In the follow up to Smith-Warner-Bancroft saga, the concerns of St Lucia incident involving Chandimal was already apparent. If we recap the proceedings, Smith-Warner-Bancroft saga had one high quality in it, that it was absolutely stupid. I mean, here we have a cricket team that discussed to change the shape of the ball in the team meeting, brought a sandpaper (of all things) and took it in the middle of the ground and applied it on the ball in clear daylight. If that much was not enough they chose a sandpaper with a yellow back, whereas yellow has been a color chosen for road marks for the drivers to see at a distance.
So, as expected, they got caught, confessed, cried, daddies patted, wives walked by and finally, we all have a clear case. Despite the shame and what not, everyone must be happy to have a clear decision in the game, win or loss you may call it.
But the real thing is not that clear, many scores level and game ends in the margin of doubt. Sitting in the middle of all the mess is the game of Cricket, the champion sport of vagueness and incomplete legislation. For an example, it is perfectly legal to tamper the ball with some things whereas some other things are not allowed. The allowed things are also not clear, and there is no definite margin. You are not allowed to apply foreign objects but you can apply a handkerchief which is a foreign unregulated object itself. You are not allowed to apply any rough material, but you can use your outfit. Now how many have thought of the possibility to have a sandpaper-like logo on the outfit?
This is another vague case in cricket like pitch fixing, where the curator is allowed to "fix the pitch" for the advantage of the home team, but not for the advantage of the bookies.
Laws are more than partial, in fact, they mean nothing here. They lead us to lunatic ends.
So did they in St Lucia. Dinesh Chandimal was thought to be feeding himself a sweet and rubbing saliva on the ball. So his action is deemed as a tampering, but had he taken the sweet during the break and kept it in his mouth, it would be perfectly legal to apply saliva. I mean, it is legal to apply saliva, legal to eat sweets, legal to have sweets in the mouth and apply saliva as long as you do not put it in the mouth in front of the camera. All that for a street myth that sweets change the shine of the ball.
And was it a sweet? As Chandi had sweets and almonds in the pocket and says that he does not remember which one it was. As the camera fails to find which one, he was in effect accused of "having sweets in the pocket" which any school kid can get caught when parents put their trousers to wash.
Now, this is not a face-saving for Chandi. Seriously, he may have intentionally changed the shape of the ball. Not only him, maybe most of these sweet chewing cricketers are doing the same. But it could equally be fair to say that they eat sweets totally unintentionally.
What a lunatic law is that cannot differentiate the two, define the margin. Not just here, the whole list of tampering techniques can be portrayed as totally innocent and natural actions, except for a yellow sandpaper
I don't know whether Dinesh Chandimal cheated or not, although he is hell bent insisting that he did not. But he is surely sitting on a match ban, as the same claim was upheld against Du Plessis. Punishment is going to be harsher than that due to current ICC drive against tampering (or the subset of tampering which they cannot stand). Regardless of his innocence, SLC (or whatever remains under that name) should take this the longest they can, for the sake of clarifying the law correctly, just like we managed with the flexing of the elbow.
Like I said before, we can tackle the yellow sandpaper in clear daylight. But such fools are so rare, mostly the culprits mimic the innocent and innocent get caught by mistake. Usually, a legal system should protect the innocent at the cost of the occasional culprit getting away, but here it does exactly opposite.
So, as expected, they got caught, confessed, cried, daddies patted, wives walked by and finally, we all have a clear case. Despite the shame and what not, everyone must be happy to have a clear decision in the game, win or loss you may call it.
But the real thing is not that clear, many scores level and game ends in the margin of doubt. Sitting in the middle of all the mess is the game of Cricket, the champion sport of vagueness and incomplete legislation. For an example, it is perfectly legal to tamper the ball with some things whereas some other things are not allowed. The allowed things are also not clear, and there is no definite margin. You are not allowed to apply foreign objects but you can apply a handkerchief which is a foreign unregulated object itself. You are not allowed to apply any rough material, but you can use your outfit. Now how many have thought of the possibility to have a sandpaper-like logo on the outfit?
This is another vague case in cricket like pitch fixing, where the curator is allowed to "fix the pitch" for the advantage of the home team, but not for the advantage of the bookies.
Laws are more than partial, in fact, they mean nothing here. They lead us to lunatic ends.
So did they in St Lucia. Dinesh Chandimal was thought to be feeding himself a sweet and rubbing saliva on the ball. So his action is deemed as a tampering, but had he taken the sweet during the break and kept it in his mouth, it would be perfectly legal to apply saliva. I mean, it is legal to apply saliva, legal to eat sweets, legal to have sweets in the mouth and apply saliva as long as you do not put it in the mouth in front of the camera. All that for a street myth that sweets change the shine of the ball.
And was it a sweet? As Chandi had sweets and almonds in the pocket and says that he does not remember which one it was. As the camera fails to find which one, he was in effect accused of "having sweets in the pocket" which any school kid can get caught when parents put their trousers to wash.
Now, this is not a face-saving for Chandi. Seriously, he may have intentionally changed the shape of the ball. Not only him, maybe most of these sweet chewing cricketers are doing the same. But it could equally be fair to say that they eat sweets totally unintentionally.
What a lunatic law is that cannot differentiate the two, define the margin. Not just here, the whole list of tampering techniques can be portrayed as totally innocent and natural actions, except for a yellow sandpaper
I don't know whether Dinesh Chandimal cheated or not, although he is hell bent insisting that he did not. But he is surely sitting on a match ban, as the same claim was upheld against Du Plessis. Punishment is going to be harsher than that due to current ICC drive against tampering (or the subset of tampering which they cannot stand). Regardless of his innocence, SLC (or whatever remains under that name) should take this the longest they can, for the sake of clarifying the law correctly, just like we managed with the flexing of the elbow.
Like I said before, we can tackle the yellow sandpaper in clear daylight. But such fools are so rare, mostly the culprits mimic the innocent and innocent get caught by mistake. Usually, a legal system should protect the innocent at the cost of the occasional culprit getting away, but here it does exactly opposite.
