“YOU SCRATCH it, we change the ball.” With these words, overheard through the stump mic on Sunday (November 3), umpire Shawn Craig seemed to set the tone for what was less a ball tampering incident and more a straightforward ball-change issue during the Australia A vs India A game in Mackay. Even as Nathan McSweeney boosted his case for a potential Test opening spot with Australia by leading Australia A to a commanding win, the focus briefly shifted to the ball-change controversy.
The reason the umpires’ decision wasn’t considered “ball tampering” likely hinges on their choice not to impose the “five penalty runs” stipulated by the MCC laws of cricket. According to MCC’s Law 41.3.4.2, if the umpires determine that the ball has been unfairly altered, they are to award five penalty runs to the opposing side, inform both team captains, and announce the change to the players on the field. However, in this case, no such penalties were enforced.
The Australia A vs India A match was played under Cricket Australia’s specific conditions for the Sheffield Shield and Second XI matches, which permit umpires to change the ball without penalizing the team suspected of altering it. Here, Cricket Australia’s playing conditions override the standard MCC laws, which simplifies the decision-making in such cases.
As per Cricket Australia’s playing conditions:
- 41.3.4: If the umpires suspect, but are not certain, that the ball’s condition has been unfairly changed, they may:
- 41.3.4.1: Replace the ball immediately with one of similar wear and the same brand.
- 41.3.4.2: Issue the team captain a first and final warning.
This latitude allows umpires to act on their suspicions without needing absolute certainty that the ball was tampered with, which likely explains the absence of penalty runs or a formal accusation of tampering. Under these conditions, “ball tampering” would only be formally accused if there was undeniable evidence of the ball being intentionally altered by players—an offense that could lead to a Level 3 breach and potential suspension.
The issue came to a head just before the day’s first over when the India A players realized that the ball had been changed overnight. Captain Ruturaj Gaikwad and his teammates approached umpire Craig, questioning why the ball change wasn’t made the previous evening and why it had occurred overnight instead.
Despite Craig’s insistence, “No more discussion, let’s play,” the India A players continued their objections. Wicket-keeper Ishan Kishan added, “So, we are going to play with this ball? That’s a very stupid decision,” within Craig’s earshot, prompting a swift response. The umpire cautioned him for dissent, saying, “That’s inappropriate behavior… because of your actions, we changed the ball.”
After this exchange, Craig firmly reiterated, “This is not up for discussion. Let’s play,” bringing an end to the contentious discussion on the field. However, players’ discontent continued as they made additional comments about the umpire’s decision throughout the day, captured by the stump mic.
In response to the situation, Cricket Australia issued an official statement:
“The ball used in the fourth innings of the match was changed due to deterioration. Both teams’ captains and managers were informed of the decision before play started. No further action is being taken.”
This clarification from Cricket Australia aimed to settle the incident, confirming that the decision was made to ensure fair play and not due to any proven wrongdoing by the India A players.
