He's crying! Steve Smith is crying like a big fvcking girl!

[redgunamo]

The difference is that ball tampering - if discovered - results in serious punishment. The cheating that takes place in football (fouling, timewasting, diving, handball, etc, etc) is simply an intrinsic part of the game. That difference means the two things cannot be meaningfully compared.

Right. The mere suggestion of harsh punishment for "cheats" in football is always met with "Yes, but if you banned all the players that cheated, there'd be hardly any players left."

Which is completely the wrong way about, of course; you'd actually be left with only players who didn't cheat

[Burney]

Rubbing or shining the ball against your man parts is obviously not deemed as tampering then, even though I presume it is done to affect the bounce or whatever?

It's perfectly legal to shine the ball, rub sweat or saliva into it. You are not allowed to use foreign objects to tamper with it.

And it's done to affect swing. If one side of the ball is rough and the other smooth, the resistance through the air will be different on one side to the other and it will swing accordingly. That is conventional swing. Reverse swing is achieved with an older ball and is a much darker art.

[Burney]

Right. The mere suggestion of harsh punishment for "cheats" in football is always met with "Yes, but if you banned all the players that cheated, there'd be hardly any players left."

Which is completely the wrong way about, of course; you'd actually be left with only players who didn't cheat

In fact, it's precisely that argument that normalises and encourages cheating. If you introduced straight red cards for diving, timewasting or swearing to the referee, those things would cease almost immediately because the risks would suddenly outweigh the potential rewards of cheating. The fact that such punishments are not introduced are proof that the football authorities simply have no interest in stopping these things.

[Burney]

It's not my opinion, it's Simon Burnton's.

Simon Burnton is younger than me and certainly never saw Boycott bat either.

I care nothing for his opinion.

[Burney]

Nonsense, you said cheating was an aberration and it clearly isn't.

How cheating is dealt with is a different issue entirely.

How it is dealt with pretty much defines whether or not it's an aberration.

[World's End Stella]

Simon Burnton is younger than me and certainly never saw Boycott bat either.

I care nothing for his opinion.

Your view isn't relevant, what is relevant is that a cricket writer for a major UK newspaper wrote that article. And that there is no shortage of support for his views on Boycott. That is relevant.

And we haven't even got to his refusal to play for his country.

[World's End Stella]

How it is dealt with pretty much defines whether or not it's an aberration.

More nonsense. Ball tampering has been going on since the year dot (Michael Atherton) and continues to go on, largely because of how difficult it is to catch the perpetrators. Hence cheating is commonplace in cricket and how it is dealt with becomes largely irrelevant.

Wow, you seem to have been wrong on pretty much everything so far, Burney. Hard night?

[Tony C]

Best one everyone seems to frown upon is deliberately throwing the ball back into the rough patches.

They give it the old - we know what you’re doing and it’s unsporting!

But really there’s f all else they can say or do about it

[Peter]

More nonsense. Ball tampering has been going on since the year dot (Michael Atherton) and continues to go on, largely because of how difficult it is to catch the perpetrators. Hence cheating is commonplace in cricket and how it is dealt with becomes largely irrelevant.

Wow, you seem to have been wrong on pretty much everything so far, Burney. Hard night?

Ball tampering is not one, flat thing. As others have explained, all teams 'tamper' with the ball to some extent- shining, saliva etc. This is legal and established practice across cricket. THe deliberate and premeditated use of a 'foreign object', in this case sandpaper (not tape), to alter the condition of the ball and achieve reverse swing is not commonplace and is very much cheating. It isnt difficult to spot either, given the amount of cameras around the ground at a test match.

This doesnt compare to forms of cheating like diving, shirt pulling, fouls etc. THoseforms of'cheating' do exist in cricket- bowlers deliberately running on the pitch, bowlingwide on the crease, excessive appealing, bowling constant bouncers at tailenders, moving a fielder slightly once the bowler has commenced his run up, talking during the run up to disrupt the batsman. These are effectively forms of bending the rules but are left to the umpires to manage.

THere isnt really an equivalent to ball tampering in football. Maybe if a goalkeeper used a specific resin on his gloves to make the ball stick better....?

THis level of ball tampering can dramatically alter the way the ball behaves and have a significant effect on the game.

[Peter]

In addition to his violence towards women, I recently read this with great interest as well:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...land-test-1978

THat article is puzzlingly stupid. It seems to be criticising Boycott for taking too long to score a lot of runs in a low team total. Thoroughly absurd, particularly as Englandcollapsed in the second innings when he got out early.

If I were Boycott I would be immensely proud of that innings, and I am sure he is.