Siddle in ball-tampering row, ICC clears bowler

Posted by:
Updated: Tuesday, December 18, 2012, 13:29 [IST]
Share this on your social network:
   Facebook Twitter Google+    Comments Mail

Peter Siddle in ball-tampering row

Hobart, Dec 18: Australia fast bowler Peter Siddle was in the centre of a ball-tampering controversy in the Australia-Sri Lanka first Test which concluded here on Tuesday. However, International Cricket Council (ICC) has cleared the bowler of any wrong-doing.

Sri Lanka team management complained to ICC match referee Chris Broad about Siddle trying to alter the condition of the ball with his fingernails during the 88th over of Sri Lanka innings on third day, Sunday. It was reported in the media that pictures of Siddle using his fignernails were posted on social networking sites.

"All that happened is we have had informal chats with the match referee about what happened about what we saw on TV -- everybody saw it -- and we just asked what action are you going to do about it, that's all," Sri Lanka team manager Charith Senanayake told The Australian newspaper.

But ICC, after the completion of the match, issued a media statement, quoting match referee Broad. The statement said they found no evidence of ball-tampering. Australia won the Test by 137 runs with Siddle winning the Man-of-the-match award.

"The umpires frequently inspect the ball during play, and did so again after they had reviewed the video footage in question on Sunday. They found no evidence to suggest that the condition of the ball had been changed," Broad said in a statement on Tuesday.

"During the tea interval on that day, I spoke with Australia coach Mickey Arthur and told him that the umpires will continue to inspect the cricket ball regularly, and monitor the actions of all players. I subsequently informed the Sri Lanka team management of my discussions with the Australia coach.

"In the opinion of the umpires, there was no evidence to suggest that the condition of the ball was changed, or that the video or photographic evidence would support a charge under the Code of Conduct, so they will not be laying any charges relating to these incidents," Broad added.


Story first published:  Tuesday, December 18, 2012, 13:04 [IST]
Write Comments