1. Both were caught "tampering" only once. Afridi's method was to chew on the ball, while Broad's method was to step on it with his spikes (this is an accurate description of what he did, just as Afridi's actions have been described accurately)
2. In both cases, the on-field umpires noticed nothing. In Afridi's case, the third umpire noticed something, and pointed it out to the on-field umpires, who decided to change the ball at the start of the 45th over. The chewing, as far as i can tell, happened in Over 42 or 40, as we know that Asif was the bowler. In Broad's case, the third umpire probably dug a deep hole, jumped inside it and put a "I'm not here" sign outside.
Now the difference:
Afridi admitted his guilt. He spoke more truth in his post match interview with Geo than Stuart Broad has spoken in his entire career as an England cricketer. Let's look at what he said:
"I shouldn't have done it. It just happened. I was trying to help my bowlers and win a match, one match," he told Geo TV, a Pakistan-based news channel. "There is no team in the world that doesn't tamper with the ball. My methods were wrong. I am embarrassed, I shouldn't have done it. I just wanted to win us a game but this was the wrong way to do it."There are three essentially true things that Afridi said - first, that he shouldn't have done it. second, he did it because he wanted to help his side to win. third, every team in the world does it.
Compare Stuart Broad's reaction - Broad was "astonished" that anyone think it noteworthy that he stepped on the ball after it was thrown to him in an unusual way. Further, he said all he was, was lazy, because it was 40 Celsius in Cape Town that day.
Oh, and remember Andrew Flower's brilliantly cynical proactive defense of Broad's efforts? He said that the scoreline suggested that there was obviously no ball tampering. Afridi could have said the same thing. Because it was true in Afridi's case as well. But he didn't.
Michael Vaughan asked "What would we say if it was Pakistan?" at the time. Nasser Hussein answered his question for him "Stuart Broad and James Anderson were wrong to behave in the manner they did and I've no doubt that if a player from another country did the same we'd have said they were cheating."
Now we know what we would say.
As a cricket fan, I will now view England with utmost suspicion - any time an England bowler gets the old ball or even the new ball to go off the straight (remember Murray Mints? or Lever's Vaseline in 1976-77 in India?), I'm going to assume that they cheated to do so. Where as anytime any other bowler from anywhere in the world gets the ball to go off the straight, i will assume it was high skill. Because you see, England have been shown to be above the Law. Other sides get caught.
Pass this around if you agree. I'm tired of this two-paced nonsense from England and the Referee System.