Saying no to tampering

An ongoing issue gets fresh perspective, with one of my favorite writers weighing in on the question of ball tampering. The key point underpinning Rahul Bhattacharya’s argument that cricket should not consider legislating — or to use the phrase bandied about in recent discussions, ‘legalizing’ — ball tampering:

The second point is that the consequence of permission is a whole new set of silly legislation. Should external objects be allowed? If it is legal to scar the ball, does it matter if it is with a fingernail or a switchblade? What acts are to be permitted? Seam-biting is less hygienic than seam-picking, but should it fall foul of the law for that reason? What kinds of creams are to be sanctioned? Minutiae of this kind will be impossible to monitor and will make cricket a more anal game.

2 thoughts on “Saying no to tampering

  1. What is Rahul Bhattacharya doing these days? Ayaz Menon, in one of his columns, said he went back to academia. Do you know where he is and what he is doing?

  2. Yes, Prem.. I think that those who are supporting the legalization of tampering should first come out and explain what they mean by it. I mean, it could range from carrying a set of stickers/weights to make the ball and the side heavy only when I want to carrying a set of hammers to hit on the ball and remove the shine before the first ball is bowled, to whatever one can creatively imagine!

Comments are closed.