Talk:Ball tampering

message: What some journalists say about it has no business being in an article.
If you read the article Reverse Swing you will realise u r wrong to accuse waqar and wasim of ball tampering in 1992. It says:-
In the early days of reverse swing, Pakistani bowlers were suspected of ball tampering to achieve the conditions of the ball that allow reverse swing, but today they are considered to simply have been ahead of their time.
I feel you should put that in the end or below.
--ExE 23:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one at Wikipedia is accusing Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis - it was merely the press speculation at the time. The comments carry a source that is verifiable. Your above quote also contains a pro-Pakistan point of view, and Wikipedia is not for points of view, just verifiable facts. Erath 23:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other day while watching a show named "Top 10 bowlers of all time: Wasim Akram" i heard an english batsmen (i cant remember his name right now) to say the exact words that "they were ahead of their time" but i guess accoring to wikipedia's rules its just a point of view?ExE 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The events led Cricinfo journalists to describe it as "a farcical afternoon and evening" 

message: I'm currently expanding the article South African cricket team in England in 1994, and have picked up some sources for the "Dirt in pocket" incident if anyone is interested in adding them to this page and expanding that section of this article:
Reaction:  
BBC Sport retrospective on Atherton's career:  
Christopher Martin-Jenkins report in the Daily Telegraph:  
I'm currently working on a project to expand England's International performances from 1993 onwards, so no real time to contribute any further here! --Dave. 12:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dirt in pocket 

message: What exactly does a "B" rating entail? Can I have some justification of its grading? I hate it when an editor comes in and arbitarily assigns a letter sans raison. Erath 20:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ratings are assessed according to standards and guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket/Assessment#Quality_scale.  They are by necessity, subjective but should not be arbitrary.  I would agree with the current B-Class rating according to current standards.  That page also explains the process and who can assess an article.  If you have any more questions, that talk page would be the place to ask.  —Moondyne 06:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rating

message: By whom? This is blind assertion. Surely pov and unsourced.
Jatrius (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Pakistan are believed"

message: The following statement sounds NPOV to me:
"After the tea break, the Pakistani team, after having mutually confirmed that no ball tampering had taken place and given consideration to the severity of the implication, refused to take the field."
The fact is, nobody knows if there was any ball tampering, so they can't 'mutually confirm' that there was none. All they can do is 'discuss' it (and if no-one admits it, agree that they, as a team, believe that no ball tampering took place). I'm not saying that they did tamper with the ball, but to me, 'confirm' sounds like they were able to definitively state something. Which they couldn't.
Senpai71 (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have (very belatedly!) slightly reworded the sentence to say, "having agreed amongst themselves...". JezGrove (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: "Mutually confirmed" - NPOV?

message: This article needs to be revised so that it's legible to lay-people.
Introduction: The introduction is missing, Instead of a summary of the article, we have an explanation of what ball tampering is (sort of).
The section explaining ball tampering at the start does not explain why this rule is in place, what the problem with ball tampering is or how it affects the ball. It's also worded in a very complex and legalistic fashion. It needs to be rewritten for regular people to understand. Give us context and meaning.
The section explaining sanction might as well have come right out of a rule book. It's very dense and full of qualifiers that I don't understand. Why does the condition of the ball matter? What's this about a selection of balls in states of use? Does a ball's characteristics change over time in play? Again, explain why this is important.
Then the examples section. Given the weight given to the August 2006 incident, you'd think that this was an article about that incident. It's way out of proportion with the rest of the article. Maybe fork it, maybe edit it down.
Wish I could help more, but I know nothing about cricket. I came here from the Spitball article (which incidentally appears to say the opposite about tampering that this article says.) Compare:
::Preparing a spitball is distinct from ball tampering in cricket, where the use of saliva and sweat as well as the shining of one side of the ball is not only legal but an integral part of the game.
with
::In the sport of cricket, ball tampering is an action in which a fielder illegally alters the condition of the ball.
The spitball says it's an integral part of the game. The tampering article says it's illegal.
Good luck Lot 49atalk 22:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no contradiction.  It says that using saliva and sweat, which would constitute an illegal spitball in baseball, do not amount to ball tampering in cricket and are therefore legal (and integral to the game).  What is illegal is using "foreign substances" or scratching the ball etc. Lfh (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help the lay person! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Ball tampering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130105121449/http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-42-fair-and-unfair-play%2C68%2CAR.html to http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-42-fair-and-unfair-play%2C68%2CAR.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sportinglife.com/cricket/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=cricket%2F06%2F08%2F20%2FCRICKET_Ball_tampering.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Slideshow/slideshowContentFrameFragXL.jhtml%3Bjsessionid5UKZ1S3VRNRVPQFIQMGCFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml=%2Fsport%2Fgallery%2Fcricket%2Fengpak06%2Ftamper%2Fupixtamper.xml&site=sport
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.skysports.com/opinion/story/0%2C25212%2C12080_5843887%2C00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It would be good to decide whether the main content should be at Ball tampering#Australia vs South Africa, 2018 or Australian cricket team in South Africa in 2017–18#Ball tampering to avoid WP:CONTENTFORKING. What do you think? Jack N. Stock (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The main ball tampering article should be a brief summary, with a more detailed account on the article for the series where it took place. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what I was thinking. It seems WP:UNDUE at this article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some trimming of the section on this article. A lot of it was, well, guff, that distracted from the main points. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Just posted at WT:CRIC : Is this suitable for a separate article to deal with all the duplicated copy / forking? Spike 'em (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: See 2018 Australian ball tampering scandal —which needs a lot of careful work to bring up to scratch. Bjenks (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia vs South Africa, 2018 

message: I've just done a general tidy up of the Examples and Allegations section. Feedback and further work is of course welcome. FrunkSpace (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidy up 

message: Following a page move of 2018 Australian ball tampering scandal to 2018 Australian ball-tampering scandal by , I thought we should standarise things. This page is called "Ball tampering" and the other page I'm aware of is Ball tampering controversy in August 2006. Should all use the same convention, and if so which one?
In the body of this page there are 20 "ball tamper"s and 12 "ball-tamper"s. Within the titles of the references things swing the other way: 8 spaced and 10 hyphenated.
Whatever we choose as the standard will mean moving at least one page (the 2 scandals / controversies should definitely be the same).
In his page move, Bjenks left a move reason of "Hyphenating compound adjective". Does  the usage of the phrase as a verb or adjective make a difference? I lean slightly towards the hyphen in all instances.
Spike 'em (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ball-tampering" already redirects here, so even if both usages are correct in different circumstances, then both can be linked. Spike 'em (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ball tampering" (as a compound noun) is OK with or without a hyphen. New Hart's Rules says "...a single adjectival noun and the noun it modified was formerly hyphenated but this practice is less common now". "...but a compound expression preceding the noun is generally hyphenated when it forms a unit modifying the noun" (at page 53 in 2005 edition).  In constructions like "ball-tampering scandal", it's clearly adjectival and needs the hyphen. Bjenks (talk) 09:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'm attempting to make the usage consistent, so you have made it clear what to do when using the phrase as adjective (I'll move the other page in line with this), but do you have a preference in the usage as a noun? Spike 'em (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Though maybe not: I see it is subject of move request. Spike 'em (talk) 09:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

text: We are not alone. In article on cricinfo they use both in consecutive sentences on multiple occasions: "Let's be absolutely clear what we mean when we say ball tampering is not allowed. And what we mean by ball-tampering." and  "Hang on, the world, not only Australia, regards ball-tampering in a very serious light. That, I think we identified as, the need to look at the level of the penalty imposed specific to ball tampering" Spike 'em (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have attempted to standardise the use of "ball tampering" on this page except where in a quote or where used as a compound expression as explained by Bjenks. I've also requested page move for what is now 2006 ball tampering controversy to match the 2018 article Spike 'em (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ball tampering or Ball-tampering 

message: I added content and an inline citation to clarify that Crowe himself admitted to having tampered with the ball in 1990, as the previous version stated it as fact with no corroboration or citation. Also, since some subsequent examples have not been proven, I felt it important to share the source of this information. Matuko (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martin Crowe