Talk:2018 Australian ball-tampering scandal

Article name

@Lugnuts: why did you re-name this article? This is the first such incident for Australia so adding the year doesn't serve to disambiguate it. Thanks, Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 18:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:PRECISION, as there was a previous ball tampering issue involving Australia. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It was reported to be the first but I suppose its just the first proven incident. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 18:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Most articles have the year in them, even if it's the only one of that type/incident. Compare with 2018 Kemerovo fire on the frontpage right now. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

We need to include “cricket” in the title to avoid confusion with footballs and testicles. WWGB (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Neither football nor testicles are known for notable "tampering" issues. If anyone's confused, they'll swiftly understand when they start reading the article. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I think adding "cricket" to the title would be overkill. It's plain from the first sentence of the article that we are not talking about genitalia, in the unlikely even there is confusion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC).

Now, do we need Category:Ball tampering? Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The only other comparable incident I know of that has an article is Ball tampering controversy in August 2006. Don't know if the remark is facetious, but if it wasn't I think a category would be overkill for now, and hopefully forever. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC).

hyphenation

Should not this article be titled 2018 Australian ball-tampering scandal? — fourthords | =Λ= | 23:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It should not. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

It should certainly not have been changed in isolation. The main article is Ball tampering and it is used without hyphens throughout Wikipedia. A quick google search show that both forms are widely used. Spike 'em (talk) 07:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

"Ball tampering" is a noun and needs no hyphen in standard English. "In "ball-tampering scandal", it is a compound adjective, requiring the hyphen. Bjenks (talk) 08:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I've just started a discussion at Talk:Ball_tampering#Ball tampering or Ball-tampering in an attempt to clear things up across all articles. Spike 'em (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Pictures

Images and free/fair use is a weakspot for me on here, TBH. If anyone has knowledge in this area, can we use existing images of Smith, Warner, etc in this article too? I don't think there's an image of Bancroft, but maybe some montage of those three and Lehmann might be useful. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: The images of both Steve Smith and David Warner have been used in the article and was initially proceeded by an anonymous user. The images of both Smith and Warner have been merged together in this article similar to that of Wikinews article on Steve Smith and David Warner ban for one year. Abishe (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Crucial role of Fanie de Villiers on helping to identify the huge controversies

I have been worried about the fact that the importance of Fanie de Villiers role has been continuously neglected and removed from the article as he played the key role in suspecting the Australians of a possible ball tampering before raising his deep concern on that issue to claim further with latest updates. Abishe (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I have added this paragraph and I want clarification from other Wikipedians on my efforts in stating the real facts with sources

• However the cheating scandal was proved to be evident with the critical awareness from the former South African cricketer, Fanie de Villiers who was serving as the commentator in Afrikaans language for SuperSport channel during the third test match found out the real truth behind the scenes after suspecting that whether Australian cricketers were tampering the ball to get reverse swing of the ball to take early wickets on Day four of the test match. He was instrumental in identifying the ball tampering done by Cameron Bancroft with the use of a sandpaper by requesting the TV camera operators to keep an eye on the Australian cricket team throughout the innings and hinted out that Australian cricketers used underhanded tactics to cheat.

One thing to note, is that we don't cite the Daily Mail, per WP:DAILYMAIL. If you've used it as a source, please remove it and find another WP:RS instead. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

That section is far too long and poorly worded. Who spotted the issue could be mentioned in passing, but not to the degree you have done there. I'd have 1 sentence and 1 reference and put it in the initial part detailing what happened, rather than as a separate paragraph, as otherwise you are giving it too much weight. Spike 'em (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

An attempt at cutdown version:

• The ball tampering was spotted by cameramen after they acted on a tip-off from former South African cricketer Fanie de Villiers – working as as a commentator for local broadcaster SuperSport – who was suspicious that Australia were tampering with the ball.

It also comes across as self-promotion from de Villiers, all of the sources are based on him self-reporting it. Spike 'em (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but this section is too long and now says that de Villiers may not have done anything. It is irrelevant and I am removing it. Cut it down to a sentence so it does not have undue weight if you are convinced it is needed. Spike 'em (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Responses to the investigation and sanctions

There have been hundreds of responses to this incident worldwide. Where do we draw the line?

The latest addition to the article is about comments from Karl Stefanovic, a TV host who has no connection to cricket. His interests will always be his ratings rather than the good of cricket.

I really don't think his thoughts add to the article.

HiLo48 (talk) 05:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that his view isn't worth noting here. I guess it's a judgement call. Ideally, reactions from other (current) Australia players would be good, and for balance, those of the South African team (I added Faf's comments yesterday). Outside of that? Maybe the views of Ponting and Clarke? Not sure where to draw the line, but it doesn't need all the comments from every man and his dog who ever set foot on a cricket field. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This is very similar to the Fannie de Villiers section above : although it is sourced, it adds little, if anything, to the article. Spike 'em (talk) 07:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Some more popular cricketers comments regarding this scandal

• I am listing the comments posted by few former and current international cricketers. These have not been included in the article as very important comments were considered for the article. @Propadog: I wanted to clarify from you whether 2 or 3 comments from this article could be eligible or relevant to be included in the article or not? Abishe (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Ashish Nehra, the newly appointed bowling coach of the Royal Challengers Bangalore team during an interview with NDTV, supported in favour of Smith and Warner stating that either life ban or temporary ban would be harsh on them and said that any IPL team would not like to lose key players like Smith and Warner who are in such tremendous form in international cricket. He also gave credit to Steve Smith for accepting his deliberate mistake and uttered again that "It would be sad if they aren't available for the 2018 IPL season". Nehra also pointed out that "You won't see ball tampering in T20 cricket and you see that in test cricket where it has long sessions".

Rohit Sharma also supported and shown his sympathy through his tweets over Smith and Warner after accepting their faults regarding the ball tampering incident. Rohit mentioned that the ball tampering affair should not define the careers of Smith, Warner and Bancroft and further stated that Smith and Warner are always few of the greatest players in all forms of cricket.

Ravichandran Ashwin who was part of the Indian team during their home series against Australia where Smith allegedly cheated for an attempt to ask review for a dismissal from the Australian coaching staff during the second match of the series even without the permission of the umpires decided to defend Smith on his ball tampering scandal and mentioned with an emotional heart-warming message, "The world simply wants to see you cry and once you have cried they feel satisfied and live happily ever after".

V. V. S. Laxman who is the current mentor of the Sunrisers Hyderabad team who was interested to know whether David Warner could play for the team during the 2018 IPL season, backed both Smith and Warner and also urged media to spare thoughts for the families of the disgraced cricketers.

Yuvraj Singh another Indian cricketer who also commented in favour of Smith and Warner stating that the sanctions are too harsh on them.

Kane Williamson who replaced David Warner as the new Sunrisers Hyderabad captain for the 2018 IPL season stated that he has been contact with the disgraced cricketer since the ball tampering incident and admitted that Warner isn't a bad personality according to him.

Hashim Amla also backed the disgraced trio over the incident and felt sorry for the cricketers and alarmed that it is a wake up call to the international cricket. He also insisted that he doesn't want to see anyone in that kind of a situation.

propadog

The reactions block is starting to be larger than the description of the actual incident and getting unweildy. I propose that it now be restricted to those with solid credentials in the game eg Sachin, that have something unique to say. While I respect someone like VVS Laxman as a cricketer, I don't know if him only saying 'spare a thought for their families' adds to the article. For the same reason, I will probably delete e.g. Tom Moody's comments, because they were included when that block of text was a lot smaller. Unless anyone objects of course! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Propadog (talk • contribs) 10:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Overall detail changes

propadog I'm sure I'll get crucified for this, but hey. I've been re-going through the article, and included references to the actual Cricket Australia press releases etc. I know I'm being pedantic, but I've got a law degree. It's alright- I don't use it. ;-) Sorry if I've been steaming ahead but things have been flowing thicker and faster than I'm used to. eg I was updating the Warner presser from the Warner presser then on the way home. I know I've made a few mistakes- apologies to all.

OK- my concerns: °The sanctions are 12 months, not 1 year. Refer CA press release.

°Many CA comments, the charges and sanctions now in article have been directly quoted from CA press release. Be very careful before changing...

°Test matches are proper nouns eg First Test refer Wisdens, Cricket Australia, EWCB, MCC, BCCI, etc.

°No one was ever charged with ball tampering. The plot was actually a miserable failure. Bancroft was charged with attempt by ICC. All three were charged with bringing in the game into disrepute by CA, Smith also by ICC. Text should reflect this. I'm not lessening the severity of the act- I'm pushing accuracy.

°The reactions from other players is getting large and unwieldy and becoming bigger than the actual events. Should we restrict it to well known persons with something new to add? A famous player saying I feel sorry for them may not add a lot. Conversely, there are a few who can drop out of current reactions as a "who?" eg tom moody.

°Sachin is referred to as a legend. I propose leaving it in, because other greats eg Ponting have been quiet

°In player reactions: when compared to Smith/Bancroft pressers, is Warner treated a bit more coldly or harshly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Propadog (talk • contribs) 11:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 11 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per below L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

---

2018 Australian ball-tampering scandal → 2018 Australian ball tampering scandal – As per the ball tampering article, ball tampering (without the -) is the correct spelling. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment To quote from further up the page Spike 'em (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

"Ball tampering" is a noun and needs no hyphen in standard English. "In "ball-tampering scandal", it is a compound adjective, requiring the hyphen. Bjenks (talk) 08:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Bjenks. – PeeJay 17:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose It is not relevant to change the topic for just one hyphen and it is not convincing at all. Abishe (talk) 08:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Well it's entirely inconsistent with 2006 ball tampering controversy and ball tampering. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the 2006 article should be moved to match this one and the main article left where it is. Spike 'em (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Spike. The 2006 article needs to be moved – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Bjenks is correct. It is a compound adjective and thus requires a hyphen. – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

References

References