Ball tampering issue at Newlands :Broad Jr, thug like match referee dad, Sunny vindicated ?

[Desi Cartman]

If he did it once then its all ok .. but if he did it more than once then its not OK .. Now someone tell me how many times did he do that ?

[DomainK]

If he did it once then its all ok .. but if he did it more than once then its not OK .. Now someone tell me how many times did he do that ?

And how is once okay? Once is enough to alter the condition of the ball. Ball tampering is a serious issue and even if someone does it unintentionally, there should be a warning in the minimum and bans for a repeat offender.

[Desi Cartman]

And how is once okay? Once is enough to alter the condition of the ball. Ball tampering is a serious issue and even if someone does it unintentionally' date=' there should be a warning in the minimum and bans for a repeat offender.[/quote'] Eng was warned by the on field umpires :dontknow: Arey yaar maybe it was an honest mistake ..

[Sachinism]

AB said its not the 1st time he's done it

[Sachinism]

I cannot believe that match referee Roshan Mahanama has not dragged James Anderson into his office, sat him down and asked him to explain himself.More... If a Pakistani or Indian had done what James Anderson did, we'd say it was cheating By Nasser Hussain Last updated at 12:23 AM on 07th January 2010 I cannot believe, having seen incriminating pictures of Jimmy Anderson for the first time on Wednesday, that match referee Roshan Mahanama has not dragged him into his office, sat him down and asked him to explain himself. I presume Mahanama has seen the television coverage that we saw on Wednesday. And if he has not then he should have made it his business to. And those pictures showed Anderson coming very close to what you would consider to be ball-tampering. I am not suggesting Anderson gouged the ball or really affected its condition. What the pictures showed to me was more like an inquisitve, dreamy sort of scratching that, at best, is very marginal as to whether it is an offence. There is no doubt in my mind that if a Pakistani or Indian bowler had been caught doing what Anderson did then we all would have come down on them like a ton of bricks. We would have said that they were cheating. I do not think the International Cricket Council have covered themselves in glory at all here. Their statement yesterday basically said that there had been no official complaint from South Africa, so that was the end of the matter. Well, who is running world cricket? It is down to the ICC to deal with the big issues in the game like match-fixing, ball-tampering, poor over-rates and the like. If they have seen TV pictures and feel that Anderson did something wrong then it is up to them to do something about it, not wait for South Africa to point the finger. South Africa, meanwhile, are at fault for pointing the finger but not going through with their complaint. You cannot politely accuse someone of cheating. What they have done in saying they had ‘concerns’ about the state of the ball is make a serious accusation and then run away when they were challenged to back it up. Make no mistake, ball-tampering in many forms has gone on forever and in recent times we have seen lip-salve, mints, Vaseline and even jelly beans used to get shine on the ball. I have sympathy with the views of someone like Allan Donald who believes that what Anderson and many others before him have done did should be allowed. This is a game heavily weighted in the batsman’s favour and if by allowing bowlers to be a bit more clever in what they do with the ball there is more skill and reverse swing in the game then cricket would be better for it. Yet while scratching is not allowed then we should make sure it does not happen. Anderson and Stuart Broad, who was foolish in treading on the ball, should learn their lesson and be more careful in future. I have never seen Jimmy do anything like this before and I certainly have not heard talk of him being someone who tampers with the ball. He has got away with this and he should be thankful and make sure it does not happen again.

Wow, this from Hussain? But very true

[The Dark Horse]

I hope Ranatunga becomes a referee He would have :finger:ed them

[achilles]

I hope Ranatunga becomes a referee He would have :finger:ed them

He is a frank and a "I screw you if you are wrong" kinda guy. No honest person can be allowed on the panel by the ECB, CSA and CA :finger:

[ESPN]

Strauss not impressed with ball talk Strauss not impressed with ball talk Andrew Strauss described South Africa's behaviour as "malicious", in the ball-tampering row. The ball-tampering row erupted in the Newlands Test - and is still refusing to go away. After England clung on for another nailbiting draw to retain an unbeatable 1-0 lead with one match remaining in a four-match series, it seemed true cricket drama might have chased the controversy away. England hang on for tight draw But Strauss remained unhappy with South Africa's decision to go public on the third evening of the match with their concerns over Straut Board and James Anderson’s management of the ball. They chose not to make an official complaint the next morning, and the International Cricket Council subsequently declared the matter closed. But Strauss said: "I do think to a certain extent that the South Africans announcing it to the media - without being totally clear in their minds what they were going to do, whether they were going to put in a formal complaint - is a little bit malicious. "Ball-tampering is a very sensitive subject - and if you're going to make allegations, you've got to be very clear or confident that is exactly what the other team were doing." Strauss conceded England must be very careful from now on - after Broad stopped a straight drive with the sole of his studded boot, and Anderson was pictured running his fingers over the ball - but he insists his team have done nothing wrong. "We're not particularly happy about it, and I strongly refute those allegations," he added. "I really don't feel there was any concerted effort on anybody's part to alter the state of the ball. "I'm very comfortable with our actions" "I appreciate that some of that (television) footage didn't look amazingly good. But I don't think it was anything that was malicious, particularly. "If the spotlight is on you, we've got to be very careful that we are beyond suspicion. "But what Stuart Broad did there is not something you'd do if you wanted to alter the shape of the ball - because, just as easily, your stud could go in the shiny side and ruin your chances of swinging the ball. "At no stage did the umpires feel they had any concerns about the state of the ball. "I'm very comfortable with our actions. It's always a bit of a shame when these things rear their head, and we'll be making sure that something like this doesn't happen again." Strauss is hoping relations between the two teams do not deteriorate. "We haven't had a lot to do with them," he reported. "Towards the back end of a series, emotions start running a little bit high. That's understandable. "I hope today has gone some way to making sure the game of cricket is the main story." Smith: The series is competitive His opposite number Graemem Smith is confident next week's final Test will be amicable. "The series is competitive and is being played in a hard way, but I have no doubt that when it is finished there will be a beer shared," he said. "That's the way cricket is played today, and it's the way I like my team to play the game. I don't see any off-field tensions. "It's pretty tough on the field, and that's the way people want to have it."

[gaurav92]

:(( Feel sorry on this

[achilles]

De Villiers reignites tampering row AB de Villiers fanned the flames of the Stuart Broad ball-tampering controversy at the close of the fourth day's play at Cape Town, when he accused the England seamer of being "a little bit naughty" for stepping on the ball early in South Africa's second innings, and suggested that an official complaint ought to have been lodged by the South Africa team management. After raising their "concerns" with the ICC match referee, Roshan Mahanama, South Africa had until the start of play on the fourth day to take their protest to a higher level. When they failed to do so, England believed that the incident had been laid to rest, and having studied the TV evidence for themselves, the ICC followed up with a press release to say the matter was closed. However, de Villiers clearly didn't want the matter to die away that easily. "I think there should be a formal complaint because the ball did reverse after that," he said. "There was quite clearly a piece of leather off the ball after he'd [broad] stepped on the ball and it's not the first time it happened. It's a little bit naughty, I wouldn't say he deserves to be banned but it should be looked at definitely." De Villiers' comments suggested there were mixed messages coming out of the South Africa camp, because he implied that the matter had in fact been taken to a higher level already. "I'm not really sure what will happen about the decision-making, official complaints being written and all that. I thought we did," he said. "Mickey actually told us he sent an email through, but I'm not really aware of that." De Villiers also claimed that the team had first discussed the issue of England gaining early reverse-swing after the second Test in Durban which South Africa lost by an innings and 98 runs. On the fourth day Broad blew away three middle-order wickets, including de Villiers, in the space of 15 balls. "We spoke about it at Kingsmead because I look after our ball when we bowl and the captain asked why they get the ball to reverse a bit earlier," he added. "The questions have been asked a few days before this Test and they still got it to reverse a bit quicker. Maybe they just have more skills." The overall impression was that South Africa were keen to keep the controversy rumbling on without actually backing up their strong words with strong actions. "All I know is that it's not on to be climbing onto the ball with your spikes," de Villiers said. "But again it's not on me to make the decisions. We all like to get the ball to reverse all over the show, as long as you do it in a legal way." However, de Villiers admitted he hadn't actually seen any of the on-field incidents as yet. "I can't say I saw anything. It's up to the footage on TV and maybe they'll be something there," he added. "I just know they've been reversing it a few overs earlier than us." The South Africa team manager, Dr Mohammed Moosajee, confirmed that their original concern was over the state of the ball and as far as the team was concerned the matter was dealt with by the match referee Mahanama. "If you looked at the ball you could clearly see the ball was altered," Moosajee said. "If that was inadvertently or not we couldn't tell and we left it to the match referee to decide. The ball showed up with an indentation on it, and there were marks that went across, which is why we asked the match referee to have a look. "They came back to us to say that they'd looked at everything and were quite satisfied that no further action needs to be taken and we accepted that." Alastair Cook, who is one of three England players with the job of looking after the ball in the field, said that South Africa's claims had made the team angry, but as far as they were concerned the matter was over. "We were a little bit [angry]," he said. "We're glad the matter is closed. We've done nothing wrong. We know what we've been doing is fine. The umpires, match referee and everyone else - with all the TV evidence - have said we've done nothing wrong, and we're totally 100% confident in our camp that that is true. That's what's been proved." He added that it was England's bowlers who deserved praise for getting the ball to swing early in the conditions and that they had been working on their skills in an effort to become a more consistent threat overseas. "We've been trying to find ways of getting the opposition out abroad when the Kookaburra goes flat, and the lads have been very skilled and put in a lot of hard work with Ottis Gibson to become better reverse-swingers of the ball. It's not just the ball; the bowlers have to take credit. I couldn't reverse-swing any ball, if I tried." From - http://www.cricinfo.com/rsaveng09/content/current/story/442836.html

[achilles]

"Naughty"? Wtf. Aren't these the same guys to proudly claimed in the media a few years back that they were using binoculars to see whether Pakistan's players tamper the ball or not. How hypocritical ! When a Paki does it, you screw him. When a Pom does it, you don't even report it to the darn match ref :O

[The Outsider]

There is nepotism in every field of life - why do some people find it hard to accept that it can exist in the ICC as well, more so after this instance?

[achilles]

Where is that Hughes idiot now, eh? Wrote an article criticizing Sunny Sir, who has been proved right in a week flat !

[Sachinism]

Sunny was absolutely, 100% right about Broad. OK SA didn't make a formal complaint, but after the video evidence for the match referee not to do ANYTHING about it, is an absolute p!$$ take

[Karan114]

****ing cheats Anderson and Broad can get away with anything, ICC won't say a word to their team, only India and the Asian countries

[Watson87]

Just read the article by Andew Hughes on Page 2 LOL it's hilarious, i hate that midget Sunil Gavaskar, i just hate that arrogant midget. He had it coming, he should have kept his mouth shut, the match was between South Africa and England why does he bother, what a loser man. He can never reach Sachin's shoes, does Sachin even care. Learn from the Legend Sachin, always wanting for attention, somone should seriously put a C*** in the little man's(Gavaskar) mouth.

[achilles]

^ That midget has been proved right on more ocassions than one. Infact, it just took a week for him to be proved right in Broad's case ! :two_thumbs_up: And its not called attention. Its called balls. People don't even have the balls to be honest with their friends. This guy can speak his mind in front of the world ! :finger:

[Ram]

I did not see the match, but so I am quite circumspect in coming to any judgement. But, if there's actual video footage of either Stuart Broad stamping on the ball with his spikes or Jimmy Anderson picking at the leather, then how the hell did ICC let go of them, irrespective of whether there was a official complaint by the South Africans or not? Rahul Dravid got punished just because he applied some mint/chewing gum on the ball. Back then, there was nothing to prove that actually even contributed to changing the condition of the ball. All they had was video evidence showing Dravid doing the act and he was punished. Now, we clearly have Broad digging the spikes of his boots into the ball, not once but twice and he has been allowed to go scot-free. That is preposterous. Broad's argument has been that him stopping the ball with his boots was a mere act of laziness and if he had ever wanted to alter the condition of the ball to get more reverse swing, stepping on it with the boot is not the way to go since he could very inadvertently step on the shiny side, hence reducing reverse swing. ICC's response to that should be - 'I effing dont care whether what you did is 'inadvertant' or an act of laziness or not. All I know is that your actions may have altered the condition of the ball. That itself is illegal. Whether the change actually happened and if it did, was it the change you desired, is none of our business'. I am amazed that both Broad and Anderson have been let go even without an official reprimand from the match referee. You had an instance when an entire Pakistani team was made to face the embarrassment of ball-tampering allegations, when clearly, there wasnt a shred of video evidence to back it. Then, there was the whole nonsensical Mike Denness - Sachin Tendulkar episode, where Sachin was penalized for scratching at the ball even though video evidence clearly showed he had no nails whatsoever. And now, we have this.

[riya]

Such double standards and hypocrisy.so blatant,unbeliveable.And Indians and Paksiatnis top the list of breach of conduct list.Any one wonder why?

[Master Blaster]

Ima get yuvraj on himB->B->