THE tale told by the Nevill Ground scoreboard was sorry enough for Surrey yesterday afternoon as Robert Key and Martin van Jaarsveld very much did to them what England’s batsmen were doing to Bangladesh at Lord’s. It was what was happening off the field around teatime, however, that made this one of the blackest days in a famous club’s history.

You may feel pity this morning for the Bangladeshis, but Surrey deserved no sympathy after the confirmation that a ball-tampering incident against Nottinghamshire on May 6 has cost them the instant deduction of eight Frizzell County Championship points. A suspended penalty of nine championship points has also been handed out by the ECB, but it is difficult not to conclude that Surrey have been treated with inappropriate leniency.

Up to 22 penalty points can be levied on a county for substandard pitch preparation but, it seems, ball-tampering is now considered the lesser crime. Surrey, moreover, have been unable to identify the culprit or culprits. An internal investigation headed by Micky Stewart, the chairman of cricket, and Paul Sheldon, the Surrey chief executive, yesterday refused to confirm what punishment — if any — the club have given to the players involved in the game against Nottinghamshire.

The ball-tampering incident at the Oval occurred despite Mervyn Kitchen and Nigel Llong, the umpires, issuing a previous warning to Mark Ramprakash, the acting captain, and the Surrey players. Indeed, when confirming that he and Llong were reporting Surrey to the ECB, Kitchen said that the ball’s quarter seam “was sticking up like a wing”.

Sheldon said: “No player has been suspended and during our rigorous inquiry we considered all the options open to us with regard to disciplinary procedure. The action we have taken is confidential, and will remain so, but the ECB have agreed with it. I think the eight-point penalty is fair, but this incident is the most disappointing I have had in my ten years at Surrey. It is very disappointing, in particular, that the players have closed ranks over this.”

Gerard Elias, QC, the chairman of the ECB Discipline Committee, said in a statement: “The Surrey club has apologised for the actions of the player or players concerned. Their report indicated an intention to apply its own internal disciplinary procedure to reflect the serious view they take of such a blot on their reputation and that of cricket in general.”

It is understood, however, that Surrey have fined all 11 players. Of those who bore the brunt of Key and Van Jaarsveld’s onslaught yesterday, in a record Kent third-wicket partnership of 323, only Ian Salisbury and Richard Clinton were not involved.

The suspended element of Surrey’s punishment will expire on May 31 next year, but the shame of this incident will last for a lot longer than that. “We want to draw a line under this and move forward,” Sheldon added, rather optimistically. “We have been assured this will not happen again and I’d like to think it is a temporary blip that has been dealt with.”

Key, meanwhile, is hoping that his exclusion from the first England Test team of the summer is, similarly, a temporary blip. While his first-innings 112 was a demonstration of technique against the moving ball, yesterday’s 189 was a systematic dismantling of a Surrey attack looking dispirited and handicapped by Rikki Clarke’s hamstring problem and Martin Bicknell’s cut foot.

Kent’s previous best stand for the third wicket came in 1899, when Alec Hearne and Jack Mason ran up 321 against Nottinghamshire, and Van Jaarsveld will have been both delighted and relieved to play a part in setting the record. His previous three championship innings had all been ducks.

The misery, however, was all Surrey’s and Duncan Fletcher, the England coach, would have nodded in satisfaction when Key looked visibly annoyed with himself in being stumped after a six-hour innings that included 19 fours and two dismissive leg-side sixes off Nayan Doshi. Van Jaarsveld’s 168 took him 237 balls and featured 21 fours.