Sandpaper vs Sweet: How Dinesh Chandimal’s Ball-Tampering Is Different From That Of Cameron Bancroft’s?

Sri Lanka skipper Dinesh Chandimal has been handed a one-Test ban after he was found guilty of changing the condition of the ball during the second day’s play of the second Test against the West Indies, which concluded at Gros Islet on Monday.

Not even six months have passed in 2018 and the world cricket has already been hit by two of the most biggest controversies in the history of the game.

In March, Australian opener Cameron Bancroft was charged for ball-tampering after his now infamous use of sandpaper during the third Test against South Africa in Cape Town. Bancroft was subsequently handed a nine-month ban from international and first-class cricket by Cricket Australia. Former Aussie captain Steve Smith and his deputy David Warner were slapped with 12-month bans for their role in the scandal.

And now in June, Sri Lanka skipper Dinesh Chandimal has been handed a one-Test ban after he was found guilty of  changing the condition of the ball during the second day’s play of the second Test against the West Indies, which concluded at Gros Islet on Monday. He was suspected of using saliva and a sweet to tamper with the ball and give it more spin after television images picked it up.

During a hearing held at the end of the St Lucia Test, Chandimal admitted putting something in his mouth but wasn’t able to recall what it was. ICC Match Referee Javagal Srinath handed Chandimal the maximum punishment available under the code, i.e. two suspension points and a fine of 100 per cent of his match fee.

Ball-tampering, which means to change the condition of the ball using artificial means, is not new to world cricket. It has been in practice ever since the game evolved. Every now and then, players have been caught either by the on-field officials or on cameras.

However, the reactions and the public outrage has been different in different incidents. If we go on two compare the last two ball-tampering incidents—Brancroft and Chandimal—we will see there a vast difference in reactions to both the incidents. While, there was huge hue and cry across the world following the ‘sandpaper row’, Chandimal’s ‘sweet row’ has not garnered that sharp a criticism as one would have expected.

But why is it so? Let us compare:

Firstly, Smith, alongside Bancroft, had admitted in the post-day press conference that it was a deliberate and pre-planned attempt and the leadership group were aware of it. Smith and Warner were removed as captain and vice-captain respectively in the middle of the Test match. At Cape Town, the Australian seniors were found to have delegated the actual tampering to one of the most junior members of the side. And what made the Cape Town scandal worse, was that the men involved initially lied about the substance used. They first said it had been sticky tape, when it had been sandpaper.

And, therefore, the Australian nationals, who are die-hard cricket fans and are known to be really passionate about the game, were left extremely disappointed. Even Malcolm Turnbull, the Australian Prime Minister, was left in shock and said that it was “beyond belief” that the national cricket team was involved in “cheating”.

However, it was not the case in Chandimal’s incident as there was no pre-planning. He didn’t delegate any of the juniors or team members to tamper with the ball but did it himself. During a hearing held at the end of the St Lucia Test, the Sri Lanka skipper admitted putting something in his mouth but wasn’t able to recall what it was. However, ICC Match Referee Javagal Srinath found the defence unconvincing and said that the fact remains it was an artificial substance and hence handed a one-Test suspension to Chandimal.

Secondly, the circumstances and the situation prior to both the incidents were completely different. Australia’s ball-tampering incident had been preceded by sequence of escalating clashes, hearings and controversies that had raised questions over the mannerism of the players and the attitude with which the ‘gentlemen’s game’ need to be played. Incidents like Warner had a stairwell confrontation with South Africa wicketkeeper Quinton de Kock, Kagiso Rabada’s show of anger and indiscipline, Warner’s aggressive wicket celebrations and sledging from both the sides. All that led to a wide criticism, especially for the Australian team.

On the other hand, the ongoing Test series in the Caribbean has been very quite. There has not been enough audience to watch the matches and at no stage, player’s discipline been an issue. Both the teams have played quietly and have went about their business.

And lastly, the image that the Australians cricketers have been carrying off late has been that of being extremely aggressive on the field. And in the process of being aggressive, more often than not, the Australian cricketers have been found crossing the line, thus inviting criticism from the entire fraternity. On the other hand, Sri Lankan cricketers, especially Chandimal, have an image of playing in the spirit of the game and not involving in sledging and other altercations.

Both the incidents have once again raised an important question-Is the punishment given by the ICC harsh enough to create fear in the minds of the cricketers before they resort to such stuff? Following the Bancroft incident, the ICC had in April asked an internal panel to suggest harsher punishment for ball-tampering and other misbehaviour by players after the meeting of the Cricket Committee, chaired by former India captain Anil Kumble.

Currently, the maximum sanction under a Level 2 charge is ban of one Test or two ODIs, while under Level 3, a player is slapped with a ban of four Tests or eight ODIs. “All level 2 breaches carry an imposition of a fine between 50 per cent to 100 percent of the applicable match fee and/or up to two suspension points, and three or four demerit points,” the statement added.

Smaller punishments have been there in ball tempering incidents whether it was Rahul Dravid applying lozenge in Zimbabwe, Shahid Afridi biting the ball, Mike Atherton’s pocket full of dirt, Marcus Trescothicks’ Murray mints, Faf du Plessis’ zipper + mints, Stuart Broad’s stamping, Jimmy Anderson’s handling or Pat Symcox’s icky cocktail of sweat-and-spit.