The International Cricket Council’s (ICC) Chief Executive Dave Richardson has cited Faf du Plessis mintgate controversy similar to that Rahul Dravid’s 2004 ball tampering incident, where the Indian batting stalwart was caught using the sweet in his mouth to shine the ball in an ODI match against Zimbabwe. Ironically, both these incidents which made headlines for mornings to come happened on the Australian soil.
Denying the claims made by South African stand-in skipper Faf du Plessis of being made a ‘scapegoat’ in the mintgate controversy, Richardson said the incident has always been an issue to deal with for the ICC.
“This (ball-tampering) has always been an issue that’s been quite difficult to police,” he said.
“Even before we spoke about using mints and sweets, lip ice – and we’ve been using lip ice and sunscreen on our faces for years, we understand that inadvertently in shining the ball there’s a potential for it to get onto the ball. And for that reason, we’re not going to go around wildly accusing players of cheating and using the lip ice, sunscreen or sweets.
“We’ve taken the approach that we will only really charge someone if it’s obviously being done for that particular purpose.There’s two examples in the past – one was Rahul Dravid where he actually took the sweet and rubbed it on the ball. You probably couldn’t get more obvious than that. And in our opinion, this instance (of du Plessis). So if anyone does something similar we will hopefully get to see it, treat it in exactly the same way we’ve treated Faf in this case,” he added.
du Plessis was fined 100% of his match fees after he was found breaching the clause 2.2.9 of ICC’s Code of Conduct. The images which emerged in media showed the South Africa skipper using the mint to alter the condition of the ball, however, the 32-year-old admitted it’s a common practice among players in world cricket.
Dave, who represented South Africa in 42 Tests and 122 ODIs, was disappointed that the Proteas did not respect the laws of the game following the board’s backing to Faf’s decision of appealing against the fine imposed on him.
“I think it’s fair to say I’m disappointed that they (South Africa) don’t respect that the laws are there. They are there and the process is not necessarily respected. I was disappointed in the initial comment that this is a joke. But full marks to them, subsequent to that they’ve acknowledged we attend the hearing, go through the process and follow it. So perhaps that initial reaction I thought was uncalled for, but subsequently it’s within their rights (to appeal),” he concluded.