Cricket world divided over 'legalized' ball-tampering

While the experts assess the impact of COVID-19 on life in general, the pandemic has already nudged a discussion that had hitherto been only talked in hushed tones.

The International Cricket Council in its recent CEC meeting considered the use of an artificial substance to maintain the shine on the ball; the idea was to find an alternative of saliva since it causes the spread of coronavirus.

However, former Windies bowler and now a prominent voice in the commentary box, Michael Holding, is not quite impressed with the suggestion.

“I have read that ICC is contemplating preventing people from using saliva on the ball due to COVID-19 and allowing them to use foreign substances on the ball to keep the shine on but in front of the umpire. I don’t understand the logic behind that,” Holding told ESPN Cricinfo.

“Before they got to that point they said if they restart cricket it has to be played in a bio-secure environment. They were saying cricketers, for instance, would have to isolate themselves for two weeks to make sure everything was fine before they get to the venue before the match started. And everyone involved (with the match) will have to do the same thing,” he said.

Holding believes that once the player has quarantined himself and is declared fit to play, he should be allowed to use saliva on the ball.

“Now, if you are saying everyone is in the bio-secure environment, you are staying in the same hotel, you are not moving for the length of time you are playing the matches, why are you worried about someone’s saliva?”

Holding said that that there needs to be a clarity before the action can resume.

“If the ICC thinks that the two-week period to prove that you are free of COVID-19 is not foolproof, then that means you are putting everyone in that environment in jeopardy? Why would you want to play cricket under those circumstances? It’s either safe or it’s not. No guessing, please,” he added.

While one of the champions of reverse swing, Waqar Younis thinks that the idea of using an artificial substance is flawed as it’s only natural for a bowler to use sweat and saliva on the ball and it will be difficult to contain that.

“I don’t know how this discussion came up but I feel people who want the game to be played are frustrated with the lockdown. They are overthinking about it. I doubt this new idea of using (artificial) substance instead of saliva is a solution. You can make a bowler use a predefined substance on the ball, but at the same time practically it’s not possible to prevent a bowler using his sweat or saliva.”

However, another fast bowling legend Alan Donald is of the view that the process can be implemented if monitored properly.

“I absolutely agree with legalising ball-tampering. I said so in an article sometime in the 2000s. It happens anyway, we see guys throwing the ball on the ground, and umpires say to throw it up and it’s pretty obvious what they are doing. It could work if it is well-monitored,” Donald was quoted by Sportstar.

As the situation stands right now, the debate is only going to gather pace before the ICC finalizes the decision. Let us know in the comments section what are your views about the use of artificial substances to maintain the ball.

[With ESPN Cricinfo inputs]