User:Bjenks/Sandbox 2

A military deployment in the Rhondda, 1910-11 was authorised by home secretary Winston Churchill at the request of coalmine owners and local authorities facing violent industrial strike action over pay and conditions in the mines of the Rhondda Valley, south Wales. The specific disputation, involving pay and conditions at collieries of the Cambrian Combine, lasted a year (August 1910–August 1911) but the involvement of troops became an issue on the evening of Monday 7 November 1910 when, as reported by Churchill to King George V, "...400 Cavalry and Infantry...were sent for by the Chief Constable [of Glamorgan]..."

Deployment postponed

According to Churchill, the initial troop detachments were actually sent by rail without his knowledge and he decided "to keep them in the background until it was certain that police methods had proved insufficient." The infantry was halted at Swindon in England, but the cavalry was held in readiness at Cardiff, 12 miles from the principal Rhondda town of Pontypridd. A more dramatic perspective appeared in a press report:

A large body of police had been sent to reinforce the Glamorganshire police, and a force of 3,000 mounted troops had been mobilised at Tidworth. A detachment was ordered to proceed thence to Swindon, in order to be prepared for emergencies. The Government, in response to a request by the local authorities, ordered General Macready, who is stationed at Cardiff, to despatch cavalry to the disturbed districts. A squadron has been sent to Pontypridd, and another will arrive today. A body of 270 men of the London Metropolitan police, mounted and foot, has arrived at Tonypandy and Aberaman, and 200 additional London police have reached Pontypridd. A detachment of infantry has been stationed at Newport.

Large forces of police were used to contain violent riots at Llwynypia and Tonypandy on 7 and 8 November, after which a squadron of cavalry arrived at Tonypandy and was patrolling the streets on 9 November.

Background

An era of violent strikes

Press reports of the period detail extensive and violent industrial action in many countries, including in Europe and the U.S.A. Particularly violent demonstrations in Pennsylvania were pacified by a small troop of cavalry after thousands of police had failed to restore order. There had also been publicity about the use of troops in France, Italy and Russia..

Newport docks strike, May 1910

The employers Empire Transport Company and Holder Brothers attempted to use strike breakers to solve a dispute on 18 May 1910, precipitating a dispute which brought the docks to a standstill. Newport's chief constable requested 250 Metropolitan Police reinforcements, which were sent reluctantly. Churchill wrote in a telegram to the Home Office's permanent under-secretary, Sir Edward Troup: The Empire Transport Company should be made to realize that employing large droves of men from London to break the strike is a very strong order. Do not on any account give them or the public the impression that we approve their action. Notwithstanding, 500 imported police were eventually deployed in addition to local police.

On 21 May, the mayor of Newport and magistrates telegraphed the Home Office and War Office requesting that 300 troops be held in readiness. Churchill was prepared for this and passed his recommendation to the War Office that cavalry troops should be sent rather than infantry. "[Mounted troops] are far more effective than infantry in dealing with a riot, and the risk of their employment leading to loss of life is much less".

National railway strike, 1911

A British national railway strike occurred in August 1911. Troops were deployed in a number of places, including Liverpool and Birkenhead. The army regulation requiring requisition from a civil authority was suspended, and senior military commanders were to use their own discretion in making deployments. At Llanelli, troops opened fire and two men were shot dead on the banks of the railway. Churchill was home secretary at the time. Another report relates that, on 22 August,two days after the dispute had been settled, four people were killed by troops responding to an incident in which an engine driver was overpowered and looting was allegedly in progress.

The writer, Randolph Churchill, unfortunately politicised this event, writing

Labour was not to forget Churchill's part in this strike—even though they were soon to muddle it with Tonypandy, doubtless because Tonypandy comes easier to the English tongue than Llanelly.

On the morning of 14 August 1911, Liverpool police had not succeeded in quelling a riot in which they were stoned from behind street barricades and upper windows. The officer in charge called for 200 Yorkshire Regiment troops to help, and peace was restored at about 2.30 p.m. after shots were fired and 20 prisoners taken. (The source does not detail any casualties of the engagement.)

Criticism of Churchill

(Copied entire from Tonypandy Riots on 20/2/11)

Churchill in 1911

Churchill's role in the events at Tonypandy during the conflict left a negative attitude towards him in South Wales that still persist. The main point of contention was his decision to allow troops to be sent to Wales. Although this was an unusual move and was seen by those in Wales as an over-reaction, his Tory opponents suggested that he should have acted with greater vigour. The troops acted more circumspectly and were commanded with more common sense than the police whose role under Lionel Lindsay was, in the words of historian David Smith, 'more like an army of occupation'. The troops were also generally viewed with less hostility than the local and Metropolitan police.

Despite these facts, the incident continued to haunt Churchill through his career. Such was the strength of feeling, that almost forty years later, when speaking in Cardiff during the General Election campaign of 1950, Churchill was forced to address the issue, stating: "When I was Home Secretary in 1910, I had a great horror and fear of having to become responsible for the military firing on a crowd of rioters and strikers. Also, I was always in sympathy with the miners..."

A major factor in the dislike of Churchill's use of the military was not in any specific action undertaken by the troops, but the fact that their presence prevented any strike action which may have ended the strike early in the miners' favour. The troops also ensured that trials of rioters, strikers and miners' leaders would take place and be successfully prosecuted in Pontypridd in 1911. The defeat of the miners in 1911 was, in the eyes of the local community, a direct consequence of state intervention without any negotiation, and this action was seen as a direct result of Churchill's actions. In 2010, 99 years after the riots, a Welsh local council made objections to a street being named after Churchill in the Vale of Glamorgan due to him sending troops into the Rhondda.

The political fallout for Churchill also continued. In 1940 when Chamberlain's war-time government was faltering, Clement Attlee secretly warned that the Labour Party might not follow Churchill due to his association with Tonypandy. Even as late as 1978 there were scenes of uproar in the House of Commons when Churchill's grandson, also Winston Churchill, replying to a routine question on miners' pay; was warned by James Callaghan not to pursue 'the vendetta of your family against the miners of Tonypandy'.

References

Further reading

• Rhondda—the story of coal pp. 124-126 of 126-page download at Rhondda Cynon Taf Library Service (37mB)

Press reports

(These are sourced from Trove, National Library of Australia, unless otherwise stated)

Welsh colliery troubles in the Aberdare Valley 3 November 1910

Riotous scenes in Aberdare Valley 4 November 1910

Excited women 8 November 1910

Riotous scenes...Troops arriving 10 November 1910

Rumors of fatalities Barrier Miner (Broken Hill, NSW) 10 November 1910

THE TROOPS ORDERED OUT. Barrier Miner (Broken Hill, NSW) 10 November 1910

Military called out Argus,Melbourne, 10 November 1910 (nb...This includes a par referring to military strike-breaking in France and NSW!!)

Several deaths rumoured Argus, Melbourne, 10 November 1910

Cavalry patrol the streets 10 November 1910

Delay in sending troops 10 November 1910

Woman M.P. Will Not Sign Memorial Book Barrier Miner (Broken Hill, NSW) 23 November 1954. At Trove, National Library of Australia

John Olday (10 April 1905 – 1977), birth name Arthur William Oldag, was an artist, cartoonist and writer, and an anarchist revolutionary. He was active in Germany, France and Britain in the 1930s and 1940s and resided in Australia during the 1950s and 1960s. Returning to London in about 1970, he remained active in anarchist groups until his death in 1977.

Early life

Born out of wedlock in London, 1905, Olday is recorded as having no memory of his Scottish father. His German-born mother moved to New York, where he was brought up until age 8 (1913) when his mother returned to Germany and left him with his grandmother in Hamburg. The mother apparently returned to New York and American citizenship. In urban Hamburg, the child's life was immediately blighted by the onset of World War I and a hunger crisis precipitated by agricultural manpower losses and the Allied blockade of Germany In 1916, at the age of 11, he was a participant in citizen actions against severe food shortages and black-market practices of the day.

No doubt under the influence of violent revolutionary mentors, Olday became active in the tumultuous unrest of the Kiel mutiny and the resultant German Revolution of 1918–19, reportedly "acting as an ammunition hauler for a Sparticist machine gun emplacement. When the year-long struggle was crushingly defeated, he made a last-minute escape, barely avoiding certain execution"—but continued in violent activist causes until 1925, at age 20.

While still a teenager, he joined the Young Communist League of Germany (Kommunistischer Jugend Deutschlands, KJD) but was expelled for “anarchist deviations”.

He turned to the anarchist movement and took part in a militia unit during the uprisings of October 1923, then was active in the Ruhr region of Germany, where the anarchists had thousands of supporters, particularly among miners and factory workers. There he propagated ideas of workers councils.

Artistic career

Hamburg, 1925-1938

The few available sources (including some deemed autobiographical) indicate that Olday, having reached the age of 20, had chosen to exercise his talents as a draughtsman, cartoonist and writer, by which he could continue to advance revolutionary causes without offering himself as direct cannon-fodder. Withdrawing from participation in activist groups,

...he soon developed into a recognized political cartoonist and expressionistic graphic artist. His socially critical theater-pieces, performed in Hamburg cabarets, also brought him renown. During this period, it appears that he spent his time completely on a career as a graphic artist and author.

The same source asserts that Olday's artistic and cabaret skills (and homosexual mannerisms) bestowed on him a position of privilege among "the highest circles" of the Hamburg Nazi Party, providing him with access to information which was able to use to warn revolutionary friends and save them from committal to concentration camps. When the Nazis came to power in 1933, he renewed active links with former Anarcho-Spartacist colleagues and joined an active anti-authoritarian campaign against Hitler's dictatorship. He wrote regularly for a Hamburg newsaper. He also worked closely with Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) union seafarers coming into the port of Hamburg. Inevitably, his behaviour attracted the attention of the Gestapo who were about to arrest him as he fled to England in 1937. He had been granted a British passport that year in Hamburg on production of his birth certificate.

London, 1937-1950

Olday took with him to England the draft of an autobiographical book, Kingdom of Rags, written in German, which was translated into English and published by Jarrolds, London, in 1939. This is an account of his life in Germany, illustrated with anti-Nazi cartoons.

In 1938 he entered into a marriage of convenience in 1938 with Hilde Meisel (alias Hilda Monte), a member of the Internationaler Sozialistischer Kampfbund (International Socialist Struggle League), who thus acquired British nationality. A 1942 British security report notes:

In 1938 he was in London, where he lived first with one Rose FYLEMAN, an authoress who helped him with translating his book into English. Later he quarrelled with her and in September 1938 he married one Hilde MEISEL. This woman was described as a Hungarian subject born in Vienna, and appears to be of the usual type of international intellectual Jewess of Left-Wing tendencies. She has belonged for some years to the International League of Militant Socialists (often known as ISK), who are less violent than the name seems to imply. He did not live long with her and it is thought that the object of the marriage was to give her British nationality. A recent police report on his moral character supports the view that his relation with these two ladies was not primarily sexual.

The transient relationhip with Meisel reflected the active involvements of both in regular and dangerous assignments on the Continent in the months leading to the outbreak of war.

With funds from anti-Chamberlain parliamentarians Olday coordinated the sinking of a Nazi munitions ship off the Dutch coast and the killing of a Jewish quisling in Antwerp. He also wrote the text of an appeal to German workers to sabotage the Nazi war industry.

When compulsory military service was instituted in Britain in 1940, Olday was to have served as a sapper, but he deserted before he could be sent to 'the imperialist war’. He remained at large until 1944, drawing caustic political cartoons and caricatures, working as an editor and, with two well-known libertarian activists {Marie Louise Berneri and Vernon Richards), writing a fortnightly anti-militarist broadsheet distributed to soldiers in the British Army. At the same time he provided numerous drawings and poems for a Scandinavian paper, the Industrial Worker, distributed in German ports,

and produced, along with the English anti-militarist broadsheet, Forces Newsletter, in a small studio shared with Philip Sansom.

Bibliography

• "Kingdom of Rags", Jarrolds, London, 1939
• "The March to Death" Freedom Press, London. May 1943, Reprinted May 1995. ePub at Open Library

External links

• Sanders, Huub. Anarchists in court, England, April 1945. Libcom.org. First published by Freedom Press on the occasion of World Press Freedom Day, 3 May 2010.
• James, Bob. "John Olday's Memoirs: The Australian Period"
• Allen, John (26 April 1967). "John Olday: New arts centre at Paddington". Tharunka. Vol. 13, no. 5. New South Wales, Australia. p. 14. Retrieved 18 January 2018 – via National Library of Australia.
• Armstrong, Evelyn (23 August 1967). "Shattering art that asks you where you stand". Tribune. No. 1523. New South Wales, Australia. p. 6. Retrieved 18 January 2018 – via National Library of Australia.
• "Gallows and roses". Tharunka. Vol. 13, no. 11. New South Wales, Australia. 1 July 1967. p. 8. Retrieved 18 January 2018 – via National Library of Australia.
• "At Sydney Theatres: Yesteryear's ballads today". Le Courrier Australien. No. 16. New South Wales, Australia. 19 April 1963. p. 5. Retrieved 18 January 2018 – via National Library of Australia.

2018 Australian ball-tampering scandal

Former England captain Michael Vaughan recalled Australian players wearing adhesive tape and commented "I am pretty sure it was going on throughout the Ashes series—but it was not the reason England lost 4-0. They still would have lost the series."

Use dmy dates|date=March 2018 Image:Cricket ball G&M.jpg|thumb|A pristine cricket ball In the sport of cricket, ball tampering is an action in which a fielder illegally alters the condition of the ball. The primary motivation of ball tampering is to interfere with the aerodynamics of the ball.

Definition

Under Law 41, subsection 3 of the Laws of Cricket, the ball may be polished without the use of an artificial substance, may be dried with a towel if it is wet, and have mud removed from it under supervision; all other actions which alter the condition of the ball are illegal. These are usually taken to include rubbing the ball on the ground, scuffing with a fingernail or other sharp object, or tampering with the seam of the ball.

Purpose

Generally, the purpose of altering the state of the ball is to achieve more favourable bowling conditions. Examples of ball tampering would include a fielder applying a substance, such as lip balm or sweetened saliva, to shine one side of the ball or pick the seam of the ball to encourage more swing. Conversely, roughening one side of the ball by use of an abrasive or cutting surface (such as boot spikes or bottle caps) is also ball tampering.

Altering a ball legally

Using spit and/or sweat is common and, for practitioners of swing bowling, integral. The moisture gained from spit or sweat when combined with polishing, smooths out one half of the ball which in turn allows air to pass over one side of the ball more quickly than over the other. When bowled correctly, a bowler can get the ball to move from one side to the other through the air. Also, it is common for bowlers to rub the ball against their clothing to dry or polish it, as seen in most cricket matches.

Sanction

The umpires are responsible for monitoring the condition of the ball, and must inspect it regularly. Where an umpire has deemed a fielder to be guilty of ball-tampering, five penalty runs are awarded to the batting side, and the ball must be immediately replaced. The replaced ball is normally chosen by the umpires, in which case the ball chosen should match the condition of the previous ball (before tampering) as closely as possible. Depending on additional agreements laid out before the beginning of a series of matches, the batsmen may instead be permitted to choose the ball from a selection of balls in various stages of use.

If a bowler is found to be guilty of repeated ball-tampering he can be prohibited from continuing to bowl in that innings. Following the conclusion of play, additional sanctions are usually brought against a ball-tamperer, as it is considered a serious offence. The captain may also be penalized, as he is responsible for the conduct of his players on the field.

Examples and allegations

The use of foreign substances to polish the ball, while illegal, is in some corners considered to be relatively common, and passes without incident or sanction. Substances which have been used for this purpose include hair gel, sugar and lip balm.

In addition, picking at the threads of the main seam or 'lifting' the quarter seam to aid conventional and reverse swing respectively are considered illegal. Modifying the quarter seam can be particularly difficult to detect or prove.

However, there have been a number of high-profile instances of alleged ball tampering, particularly in international cricket due to the increase in television coverage. Waqar Younis became the first player to receive a suspension for ball-tampering after a match in 2000.

Michael Atherton in 1994

In the "dirt in pocket" affair, then England captain Michael Atherton was accused of ball tampering during a Test match with South Africa at Lord's in 1994 after television cameras caught Atherton reaching into his pocket and then rubbing a substance on the ball. Atherton denied ball tampering, claiming that he had dirt in his pocket which he used to dry his hands. He was also accused of lying to the match referee. Atherton was summoned to the match referee and was fined £2,000 for failing to disclose the dirt to the match referee.

Sachin Tendulkar from Indian Cricket team in 2001

In the second Test match of India's 2001 tour of South Africa, at St George's Park, Port Elizabeth, match referee Mike Denness suspended Sachin Tendulkar for one game in light of alleged ball tampering. Television cameras picked up images that suggested Tendulkar was involved in scuffing the seam of the cricket ball. While he claimed he was actually just removing the piece of grass stuck in the seam of ball, it seemed he may have tampered with the ball. The incident escalated to include allegations of racism, and led to Mike Denness being barred from entering the venue of the third test match. The ICC revoked the status of the match as a Test as the teams rejected the appointed referee. The charges against Tendulkar and Sehwag's ban for excessive appealing triggered a massive backlash from the Indian public. ICC later cleared Tendulkar of ball tampering charges.

Rahul Dravid from Indian Cricket Team in 2004

Rahul Dravid coughed a lozenge on more shiny side of the ball at Brisbane during a Triangular Series match against Zimbabwe and India won this match at first but later cameras caught Rahul Dravid tampering with the ball and he was charged with half of match fee.

England cricket team in 2005

Marcus Trescothick admitted in his autobiography, Coming Back to Me, that he used mints to shine the ball to endure more swing on the ball: "It was my job to keep the shine on the new ball for as long as possible with a bit of spit and a lot of polish. And through trial and error I finally settled on the type of spit for the task at hand. It had been common knowledge in county cricket for some time that certain sweets produced saliva which, when applied to the ball for cleaning purposes, enabled it to keep its shine for longer and therefore its swing." He found Murray Mints worked the best.

This admission was 3 years after the series.

Controversy against Pakistan cricket team in August 2006

Main article: Ball tampering controversy in August 2006

In 2006, an alleged ball-tampering issue overshadowed a Test match between Pakistan and England, whereby Pakistan refused to take to the field for the evening session after being penalised for ball-tampering in the afternoon. Television cameras caught the umpires discussing the condition of the quarter seam. Pakistan are believed to have intended a protest against the decision by delaying their return after tea; however, while they were refusing to play, the umpires awarded the game to England in accordance with the laws of cricket.

The controversy arose when the umpires, Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove, ruled that the Pakistani team had been involved in ball tampering. They awarded five penalty runs to England and a replacement ball was selected by England batsman Paul Collingwood. Play continued until the tea break, without any Pakistani protest. After the tea break, the Pakistani team, after having agreed amongst themselves that no ball tampering had taken place and given consideration to the severity of the implication, refused to take the field. The umpires then left the field, gave a warning to the Pakistani players, and returned once more 15 minutes later. After waiting two more minutes the umpires removed the bails and declared England winners by forfeiture. A deal was brokered between the English and Pakistani cricket boards to allow the match to continue, and the Pakistani team did take to the field 55 minutes after the umpires first took to the field for the resumption of play. Umpires Hair and Doctrove, however, declined to continue the game maintaining their decision that Pakistan had forfeited the match by refusing to play.

The impasse continued late into the evening. Pakistan captain Inzamam ul-Haq claimed that Darrell Hair did not inform him or the rest of his side of the reasons why the ball was replaced, and that Hair had implied that Pakistan were cheating. At 19:50 UTC it was finally announced at a press conference that the Test was called off. The ECB's statement said that England were awarded the match by the umpires as Pakistan refused to take the field after being warned that under law 21.3, failure to do so would result in them forfeiting the game. This is the first time a Test match has been decided this way.

The England and Wales Cricket Board refunded fourth-day spectators 40% of their ticket price (after deduction of an administration fee), and gave an automatic 100% refund to those with tickets for the fifth day. It later asked the Pakistan Cricket Board to pick up the £800,000 costs of doing this, which the PCB refused to do. In March 2007, the PCB and ECB reached a settlement where Pakistan would play a Twenty20 International in England and waive their fees.

As a result of Pakistan's forfeiting of the game captain Inzamam was charged and found guilty of "bringing the game into disrepute", though he was cleared of the charges relating to "changing the condition of the ball". In January 2008, Pakistan's cricket board asked the International Cricket Council to change the official result to "match abandoned" or "match drawn" on the basis of having been subsequently cleared of ball-tampering by an ICC tribunal. In July 2008, the International Cricket Council (ICC) changed the result of the match to a draw, though in October 2008 the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) released the statement "The ICC has no power under the laws of cricket to decide that results should be altered, whether it feels it's ‘inappropriate’ or otherwise," The decision also angered former players including Michael Holding who at the time was a member of the ICC cricket committee. Holding felt that Pakistan's refusal to play should not go unpunished even though they were not guilty of ball-tampering,

"I have just written my letter of resignation to the ICC cricket committee because I cannot agree with what they've done," Holding said while commentating for Sky Sports during a domestic match in England. "That game should never, ever be a draw. When you take certain actions, you must be quite happy to suffer the consequences."

On 1 February 2009, the ICC reversed their earlier decision, and changed the match result back to a win for England.

Anderson and Broad 2010 incident

In January 2010, England bowlers Stuart Broad and James Anderson were accused of ball tampering by rubbing the ball on the ground with their spikes in the third Test Match against South Africa. Broad maintained that he was just being lazy, because it was 40 degrees Celsius in Cape Town that day. Andrew Flower said in his defence that "the scoreline suggested that there was obviously no ball tampering." Nasser Hussain who had captained Anderson said: "Stuart Broad and James Anderson were wrong to behave in the manner they did and I've no doubt that if a player from another country did the same we'd have said they were cheating." No charges were formally placed by South Africa even though they made the accusations at a press conference.

Shahid Afridi 2010

Shahid Afridi, standing in as the Pakistani Captain, received a two T20 international match ban for ball-tampering in a match against Australia in January 2010. He was caught on camera biting the cricket ball in a bizarre attempt to readjust the seam of the ball. The ball was eventually replaced. He told the Hindustan Times that he was trying to smell the ball but he pleaded guilty for ball tampering.

Australia v Sri Lanka, 2012

In the first test, Sri Lanka notified Chris Broad that Peter Siddle may have been raising the seam during Sri Lanka's first innings. Peter Siddle collected 5/54. He was later cleared by the ICC.

Faf du Plessis from South African Cricket Team, 2013

While fielding on during the third day of the 2nd Test, in Dubai, cameras captured footage of South Africa fielder Faf du Plessis scuffing the ball against the zip on his trousers. The on-field umpires penalised South Africa by adding 5 runs to Pakistan's total, and changing the ball. The match referee imposed a 50% match fee fine on du Plessis after the fielder pleaded guilty, although the team manager Mohammad Mosajee maintained that penalty was "harsh", and the team decided not to challenge to finding as it may have led to heavier sanctions. Despite the "guilty" plea, team vice-captain AB de Villiers maintained that "we are not cheats" and team captain Graeme Smith denied that their participation in ball tampering tainted the series-levelling win as South Africa went on to record an innings-victory during the Dubai test, to tie the series 1-1.

During the same match, footage of South African medium-pace bowler showing Vernon Philander apparently scratching the ball with his forefinger was also brought under scrutiny, but ultimately was not considered by the match referee to have constituted any illegal ball-tampering.

South Africa v Sri Lanka, 2014

For the second time in nine months, the South African test side found itself in a ball-tampering scandal, this time with medium-pace bowler Vernon Philander found guilty of tampering with the ball during the 3rd day of the Galle test against Sri Lanka in 2014. Philander was found to have breached clause 42.1 of the Laws, "scratching the ball with his fingers and thumb", and was fined 75% of his match fee. South Africa were to go on and win the test by 153 runs.

This incident followed speculation by Australian test batsmen David Warner in February 2014 over the South African team's practices in altering the state of the ball during Australia's tour to South Africa. Speaking to Sky Sports Radio. Warner commented the South African fielders' more "obvious" use of throwing the ball into the ground on return throws after fielding, and South African wicket-keeper AB de Villiers' habit of getting "the ball in his hand and with his glove wipe the rough side every ball." Warner was later fined 15% of his match fee for the comments he made, under an ICC Code of Conduct breach.

South Africa vs Australia, 2016

Another South African was charged with alleged ball tampering on 18 November 2016 after their victory in the second Test against Australia in Hobart. Proteas skipper Faf du Plessis was alleged to have tampered with the condition of the ball after TV footage appeared to show him applying saliva onto the ball from a mint or a lollipop. The charge was made by the ICC although Cricket Australia did not file a complaint. Du Plessis was found guilty of ball tampering on 22 November and fined his match fee from the second Test.

Australia vs South Africa, 2018

Australian batsman, Cameron Bancroft was charged with ball tampering on 24 March 2018, when videos emerged that showed him rubbing and then concealing a suspicious yellow object during day three of the Third Test against South Africa, at Newlands Stadium. That object was later revealed to be a short length of yellow adhesive tape to which dirt and grit had adhered, forming an abrasive surface. Captain Steve Smith and Bancroft attended a press conference at the end of that day's play. Bancroft admitted to ball tampering in front of Andy Pycroft, the match referee, and the press. Smith then said that the tampering was planned by the unnamed "leadership group" during the lunch break. Smith and vice-captain David Warner stood down from the team leadership the morning after the incident, but still played on, and wicketkeeper Tim Paine took over the captaincy for the rest of the test match. Subsequently the ICC banned Smith for one test match and he was fined 100% of his match fee and Cameron Bancroft was fined 75% of his match fee.

As well as a public outcry, especially in Australia, the Australian Sports Commission, the Prime Minister of Australia Malcolm Turnbull, many famous international cricketers and commercial partners of both the Test side and Cricket Australia universally condemned Smith for his actions, demanding Smith's resignation or sacking as the team's captain together with sanctions against the "leadership group" and Bancroft.

The incident is the subject of a separate and ongoing investigation by Cricket Australia, led by Executive General Manager Team Performance Pat Howard, along with Senior Legal Counsel and Head of Integrity Iain Roy. Their interviews of players and support staff began on 26 March 2018. On 27 March 2018, before the findings of that investigation were handed down, specialist opening batter Matt Renshaw was urgently recalled to the squad from Australia for the Fourth Test. The combination of Bancroft and Warner have opened the batting for the team since the 2017–18 Ashes series.

References

DEFAULTSORT:Ball Tampering (restore brackets) Category:Cricket laws and regulations]] Category:Cricket controversies]] Category:Banned sports tactics]]