Ethical Analysis of Australian Ball Tampering Case

This document provides an in-depth analysis of the Australian ball tampering case that occurred in 2018. It explores the case facts, the decision-makers involved, the ethical dilemma faced, and the approaches used in the decision-making process. The document also discusses the consequences of the decision and the violation of ethical rights. Overall, it provides a comprehensive understanding of the case and its implications.

Running head: ETHICAL ANALYSIS OF AUSTRALIAN BALL TAMPERING CASE
Ethical Analysis of Australian Ball Tampering Case
Name of the student
Name of the University
Author note

1ETHICAL ANALYSIS OF AUSTRALIAN BALL TAMPERING CASE
Case Facts of Australian Ball Tampering Case
The Australian ball-tampering scandal took place in the year 2018 which was also
known as the Sandpapergate scandal. It was the cricket scandal that revolved around the
Australian men national cricket team. In the March of the year 2018, Australian national
cricket team was touring South Africa so that they can play the four test matches against that
of the South Africa national cricket team. On the 24th of March in the year 2018, Australian
player Cameron Bancroft was seen in television coverage rubbing the ball with that of the
small yellow object. Bancroft realised the fact that he had been seen on television coverage
that made him hide object in front of trousers (McGee, Duffy and Garwood-Gowers 2018).
The umpires approached Bancroft and then he showed to them the dark microfiber sunglass
pouch within his pocket. The inspection of ball was carried out by the umpires but the ball
was not offered to South African team so that it could be replaced if they wished it.
In the end of the dayin the press conference Bancroft was accompanied by Australian
captain where he admitted the fact that he was altering condition of the ball by taking
recourse to the yellow adhesive tape.According to Wade(2019), an investigation was carried
out in relation to the incident and Bancroft admitted to the fact that it was the sandpaper that
the cricketers make use of maintaining the bats. Smith conceded to the fact that he knew
regarding the plan before action of Bancroft. Smith confessed to the fact that the plan was
conceived of at the time of lunch break by that of “leadership group” who was not named by
him. Smith admitted to the fact that it was a big mistake and in the event of being questioned
by media he said that he would continue to play the role of captain of the team. Match referee
called Andy Pycroft was responsible for charging Bancroft with that of Level 2 offence as he
was trying to change the condition of ball. The CEO of International Cricket Council called
David Richardson was responsible for charging Smith as he had committed an act that was
inimical to spirit of game of the cricket (Tikka and Garg 2018). Smith accepted charge and he

2ETHICAL ANALYSIS OF AUSTRALIAN BALL TAMPERING CASE
was provided with a sanction of two suspension points. It equated to ban for that of next test
match and four demerit points were added to the record.
Decision maker in Australian Ball Tampering Case
The decision maker in Australian ball tampering case was the Captain of Australia
called Steve Smith who were instrumental in taking the decisions in relation to the ball
tampering case. The competing demand that they had to face in the event of making the
decision was whether they should be fined or should be barred from playing the matches in
the future. The fielders are not supposed to change the condition of the ball however they are
allowed to polish the ball. It is decreed that artificial substance should not be used for
polishing the ball. The decision makers had to think about the fact whether the incident of the
ball tampering by the players of Australia with that of the sunglass pouch amounted to ball
tampering. The investigation team pertaining to Cricket Australia were instrumental in
finding the specific events in relation to the case. The investigation team consisted of head of
the integrity called Iain Roy along with head of the team performance called Pat Howard.
They arrived within South Africa so that they could conduct the interview. The Cricket
Australia investigated the case so that they can come to a conclusion in relation to the ball
tampering case. Cricket Australia was responsible for appointing an ethical expert so that
they could involve themselves in reviewing the culture of the sports. It acted as the governing
body that was responsible for ensuring that such a conduct is not repeated in the future. The
Cricket Australia investigated into the cultural issues so that it can help in finding out the
outcome in relation to the ball tampering case. Australian Cricketers Association made the
call to the directors of Cricket Australia so that it can decide on the fate of the case. Board of
the Directors of Cricket Australia was instrumental in deciding about the ban (Williams
2018). It was entrusted with the responsibility of deciding whether the ban was fair. Cricket
Australia was responsible for understanding whether the elements of the Australian Cricket

3ETHICAL ANALYSIS OF AUSTRALIAN BALL TAMPERING CASE
Association submission was apt in relation to the case. The conflicting demands that had to
be accommodated by Cricket Australia was that the act was committed out of the desperation
of winning. Steve Smith had agreed to Cameron Bancroft of tampering with the ball however
he decided to go ahead with decision as he felt that he would get high returns with the help of
the event of the ball tampering. He thought that he would be able to get the wickets of that of
the South African players that made him undertake such a decision. There were many players
who had committed such acts in the past but did not have to face any kind of punishment.
Ethical Dilemma of Decision makers
The ethical dilemma of the case is:
To ban from matches the players of Australian cricket team
Or
To impose fine on them
There were ethical dilemma on part of the decision makers pertaining to the
Australian ball tampering case. The ethical dilemma can be raised on account of the fact that
there had been previous cases of the ball tampering but they have been dealt with in a
different manner by the governing bodies of the sports. The outfielders throwing the ball to
that of the wicket keeper on bounce can also be counted as the pre-meditated element that
should also be punished. It is also found that the ball-shiners have the mints within the
mouths that can also amount to cases of the ball tampering. The incident of Bancroft using
the sandpaper within Cape Town can be said to be more blatant as compared to the previous
incidents as the previous culprits in relation to the ball-tampering were the captains of their
respective teams but they had not been punished so severely. Mike Atherton in the year 1994
had been the victim of the dirt-in-pocket moment and he was fined 2000 pound pertaining to
the actions.ShahidAfridi had faced the ball-biting bout in the year 2010 that got him banned

4ETHICAL ANALYSIS OF AUSTRALIAN BALL TAMPERING CASE
for one test match (McLoughlin and Dawson 2017). There were many others who went away
scott-free inspite of having the incriminating video evidence that raised the ethical dilemma
on the part of the decision-makers. The transgression in relation to the ball-tampering had
been dealt in a severe manner in case of Australian ball tampering case which gave rise to
ethical dilemma.
The ethical dilemma can arise in relation to the act as it undermined the values in
relation to the sportsmanship along with the fairness. The honesty of the team had been
undermined by that of the incident of the ball tampering. The blame of the deed was put on
sthat of Cameron Bancroft who was junior member of the team. It was said that work was
conspiracy of that of small cadre of the players. It has been argued by Firstpost.com
(2019),the using of Bancroft also points forward to a problematic area-devastating effect of
the unethical behaviour for that of the psychological safety. The ethical dilemma lies in the
fact that it bears testimony to the effects of working within the toxic workplace culture. The
untold stress proved to be devastating for the players of the Australian cricket team that made
them take recourse to such an act.
Approaches to the ethical decision-making
Utilitarianism lays stress on the fact that ethics should help in making the world a
place that is better. Utilitarianism talks about the fact that the rightness of action can be
determined on the basis of the consequences. On the basis of this theory, it can be said that an
action can be said to be right in the event of maximising the good results for the people.
The parties who are involved are:
 The players of Australian cricket team
 The coaches
Reasonably foreseeable consequences of punishing players:

5ETHICAL ANALYSIS OF AUSTRALIAN BALL TAMPERING CASE
The greatest good can be created for a large number of people in the event of the players
being duly punished that can help in saving the reputation of the game. The decision makers
would have an effect on the players along with the coaches of Australian cricket team. The
consequence of not punishing players would be that it would make the players take recourse
to such devious acts in the future. The party that would be affected by the decision are the
players who would have to suffer loss of the reputation on account of the act.
Foreseeable consequence of not punishing players
The outrage in relation to the ball tampering case can be stated to be a blot on that of the
spirit of the game. Spirit of cricket lays stress on the fact that there should be certain virtues
that should be abided by the players of the game and the act of the ball tampering has been
instrumental in violating the sanctity of the game (Abc.net.au 2019). There are certain norms
that the cricket players are supposed to abide by and the act committed by the Australian
players was harmful for the cricket loving people of the world.
Deontological ethical theory states that an action can be considered to be ethical or the
unethical without the consideration of consequences. Act of the ball tampering had been
carried out by the Australian players on account of the extreme pressure that the players have
to deal with in the event of playing within a team. The act of punishment of the players can
be stated to have been carried out so that it can send a message to the players of the game that
can save the reputation of the game of the cricket. The consequence of the action was that it
managed to harm reputation of game but the act of the punishment can help in saving the
faith of the fans of the popular game (Theguardian.com 2019). The ethical dilemma
alternative that should be chosen according to Kantianism is in relation to the fact whether
any warning should have been given to the players before imposing punishment on the
players of the Australian team.

6ETHICAL ANALYSIS OF AUSTRALIAN BALL TAMPERING CASE
The maxims for the coaches are:
To respect rights of players
To never respect rights of players
Universal: YES
Respect for Persons: YES
Autonomy: YES
To never respect rights of players
Universal: NO
Respect for Persons: NO
Autonomy: NO
The ethical rights talks about the justice approach in relation to the aspect of the
decision-making. The ethical rights can be said to be normative and it helps in saving the
dignity of the individuals in the society. The rights in relation to the case pertains to the rights
of the administrative bodies that were dealing with the case. On the other hand, the rights of
the players were in relation to the fact that there were similar kinds of incidents in the past
that had been dealt with in a light manner and so this case should not have been dealt with in
such a severe manner. The rights of the players were violated on account of the fact that they
were meted out such harsh punishments that left a permanent blot on their professional life.
The clash of the rights can be resolved owing to the fact that the administrators had taken the
decisions on the basis of the severity of the act of the players, captain and the coaches. The
rights in the case of the Australian ball tampering case is in relation to rights of the players
and the rights of Australian Cricket Board in getting the players punished. These rights can be

7ETHICAL ANALYSIS OF AUSTRALIAN BALL TAMPERING CASE
said to clash owing to the fact that both contravenes each other. Cricket Australia carried out
the act so that it can help in emphasizing on the power that they have over the players of the
cricket team (Telegraph.co.uk 2019). The administrators should have reviewed the culture
that can help in dealing in a proper manner with that of the incident of the ball tampering.
The players were denied of the ethical rights and the decision on the part of the
administration shows that they did not have to respect anyone. The ethical rights of the
players were violated on account of the fact that there had been previous such occasions in
which such steps had not been taken but the players in the case of the Australian ball
tampering case were violated in a very severe manner.
The concept of the distributive justice starts from the Kantian concept of the equality
and it wants to find the universal actions which can help in saving the respect of every
person. The rational beings who exist in the society behave in a respectful manner towards
the other rational beings within the society. The worst-off parties in the case of the
distributive justice would be the players and captain of Australian cricket team. Staying
behind veil of the ignorance it is important that the incident of the ball tampering is
thoroughly scrutinized so that it does not harm the parties who are involved in the scandal.
The decision maker in the case of the distributive justice identifies a party that he thinks of to
be the worst of all the parties. The decision maker chooses an outcome that can help in
improving outcome in relation to the worst-off. Cricket is a game in which the manner of
playing the game matters for the general people. The players are supposed to embrace a
friendly spirit in the event of playing the game. Distributive justice is evident in the
Australian ball tampering case as the players were banned from that of cricket for the 12
months. It severely injured the reputation of the game of the sports and it dragged down the
reputation of the players. Distributive justice was demonstrated in the fact that they were
punished so that they would not continue with such an unethical action in the future. They

8ETHICAL ANALYSIS OF AUSTRALIAN BALL TAMPERING CASE
were ejected from that of the Indian Premier League and they lost the contracts that amounted
to $ 2 million for each of the players (Sports.ndtv.com 2019). Justice had be delivered on
account of the fact that it would prevent the players in the future from carrying out such an
act. The captain was punished harshly as he was responsible for providing direction to the
members of the team. He should have acted in a more responsible manner that could have
helped in averting such a crisis in the event of the history. Taking into account the fact that
the competitive spirit of the players made them carry out such a crime they were allowed to
play the club cricket that helped in reducing the harshness in relation to the incident.
Recommendation to decision maker
It can be recommended to the decision makers pertaining to the Australian ball
tampering scandal that they should not have viewed the incident as a solitary incident in the
annals of the cricketing history. These kind of devious acts had also been committed in the
past and hence it was necessary that the punishment should have been meted out on the basis
of the previous punishments. Mike Atherton had been involved in the dirt-in-the-pocket
moment but they were not penalised in such a harsh manner. They were fined and the
decision makers should have made the decision in this case in a more lenient manner that
could have saved them from the utter disgrace. The ethical dilemma can be resolved by
communicating to the decision maker that they should have been fined that could have
averted them from carrying out such an act in the future. The final recommendation is that the
players should have been fined very heavily that could have helped in dealing in a proper
manner with that of the Australian ball tampering case. The governing bodies should have
hold out the incident as an action that should be refrained from in the future that could have
helped in saving the prestige of the sports.

9ETHICAL ANALYSIS OF AUSTRALIAN BALL TAMPERING CASE
References
Abc.net.au (2019). Why rub a cricket ball with sandpaper? The tampering scandal explained.
[online] ABC News. Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-25/how-cricket-
ball-tampering-incident-unfolded/9584618 [Accessed 10 May 2019].
Firstpost.com (2019). Australia ball-tampering scandal: Events that led to bans for Steve
Smith, David Warner, and Justin Langer replacing Darren Lehmann- Firstcricket News,
Firstpost. [online] FirstCricket. Available at: https://www.firstpost.com/firstcricket/sports-
news/australia-ball-tampering-scandal-events-that-led-to-bans-for-steve-smith-david-warner-
and-justin-langer-replacing-darren-lehmann-4409527.html [Accessed 10 May 2019].
McGee, A., Duffy, J. and Garwood-Gowers, A., 2018. Why some ball tampering offences are
more serious than others. Online Opinion, 3.
McLoughlin, I. and Dawson, P., 2017. ‘Howzat’—how do artefacts without matter, matter?
The case of decision review systems in professional cricket. New Technology, Work and
Employment, 32(2), pp.131-145.
Sports.ndtv.com (2019). Ball-Tampering Scandal: Cricket Australia Sets Up Ethics Review |
Cricket News. [online] NDTVSports.com. Available at: https://sports.ndtv.com/cricket/ball-
tampering-scandal-cricket-australia-sets-up-ethics-review-1845237 [Accessed 10 May 2019].
Telegraph.co.uk (2019). 'Arrogant' and 'controlling' culture at Cricket Australia criticised in
ball-tampering report. [online] The Telegraph. Available at:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2018/10/29/cricket-australias-arrogant-win-at-all-costs-
attitude-criticised/ [Accessed 10 May 2019].
Theguardian.com (2019). David Warner and Steve Smith ball-tampering bans stand, Cricket
Australia says. [online] the Guardian. Available at:

10ETHICAL ANALYSIS OF AUSTRALIAN BALL TAMPERING CASE
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/nov/20/david-warner-and-steve-smiths-ball-
tampering-bans-will-stand [Accessed 10 May 2019].
Tikka, S.K. and Garg, S., 2018. Sandpaper-Gate: Psychology plays its innings. Indian
journal of psychological medicine, 40(3), p.296.
Wade, M., 2019. Tactics of the ‘Ugly Australian’: Morality, masculinity, nationalism and
governance amid a cheating controversy in sport. Journal of Sociology,
p.1440783319833466.
Williams, D., 2018. Tamper (the play in it). Performance Research, 23(4-5), pp.67-70.