Ball Tampering: Should Umpires Check Saliva?

Australian bowler Nathan Bracken has alleged that the English bowlers achieved reverse swing by shining the ball with sugary saliva caused by sucking on mints. This is not a shock expose as Mike Atherton openly mentions this practice in his autobiography. So the humble mint cannot be heralded as a reason for England's recent success.

The rules clearly prohibit the direct application of unnatural substances on the ball, but the application of sweat and saliva is allowed as both are deemed to be natural substances. This is probably a case of no law actually being broken but it could be argued that the spirit of the game is being infringed. It is clearly impossible to prevent the fielding team from consuming sweets and it could be argued that it is a practice open to both teams. Perhaps the Australian response should have been: if you're doing it then we'll do it too (a kind of Tic for Tac response!)

Richie Benaud has suggested that only the bowler should be allowed to polish the ball. This would make it easier for the umpires to detect any underhand practices, as the number of suspects would clearly be limited. However, it could also lead to an alarming rise in tooth decay amongst fast bowlers.

Clearly this "story" is proof of how the prominence of ball tampering has declined since the early 90s. The extra vigilance of umpires and the long lens of the media have ensured that the battleground has been downgraded from bottle tops to Murray Mints. This was once a serious issue that threatened to rip the game apart, it is now a humorous matter that can fill a slow news day. The game is stronger as a result.