Trial by TV is the only solution to on-field skulduggery

England's epic rearguard at Cape Town was marred by the way the ICC dealt with the ball-tampering row
Stuart Broad
Stuart Broad found himself involved in the ball-tampering row during England's epic draw at Cape Town. Photograph: Gareth Copley/PA

The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and clarifications column, Tuesday 12 January 2010

The column below about the ball-tampering controversy in the South Africa-­England Test match stated incorrectly that the International Cricket Council's regulations require the opposing team to complain about alleged ball-tampering. The ICC says this responsibility rests with the match officials and that, having reviewed the evidence in this case, the officials made the decision not to proceed.

That was another wonderful Test match, but it had a blemish. The focus should now be on the quality and character England showed in holding out for the draw, but the way the International Cricket Council handled the accusations of ball-tampering has left a cloud that partly overshadows their achievement.

I am certainly not saying that James Anderson or Stuart Broad were guilty of intentionally tampering with the ball. I do not know if they were or not. But I do believe that the ICC needs to make major changes to the regulation system.

First, it should remove the responsibility of reporting suspected skulduggery from the opposition players and coaches. Second, it should give that responsibility to an off-field official who has access to TV footage, probably the third umpire. And finally, because of that switch and also the Umpire Decision Review System, it should ensure that the job of third umpire is given to their most experienced officials.

The current system requires the opposing side to make a formal complaint about foul practice. This only creates animosity between teams. You could see that in the language being used by the players this week. Andrew Strauss has called South Africa's behaviour "malicious".

You want a game to be a hard battle but this situation leads to bad blood between players. It is wrong that the ICC was waiting for South Africa to put in a complaint about England. It is the ICC's responsibility to look for evidence of ball-tampering, or of other offences, such as throwing.

By reacting as it did to the footage that caused the allegations, the ICC abdicated responsibility for making a decision on whether the behaviour was appropriate. By declaring the matter closed because it had not received an official complaint, the ICC has only made a grey area even greyer. Its statement means that any bowler can now stop the ball with the spikes of their boot as Broad did, or fiddle with it in the way Anderson did. It has set a precedent that condones the practices and given an automatic defence to anyone who uses them deliberately to alter the ball.

The law currently calls for the on-field umpires to make "frequent and irregular" inspections of the ball. This is also wrong. They have enough to do on the field as it is. And ball-tampering can only be proved when a player is caught in the act, not by looking at the condition of the ball alone. That will always leave room for argument about how the damage was inflicted, as there was in the infamous abandoned Test between England and Pakistan at The Oval in 2006. The TV cameras are what catch a player in the act, so it is essential they are being monitored by an off-field official.

This job cannot be done by the match referee. He is there to act as a judge, not a prosecutor. It is vital that you have separation between those two powers. If a player is guilty of cheating, the match referee will have to decide on the appropriate punishment. He needs to have an unbiased approach so that he can pass fair judgement. You cannot have him going into a disciplinary hearing and presenting the case against a player before then deciding how to punish him.

Instead, the role of the third umpire should be expanded. He can watch the screens to check if cameras are picking up details the on-field umpires might be oblivious to. Why load the on-field umpires up with work that can be better done by a colleague off the field who has all the necessary information to make the right decisions?

The responsibility for monitoring player behaviour, be it changing the shape of the ball or dodgy bowling actions or even whether a player has too many logos on his pads or shirt should be with the third umpire. The referral system already means that they are making the most difficult decisions. The third umpire's job should be given to the most senior and successful candidates, allowing the less-experienced officials to be out in the middle. The referral system provides a safety-net if they get decisions wrong, and giving them less to concentrate on would only improve their performance.

Alternatively, if the ICC feels that the third umpire has a heavy enough workload as it is – though they already have a fourth umpire at Test matches, whose role could be expanded – a role for an entirely new official could be created, but that would create extra expense. One thing is clear: the current system is flawed.