A significant portion of cricket viewers have the perception that roughening the ball on one side and shinning it on the other will inevitably lead to reverse swing. Herein lies the problem: It's not true. Not even partially true.

It's true that aerodynamics explain why the ball will reverse towards the shiny side, but this doesn't mean that any person who can hurl a ball at the batsman can make it reverse too. Bowlers need to master the art of reverse swing just as they have to perfect it for conventional swing.

The pace must be quick enough, the wrist must be at an angle between 20-30 degrees, and the length the ball pitches at should be full enough to allow the ball maximum time in air. Only then can physics take over.

Not to mention that the ball must be taken care of by the entire team to make sure that one side of it retains some shine while the other one is roughed up, as the ball gets older.

If the skills required to make the ball reverse is as hard to master as conventional swing — if not more — then it begs the question as to why tampering the ball to prepare it for reverse swing is illegal.

As long as no foreign object is used, such as the piece of sandpaper that has put the career of three Australian players into jeopardy, altering the ball otherwise shouldn’t be a problem.

Just like reverse swing, maybe all we need is to re-brand ball-tampering for it to become acceptable by the cricketing fraternity.

When Pakistani fast bowlers wreaked havoc by inventing the art to make the old ball swing, it was labelled as cheating by the English players — only to re-name it as reverse swing when they finally learned how it's done. No surprises there.

I understand that it's extremely difficult for the International Cricket Council (ICC) to draw the line between what are 'natural' means of ball-tampering and what aren't.

Players use all sorts of methods to alter the ball. Some are more subtle about it, such as when Faf Du Plessis had mint in his mouth and he used his saliva to shine the ball, while others like Shahid Afridi prefer to do it more brazenly on TV by sinking their teeth into a leather hardball.

The blurriness between acceptable and unacceptable means of altering the ball is probably what has kept the ICC adamant on not allowing any sort of ball-tampering whatsoever.

I, however, argue that the ball is the bowler’s property and that he should be allowed to tamper it with at least some 'natural' means.

This may spur another debate on why foreign objects shouldn't be allowed if altering the ball isn’t cheating. But in the case of foreign objects, it's important to understand that it takes away hard work from the players because countless tools can help prepare a ball within minutes.

The beauty of reverse swing lies in the fact that it must be earned with whatever is available on the field and watching teams work in sync to reinvent swing from a dead old ball is part of the magic of this dark art.

While the ICC takes a firm stance on zero tolerance over ball-tampering, the game is losing its balance between the bat and the ball, especially due to a surge in flat pitches around the world.

The Test format certainly is in dire need of attracting bigger crowds to keep its relevance alive. Just like T20s are inherently designed for batsmen to entertain the crowd, Test matches can only penetrate the market for viewership if bowlers have the liberty to experiment with the ball.

If tampering the ball can lead to more thrilling Test matches then I am all for it because I will never sign up for watching a five-day run fest on a flat deck that eventually leads to a draw.

Why does the ICC need to go into unknown territory by introducing four-day Test matches to revive Test cricket? Why can't it allow bowlers to have the tools they need to produce exciting bowling? It’s not cheating; it’s a skill to make use of a tampered ball. Know the difference between the two.

To add more flavour, taking a new ball after the 80-over mark could be made mandatory and not optional for the bowling side. This would add new dynamics to the game where the captain would have to decide whether to use his fast bowlers with a reversing ball or keep them fresh for a new one depending on which skills his bowlers bank more on.

The batsman that survives this battle on the other hand will become highly valued. It would take a fighting spirit and immense skill for the batsman to stand his ground while the opposition works on the ball to take him down.

A hard-fought 50 from the batsman will bring more life to Test cricket than a double-hundred on a flat deck in front of empty stands.

To put everything in context, reverse swing is an art and a tampered ball is just a tool that can only do as much as the person using it can make out of it.

Owning a bow and an arrow doesn’t make one a hunter; a tampered ball served on a platter won't make an ordinary bowler extraordinary.

Let bowlers tamper the ball with 'natural' means so that we can get some excitement, balance and fairness back into the game.