Is law 42, i.e. the ball tampering law in need of adjustment?

Question

Sarah N, why don't you check out who the umpire is on Friday's Match, think back to 2006 and then you'll know why I asked this question.

Answer 1

I agree 100% with every word that Sarah N has said in answer to your question.

The Law is there for a purpose: to prevent a fielding side from gaining an unfair advantage by tampering with the condition of the ball.

In relation to Law 21.3, that gives umpires the power to award a game if they deem one side to have refused to play. In the Oval Test of 2006, Pakistan weren't exaactly refusing to play, they were refusing to go back out until a resolution had been made.

If you are proposing a change to Law 42, please qualify your question by saying how you would like it to be changed. Changing it because an umpire becomes rather too officious is not a solution.

Proper training for umpires in how to apply the Law, and perhaps in Mr Hair's case, some lessons in diplomacy, as clearly accusing a team of cheating is an extremely emotive issue, is maybe a better solution.

Edit: If you're saying that the umpire has to amke an on the spot decision, without any appeals process, well, isn't that the same for every Law? Doesn't he make an on the spot decision in terms of Leg Before Wicket decisions? Whether a batsman is LBW is open to the interpretation of the umpire. Even super slow motion replays and Hawkeye projections can prove inconclusive. In the case of The Oval Test match fiasco, how long would it have taken to sort out whether the ball had been tampered with? Should the players have a) Carried on playing, even if the ball had been tampered with, in case the umpire got it wrong, or b) Left the field until the ball had been scientifically examined (which could take weeks or even months to determine), before resuming play?

No, sorry, I don't see any reason to change Law 42. As with all the Laws of Cricket, it's pretty clear cut: the umpire needs to make the decision, and the players should respect that. If cheating wasn't going on, the Law wouldn't have needed to be put in place at all.

Answer 2

Like every rule/law, it is bound to be mis-used at some time. I don't see any need to change it.

Answer 3

change the ball every five overs

Answer 4

Why? What's wrong with it? It seems fair enough to me.

I mean you can change the condition of the ball sufficiently and without cheating (by rubbing or shining it and removing dirt etc). There is no reason to implement a law that says you can pick at the seam or rub it with sandpaper (for example) as that would be unfair for the batting team. It's why the law exists in the first place.

Though perhaps I'm missing something here. Has something happened during a game that is causing everyone to question these rules?

Edit: Ahh, I forgot about that incident with Darrell Hair. My answer stays the same though, the law is fine, it's the umpire who needs a little adjustment. Though an adjustment to rule 21.3 (how umpires can award a match) could do with an amendment, especially after this case.

Answer 5

The way the game has gone in favour of the batsman I think anything they can do to the ball with their bare hands should be legal

Answer 6

I see what you mean. Maybe they should do a re-think on that. Everything else seems to be going to a 3rd umpire, why not that?