The ball is the holiest thing in any sport. A goalkeeper cannot hold on to a football for much time, otherwise, he would be penalized for time wasting. Nor can a basketball player keep the ball for much longer because it is foul play. Do anything you want to on the field, but do not have the ball for too long in your hands. ABut, the sport of cricket has been quite confused with the ball over many years.

The relationship of the pioneers of reverse swing with ball tampering never ceases to die down. Shoaib Akhtar, who is known for his temper tantrums with opposition players and also his teammates, was this time found altering the shape of the ball in the May 2003 in a match against New Zealand. After it appeared that the Rawalpindi Express was trying to rub the seam of the ball with his thumb, Gamini Silva, third umpire of the match, reported the incident to match referee Gundappa Viswanath.

While it was believed by many that Akhtar would be banned for at least eight ODIs, the officials let the fast bowler get away with a fine of 50% match fees and a ban of 2 One-day internationals. But the damage was already done. While Akhtar was found to be tampering with the ball in the 29th over according to the TV footage and even the umpires taking a note of it, the ball was changed in the 43rd over. By this time, New Zealand had already lost six wickets and would eventually go on to lose the match by 22 runs.

Marcus Trescothick, The Ashes, 2005

The autobiography of the former England opener seems to have become the new rule book for the authorities following Faf du Plessis' incident against Australia. After ending up on the losing side for 19 long years in The Ashes, the Poms were finally able to beat Australia by a margin of 2-1 in 2005 - one of the finest Ashes to be ever played. The Aussies crumbled under the devastating reverse swing generated by England's Steve Harmison, Andrew Flintoff and Simon Jones in that series.

Three years after recapturing the Urn, Trescothick wrote in his autobiography “Coming Back To Me”, “I was firmly established as the man in charge of looking after the ball when we were fielding. It was my job to keep the shine on the new ball for as long as possible with a bit of spit and a lot of polish. And through trial and error, I finally settled on the best type of spit for the task at hand. It had been common knowledge in county cricket for some time that certain sweets produced saliva which when applied to the ball for cleaning purposes enabled it to keep its shine for longer and therefore its swing.” The former batsman also went as far as claiming that one of the backroom staff was given the duty of keeping the England dressing room stocked with the “Murray Mints” they used for shining the ball.

1992 Pakistan-England, Lord's ball-tampering controversy

During the period of 1991, Pakistani pacers particularly the trio of Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis and Aaqib Javed were a revelation while playing County cricket in England. They tormented elite batting line-ups with their incredible skill of making the ball to swing in unthinkable ways. When the world sees something new and awe-inspiring, it is bound to sprout a seed of jealousy among others who fail to emulate it. There was gossip going around the English domestic scene that the Pakistani bowlers have resorted to illegal ways to make the ball dance in the air, but with no proof against them, there were no charges.

Then came Pakistan's tour of England in 1992 when everything happened, but nothing was made official. England had already won the five-match ODI series 3-0 when the teams arrived at Lord's for the penultimate match. England were set a target of 204 and the team who had dominated the previous three matches were down to 5 for 139 with Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis and Aaqib Javed wrecking havoc.

At the time of lunch, on-field umpires - Ken Palmer and John Hampshire – found some irregularities with the ball's shape. Don Oslear, the third umpire, after consultation with the match referee, agreed to the fact that the ball's cover was split with a fingernail or an instrument and brought a replacement ball. Surprisingly, the TCCB(now known as the ECB) had ordered the officials to not inform the press about the condition of the ball, fearing that it would show the Pakistanis in the bad light.

“I don't care what anyone thinks... the new ball swung more anyway. Every time we win people start saying these things. We won fair and square,” Waqar Younis told the media after the match ended in a 3-win victory for the visitors. But, for some bizarre reason, the TCCB and the ICC ordered the sulking England players and the match officials to keep their mouths shut about the whole incident.

But it was a ticking time bomb as the controversy blew out of water in 1994 when former England batsman Alan Lamb was sued by Pakistan's Sarfraz Nawaz for calling him a cheat. Following this, Lamb gave an interview to the Daily Mirror which was headlined “How Pakistan Cheat at Cricket”. The charges were dropped against Lamb, Nawaz went away complaining about the English courts but why did the ICC and TCCB not probe into the issue in the first place? Incompetence would be the best word suitable.

This was a total mess. Instead of handling the incident with sensitivity and professionalism, the BCCI resorted to racism claims, politics and went the distance by dragging both the Indian and South African governments into the mix. It all started during the third day of the second Test at Port Elizabeth in November 2001. During South Africa's 2nd innings, Sachin Tendulkar, bowling at a medium pace, seemed to swing the ball more than the other Indian pacers. The local TV producer, who suddenly became aware of this, instructed cameramen to zoom in on Tendulkar's hands to check what seam position the Master was using. And on two occasions, Tendulkar was spotted working on the seam of the ball with his thumb and forefinger. The over-enthusiastic commentators went overboard with this by showing the TV audience claustrophobic close-up replays.

"In the event, Denness truly believes - in the manner of his forefathers who ruled this land with such cunning for so long - that there are always two sets of rules. Nothing has changed since the days when the sun never set on the British Empire," read an editorial in The Hindu. The BCCI refused to play the third Test unless the ICC sacked Denness as the referee for the match. The ICC did not give in to these demands as it would mean the cricket's governing body being bossed by its powerful members.  Eventually, the BCCI and UCBSA (the South African board) sacked Denness without even consulting the ICC. The ICC, in reply, ceased to recognize the third Test between the two as an official match which South Africa won easily. Sachin, in reality, was accused of not informing the umpires he was cleaning the ball under Law 42.3 (b), rather than ball-tampering. But too much of politics and media intervention made the matter a complete hodgepodge.

The Asian team's every tour of England tends to become controversial one way or the other and this time it was the involvement of Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq and on-field umpire Darrell Hair. On the rain-hit fourth day of the fourth Test at The Oval, the on-field umpires Billy Doctrove and Darrell Hair came on to the pitch to inspect the light around 4.30 pm local time. While it was decided that about an hour of play could be possible, the Pakistan team led by Inzamam-ul-Haq refused to take the field after learning that umpire Hair had decided to change the ball hinting that the ball had been tampered by their team.

The crowd at the stadium, who were already frustrated, booed Inzamam and his team as they walked onto the field. But this time, the umpires refused to take to the field and Pakistan had to return to the pavilion. The crowd, who were vexed and infuriated at all this, soon emptied the stadium after an announcement was made that the play had been cancelled for the day. For forfeiting the match, Pakistan were fined by the ICC and points were awarded to England for adhering to the match rules. PCB called for the sacking of Hair, but the Australian was stubborn saying that he will not be forced into retirement before eventually calling it quits in 2011.