A ball-tampering conspiracy was born in Mackay. Here’s what actually happened

When India A’s players threw the match ball to umpires Shawn Craig and Ben Treloar at the end of play on day three of the tour game in Mackay, the officials took no more than a cursory glance at the 50-over-old Kookaburra before calling it a day.

In the post-Newlands scandal era, umpires check the ball’s condition on countless occasions. Between overs, at drinks breaks, session breaks and at the fall of every wicket. They do this to be seen doing so as much as out of any suspicion of ball tampering.

This masthead has spoken to five sources familiar with what transpired in Mackay to form a picture of what happened on the final morning and afterwards. Cricket Australia has declined to comment.

It was after taking a second look at the ball, in the umpire’s room on the morning of the final day, that Craig and Treloar noticed that its condition had changed markedly.

Whether the ball had been scratched by India A’s players or been scuffed some other way, neither umpire nor match referee Kent Hannam could say. But they had a regulation in the CA playing conditions that allowed them to change the ball without finding absolute fault.

Introduced in 2018 following the Newlands scandal, the regulation differs from the Marylebone Cricket Club’s laws of the game, which compel the umpires to impose a five-run penalty on the fielding side if they deem the ball to have been unfairly changed in condition.

Under CA playing conditions for domestic matches, including the game in Mackay, umpires have the power to change the ball if they suspect ball-tampering but are unsure of its origin. “If the umpires together suspect, but are not certain, that the condition of the ball has been unfairly changed, or that its condition is inconsistent with the use it has received, the umpires may: Change the ball forthwith.

“The umpires shall choose a replacement ball for one of similar wear and of the same brand as the ball in use prior to the contravention. [The] bowler’s end umpire shall issue the captain with a first and final warning.”

After making their decision to change the ball, Craig and Treloar spoke to India A’s team manager and received no pushback about the move. Australia A were also informed. As evidence of the lack of rancour about the decision, India A’s players assembled as scheduled to walk out to the middle for the final passages of a game Australia A would go on to win by seven wickets.

But the scenes that followed soon flashed around the world, as stump microphones captured the increasingly terse exchanges between Craig, the senior umpire and a former first-class cricketer for Victoria, and the India A players.

Those exchanges looked a lot like an instance of an umpire accusing the India A team of ball-tampering, and then threatening to put a player on report for dissent for complaining about that accusation. They held up the start of play.

Craig, known universally as a straight shooting and sometimes bluntly speaking official with 10 years’ experience at international level, responded to the rising irritation of the Indian players surrounding him by getting on the front foot himself.

Stump microphones captured Craig saying: “You scratch it, we change the ball. There will be no more discussion, let’s play. This is not a discussion, you will be playing with that ball.”

According to commentators, sometime international wicketkeeper Ishan Kishan was heard saying “that is a very stupid decision”, leading Craig to retort: “Excuse me, you will be on dissent. That is inappropriate behaviour, it is because of your actions we changed the ball.”

But what has not been known before now is that the angst on show from India A, led by Ishan, was not because the ball had been changed.

Instead, it was because the touring team were unhappy with the condition of the replacement ball: a drama, but not a major one, since umpires and players have debated the condition of replacement balls for decades.

Craig’s words have led to a flurry of questions about what had taken place and whether further action would follow.

Former Test opener and Cricket NSW board director Ed Cowan raised plenty of pertinent questions on an ABC podcast this week.

“Part of me just thinks if this wasn’t India there would be a totally different reaction,” Cowan said. “If that was Pakistan A, or England A, or choose any A team, or even a Shield game, the reaction would be totally different and for me, that’s the wrong approach.

“To be fair, it’s just us joining dots. These dots may be totally incorrect, we’d have imperfect information, but I do think it’s on Cricket Australia to clarify this, and it’s also probably imperative on the BCCI to clarify this.”

On Wednesday when unveiled as the Sydney Thunder captain after CA overturned his lifetime leadership ban for being the “mastermind” of a ball-tampering plot in South Africa in 2018, David Warner also raised his own queries.

“I think the ultimate decision’s with CA, isn’t it?” Warner said. “I think they’ve obviously squashed it as fast as they could, given that India’s coming out here this summer, but if the umpires deem that something happened, then I’m sure there’ll be a follow-up and I think the umpires or the match referee should be standing here answering those questions.”

Indian cricket’s off-field power is undisputed, and that reputation was largely built around pushing back in these sorts of situations. Minds quickly went back to the fate of match referee Mike Denness in 2001, or BCCI threats to quit a tour of Australia early amid the Harbhajan Singh-Andrew Symonds “Monkeygate” affair in 2008.

But this time around, there was no fire under the smoke. The umpires changed the ball but did not have any proof of how its condition had been changed.

And as the day went on, and Nathan McSweeney led Australia A to their win, Craig reflected on the morning exchange. Ultimately, he decided not to proceed with the dissent charge against Ishan.

Sources close to Craig, speaking on condition of anonymity to speak freely, indicated that the whole episode had been a “good lesson” in terms of the man management side of umpiring. In future, Craig may take a more conciliatory tone when surrounded by players.

In parallel, there had never been any plan by Craig or Treloar to charge India A with ball tampering because there had been no definitive evidence to do so. The ball had been changed, as per the aforementioned regulation, and the game played out.

After play, CA’s cricket operations manager Peter Roach discussed the episode with Craig, Treloar and Hannam, before the release of the following statement.

“The ball used in the fourth innings of the match was changed due to deterioration. Both teams’ captain and manager were informed of the decision prior to the start of play. No further action is being taken.”

It is undeniably true that CA wants this summer to run smoothly and successfully, with big crowds watching a tightly contested series between Australia and India. But in Mackay there was no need for a conspiracy to “squash” a ball-tampering charge against the touring team, quite simply because there had not been one in the first place.

News, results and expert analysis from the weekend of sport are sent every Monday. Sign up for our Sport newsletter.