The Big Story: Playing dirty

Last week, Australia captain Steve Smith had criticised the International Cricket Council’s decision to overturn a two-Test ban on South Africa fast bowler Kagiso Rabada for making physical contact with him during play, an action that is considered a violation of rules.

After the South African successfully appealed against his punishment, Smith felt Rabada had been let off lightly by the International Cricket Council, the sport’s global governing body. On Sunday, the Australia captain must have thanked the authorities for allowing him to get away so easily for an offence that is much graver than a shoulder barge.

The International Cricket Council has been drawing enormous criticism these past few days for its seemingly arbitrary system of handing out punishments – or not – for offences on the field. Still, its decision to let Smith off with just a one-Test ban and the forfeiture of his one-match fee for admitting to tampering with the ball in a pre-meditated manner takes the cake.

TheInternational Cricket Council went by the book. Ball tampering is categorised as a Level 2 offence in its Code of Conduct, on par with publically criticising a player or official, showing serious dissent towards an umpiring decision, and making deliberate physical contact with someone. None of the other Level 2 offences can really impact the result of a match, but tampering with the ball in order to generate reverse swing can. It’s plain cheating.

Smith got the maximum possible punishment for a Level 2 offence as per the International Cricket Council’s rule book. But is the one-Test ban and the loss of fees for one match (Smith earns $17,275 for a Test played away from home) really enough punishment for planned and systematic cheating?

Over the past day, it has become clear that Smith and the “leadership group” of the Australia camp sat together and devised a method of systematic cheating, got a junior member of the team to do the dirty work, tried to cover up when caught initially and then were forced to admit it when their act was all over television screens.

However, the only person who was banned out of this bunch – though for just one match – was Smith. Cameron Bancroft, the young team member who was asked to do the dirty work, was let off with a fine of 75% of his match fees and three demerit points (four demerit points over a period of two years leads to a one-match suspension). Even though he might have been coerced into cheating by his leader but Bancroft is 25 years old, not 15. As for the so-called leadership group, they got away free.

The International Cricket Council has put the onus on the Cricket Australia, which governs cricket in the country, to take further action, saying that its member countries “need to show more accountability for their teams’ conduct”. Cricket fans around the world can only hope that the Australian board takes a broader view of what is clearly a Machiavellian team culture, replete with a head coach orchestrating the cheating via walkie talkie.

The Australian government’s Sports Commission has already called for Smith to be made to resign as captain, along with “any other members of the team leadership group or coaching staff who had prior awareness of, or involvement in” the plan to tamper with the ball.

No one is calling for career-ending bans, but Cricket Australia has the opportunity to set the right example by firing the captain and coach, banning and fining members of the leadership group enough that it actually hurts them, and grooming a new captain who is hopefully not already influenced by this unscrupulous team culture.

The Big Scroll

Ball tampering saga: Steve Smith and the perils of taking the moral high ground.

Subscribe to “The Daily Fix” by either downloading Scroll’s Android app or opting for it to be delivered to your mailbox. For the rest of the day’s headlines do click here. If you have any concerns about our coverage of particular issues, please write to the Readers’ Editor at readerseditor@scroll.in

Punditry

  1. In the Indian Express, Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd says the Supreme Court verdict will make the SC/ST Atrocities Act toothless and roll back social transformation. 
  2. In the context of the recent forest fire in Theni in Tamil Nadu, in which scores of trekkers were killed, Peter Smetacek in The Hindu writes on how responses to such fires could be improved. 
  3.   If the credibility of the banking system has to be preserved, it is critical that the Punjab National Bank case is dealt with in a manner that sends out a clear signal, argues Chetan Dalal in Mint. 

Giggles

Don’t miss

In this interview to Shreya Roy Chowdhury, Jawaharlal Nehru University professor Balveer Arora says that granting autonomy to universities now is like giving power to khap panchayats.

“A university having more powers is a positive thing. Once it so decides, it should be able to carry out the reforms it wants. But if the internal democratic structure has collapsed, then the power is wielded by a few people who are cut off from the rest of the university – students and teachers. Unless you have democratic checks and controls, you are handing powers to undemocratic, irresponsible and unaccountable people. Given this context of a lack of democratic accountability, granting autonomy is like handing over power to a khap panchayat.”