No international and domestic cricket for a full year for Steve Smith and David Warner. No international and domestic cricket for nine months for Cameron Bancroft, the man who put the sandpaper (not a sticky yellow tape, after all) in his underpants. The judgement thus came to pass as world cricket continues to reel in the aftermath of the ball-tampering controversy that broke out in the third Test between Australia and South Africa.

Speaking to the press on Tuesday, Cricket Australia chief James Sutherland had confirmed that the sanctions against the three players involved (no one else knew about it, he maintains) will be significant and it indeed turned out to be so.

Fair enough

This was, it must be said, not a very popular opinion. And perhaps rightfully so. The sanctions seem to be a reaction to the reaction that the incident has caused, more than any other parameter. Nonetheless, Cricket Australia have laid down the marker for such acts in the future and it’s fair to say no Australian cricketer will attempt to pull off anything this silly anytime soon. In that sense, Cricket Australia might have achieved what they set out to.

Like Sachin Tendulkar said, unfortunate but the right decision, in the eyes of some.

Chris Gayle was being... Chris Gayle about it.

Too harsh

The other school of thought is that Cricket Australia have gone overboard in a bid to reestablish trust with the outrage on social media and back home. While heavy sanctions were expected, the final numbers are hard to digest given that they are unprecedented. And all this for an offence that is not anywhere near as serious as, say, spot-fixing or match-fixing.

There were plenty of voices, including that of Shane Warne, saying the punishment doesn’t fit the crime at all.

It’s also worth noting, however, that Sutherland himself said the sanctions were more to do with the reaction in Australia and how the public have felt let down. It’s not like the board was not aware that the act of ball-tampering itself did not call for the heavy ban, it was more to do with the consequences of their actions.

“They haven’t been charged by Cricket Australia for ball tampering,” he said. “It’s something that’s important to remind people that the code is worth reading, those four dot points, that’s what they’ve been charged for.

“That’s the significance. It relates to contrary to the spirit of the game, it relates to denigrating the game or having an impact on the reputation and image of the game, causing damage to the game, all of those things have quite clearly happened in a short space of time as a result of those actions. That’s what the report is for and the sanctions are on that basis.”

No way back for Warner

This sentiment was, however, unambiguous. One does feel, after being called out as the chief instigator in the issue, the way back for Warner has become incredibly tough.

IPL overreach?

But given that ICC has done their (laughable) due diligence, and Cricket Australia had levied sanctions on their part, did the BCCI (and its Committee of Administrators) take it as far as banning Smith and Warner from IPL? While the sanctions on the players, coming from the Australian board, was understandable given the reaction to their act back home, the BCCI, perhaps, does not have the same excuse to prevent the players from playing the IPL.

But even on that front, you could see where the decision is coming from. How could a league justify bringing in two multi-millionaires who have been banned by their country? From an image and brand value point of view, that would have not gone too well for IPL, given they are only just welcoming two teams back from two year bans for corruption. If, as a marketable entity, the league felt having Smith and Warner was a tricky proposition, the one-year bans from Cricket Australia pretty much forced their hands into arriving at this decision.

From all of this, one thing is certain: More than breaking the laws of the game, Smith and Warner (and Bancroft to a lesser extent) have been made to pay for spoiling the image of their board, the country they represent and the franchises that would have shelled out top dollar for their services.

There are two sides to this coin as well, but one cannot help but feel if three cricketers who made a silly mistake have been made to pay for much more than their ‘crime’ warranted.