Rory Burns and Mark Wood were briefly playing football in the middle of the Lord’s Test, when Rory Burns stopped the ball with his metal spikes. This was caught on camera, and produced a brief debate and pictures on Day 4.
There is a view that this is not illegal under the Laws of Cricket. The usual defense goes something like this tweet.
And its true. A conclusion that this was a deliberate, sustained plot by ENG to alter the condition of the ball illegally is not sustainable given the single incident.
Nevertheless, what Burns did was “ball tampering”, if, by “ball tampering” we mean a breach of Law 41.3. The relevant portion of the law says the following:
41.3.2 It is an offence for any player to take any action which changes the condition of the ball.
Except in carrying out his/her normal duties, a batsman is not allowed to wilfully damage the ball. See also Law 5.5 (Damage to the ball).
A fielder may, however
41.3.2.1 polish the ball on his/her clothing provided that no artificial substance is used and that such polishing wastes no time.
41.3.2.2 remove mud from the ball under the supervision of an umpire.
41.3.2.3 dry a wet ball on a piece of cloth that has been approved by the umpires.
41.3.3 The umpires shall consider the condition of the ball to have been unfairly changed if any action by any player does not comply with the conditions in 41.3.2.
Ball tampering does not require the existence of a plot or the intent to cheat. It requires evidence that the condition of the ball has been changed by a player illegally.
When a bowler is cleaning mud from the seam of the ball, there is no intention to tamper the ball either. But its still illegal unless it is done under the supervision of the umpire.
The perception that ball tampering only occurs when there’s evidence of cheating is plainly incorrect. The law is written to prohibit all actions except the ones which are specifically allowed. That is the only law on this subject.
When Rahul Dravid was fined for illegally altering the condition of the ball when a sweet fell out of his mouth and he briefly rubbed it on the ball, could it be said with any more certainty that the condition of the ball changed, than it would be from the impact of metal spikes on leather? The point though, as match referee Clive Lloyd explained, “The footage shows that something has been applied to the ball and the rules state you are not allowed to do that... something was being applied to the ball quite obviously and he must have known it, it's quite conclusive on film”
You are not allowed to apply spikes to the cricket ball. The English players in 2021 know this as well as Dravid knew mints couldn’t be applied to the ball back in the day.
Did Burns break the law? Yes. Whether he did it because he wanted to help his bowlers, or whether he did it simply because he was not paying attention, is irrelevant. The action was illegal under the law, and Burns committed the action.
The point here is that “ball tampering”, much like “throwing” has become one these hot button points where the alleged motives behind an illegal act in a cricket match seem to have overtaken the fact of the act. It is the facts which determine legality, not the motives behind them.
The word “wilful” appears in cricket in 4 laws. In all 4 cases, it refers to actions which do not occur accidentally. The ball did not hit Burns’ spikes. Burns stopped the ball with his spikes.
Burns’ illegal action is not of the same magnitude as that of Cameron Bancroft in South Africa in 2018. The Code of Conduct does not allow for mild ball tampering and severe ball tampering. The Code only allows a breach of Law 41.3 to be considered as a Level 3 breach. Code does not consider “mild” ball tampering. So it is correct that Burns should not be up before the match referee.
This does not change the fact, that under the Laws of Cricket, stopping the ball with the spikes is illegal. The law does not consider ball tampering to be illegal. It considers changing the condition of the cricket ball in all but three ways, illegal.