Was this the reason Tahir was so lethal in the first innings?.
South Africa penalised for ball tamperingFirdose Moonda in Dubai
October 25, 2013
[RIGHT] A[/RIGHT]
[TABLE=“align: center”]
South Africa penalised for ball-tampering
[TABLE=“width: 310, align: right”]
ICC Test match playing conditions
*=left]If the umpires together agree that the deterioration of the ball is inconsistent with the use it has received, they shall consider that there has been a contravention of this law. They shall then decide together whether they can identify the player(s) responsible for such conduct.
*=left]42.1.1 if it is possible to do identify the player(s) responsible:
*=left]a) change the ball forthwith. The batsman at the wicket shall choose the replacement ball from a selection of six other balls of various degrees of usage (including a new ball) and of the same brand as the ball in use prior to the contravention.
*=left]Additionally the bowler’s end umpire shall:
*=left]b) award 5 penalty runs to the batting side.
*=left]c) Inform the captain of the fielding side of the reason for the action taken.
*=left]d) Inform the captain of the batting side as soon as practicable of what has occurred.
*=left]e) Together with the other umpire report the incident to the ICC Match Referee who shall take action as is appropriate against the player(s) responsible for the conduct under the ICC Code of Conduct.
*=left]42.1.2 If it is not possible to do identify the player(s) responsible:
*=left]a) change the ball forthwith. The umpires shall choose the replacement ball for one of similar wear and of the same brand as the ball in use prior to the contravention.
*=left]b) the bowler’s end umpire shall issue the captain with a first and final warning, and
*=left]c) advise him that should there be any further incident by that team during the remainder of the match, steps 42.1.1 a) to e) above will be adopted, with the captain deemed under e) to be the player responsible.
South Africa were penalised five runs for ball tampering and the team was the subject of a hearing after play on the third day of the second Test against Pakistan in Dubai.
The ICC confirmed that the penalty and the change of ball after 30 overs was due to ball tampering. “As per 42.1 of the ICC playing conditions, the umpires replaced the ball and fined South Africa team five penalty runs for ball tampering,” an ICC spokesperson said.
The incident took place at the start of the 31st over of Pakistan’s innings, two overs after tea, when umpires Ian Gould and Rod Tucker called South African captain Graeme Smith for a chat. The fourth umpire, Shozab Raza, brought a box of balls onto the field and a new one was selected for use.
No individual player has been charged yet but television images showed Faf du Plessis rubbing the ball allegedly on the zipper of his trouser pocket. The umpires will decide whether to lay a charge at the close of play and that will determine if and when a hearing will take place.
The playing conditions (see sidebar) dealing with ball tampering were changed recently, coming into effect only from October 1. Any player found guilty of ball tampering will be fined 50 to 100% of his match fee and/or get a ban of one Test or two ODIs or two Twenty20s, whichever came first.
South Africa were well in control of the Test, having taken a commanding 418-run first-innings lead, when the incident occurred.
Ofcourse Faf did it. There’s no point denying it now. The evidence is loud and clear
Look how dirty his pants are exactly where the zip is, obviously not the first time he did that.** Will be interesting to see if any of the South African players are banned or suspended for a few games by the ICC. Rules should be the same for everyone. **I think captain should get some punishment considering he’s the leader of the team. In fact Smith seemed to be coordinating it; giving the ball again and again to Faf! And it wasn’t just Faf; Philander was caught scratching it with his nail and Smith threw the ball straight to Faf after every delivery so he could work on it
Pretty stupid of SA. One might infer if SA can resort to this in this situation where they have a 400+ lead with an innings left, then they must have obviously done so in the first innings as well.
Still it doesn’t explain our dismal performance in this test. The worry is it will be swept under the carpet by believing that Pakistan played badly solely because RSA tampered with the ball
WTH is this :aj: the rules are only made up for Pakistani players and remaining ones are angels :halo:
South Africa batsman Faf du Plessis has pleaded guilty to the charge of ball tampering and been fined 50% of his match fee. The match referee David Boon said that du Plessis’ actions warranted the charge being brought against him, but **also said that he was satisfied that it “was not part of a deliberate and/or prolonged attempt to unfairly manipulate the condition of the ball.” **
According to an ICC release, “Before the start of fourth day’s play on Saturday, David Boon of the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Match Referees handed the fine to du Plessis who had pleaded guilty on Friday evening.”
Boon said: “I am satisfied that the player’s actions warranted the umpires applying clause 42.1.1 of the ICC Test Match Playing Conditions, including the laying of a charge under the ICC Code of Conduct against Mr du Plessis in respect of changing the condition of the ball. After discussions with Mr du Plessis, he has elected not to contest that charge, but I am also satisfied that this was not part of a deliberate and/or prolonged attempt to unfairly manipulate the condition of the ball, and that the imposition of a fine of 50 per cent of his match fee is appropriate considering the circumstances.”
The incident occurred two overs after tea on the third day, before the start of the 31st over, following television visuals of du Plessis rubbing the ball near the zipper of his trouser pocket. The TV umpire brought it to the attention of the on-field umpires Ian Gould and Rod Tucker, who called Graeme Smith over for a chat and subsequently changed the ball and awarded a five-run penalty against South Africa, sanctions that are consistent with the penalty for unlawfully changing the condition of the ball.
Du Plessis was charged with an article 2.2.9 offence of the ICC Code of Conduct which relates to “changing the condition of the ball in breach of Law 42.3 of the Laws of Cricket, as modified by ICC Standard Test Match, ODI and Twenty20 International Match Playing Conditions clause 42.1”.
Some South African players - JP Duminy after play on day two and Vernon Philander before play on day three - had said they thought there was nothing amiss with the condition of the ball when it was changed. AB de Villiers, during the press conference on Friday, vehemently defended his side, saying they “are not a team that scratches the ball”.
I think du Plessis got off quite lightly in the end with a fine of 50% of his match fee
Rules should be applied to everyone the same way. If a Pakistani player had been caught doing it, I am almost certain he would have been suspended along with the captain for 1 or 2 games by the ICC.
[QUOTE]
Acting PCB Chairman Najam Sethi has confirmed that the Pakistan Cricket Board will be writing to the International Cricket Council in the near future to seek an explanation on Francois du Plessis' fine of 50% of his match fee for tampering with the ball in Dubai.
du Plessis was seen on television on Friday on day three of the second Test match against Pakistan rubbing the rough side of the ball against a zip on his trouser pocket and match referee David Boon imposed a 50% fine of his match fees, which the PCB feels is extremely lenient.
*The PCB are also annoyed at what they see as an inconsistency in the application of rules by ICC match referees and have particularly compared du Plessis' punishment with Shahid Afridi's 2 match ban for biting the cricket ball in 2010.
*
[/QUOTE]
ICC might say in response to the letter: "You (PCB) want us to show leniency in Amir's case but at the same time want us to review/increase du Plessis' punishment!"
There is a slight difference here. Sure PCB is asking for leniency in Amir's punishment but they did not Q his initial ban or Afridi's suspension. They accepted the punishments in good faith.
**
"Penalties for offences such as du Plessis' under Level 2 of the ICC's code of conduct can range from a fine of 50% to 100% of a player's match fee to suspensions for one Test, two ODIs or two T20Is"**
Pak players are handed suspensions while other players get off lightly with a fine of 50% of their match fee! How convenient..
Emphasis is on inconsistency in the application of rules by ICC match referees or DISCRIMINATION when handing out punishment for the same offence
If you do that when nothing else is working for you while bowling makes sense. But why do it when your are winning comfortably? Or perhaps they also did that in the 1st innings or even 1st test match.
They want to make an "example" on first offence of Pakistani players (spot fixing) but since this was first offence for Faf the punishment is light, good job, great justice, thanks ICC.
ICC might say in response to the letter: "You (PCB) want us to show leniency in Amir's case but at the same time want us to review/increase du Plessis' punishment!"
There is a slight difference here. Sure PCB is asking for a leniency in Amir's punishment but they did not Q his initial ban or Afridi's suspension. They accepted the punishments in good faith.
**
"Penalties for offences such as du Plessis' under Level 2 of the ICC's code of conduct can range from a fine of 50% to 100% of a player's match fee to suspensions for one Test, two ODIs or two T20Is"**
Pak players are handed suspensions while other players get off lightly with a fine of 50% of their match fee! How convenient..
Emphasis is on inconsistency in the application of rules by ICC match referees or DISCRIMINATION when handing out punishment for the same offence
ICC complicates stuff for no reason..on field umoires did a great job by being consistsent but not sure why boon decided to create a fuss..
on the other hand, if every offedner has to be banned for few matches then why do we have a match fine option at the first place?
but since we have a match fine option, it means there has to be some level of flexibility on behalf of match referee as to what was the level of crime....and boon simply exercised that right.
question is .....is Boon too light or were other referees too harsh in pakistan case?
ICC needs to have just one penalty for this crime so that it is consistent.
