Mumbai: Former England skipper Nasser Hussain has defended Virat Kohli after a British daily alleged that the Indian skipper was involved in ball tampering during the first Test against England in Rajkot.
Hussain, who is on the commentary duties in India, also lashed at ICC for the way they handled the Faf du Plessis ball-tampering issue in Australia.
"It's ludicrous really. Much ado about nothing. The whole ball-shining thing with something in your mouth has been going on for ages," Hussain told India Today.
"I don't know how you police it. How you say what is allowed and is not. What kind of sweets or drinks (can players consume) during the breaks?” Hussain added.
While Kohli did not face any charges, ICC fined South Africa’s stand-in Test skipper after the footage of him allegedly changing the condition of the ball during the Hobart Test emerged.
"I defend Virat and Faf vehemently. This is really poor stuff and we need to start concentrating on the important things," said Hussain.
"There are so many other important things we need to worry about and not a picture of Virat from two games ago maybe with a sweet in his mouth or Faf Du Plessis with mint in his mouth,” added the ex-England captain.
While du Plessis made it clear that he was made a scapegoat, Australian skipper Steve Smith also defended his Proteas counterpart saying even the Aussies the same technique as that of du Plessis’ to shine the ball. Du Plessis and Cricket South Africa have demanded that the laws about ball tampering and the use of artificial substances to shine the ball should be clearly defined.
Hussain defended the stand saying, "What is artificially altering the state of the ball? I know England do it, all teams do it, chucking the ball against an abrasive outfield to try to get it to reverse swing.”
"Umpires can't do anything about that and that is changing the state of the ball. So is saliva out or chewing gum out or sun block lotion not allowed? If all cricketers are saying this is what they do, what Faf did, and they have been doing it forever, then they have to clearly look at what do they mean by an artificial substance. That line really needs tiding up in that law," concluded Hussain.
