Ethical Analysis of Australian Ball Tampering Case
Added on 2023-03-17
11 Pages3350 Words26 Views
|
|
|
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
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
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
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
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
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents