Only narrow forms of ball care are legal; the umpires decide whether its condition was unfairly changed.

The ruleset and date used here

This page uses the MCC Laws of Cricket 2017 Code, 3rd Edition (2022), principally Laws 41.3 and 4, as the general-law baseline. It is current on 26 August 2026. MCC has published a 4th Edition for 2026, but it does not take effect until 1 October 2026, so it is not yet the controlling MCC edition for a match played on this page's check date.

MCC writes the Laws; the governing body or competition administering a match may adopt different playing conditions. The ICC men's ODI variation discussed below is therefore labelled separately and is checked against the ICC Men's One-Day International Playing Conditions effective July 2025. It should not be projected onto a domestic league, youth competition, Test, T20 or local match without checking that event's appointed rules.

The offence is an unauthorised action that changes the ball

MCC Law 41.3.2 starts broadly: it is an offence for any player to take an action that changes the condition of the ball. A batter may carry out normal batting duties but may not otherwise wilfully damage the ball. A fielder has only three stated forms of care:

• Polish it on clothing, using no artificial substance and no natural substance other than sweat, without wasting time.
• Remove mud, but only under an umpire's supervision.
• Dry a wet ball on a cloth approved by the umpires.

Law 41.3.3 tells the umpires to regard the condition as unfairly changed when a player's action does not comply with those permissions. The question is not whether the tactic succeeded in producing more swing or seam; it is whether the action changed the ball outside the permitted methods.

“Ball tampering” is wider than using an object

The MCC Law states the permissions rather than an exhaustive blacklist. For international-cricket disciplinary purposes, ICC Code of Conduct Article 2.14 gives useful examples: deliberately throwing the ball into the ground to roughen it, applying an artificial substance, applying another natural substance for a purpose other than polishing, lifting or interfering with a seam, and scratching the surface with a nail or implement.

Those ICC examples do not turn Article 2.14 into the law for every competition, but they show why “no sandpaper was used” is not an answer. Under the MCC baseline, deliberate saliva shining is also outside the permission because sweat is the only natural substance allowed for polishing.

The umpires inspect; natural deterioration is not automatically misconduct

MCC Law 41.3.1 requires frequent, irregular inspections and an immediate inspection when the umpires suspect an unauthorised attempt. Law 41.2 makes the umpires the sole judges of fair and unfair play. Ball movement data or proof of a competitive benefit is not a separate element in the MCC procedure.

There must still be a basis for treating the condition as unfairly changed by a player. A split seam, loss of shape or damage through normal use belongs under Law 4.5, not automatically under Law 41.3. ICC men's ODI clause 41.3.4 is deliberately wider: the two umpires may also act when the condition is inconsistent with the use the ball has received, then decide whether the responsible player or players can be identified.

Five runs are automatic; replacement is optional

Once the MCC Law 41.3 finding is made, the bowler's-end umpire awards 5 Penalty runs to the opposing side whether or not a replacement is wanted. That means the fielding side receives the runs if a batter committed the offence.

The umpires ask the opposing captain whether to replace the ball. If the non-offending side is batting and its captain cannot act, the batters at the wicket may deputise. If replacement is requested, the umpires—not either team—select a ball with wear comparable to the previous ball immediately before the contravention and bring it into use immediately.

The on-field ruling is not the later disciplinary case

Law 41.3.4 also requires the relevant players and captains to be informed. After the match, the umpires report the occurrence to the offending side's executive and any governing body responsible for the match. That body decides what further action is appropriate against the captain, individuals or team.

The Laws themselves do not prescribe a universal personal suspension for the first incident. A ban, fine or charge depends on the governing body's disciplinary code. In ICC international cricket, Article 2.14 of the Code of Conduct is a separate Level 3 offence that supplements rather than replaces the playing-condition ruling; the Code effective 16 June 2023 provides a sanction of 4 to 12 suspension points after the disciplinary process.

A further MCC offence can suspend the preceding bowler

If the same team unfairly changes the ball again in the match, MCC Law 41.3.5 repeats the replacement-choice, 5-run, notification and reporting procedure. When that further offence is by the fielding side, the bowler who delivered the preceding ball must also be suspended from bowling immediately and cannot bowl again in the match.

This is the Law's match-management consequence; the wording does not say that the preceding bowler must be the person who altered the ball. If the over is incomplete, another bowler finishes it. That replacement bowler must not have bowled any part of the previous over and cannot bowl any part of the next over. A further offence by the batting side does not trigger this bowling suspension.

Men's ODIs do not use the MCC replacement choice

ICC Men's ODI Playing Conditions effective July 2025, clauses 41.3.4–41.3.6, require the ball to be changed and divide the procedure by whether the umpires can identify the responsible player:

• Identified fielding-side player: a batter at the wicket chooses from six balls of the same brand and varying use, including a new ball. The opposing side also receives 5 Penalty runs.
• Identified batting-side player: the umpires choose a ball of comparable wear. The opposing side receives 5 Penalty runs.
• No player identified: the umpires choose a same-brand ball of similar wear and give the captain a first and final warning. The initial unidentified-player procedure does not state a 5-run award. Its warning expressly carries to any further instance by that team during the remainder of the series.

For an identified incident, the umpires report the matter to the ICC Match Referee. These are substantial differences from MCC's optional replacement and must not be described as universal cricket law.

ICC men's ODIs have a separate saliva outcome

Under ICC men's ODI clause 41.3.7, if the umpires believe saliva has been applied to the ball, they award 5 Penalty runs to the opposing side and ordinarily replace the ball under clause 41.3.5.1. The exception is where they believe the fielding team deliberately used saliva in an attempt to obtain an advantageous replacement.

This is more specific than simply saying “saliva is banned.” It states both the normal penalty and the anti-exploitation exception. Other competitions may phrase or administer saliva breaches differently, so the appointed playing conditions remain decisive.

Lost or unfit through normal use is Law 4, not tampering

MCC Law 4.5 applies when the ball cannot be found or recovered, or the umpires agree it became unfit through normal use. The umpires replace it with a ball whose wear is comparable to the wear received before replacement and inform the batters and fielding captain. There is no 5-run penalty merely because this normal replacement occurs.

MCC Law 4.2 keeps all match balls under umpire control and requires an umpire to take possession at every wicket, interval and interruption. That is why a player should not privately repair mud, moisture or damage even with a benign intention: the umpires manage the ball and the Law provides supervised methods.

A replacement ball is not the same as taking a new ball

Under MCC Laws 4.3 and 4.4, either captain may demand a new ball at the start of an innings unless there was a contrary pre-match agreement. In a match lasting more than one day, the fielding captain may demand a new ball after at least 80 overs with the old one, excluding part overs.

That entitlement is distinct from replacing a lost, unfit or unfairly changed ball. Limited-overs and professional competitions often set their own number, age and allocation of balls; the MCC 80-over rule should not be imported into a format whose playing conditions replace it.

A fielder cleans dried mud without asking

Situation: a fielder picks dried mud from the seam while walking back to position. No tool or added substance is used.

MCC 2022 ruling: mud removal is permitted only under umpire supervision. If the umpires consider that the player's unauthorised action changed the condition, Law 41.3 applies: 5 Penalty runs to the batting side, an option to request a comparable-wear replacement, and a post-match report. A harmless motive does not create an extra permission.

A naturally split seam is discovered

Situation: during a routine inspection, the seam has opened after ordinary use and the umpires agree the ball is unfit. There is no basis to attribute the change to a player's unauthorised action.

MCC 2022 ruling: use Law 4.5. The umpires bring in a ball of comparable wear and notify the batters and fielding captain. There is no ball-condition penalty or misconduct report on those facts.

An ODI ball is scarred but no culprit can be identified

Situation: in a men's ODI, both umpires agree the ball's condition is inconsistent with its use, but video and observation do not identify a responsible player.

ICC men's ODI, July 2025 ruling: the umpires replace it with a same-brand ball of similar wear and issue the captain a first and final warning. The initial unidentified-player procedure in clause 41.3.6 does not award 5 Penalty runs. That differs from the MCC baseline.

A teammate tampers after an earlier MCC offence

Situation: a fielding team has already committed one Law 41.3 offence. Later, a fielder unfairly alters the ball just after another bowler delivered the preceding ball.

MCC 2022 ruling: repeat the 5-run and replacement-choice procedure, then suspend the bowler who delivered the preceding ball from bowling for the rest of the match. The suspension follows the specified repeat-offence procedure; it is not by itself a finding that the bowler was the person who tampered.

How to decide any ball-condition incident

1. Name the ruleset. Start with MCC Law 41.3 only if the competition has not replaced it.
2. Identify the cause. Was this normal use, loss or a player's action?
3. Test the permission. For a fielder, was it clothing and sweat only, supervised mud removal, or an approved drying cloth?
4. Let the umpires judge the condition. Do not substitute speculation about swing for the official finding.
5. Apply the correct replacement route. MCC gives the opponent a choice; the cited ICC ODI conditions make replacement automatic and depend on identified responsibility.
6. Check prior incidents. MCC repeat-offence consequences apply by team and match; ICC's unidentified-player warning can extend through the series.
7. Keep discipline separate. Apply any governing-body charge only through its own code and process.

Claims that are too broad

• “Ball tampering always means scratching with an object.” Substances, seam interference and other unauthorised changes can qualify.
• “The ball must behave differently before there is an offence.” MCC's test is the unauthorised action and resulting condition, not a measured swing advantage.
• “Tampering always earns five runs and a compulsory replacement.” That combines different rulesets. MCC makes replacement optional; the cited ICC unidentified-player procedure replaces without an initial five-run award.
• “A replacement must be new.” Comparable or similar wear is the ordinary principle; the ICC ODI choice after identified fielding-side responsibility is a named exception that includes a new ball among six options.
• “The on-field penalty is the player's ban.” Match management and later discipline are separate processes.
• “Any damaged ball proves cheating.” Normal loss or unfitness is dealt with under Law 4.5 without a misconduct penalty.

Governing-body sources and effective versions

• Marylebone Cricket Club — Laws of Cricket edition index: 2017 Code, 3rd Edition (2022), and published 4th Edition (2026)
• Marylebone Cricket Club — Law 41, Unfair play, especially 41.2 and 41.3
• Marylebone Cricket Club — Law 4, The ball, especially 4.2–4.5
• Marylebone Cricket Club — notice that the 4th Edition (2026) takes effect on 1 October 2026
• International Cricket Council — Men's One-Day International Playing Conditions, effective July 2025, clauses 41.3.1–41.3.7
• International Cricket Council — Code of Conduct for Players and Player Support Personnel, effective 16 June 2023, Articles 2.14 and 7

Checked on 26 August 2026 against the currently effective MCC edition, MCC's announced 1 October 2026 commencement date, the named ICC men's ODI playing conditions and the ICC disciplinary code. Competition, tour, league, age-grade and domestic regulations may replace or supplement this baseline; use the conditions appointed for the match.