground with their spikes in the third Test Match against South Africa. Broad maintained that he was just being lazy, because it was 40 degrees Celsius in Cape Town that day. Andrew Flower said in his defence that “the scoreline suggested that there was obviously no ball tampering. Nasser Hussain who had captained Anderson said: “Stuart Broad and James Anderson were wrong to behave in the manner they did and I’ve no doubt that if a player from another country did the same we’d have said they were cheating. No charges were formally placed by South Africa even though they made the accusations at a press conference.

Shahid Afridi 2010

Shahid Afridi, standing in as the Pakistani Captain, received a two T20 international match ban for ball-tampering in a match against Australia in January 2010. He was caught on camera biting the cricket ball in a bizarre attempt to readjust the seam of the ball. The ball was eventually replaced. He told the Hindustan Times that he was trying to smell the ball but he pleaded guilty for ball tampering.

Australia v Sri Lanka, 2012

In the first test, Sri Lanka notified Chris Broad that Peter Siddle may have been raising the seam during Sri Lanka’s first innings. Peter Siddle collected 5/54. He was later cleared by the ICC.

Faf du Plessis from South African Cricket Team, 2013

While fielding on during the third day of the 2nd Test, in Dubai, cameras captured footage of South Africa fielder Faf du Plessis scuffing the ball against the zip on his trousers. The on-field umpires penalised South Africa by adding 5 runs to Pakistan’s total, and changing the ball. The match referee imposed a 50% match fee fine on du Plessis after the fielder pleaded guilty, although the team manager Mohammad Mosajee maintained that penalty was “harsh”, and the team decided not to challenge to finding as it may have led to heavier sanctions. Despite the “guilty” plea, team vice-captain AB de Villiers maintained that “we are not cheats” and team captain Graeme Smith denied that their participation in ball tampering tainted the series-levelling win as South Africa went on to record an innings-victory during the Dubai test, to tie the series 1-1.

During the same match, footage of South African medium-pace bowler showing Vernon Philander apparently scratching the ball with his forefinger was also brought under scrutiny, but ultimately was not considered by the match referee to have constituted any illegal ball-tampering.

South Africa v Sri Lanka, 2014

For the second time in nine months, the South African test side found itself in a ball-tampering scandal, this time with medium-pace bowler Vernon Philander found guilty of tampering with the ball during the 3rd day of the Galle test against Sri Lanka in 2014. Philander was found to have breached clause 42.1 of the Laws, “scratching the ball with his fingers and thumb”, and was fined 75% of his match fee. South Africa were to go on and win the test by 153 runs.

This incident followed speculation by Australian test batsmen David Warner in February 2014 over the South African team’s practices in altering the state of the ball during Australia’s tour to South Africa. Speaking to Sky Sports Radio. Warner commented the South African fielders’ more “obvious” use of throwing the ball into the ground on return throws after fielding, and South African wicket-keeper AB de Villiers’ habit of getting “the ball in his hand and with his glove wipe the rough side every ball. Warner was later fined 15% of his match fee for the comments he made, under an ICC Code of Conduct breach.

South Africa vs Australia, 2016

Another South African was charged with alleged ball tampering on 18 November 2016 after their victory in the second Test against Australia in Hobart. Proteas skipper Faf du Plessis was alleged to have tampered with the condition of the ball after TV footage appeared to show him applying saliva onto the ball from a mint or a lollipop. The charge was made by the ICC although Cricket Australia did not file a complaint. Du Plessis was found guilty of ball tampering on 22 November and fined his match fee from the second Test.

Australia vs South Africa, 2018

Australian batsman, Cameron Bancroft was charged with ball tampering on 24 March 2018, when videos emerged that showed him rubbing and then concealing a suspicious yellow object during day three of the Third Test against South Africa, at Newlands Stadium. Captain Steve Smith and Bancroft attended a press conference at the end of that day’s play. Bancroft admitted to ball tampering in front of Andy Pycroft, the match referee, and the press. Smith then said that the tampering was planned by the unnamed “leadership group” during the lunch break. Smith and vice-captain David Warner stood down from the team leadership the morning after the incident, but still played on, and wicketkeeper Tim Paine took over the captaincy for the rest of the test match. Subsequently the ICC banned Smith for one test match and he was fined 100% of his match fee and Cameron Bancroft was fined 75% of his match fee.

As well as a public outcry, especially in Australia, the Australian Sports Commission, the Prime Minister of Australia Malcolm Turnbull, and many famous international cricketers universally condemned Smith for his actions, demanding Smith’s resignation or sacking as the team’s captain together with sanctions against the “leadership group” and Bancroft.

The incident is the subject of a separate and ongoing investigation by Cricket Australia, led by Executive General Manager Team Performance Pat Howard, along with Senior Legal Counsel and Head of Integrity Iain Roy. Cricket Australia may then impose their own sanctions including fines, suspensions and bans.

 Information Source – Wikipedia