Smith and Warner are in the middle of year-long bans imposed by CA and cannot return to international cricket until March 28 next year, allowing them to be selected for the one-day World Cup, while Bancroft was given a nine-month ban, meaning he can return to first-class cricket soon after Christmas. Smith cannot return to the captaincy until 2020 while Warner has been banned from ever having a leadership role again. The ACA argues that by the time Smith and Warner's bans end, they will have missed more cricket than if they had been given the harshest of penalties under International Cricket Council rulings. The ICC's new sanctions - introduced since Cape Town - can have a player suspended for a maximum of six Tests for "changing the condition of the ball". Steve Smith and David Warner are currently serving year-long bans. Credit:AAP Under that ruling, going on Australia's schedule this year, they would be able to return in time for the fourth and final Test against India at the SCG, for they would have missed the final Test in South Africa, two Tests in the United Arab Emirates and Tests in Adelaide, Perth and Melbourne against India. However, under CA's ban, the three men also cannot play first-class cricket for their states in the meantime. In order to return to the Test side, their bans would have to be lifted in time for them to play at least one Sheffield Shield match to be considered for Test selection.

Another option for CA is to allow Smith and Warner to at least be able to compete in the Big Bash League from December - a move which has growing support in cricketing circles, and would please new broadcasters Channel Seven and Fox Sports, entering the first season of a six-year deal worth $1.2 billion. Roberts pointed out the three players had not appealed their suspensions at the time, while public sentiment was mixed. "There was an appeal mechanism available to the players at the time which wasn't taken up at that time. It's interesting to think about public sentiments. I'm receiving as many messages from people suggesting that the suspensions are too lenient as those who are sending messages saying they're too harsh," he said. He also said CA was not hiding behind a procedural mechanism. The ACA has not ruled out contemplating legal action should its submission fail but legal sources told Fairfax Media the three men would find it difficult to launch a case, particularly as they had opted to not appeal against their sentences in March.

The players' union maintains the Longstaff report is "new evidence" but lawyers spoken to by Fairfax Media have questioned whether any link can be made between CA's head-office culture and players then using sandpaper in a bid to scuff a ball that was not reverse swinging as had been hoped. However, another suggestion was that the players could look into a restraint-of-trade case as this new report meant not all evidence had been taken into consideration when CA handed out its punishments. Cricket insiders have pointed out that potential legal action would not help improve the already dire relations between the ACA and CA, although Dyer maintains there has been a "thawing" in the toxic relationship of last year's pay dispute. Nicholson said all options, including heading to the courts, would be considered if the submission for a rehearing failed. "I think the reality is we need to submit and then go through that process. The resolution out of the board meeting was that we are going to put a submission. When we get further down the road we will then consider what other options we have. We will keep considering the options," Nicholson said.

Dyer said the ACA was not an apologist for the players. "What we are saying is there are other contributing factors to what happened in South Africa. It's not a convenient get-out clause at all," he said. The players and their management have been briefed on the ACA's plan to present a submission, which was rubber-stamped at Monday night's board meeting. But the ACA has made it clear the move was engineered by the union, and not the individual players. While the ACA said the players were responsible for their actions, it maintained the three men had been treated poorly, including when Smith and Bancroft were allowed to front a media conference in Cape Town on the day the ball-tampering scandal exploded. "We are not saying what they (the players) did was right, and they are contrite about that, but what we saying is that their sentences, with this new evidence, needs to be recalibrated and reviewed," Nicholson said.