Faf du Plessis Ball Tampering — Applying Saliva from Mint

Ball tampering has been part of cricket's shadow history for decades. The practice of illegally altering the condition of the ball — to generate swing, seam, or reverse swing beyond what the ball would naturally produce — has been an open secret at various levels of the game. But high-profile prosecutions under the Laws were rare before the modern camera era.

The 2013 South Africa vs Pakistan Test series in the UAE was played in conditions where reverse swing was always likely to be a factor. Swing bowling in dry, spin-friendly conditions can be difficult to generate, and teams were acutely aware of the value of maintaining one side of the ball in optimal condition for reverse swing.

Faf du Plessis was a relatively new face in international cricket in 2013 — a talented middle-order batsman who had made his Test debut the previous year. He was not yet captain of the full Test side but was an important member of the squad. His involvement in a ball-tampering allegation, caught on television cameras in high definition, changed his public profile significantly.

During South Africa's innings in the 2nd Test in Dubai, television cameras trained on du Plessis captured something that attracted immediate scrutiny: he appeared to be repeatedly applying saliva to the ball while sucking what was identified as a mint or boiled sweet.

The practice of applying saliva to the ball is itself permitted under the Laws — teams routinely use saliva to shine one side of the ball and maintain its condition. The illegality arises when the saliva is artificially enhanced — for example, by sugary residue from a sweet or mint, which can alter the shine in ways that go beyond normal maintenance.

The footage was unambiguous enough for match referee David Boon to take formal action. Du Plessis was charged under the ICC Code of Conduct. The charge was not that the act had definitively altered the ball's behaviour, but that the act of applying foreign substance to the ball was itself a violation.

During the second Test between South Africa and Pakistan in Dubai, television cameras caught South African batsman Faf du Plessis applying saliva to the ball while he had a mint or sweet in his mouth. Applying artificial substances to the ball is considered ball tampering.

Match referee David Boon charged du Plessis with changing the condition of the ball. Du Plessis was found guilty and fined 50% of his match fee but received no ban. The lenient punishment was criticized by some who felt ball tampering should carry a suspension.

Du Plessis and the South African team were unapologetic, with du Plessis saying he didn't believe it constituted ball tampering. The incident raised questions about the grey areas in ball management — players regularly apply saliva to the ball, and the line between legitimate maintenance and tampering is not always clear.

This was not du Plessis' only brush with ball tampering allegations. He was later charged again in 2016 during a Test against Australia, when cameras appeared to show him applying the ball to the zipper of his trouser pocket. He was again fined but not banned.

“I don't believe I was doing anything wrong. Applying saliva to the ball is what every player does. The mint was incidental.”

“The cameras don't lie. What they showed was clear. The match referee applied the Laws correctly. The fine should have been a ban.”

“There is a grey area between legitimate ball maintenance and tampering. But applying sugary residue is on the wrong side of that line.”

“After sandpaper gate, people look back at the Faf incident differently. The culture around ball management had been escalating for years.”

The immediate aftermath saw Faf du Plessis take the unusual step of publicly questioning the finding rather than accepting it with the standard statement of regret. South Africa captain at the time and senior players supported him, arguing that applying saliva to the ball was an accepted and common practice, and that the use of a mint was incidental rather than deliberate enhancement.

The fine — 50% of match fee — was widely seen as lenient by critics who believed ball tampering should carry automatic suspension. The argument was that the punishment was not a sufficient deterrent: for an international cricketer, 50% of one match fee was not a meaningful sanction.

The Pakistan team and their supporters were understandably aggrieved. If the ball had been artificially conditioned, their batsmen had faced something they were not supposed to. But proving that the tampering had measurably affected the game's outcome was impossible, and the focus remained on the act itself rather than its consequences.