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.
Under Law 42, 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.
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 not unusual for bowlers to rub the ball against their legs to dry or polish it as it has been seen in almost every cricket match.
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.
A bowler guilty of ball-tampering can be prohibited from continuing to bowl in that innings if he is found to be repeatedly ball-tampering. 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.
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 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 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. 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.
Pakistan 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 mutually confirmed 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 GBP800,000 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 was just being lazy, because it was 40 degrees Celsius in Cape Town that day. Andrew Flower said in his defense 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 ball tampering incident, 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 reported to Hindustan Times that he was trying to smell the ball but he pleaded guilty for ball tampering.
Australia v Sri Lanka, 2012
- Law 42 (fair and unfair play) lords.org, 22 August 2006
- "Ball tamperers caught out" Sporting Life
- "Simon Hughes' Swing Guide" The Daily Telegraph 21 August 2006
- "Tougher line needed on ball tampering?" bbc.co.uk, 13 July 2000.
- "Atherton's Darkest Day" bbc.co.uk, 28 August 2000.
- "Tendulkar handed suspended ban". Cricinfo. Retrieved 2008-06-01.
- "Tendulkar appears before match referee". Cricinfo. Retrieved 2008-06-01.
- "Ball tampering row mars Oval Test" Cricinfo, 20 August 2006.
- "Cricket bosses bid to save test" bbc.co.uk, 20 August 2006.
- England v Pakistan 4th Test, from BBC, retrieved 20 August 2006
- "Sky Sports – Cricket – Internationals – Pakistan". Sky Sports.
- Inzamam cleared of ball tampering, from Cricinfo, retrieved 28 September 2006
- "Pakistan seek Oval result change". BBC News. 11 January 2008. Retrieved 26 April 2010.
- ICC change forfeited Test to draw - Cricket - Fox Sports
- ICC 2006 Oval Test still a forfeit for MCC - Cricinfo
- ICC does U-turn on 2006 Oval Test result: Cricinfo, 1 February 2009
- Cricinfo staff (9 January 2010). "Stuart Broad 'astonished' by tampering charges". Cricinfo. Archived from the original on 4 February 2010. Retrieved 1 February 2010.
- Paul Weaver (5 January 2010). "South Africa raise ball tampering concerns about England". London: guardian.co.uk. Archived from the original on 8 January 2010. Retrieved 1 February 2010.
- Nasser Hussain (8 January 2010). "Character reference". Sky Sports. Archived from the original on 14 January 2010. Retrieved 1 February 2010.
- McGlashan, Andrew (6 January 2010). "No official complaint over Broad footwork". Cricinfo. Archived from the original on 13 February 2010. Retrieved 1 February 2010.
- "Australia complete one-day series sweep over Pakistan". bbc.co.uk. 31 January 2010. Archived from the original on 3 February 2010. Retrieved 2010-01-31.
- "Controversy mars Australia win". metro.co.uk. Retrieved 2010-01-31.
- "Shahid Afridi in ball-tampering scandal during wild night at the WACA". theaustralian.com.au. Retrieved 2010-01-31.
- "Afridi banned for two T20s for ball-tampering". Cricinfo. 31 January 2010. Archived from the original on 3 February 2010. Retrieved 2010-01-31.
- "I tried to smell the ball: Afridi". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 2010-09-24.
- "Australia v Sri Lanka, 1st Test, Hobart, 5th day : No evidence of tampering by Australia, says ICC match referee | Cricket News | Australia v Sri Lanka". ESPN Cricinfo. Retrieved 2012-12-18.